Nowadays, everybody knows the name “Firefox.”

Utter that name, and nearly every computer user will instantly know you are talking about the web browser from Mozilla Corporation… even if Firefox market share has dropped down to less than 3%.

But did you know that Firefox was not originally named “Firefox”?

In fact… the Mozilla Web Browser settled on that name through a series of bad decisions, bullying of another open source project, and a game of word association.

Seriously. You wouldn’t think it… but it’s kind of a wild story.

Before Mozilla had a browser

Our story starts back in 1998…

The source code for Netscape, once the most popular web browser in the world, had just been released as open source under “The Mozilla Project.”

And, over the few years that followed (funded by AOL Time Warner), several web browsers were created which used that core Mozilla code. Web browsers that, for the most part, have long been forgotten.

Web Browsers such as Galeon, K-Meleon, QBAT.i, and SkipStone. Many browsers, for many platforms… all built using the core Mozilla web rendering engine. Yet there was no official “Mozilla” web browser.

By 2002 it was determined that needed to change.

Enter the Phoenix

On September 23rd, 2002, the very first release of the official Mozilla web browser hit the Internet.

Version 0.1 of… “Phoenix”.

Phoenix! A fantastic name! So much symbolism!

A new web browser, rising from the ashes of Netscape (which appeared to be losing the browser war to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer). An inspired choice.

There was just one teensy-weensy little problem: There was already a web browser with that name.

“Phoenix FirstWare Connect” was a web browser, developed by Phoenix Technologies, that ran entirely in their BIOS (without need for an operating system).

That’s right. Mozilla, the people who spent years building web browser rendering engines, had no idea there was already a browser named “Phoenix” when they chose the name. If only there had been some sort of engine they could have used to search the Web.

*cough cough*

Phoenix Technologies didn’t much care for Mozilla using their name. Obviously.

Either Mozilla needed to change their name… or buckle down for a legal fight they were sure to lose. Mozilla may have had the backing of AOL Time Warner… but Phoenix Technologies was big enough (and with a strong enough case) to take them on.

Synonyms to the rescue!

Luckily, someone at Mozilla managed to get ahold of an encyclopedia (or possibly a really good thesaurus) and found another word that was often used in place of “Phoenix.”

On May 17, 2003 the Phoenix browser was renamed… to Firebird.

This was incredibly handy… as Mozilla didn’t even need to change the logo! The big, red, flame-y bird could stay! Huzzah!

And, this time around, the Mozilla team learned to use a Search Engine to see if another web browser already had the same name! Smart!

… Unfortunately, it turns out there was already another open source project, sponsored by a different company, using the “Firebird” name: The Firebird Database Server.

But -- and here's the wild part -- Mozilla simply didn’t care.

They decided to adopt the name of the exiting project anyway. They didn’t even contact the other project first. Because they were Mozilla… a part of AOL Time Warner… and they didn’t feel like they needed to do such things.

Mozilla the bully

Having two open source projects — both running on the same computer platforms — using the exact same name and very similar imagery… is not ideal. To say the least.

Especially for the smaller project that came first.... Firebird Database Server.

Having a new project copy your name, then plaster the Internet with links to their new project, all backed by AOL? It would become almost impossible to find information about the original project!

This was, obviously, a fight worth having. The “Firebird Database Server” folks needed to defend their trademark… almost as a matter of survival.

Unfortunately…

• Mozilla was part of AOL Time Warner. A huge, mega corporation with a vast army of lawyers.

• The company that sponsored “Firebird Database Server”, was a little company called “IBPhoenix” with a limited budget. And, what’s worse, no army of lawyers.

Mozilla was an 800 pound gorilla, and “IBPhoenix / Firebird Database” simply was too small to be able to afford a fight with the likes of AOL Time Warner.

Obviously, IBPhoenix asked Mozilla to not use their name… but to no avail.

