MS-DOS and Word for Windows source code released to the public - Polidicks

[quote]Mountain View, Ca—March 25, 2014— The Computer History Museum (CHM) announced today that it has, with permission from Microsoft Corporation, made available original source code for two historic programs: MS-DOS, the 1982 'Disk Operating System' for IBM-compatible personal computers, and Word for Windows, the 1990 Windows-based version of their word processor.[/quote] [url]http://www.computerhistory.org/press/ms-source-code.html[/url] [url=http://www.computerhistory.org/_static/atchm/microsoft-ms-dos-early-source-code/]MS-DOS[/url] [url=http://www.computerhistory.org/_static/atchm/microsoft-word-for-windows-1-1a-source-code/]Word for Windows[/url] [url=http://s3.computerhistory.org/source/Word-1.1a-CHM-Distribution.zip](Direct)[/url]

Are people allowed to develop from this or is it just for learning?

Oh, this will be an erotic read.

For a second I thought they were also releasing the source code to ms office.

I hope it is as vulgar as the Linux source.

I think Gaia Online's source code for the blackjack minigame (I think it was, or was it another minigame?) was once revealed to have function: GoFuckingApeShit somewhere in it, once.

[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;44361008]I hope it is as vulgar as the Linux source.[/QUOTE] Someone needs to grep through every file and count the amount of "fuck, shit, this thing works because magic" there are.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;44360993]Are people allowed to develop from this or is it just for learning?[/QUOTE] You'd probably be better off using the Linux kernel, there is really nothing special in the code.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;44360993]Are people allowed to develop from this or is it just for learning?[/QUOTE] Word's license at least allows derivative works for non-commercial uses (e.g. personal and educational), but not the distribution of said derivatives.

Soooo... Better DosBox perhabs?

[QUOTE=WhyNott;44361317]Soooo... Better DosBox perhabs?[/QUOTE] I have to wonder if dosbox is, in most cases, better than MSDOS in terms of code.

Skimmed through it, it looks very clean, I don't speak Assembler though.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44361033]I think Gaia Online's source code for the blackjack minigame (I think it was, or was it another minigame?) was once revealed to have function: GoFuckingApeShit somewhere in it, once.[/QUOTE] I like to hide crazy stuff in the source code of my uni projects, because our professor doesn't actually read the source code, he just tests the program with sample data. I once crafted some functions for handling a database which was named to emulate taking a shit. The professor praised me on making the only program which actually passed all of the grading tests and asked me to post the source code to Blackboard as an example.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;44361039]Someone needs to grep through every file and count the amount of "fuck, shit, this thing works because magic" there are.[/QUOTE] Haven't found anything too pottymouth yet in word [code]another_fucking_out_of_range_jump: pop di cmp ax,di ; AX has # of bytes we need jnb not_enuf_memory[/code] Though here's a gem [code]/* FOLLOWING COMMENT COMES FROM WINDOWS CODE WHENCE THIS WAS STOLEN */ /* convert HT value into a move value. This is shitty, * but this is purely temporary. */[/code] by temporary they probably mean "still used in office today"

Almost every piece of complex software has parts that only work by mistake and nobody knows why. It's great. Guessing we'll find a lot of comments along the lines of "Don't try to fix this".

This is amazing. Holy crap. Gonna have myself a look!

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44361725]Almost every piece of complex software has parts that only work by mistake and nobody knows why. It's great. Guessing we'll find a lot of comments along the lines of "Don't try to fix this".[/QUOTE] It's less being pinpoint accurate and more appeasing our programming gods to do something similar to what we want.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44361725]Almost every piece of complex software has parts that only work by mistake and nobody knows why. It's great. Guessing we'll find a lot of comments along the lines of "Don't try to fix this".[/QUOTE] Reminds me of when I modded Red Alert 2. It was only INI files, but it was still entertaining to see what they put in sometimes. Like the Kirov. It had a value called "wobbles" and it was set to "wobbles=0.01", followed by this comment: [code]Value of 0 means 0 wobbles? NO! 0 wobbles means divide by 0 crash! "How many wobbles would you like?" "0." "You MUST have wobbles! I'll KILL YOU!"[/code]

i was reading some source once, and it was talking about "gnold compilers" made me chuckle

[QUOTE=Snowmew;44361558]I like to hide crazy stuff in the source code of my uni projects, because our professor doesn't actually read the source code, he just tests the program with sample data. I once crafted some functions for handling a database which was named to emulate taking a shit. The professor praised me on making the only program which actually passed all of the grading tests and asked me to post the source code to Blackboard as an example.[/QUOTE] Did you edit it out or put it there as it was?

My understanding of assembly is rather limited.

[QUOTE=tgp1994;44361422]I have to wonder if dosbox is, in most cases, better than MSDOS in terms of code.[/QUOTE] I still can't stand how there is no "prompt" command in DosBox. Just C:/>, forever. Also, most of the advanced shit is gone as well, although I am probably the only person to ever notice this.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;44360993]Are people allowed to develop from this or is it just for learning?[/QUOTE] "You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works." [url]http://www.computerhistory.org/ms-dos-early-source-code/agreement/[/url]

[QUOTE=subenji99;44362775]"You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works." [url]http://www.computerhistory.org/ms-dos-early-source-code/agreement/[/url][/QUOTE] What if... you publish the instructions or a program to make a specific derivative work from it?

[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;44361008]I hope it is as vulgar as the Linux source.[/QUOTE] I remember when the Windows 2000 source code leaked and all throughout it, people argued with each other like "EXPLOIT, FIX IT YOU FUCKING DUMBASS"

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44363373]I remember when the Windows 2000 source code leaked and all throughout it, people argued with each other like "EXPLOIT, FIX IT YOU FUCKING DUMBASS"[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795[/url] [code] * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * !!!!!!!IF YOU CHANGE TABS TO SPACES, YOU WILL BE KILLED!!!!!!! * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!DOING SO FUCKS THE BUILD PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/code]