<span style="color:#323232;">Note: We do need to explicitly close FCBs. Reasons are as follows: If we
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; are running in the no-sharing no-network environment, we are simulating the
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; 2.0 world and thus if the user doesn't close the file, that is his problem
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; BUT... the cache remains in a state with garbage that may be reused by the
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; next process. We scan the set and blast the ref counts of the FCBs we own.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">;
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; If sharing is loaded, then the following call to close process will
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; correctly close all FCBs. We will then need to walk the list AFTER here.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">;
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; Finally, the following call to NET_Abort will cause an EOP to be sent to all
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; known network resources. These resources are then responsible for cleaning
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; up after this process.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">;
</span><span style="color:#323232;">; Sleazy, eh?~
</span>
I imagine that’s already a compatibility thing. If the os closed the file handles at that point but the program was expecting to do that, it might crash.
Is this useful for hobbyists besides poking around and seeking the design philosophy at work back then?
Like would there be any advantage or reason to implement this in a home project? For example maybe that it’s lightweight and has some rare compatibility or anything like that?
There are a lot of decades old embedded systems out there. Every so often you hear about a big company still relying on floppy disks and other old tech, including major railways and airplane companies. Having the source code will help with debugging better than having to disassemble or other reverse engineering.
Windows is just shit piled on top of shit and sold as something new. It’s so bloated so they can maintain backwards compatibility. So original code is definitely in Windows 11.
Like half of my job is writing .bat files to automate stuff locally and not tell my boss that all I do anymore is double click the right things in the right order…
i propose to create a menu in which you can define what batchfiles to run in what order. its been a while since i worked with batch files, but if memory serves right, that should be doable, no?
Yes. You could make menus and capture keystrokes in batch files
My autoexec.bat back in windows 3 asked if you wanted windows or a command line (most games didn’t like the memory overhead of being loaded from windows)
only if they keep the it room as dark as possible and whenever someone walks in for help they jump up onto the desk with a flashlight and yell "I’M BATMAN’ while wearing a cape and underpants.
Well I work from home so I do keep my room dark, I like to have a blanket over my shoulders, it’s not uncommon for me to just be in my underwear… Honestly I’m most of the way there
Okay so the dumb part is a lot of this is me abstracting away our complex build system. I’ve basically bubble-gummed a dedicated build system in top of it for only the tasks I do. At a certain point if I start adding configurations or timing I might as well just wrap it in gradle or something. But the system that I’m calling is already their attempt at simplifying another build system that’s underneath it that was written by the old guard using arcane sorcery. The whole thing is a mess
I had a job like that and powershell was a godsend. I let it slip when I accidentally set the multiplier for the delay randomiser too low and it did a months work in a morning. I ended up writing a guide for the others there when I left but sadly everyone but me had computers that supported newer versions of Windows where the scripts ended up broken. They asked me to come back and update it the Monday after I left. I asked if they would pay me to do it. They said no. Then I said no.
This is part of why I still have manual kickoffs for mine. Never need to worry about work getting done while I’m away or getting done suspiciously fast. Also they should have paid you lol, the dingdongs. Would cost a lot more just in work lost having someone else spend time deciphering and fixing it. They could always get someone else up to speed with the system after it is fixed by you so there’s little or no down time
Soke vrsions of DOS used a VCS named Source Library Manager, SLM, aka Slime. Later, it became Microsoft Delta, and eventually SourceSafe, then they switched to SourceDepot, which was a flavor of Perforce.
So cool, thanks. As a kid I spent so much time in DEBUG, stepping through DOS’s executables, and especially the Interrupt handlers. It’s so neat to see the actual source code-- way easier to read and follow. I didn’t know it was all written in assembly, from within Debug it sometimes seemed so messy and convoluted that I just assumed more was written in C.
A lot of these packages have Arch-specific modifications. For example, filesystem doesn't even have a non-Arch upstream as it defines the filesystem layout. That PKGBUILD and everything it depends on is the Arch source. Distributions are defined by which packages they include.
There is even a sentence in README.md that makes it explicit:
The source files in this repo are for historical reference and will be kept static, so please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files […]
Add comment