• MudMan
      link
      fedilink
      327 months ago

      To complete that question:

      Why… not 6.22?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        I assume 6.22 is still in production, and might be that even someone is paying Microsoft for support.

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          17 months ago

          Well, the two relevant questions there are: A) is it?, and B) so what?

          It’s not like you’re not allowed to provide paid support for a piece of open source software.

          At this point I’m not sure what portion of the difference between 4 and 6.22 is relevant or unknown. That’s a pretty well explored platform. I guess this way FreeDOS stays relevant a bit longer? Maybe? It’s not like it isn’t trivial to pull a copy of 6.22. It was trivial when it was new.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            If 6.22 is used in military/banking/insurance/energy/heathcare system deep in the critical infrastructure, you don’t want attackers finding weakness in OS that is not patchable.

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              Making it open source seems to me like the solution to that problem, not the cause. If there is a vulnerability in DOS 6.22 people probably know about it by now. If you’re using it for something critical you probably would have an easier time patching it with full access.

      • @Voyajer
        link
        English
        10
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Why wouldn’t you? Why not a later version, or every version? Wouldn’t you like to know the reasoning behind the decision for doing this with MS-DOS 4 specifically? It seems like they’re going through approximately each major revision but is that going to stop at 6.22 or will MS start releasing windows with win 1.0?