• MudMan
    link
    fedilink
    327 months ago

    To complete that question:

    Why… not 6.22?

    • @Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
      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.

        • @Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          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.