After Mozilla refused to change their name, IBPhoenix did the only thing they could think of… they pleaded with their developers and users to email Mozilla, and ask Mozilla to stop using their name.

Mozilla, again, refused. “We're still going to use the project name Mozilla Firebird,” stated a Mozilla representative in an interview where they attacked the database maker.

The public was beginning to see what a bully Mozilla could be.

Things were not going well for Mozilla at this point. Users were beginning to boycott the Mozilla browser, and the bad press was getting severe with headlines like "Phoenix flies from frying pan to fire" and "Mozilla's Firebird gets wings clipped".

Then Mozilla plays word association

After nearly a full year of Mozilla using the “Firebird” name — knowingly harming the “Firebird Database Server” the entire time — Mozilla finally caved to the public pressure to change the name of their web browser.

On February 9, 2004, the name for the Mozilla web browser officially changed to “Firefox” with the release of the 0.8 version.

Why did the name become “Firefox”?  Because it sounded similar to “Firebird.”

Seriously. “Firefox” is a name for a panda… which had absolutely nothing to do with a “Phoenix” or “Firebird”… but it had “Fire” in it… so it was good enough!

Well, that and Mozilla felt like there couldn’t possibly be any software company, product, or project with that name. The Mozilla leadership was pretty keen on avoiding yet another trademark dispute before their web browser had even reached version 1.0.

Mozilla even made sure to register “Firefox” as a Trademark in the USA. Phew! They learned their lesson!

Well. Almost.

They forgot about the United Kingdom

While the Mozilla leadership felt like the name “Firefox” must be totally unique in the software world… it really, really wasn’t.

In fact, the name “Firefox” had been in use for almost a decade by a software company in the United Kingdom named The Charlton Company.

To make matters worse… the name “Firefox” was specifically being used for “communications and connectivity” software. Which is kinda-sorta-exactly how you would describe a web browser.

WOOPS!

This would be like a new company creating a carbonated soft drink named “Coke”… but thinking it was ok to use the already-in-use name… because… you know... they wanted to.

But, rather than get involved in yet another public fight over the third name they’ve chosen… Mozilla tried to settle things behind the scenes. Eventually, by some time in 2005, Mozilla reached a deal with the “Firefox” trademark holder to use the name.

What the terms of that deal are remains unknown.

Firefox it shall be!

So, there you have it! Mozilla went through three different names for their web browser — all before they even hit version 1.0.

• They completely failed to look around for others using their new name.  Multiple times.
• They bullied an open source project they stole a name from.
• Eventually they screwed up their renaming too many times and simply had to strike a deal with somone whose name they copied.

A wild tale of incompetence, bullying, and not knowing how to use a search engine.

Yet, after all of that, Firefox managed to become a nearly household name. A brand recognized around the world… even if less than 3% of computer users actually use it.

It's no secret that many Open Source organizations struggle to fund themselves -- with the GNOME Foundation being on more of a shoestring budget than you would expect for a project as widely used as GNOME.

To make matters worse, the GNOME Foundation has been paying for most of their expenses by draining their savings account (as they spend far more than they take in).

Now, apparently, those savings are running out.

What's more: The GNOME Foundation has been unusually silent about their operations -- not publishing any public reports for closing in on 2 years now.  And their strategy to save themselves from bankruptcy appears to center around "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Seriously.

GNOME has "hit the buffers"

From an April 26th announcement from GNOME Foundation President, Robert McQueen:

"As you may be aware, the GNOME Foundation has operated at a deficit (nonprofit speak for a loss – ie spending more than we’ve been raising each year) for over three years, essentially running the Foundation on reserves from some substantial donations received 4-5 years ago. The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts. This is so that if there is a significant interruption to our usual income, we can preserve our core operations while we work on new funding sources. We’ve now “hit the buffers” of this reserves policy, meaning the Board can’t approve any more deficit budgets – to keep spending at the same level we must increase our income."

In short: GNOME has run out of money.  In order to "keep spending at the same level" GNOME needs to find some money.

