Jump to content
tschak909

Opening a dialogue for SpartaDOS Source Code

Recommended Posts

On 5/10/2021 at 12:05 PM, mytek said:

Thanks. I'll see if I have better luck via his email.

I'll text him and say since I never heard from him I'm going to release the code. Maybe that will get him off his ass.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alfred said:

I'll text him and say since I never heard from him I'm going to release the code. Maybe that will get him off his ass.

Of course you would be only kidding about releasing the source code without his permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mytek said:

Of course you would be only kidding about releasing the source code without his permission.

 

I don't know that I'm kidding, much. I mean I'm not going to release it next week, but when the time comes that I feel I have both feet in the grave, rather than just the one now, I would have no problem releasing the source code to the public. Sure Mike own the rights, but apparently he's not too hung up on granting permissions, or he'd have been all over DLT about them publishing their version. He's had 40 years to do something with any of the stuff he purchased from ICD, and actually I don't think he himself has a copy of anything anymore, although there's a miniscule chance I'm wrong on that point. Releasing the code doesn't deprive him of any income because there is none to be had, and DLT's version is far superior any way. Even if he did release an update, past experience with Mike has likely made a lot of people gunshy about sending him money for a product. You and I would do it, but that guy cx2k, not so much. Anyway, there's lots of time (hopefully, heh) to have some conversations about it.

 

Or FJC can release his copy and the argument ends.

 

To the other guy, why bother with GitHub. All the other source code is on Carsten's wiki, which seems good enough. Why not just keep posting stuff there, and people can copy it to whatever library manager they use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2021 at 1:36 PM, Alfred said:

but after that, so what. If somebody really wants to know the history, go ask Gustafson, he's on LinkedIn.

 

Are you serious? Asking the original author is no substitute at all for the original work. He probably doesn't remember everything after 40 years. He might not have the source code anymore. And even if it has, he might be reluctant to release anything since he might not be sure he has the rights to do it.

 

Quote

Sure Mike own the rights, but apparently he's not too hung up on granting permissions, or he'd have been all over DLT about them publishing their version. He's had 40 years to do something with any of the stuff he purchased from ICD, and actually I don't think he himself has a copy of anything anymore, although there's a miniscule chance I'm wrong on that point.

 

Are we talking about just one source only, SpartaDos 3.5? What happened to the source for older versions, like SpartaDos 1.1, are they lost? And what about sources for all the other ICD software and hardware? Do you have any idea if Gustafson still has any source material?

 

Yeah, everything matters, and matters a lot, for historical purposes, even unreleased versions, like SpartaDos 1.0 if there was such a thing, would be great.

Edited by ijor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Alfred said:

To the other guy, why bother with GitHub. All the other source code is on Carsten's wiki, which seems good enough. Why not just keep posting stuff there, and people can copy it to whatever library manager they use.

 

Because I am talking about a larger effort, not just about the specific code you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ijor said:

Are we talking about just one source only, SpartaDos 3.5? What happened to the source for older versions, like SpartaDos 1.1, are they lost? And what about sources for all the other ICD software and hardware? Do you have any idea if Gustafson still has any source material?

 

I would hazard that most of the ICD stuff is lost, as is some of the OSS code. I don't think Mike has much, but who knows. I think anything prior to SDX is gone, with the exception of my copy of 3.5. SJC's RealDOS is based on 3.2, although I think he says it's from a disassembly. I have no knowledge of what went on there, if Lance or anybody was given a copy of the 3.2D source. As far as I know from Mike, 2.3 and 1.1 are lost, he did not get a copy from ICD. I had a copy Action! from ICD, Bob Wooley has coughed up Basic XL and Basic XE, although the version he has, 4.2, does not produce a functional cartridge/extensions combination. The MAC/65 code seems to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If SpartaDOS 3 source code is available, maybe someone could consider fixing this:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Deleted, tired and stupid reply.

Edited by Alfred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

  well, I will bump this subject. Either you or flashjazzcat could release what you have and every one could be happy. even your 3.5 source code would be great to have out in the wild. so, how about it guys. the community would appreciate this gesture.

