DOS on Dope (2010)
secretgeek.net
secretgeek.net
To use "Controllers" you'd need a file system with support for Long File Names (LFN) which for most people didn't happen until Windows 95 (maybe WInNT 3 had it too, I dunno, never used NT 3.x).
So "WinDOS on Dope"?
Still pretty cool nonetheless.
If I just changed any mention of "Controllers" to "CONTRO~1" (both in the tutorial and in the code) -- it would work just fine. Maybe after 10+ years it's time for a patch. But not today.
But yes, it’s not DOS-credible if the paths aren’t like C:\DOPE\CTRL …
Incorrect terminology, but an error I've heard people make again and again and again, pretty much constantly ever since Windows XP came out. In Windows 3.x/9x/Me, the command prompt actually was MS-DOS. In NT/XP/Vista/7/8/10/11, it is not DOS any more, unless you actually run command.com under NTVDM (only possible in 32-bit Windows, support for which is gone in Windows 11)
There were a bunch of TSRs that added support though. Here is one i used recently on a retro PC to install Free Pascal for DOS (which, despite being for DOS, requires long filename support to install - though depending on which units you use, it can work without it afterwards):
On FAT filesystems (still used on things like SD cards, although ExFAT’s starting to take over), 8.3 names can never go away.
Effectively, you can have multiple "name" attributes on the FILE structure (which describes any kind of object in NTFS), and those names have associated "namespace" to them (or "kind"). I think ntfs.sys enforces that there's only one name per namespace, but I do not remember offhand if it was made impossible in the structure itself.
The namespaces available include at least 3 - native WinNT (16-bit Unicode, long file name), DOS-compatible (8.3 - this is where compatible names with tildes are put when generated), and POSIX (different set of allowed characters, generally 8bit with encoding ignored iirc, long file names). If you handcraft the file, you can generate one that has all three completely different, resulting in different file names seen by different APIs
You can disable it, but realistically it won't make a performance or efficiency difference (only reason go mess with it really), and lots of things still break if 8.3 compatibility is disabled or stripped. On occasion, this had included weird first-party errors, too.
In theory, there are tons of things that shouldn't matter any more either, like spaces in filenames, or variables like PATH being longer than 2047 characters, but it all still ends up somehow breaking various things over time.
The one true web framework for serious business applications.
The verdict: Sentenced to using PC-DOS 1.0 for 6 month' straight. No probation.
The reason for this (for those that don't know) is that when 32-bit Windows arrived, the DOS 32-bit shell (cmd.exe) was introduced alongside the traditional command.com and with it added a bunch of new shell commands and options. To call cmd.exe instead of command.com you would use .cmd as your batch file extension instead of .bat.
This was done to ensure ongoing 100% compatibility of legacy .bat files with command.com
Even after Microsoft killed off command.com and remapped .bat to cmd.exe I still used .cmd as the file extension and still do to this day.
Seeing people use .bat makes me realise that a lot of people never went through this transition and are probably unaware of the .cmd extension.
On DOS-based Windows (i.e. up to 3.1, and then 95/98/ME) only COMMAND.COM was available, so certainly that was always used as the interpreter.
The native Windows 32-bit cmd.exe was introduced on NT-based Windows (i.e. 3.1/3.5(1)/4/2000, then XP and all following mainstream Windows). A virtualised form of DOS was available on the NT line so in principle you could also run your batch files through the old COMMAND.COM. This is where I'm least confident, but I thought that the extension wouldn't make that choice though - it would use the 32-bit cmd.exe even if the extension was .bat, unless you explicitly started a DOS instance and ran it through that. After all, one of the design goals of cmd.exe was to be a drop-in replacement for the old DOS interpreter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batch_file#Filename_extensions
Which also links to:
http://waynes-world-it.blogspot.com/2008/08/difference-betwe...
There used to be a microsoft.com page on it too, but that's been lost to time.
I thought you were saying that there was at least one version of Windows where .cmd would run in cmd.exe while .bat would run on COMMAND.COM.
Whereas I think the actual situation is that: on Win95 .bat would run on COMMAND.COM whereas .cmd wouldn't run at all; on NT .bat and .cmd would both run on cmd.exe. As a result, if you used .cmd you could be sure that it would never run on COMMAND.COM, so you could use the new command extensions in cmd.exe without worrying about it causing a confusing error.
When I get a mo, I might fire up an NT VM and see what actually happens.
Maybe.... .bat and .cmd DO both run cmd.exe, but the former disables the command extensions?
In dos on dope, .bat files are used for actions that handle http GET, and .cmd files are used for actions that handle http POST.
Btw I did live through that transition. (?)
lol :)
Had to laugh at this in the FAQ. My first thought was of the Tubes "White Punks on Dope." I think that is the performance you are seeking.
> In DoD we embrace the NoSQL movement and jump straight to the data-store of the future: a CSV file.
> If you can't trust public visitors from the internet, who can you trust? Executing user input as commands inside the operating system is the most direct way to get things done, and that's what matters most.
Holy smokes, what a flashback...
> @echo off
...wow do batch files still use this stuff seriously? I remember learning that trick from the PC Mag MS-DOS Bible in the early 90s...that one alone made me feel like I had learned to write executables rather than simple command lists. Funny to see this project, really cool too.
I would love to get the time to learn PowerShell, but it never quite materilises. I still know how to make a basic batch file though. I suspect that many are in the same position. (Except that probably most don't feel so bad about it as I do!)
There are many things PowerShell can do and batch files can't, starting with piping output between commands.
Hell, even with .ps1 files, sometimes see them alongside a .bat file that all it does is to launch .ps1 with -ExecutionPolicy Bypass (or whatever is called).
It could and should be. Subjectively, according to my taste, all modern text-mode editors are either ugly or unintuitive or both. MS Edit (edit.com) was both nice-looking and intuitive but lacked modern features like extensibility, code completion, regex search, multi-cursor, UTF-8 support etc. I really wish there were modern MS Edit clones (for whatever OSes the developers would be interested in, I'm interested in many) implementing modern features I've mentioned.
Build that OS, we really need it.
A perfect, leak proof sandbox would be a very valuable thing to have available.
Pretty secure. Horrible, but secure.
From what I can tell Dos on Dope (Sept 2010) predates Bash on Balls (Jan 2011).
I suppose you could argue that the Amiga equivalent of a batch file was a Rexx script?
But on PC-DOS 7, 7.01 or 7.1 you get a Rexx interpreter thrown in. :-)
I opted to gave an example of “copy con” and ^Z instead.
It was simple and straightforward with keys that made sense.
Also, freedos has a similar editor that has a few new features.
This is kinda corny. It’s still edgy to make fun of model view controller?