What sort of money are we talking about?

To fully understand the dire straits the GNOME Foundation finds itself in, let's take a look at what we know about their finances.

Unfortunately, the GNOME Foundation has not published any data in close to two years.  They have not published an annual report for 2023, and their most recent IRS records only cover their fiscal year up through September of 2022.

Which means we are forced to look at previous year's data and extrapolate forward based on what information we do have.

In short, total expenses for the GNOME Foundation:

• 2021: $926,821
• 2022: $659,537

And the revenue for those same years...

• 2021: $286,708
• 2022: $363,380

Notice how the expenses far exceed the revenue?  Not good.  Subtract the expenses from the revenue and you have the net income.  And, boy howdy, is it deep into the negative.  Which means this is the amount they need to take out of their savings, every year, just to keep the lights on.

• 2021: - $640,113
• 2022: - $296,157

We know that GNOME is burning through between $296K and $640K, of savings, per year.  Which begs the question... how much do they have left in terms of cash reserves?

The GNOME Foundation Nest Egg

The most recent information we have, on the GNOME assets, comes from their IRS filings up through September of 2022 (their last publicly available filing).

While those numbers don't exactly line up with the numbers stated in the GNOME Foundation's annual report, that's not entirely surprising.  Oftentimes, for these foundations, the annual reports and IRS filings will cover slightly different time periods (and be filed at different times, when different data is available).

Just the same, the numbers are close enough to the annual report that we can work with it.

But the listed assets on this page, as of 2022, really don't give us enough information.  This lists $909,107 in total net assets... but what we really need to know is how much "Savings and temporary cash investments" they have.

In other words: How much money can GNOME get their hands on, in short notice, to actively use for funding their immediate expenses?  For that, we'll need to look a few pages further down their IRS 990 form... at this line:

Boom.  There we go.  $765,011.

That's how much the GNOME Foundation had, in September of 2022, in available savings.

How much money does GNOME have left... today?

Now here's where we're going to need to make some assumptions based on the data above.

I hate making assumptions... but, considering the lack of data from the GNOME Foundation, we're left with no other choice.

Let's assume that, in 2023, GNOME managed to keep their annual expenditures down to their 2022 levels (which was far, far lower than the 2021 levels... so this is close to "best case scenario").  And let's also assume that their income stayed steady as well.  How much savings would they have left?

Math time.  Savings minus the amount they need to withdraw from savings.

• Oct, 2022 through Sep, 2023: $765,011 - $296,157 = $468,854

Now let's make the same assumption from that point (October 2023) through to present (April, 2024).  7 months in total.

We know that the total amount that GNOME would need to draw from their savings -- every month -- is roughly $24,679.75 ($296,157, the yearly savings withdrawal, divided by 12 months).  Thus, to get the amount of savings they've spent over the last 7 months... we simply multiply that number by 7.  For which we get $172,758.25.

• Oct, 2023 through Apr, 2024: $468,854 - $172,758.25 = $296,095.75

In theory, that's how much money the GNOME Foundation has left in savings.  $296,095.75.

Why is that number significant?  Because that is almost exactly the amount of savings they will need to withdraw to stay afloat... for one year.

Remember.  From the announcement this week: "The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts."

Could this be related to that number we came up with above?  It's possible.  It certainly would seem reasonable.  But, without better records and communication from the GNOME Foundation, we won't know for sure.

GNOME Foundation has One Year Left?

If their numbers have stayed consistent since September of 2022 -- which is a big if -- this means that The GNOME Foundation has enough funds to continue current operations through April of 2025.

At which point... the GNOME Foundation will need to significantly scale back their expenditures.

They will be forced to lay off the majority of their staff.

All of which raises a number of questions.

What is the new Executive Director doing to save GNOME?