 

Ken

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would feel uncomfortable about this unless I could remember who sent it to me and under what terms. Or if said person would emerge from the mist and clarify the situation here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, flashjazzcat said:

I would feel uncomfortable about this unless I could remember who sent it to me and under what terms. Or if said person would emerge from the mist and clarify the situation here.

Speaking as someone who has no control over what does or does not happen with the SDX source: if it were to be released, I'd be a lot happier with a) the most recent version and b) the knowledge that it was released without a shadow of dubiousness hanging over it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I support open source, I cannot see the open sourcing of SDX being a good thing. As a platform, the A8 is fairly fragmented as it is regarding differing platform memory specifications/configurations, as well as the existing problem of differing operating systems (I use the XBIOS discussion in a recent thread as an example).

 

The last thing the community needs is forks of SDX itself. The existing SpartaDOS-X implementation works well because it's a standard that a minority contribute to as opposed to a majority. I for one am happy with that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting the opening of the source code aside for now, it was said something about extension of SDX. "Extension" implies that something is lacking. I would be interested in learning, then, what ideas of possible extensions people could come with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 I would also prefer the source (for SDX) not be open. There would be many forks and competing upgrades and variances...we have enough trouble with the swarm of DOS's we have now. The only way it would work semi-decently would be for someone to publish an actual standard, and we know that's not going to happen, or be paid attention to if it did. I agree with Mazzspeed. 

 

 

Edited by danwinslow
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

wow, the delusion.

 

"think of all the forks"

 

yeah, ok, I'm done with this thread. The delusion and fear based thinking of some of you is mind blowing.

 

Seriously, who the FUCK has the balls to decide when this code base is worthy of others to study?

 

News flash: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF US WHO GIVE A SHIT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH FORKING! GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ARSES!

 

-Thom

 

Edited by tschak909
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

wow, the delusion.

 

"think of all the forks"

 

yeah, ok, I'm done with this thread. The delusion and fear based thinking of some of you is mind blowing.

 

Seriously, who the FUCK has the balls to decide when this code base is worthy of others to study?

 

News flash: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF US WHO GIVE A SHIT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH FORKING! GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ARSES!

 

-Thom

 

Relax mate. Seriously.

 

By the sounds of things, the code is technically owned. So 'someone' has the balls to do whatever they want with it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tschak909 said:

wow, the delusion.

 

"think of all the forks"

 

yeah, ok, I'm done with this thread. The delusion and fear based thinking of some of you is mind blowing.

 

Seriously, who the FUCK has the balls to decide when this code base is worthy of others to study?

 

News flash: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF US WHO GIVE A SHIT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH FORKING! GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ARSES!

 

-Thom

 

And with this (latest) outburst, any desire I had to see the source code released at all, let alone by my own hands, has entirely evaporated. I don't know if this will prove a useful lesson in how to persuade people to do what you want them to do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tschak909 said:

wow, the delusion.

 

"think of all the forks"

 

yeah, ok, I'm done with this thread. The delusion and fear based thinking of some of you is mind blowing.

 

Seriously, who the FUCK has the balls to decide when this code base is worthy of others to study?

 

News flash: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF US WHO GIVE A SHIT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH FORKING! GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ARSES!

 

-Thom

 

youre-gonna-make-me-cry.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, flashjazzcat said:

And with this (latest) outburst, any desire I had to see the source code released at all, let alone by my own hands, has entirely evaporated. I don't know if this will prove a useful lesson in how to persuade people to do what you want them to do.

Do you not understand that this shows a very subconscious projection?

 

Those of you who DO have the source code, it wasn't magically bestowed upon you, you asked for it, and now you've decided to become the gatekeepers of it. (and no, don't hide under any pretense of copyright, that's a cop-out.)

 

What happens when you all expire? Code practically goes bye-bye.

 

But, sure. Be the gatekeepers of something that maybe a dozen people in this world care about _Now_. That just makes sure it can't be studied LATER, under any circumstance.

 

-Thom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tschak909: Thom, you're a very intelligent guy and I have a lot of respect for the things that you've done for the community.

 

However (and I say this as a relative outsider), the approach that you've chosen in this case has been entirely unnecessary and counterproductive to achieving the end goal of wanting to see the SDX source released.  Arguments pro and con of a release aside, berating people into the making the decision that you want them to make rarely works, as we have seen here.