In October of 2023, the GNOME Foundation hired a new Executive Director.  A person whose previous job was as a self-described "Professional Shaman" -- not religiously associated with Shamanism, mind you, but a person who sold "flavored Shaman water" and offered paid "Start your own Shaman business" training.

In the half year since that time, the new GNOME Executive Director, Holly Million, has had very little public presence -- no blog posts (after a short introduction), no social media activity, no major interviews, no response to press requests... totally quiet.  During the one publicly held event (a "Meet and Greet" last year), journalists were kicked out before it started and the planned recording was canceled for unknown reasons.

What has this GNOME Executive Director been doing to make sure that the GNOME Foundation does not go out of business?  It is a mystery.  Total silence.

In fact, one of the few indications we have as to the direction that the GNOME Foundation is taking, comes from Twitter posts by other GNOME Board members.  Namely, one from the GNOME Vice President, stating:

"excited about the progressive conversation we had with the executive director Holly Million. We engaged in extensive discussions regarding the strategic direction of @gnome, focusing on #sustainability, #diversity, and #inclusion. The future looks green"

From what little information we have, it appears that the GNOME profitability efforts are centered around "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Oh, and "Hashtag: Technology".  With a shamrock emoji.

"How does that result in GNOME not going out of business," you ask?  I wish I could tell you.

But, according to this week's announcement by the GNOME President, fundraising is one of the key reasons why Holly Million was hired away from her Shaman job.

"One of the board’s top priorities in hiring Holly was therefore her experience in communications and fundraising, and building broader and more diverse support for our mission and work. Her goals since joining – as well as building her familiarity with the community and project – have been to set up better financial controls and reporting, develop a strategic plan, and start fundraising."

Communications.  Fundraising.  Financial reporting.

That's why their Executive Director was hired -- and those were her goals since she started work over half a year ago.

In that time the GNOME Executive Director has:

• Given no interviews.
• Been totally radio silent (no articles, social posts, podcasts, videos... nothing).
• Not published any financial reports of any kind.  We have no clue what GNOME has been doing, financially, for almost 2 years now.
• And, from what little we're being told, she has continued GNOME's deathmarch towards running out of money.

Those goals again: Communications.  Fundraising.  Financial reporting.

Sounds like a massive, unmitigated failure of all three goals to me.  And their plan to turn things around sounds like it centers on "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion"... which is not exactly a strong business plan.

What happens now?

It sounds like things are getting desperate.  And the GNOME Foundation will be announcing their plan to save The GNOME Foundation in the weeks ahead.

"The biggest prerequisite for fundraising is a clear strategy – we need to explain what we’re doing and why it’s important, and use that to convince people to support our plans. I’m very pleased to report that Holly has been working hard on this and meeting with many stakeholders across the community, and has prepared a detailed and insightful five year strategic plan. The plan defines the areas where the Foundation will prioritise, develop and fund initiatives to support and grow the GNOME project and community. The board has approved a draft version of this plan, and over the coming weeks Holly and the Foundation team will be sharing this plan and running a consultation process to gather feedback input from GNOME foundation and community members."

What is that plan?  How likely is that plan to succeed in bringing in enough funding to keep the foundation float?

At this point, we simply don't know.  The GNOME Foundation -- and their Executive Director -- is staying tight lipped and secretive.

All we know is that it includes "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Wait.  What about that Million Euro investment?!

Right about now you might be remembering that, last year, the GNOME Foundation announced that they would be receiving 1 Million Euros from the Sovereign Tech Fund.

It sounds like those funds aren't for the foundation, but for specific development purposes:

"This money is received in the form of a contract for services rather than a grant to the Foundation, and must be spent on the development areas agreed during the planning and application process. It’s included within this year’s budget (October 23 – September 24) and is all expected to be spent during this fiscal year, so it doesn’t have an impact on the Foundation’s reserves position."

In other words: That million Euro?  It won't be beefing up their savings account.

What about Red Hat, SUSE, & Canonical?

GNOME is heavily relied upon by some of the biggest Linux companies on Earth.  

Right about now it's worth considering... why haven't Red Hat (or SUSE & Canonical, for that matter) stepped up to provide the needed funding for the foundation which supports their default Desktop Environment?

Maybe they can't.  Maybe they don't want to.  The reason for the lack of funding is entirely unknown.  But it's worth asking, just the same.

For that matter, where is The Linux Foundation?  This seems like exactly the sort of thing a "Linux" foundation -- with over a quarter of a Billion dollars in annual revenue -- could do to help "Linux".

This isn't the first time... but...

Is the GNOME Foundation poised to run out of money?  It certainly appears so.  And, clearly, the foundation leadership is concerned.

But this isn't the first time they've had money trouble.

Back in 2014 (10 years ago), there were serious concerns about the financials of the GNOME Foundation.  So much so that a spending freeze was put into place.

GNOME survived that 2014 financial dip, just as it could certainly survive this new one.  Yet the actions of the GNOME Foundation raises serious concerns and doubts.

• Why is GNOME staying so secretive?  No published plans, no communication at all from their Executive Director, no published recent reports.
• The only known details of their secret plan to avert a shut down are... "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".  That can't be real... can it?  No serious software foundation would stare at possible bankruptcy... and make that a significant part of their strategy.
• What has the Executive Director been doing for half a year?  Why hasn't there been any noteworthy fundraising or sponsorships?  Considering GNOME's unique place in the Linux and Open Source world, funding GNOME should not be an issue for anyone even slightly familiar with fundraising and the Linux corporate world.
• Why have the large Linux & Open Source companies -- and The Linux Foundation -- not gotten involved?  What's going on there?

In the coming weeks, the GNOME Foundation has said that they will announce details of their secretive plan to keep their foundation alive.

For what it's worth, The Lunduke Journal is rooting for them -- and their secret plan.  Whatever it may be.  I truly hope it succeeds.

But, considering the bad financials and all of the other reasons outlined here, I remain less than optimistic.

Update: April 30th, 2024

While the GNOME Foundation has continued to refuse to speak with journalists, this article has created a bit of a firestorm within the GNOME community -- and has forced the GNOME Foundation President, Robert McQueen, to make a short statement.

That statement confirmed some of The Lunduke Journal's reporting regarding GNOME having 1 year of salary and expenses remaining:

"the reserves policy says we should keep 12 additional months of staff salary and expenses".

There were additional quotes, within that statement, which put a positive spin on the state of GNOME finances:

"The reason we’re hoping to raise more funds is our ambition to do more for the community"

 

"This year we’re expecting to break-even"

While these statements sound good, they are too vague and speculative to prove or disprove with the information we have available.  Likewise, they neither prove or disprove the reporting within this article (other than, at present, the GNOME Foundation is not breaking even).

What we now know for certain: GNOME been running a large deficit for several years, with their books showing a trajectory towards a fully depleted savings within 1 year unless they receive significant, new funding -- that fact has been confirmed by the GNOME Foundation.

The Lunduke Journal has, once again, reached out to the GNOME Foundation for further information.  However, given the foundation's lack of communication and transparency over the last 6 months, it seems unlikely that we'll know the true extent of the financial issues until we obtain updated financial records and annual reports (or until GNOME decides to publish their, at present, secret plans).

Yesterday, Microsoft released the source code for MS-DOS 4.0... an action which I have encouraged Microsoft to take for many years (including when I worked at Microsoft).

And, while this source code release is most definitely a win for the preservation of computer history, there are some rather ridiculous issues with it.

Most notably:

• The source doesn't actually fully compile.  It is not usable in its current state.
• The source code has been modified by Microsoft -- even after the publication this week -- reducing the historical value of the code.
• Also Microsoft claims to have lost some source code.

Yeah.  You read that first bullet point right.  It does not compile.  I'll walk you through the details (including a step-by-step guide for how you can fail to compile MS-DOS 4.0 yourself).