 

Please reconsider your approach to these types of subject in the future; the community being collateral damage to the focus of your ire was almost certainly not what you intended to have happen, but it did.  This was a very unfortunate thing to have to bear witness to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bombast is out of decades of frustration, seeing the same idiotic talking points circled back to, again and again, with absolutely nothing resolved, BECAUSE THOSE WHO COULD RESOLVE IT CHOOSE TO PASSIVELY AGGRESSIVELY CHOOSE NOT TO, or fall back on the flimsiest of cop-outs, such as copyright to someone who literally has been missing in action for decades at this point. There comes a point where I finally have to call bullshit.

 

-Thom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

Do you not understand that this shows a very subconscious projection?

Trying to analyse me isn't helping the cause.

20 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

you asked for it

No, I didn't ask for it. You're making an assumption based on nothing at all; while I do not recall who sent me the source code, I do know that the offer of said source code was entirely unsolicited by me.

20 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

and now you've decided to become the gatekeepers of it

Please try to understand the concept of intellectual property and simple manners. The SDX source code is not 'mine to do with as I please' until I am expressly told to do as I please with it by whomever sent it.

20 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

What happens when you all expire? Code practically goes bye-bye.

I don't need to answer to this moral quandary, since it's not my intellectual property.

20 minutes ago, tschak909 said:

Be the gatekeepers of something that maybe a dozen people in this world care about _Now_. That just makes sure it can't be studied LATER, under any circumstance.

I really don't know what secrets you're going to uncover by studying this source code anyway. After browsing through it myself for twenty minutes (which is all I ever did with it), I didn't really find anything (with regard to writing drivers, etc) that I couldn't figure out by doing my own research, reading the programming docs (which are far more comprehensive than anything available twenty-five years ago), or discussing matters directly with Konrad or Trub (both of whom have a better understanding of SpartaDOS X than anyone else on this forum).

 

But I have no desire to be the 'gatekeeper' of anything, so please don't misconstrue my lack of tolerance for rudeness and entitlement as anything other than precisely that.

Edited by flashjazzcat
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a side note, regarding, possibly, writing new kernel drivers, the analysis of SDX 4.21 sources would probably not help much, because SDX 4.2x does not allow new kernel drivers to be defined at all.

 

I will expand the existing documentation with the chapters on the kernel etc. so that the (otherwise praiseworthy) desire to "study" the source code could be possibly alleviated.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in my experience there are two categories of retro-programmers. Those that think they are still in the eighties, and those that have progressed over time. I used to keep everything secret. Nowadays I share everything online. Lots of projects of mine have had others picking it up again and improving. MPlayer/FFmpeg drivers, rkflashtool, both WaveBlaster boards I designed, MIDImuse, multijoy, IDE support for atari800, -pokeyrec for atari800 (both got improved versions in Altirra later), and there's more.

 

Fear of forks is ungrounded IMHO. Most of the times it drives inovation, and most of the time there's one main project. FFmpeg was forked (libav) but survived and the fork died. gcc was forked (egcs), but later they merged all the progress of egcs again. XFree86 was forked as X.org and is now dying. And X.org might be slowly replaced by Wayland in the end ;)

 

I agree that tschak909's approach might not be the best, but I understand his frustration. Let's imagine I have a piece of hardware for which two firmwares are available. The original clumsy, and a new fancy one. The original clumsy works 100% of the time, but is ehm... clumsy. The new fancy one works 99% of the time. Repeatable failure on different hardware combinations, with mods and proper grounding and what not. Now I tell this to the imaginary authors of that fancy firmware, and the reply is: you are doing something wrong or your hardware is faulty, because my code is the best since sliced bread, nobody could do any better, and no bugs are possible. Okay, I'll revert to the old clumsy firmware 😕

 

As for the SDX situation, as far as I understand it, the current team reversed the original binaries, and then improved upon them. That says two things IMHO. 1) If the source was available in the first place (after there was no more money made on the binary project), that would have saved a lot of time and effort. 2) The current SDX is based on pirated code ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...