But, first, a little backstory.

The MS-DOS 4.0 Story (The Short, Short Version)

MS-DOS 4.0, released back in 1986, was a bit of an oddity.  It was a multitasking version of DOS (similar in that way to Wendin-DOS).  And, importantly, it was not a direct continuation of the existing MS-DOS line -- in fact "MS-DOS 4.0" was released between versions "3.1" and "3.3" (almost exactly coinciding with the "3.2" release).

Fun Side Note: There are multiple multitasking variants of DOS (or ways to multitask in DOS).  Most of which were not built or supplied by Microsoft.  In case you didn't know that... now you do.

This Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0 was not commercially successful -- to put it mildly -- and that line of "Multitasking MS-DOS" was quickly abandoned.

Luckily -- or not luckily, depending on how you look at it -- IBM co-developed a completely different version of "MS-DOS 4.0" that had almost nothing to do with the multitasking version Microsoft created.  This IBM-made version, a continuation of MS-DOS 3.x, continued to be single-tasking.  But, oh-boy, was it buggy.  Legendarily buggy.

Ultimately, when it was obvious that the Multitasking "MS-DOS 4.0" was a dead-end, Microsoft took IBM's totally unrelated "MS-DOS 4.0" and released it also as "MS-DOS 4.0".  (Two different Operating Systems, same name and same version number.  Because that's not at all confusing.)  Then -- quickly -- re-worked a bunch of it -- releasing that as "MS-DOS 4.01".

That single-tasking version ("4.01") went on to have some success -- though it is widely regarded as one of the buggier releases of MS-DOS.

The MS-DOS 4.0 Source Release

Two totally different things named "MS-DOS 4.0".  So what, exactly, is Microsoft releasing the source code for?

Well.  There are two parts.

• A version of the source code for the IBM-developed, not Multitasking version of MS-DOS 4.0.
• An earlier Beta build of the Multitasking version of MS-DOS 4.0 (from 1984, long before it was even called "4.0").  No source code is available (other than for BIOS related utilities for OEMs), but there are some scanned documentation, which is nice from a historical viewpoint. 

Both are available via GitHub.  And everything is released under the MIT license.

Which means that, yes, if you can get that single-tasking 4.0 code to build... you can, in theory, fork these releases and continue developing them.  (Though you'll need to change the name, as Microsoft still holds the trademarks.)

This work was announced in a joint blog post by Jeff Wilcox (Head of Open Source Programs Office) and Scott Hanselman (Vice President of Developer Community) at Microsoft.

Fun Side Note #2: That Vice President, Scott Hanselman, is the same Microsoft executive who has previously encouraged people to commit crimes against people based on their skin color and gender.  Telling people to be ready to "go to jail" for those crimes.  While that bit of information has absolutely nothing to do with the MS-DOS 4.0 source code release... it's nice to have background on the people in the story.

What code, exactly, did we get?

This release, from Microsoft, is a valuable and interesting one.  It contains a great deal of historically significant information -- and I am absolutely filled to the brim with nerdy joy as I go through it.

Unfortunately... it does not include code for the multitasking version of "4.0".

From the announcement:

"Jeff Wilcox and OSPO went to the Microsoft Archives, and while they were unable to find the full source code for MT-DOS, they did find MS DOS 4.00, which we’re releasing today, alongside these additional beta binaries, PDFs of the documentation, and disk images. We will continue to explore the archives and may update this release if more is discovered."

As a former Microsoft employee... this is... strange.  And, quite honestly, not at all believable.

During my time working at Microsoft, I knew of backed up copies of source code for darned near everything -- including almost every version of MS-DOS from 3.3 onward (that I, personally, saw).

Yet they were unable to find code for the Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0?  Knowing, intimately, how the various groups within Microsoft handled backing up source code and binaries for releases... this statement from Microsoft makes me highly skeptical.

Unless Microsoft completely forgot how to backup source code in the last few years, I'm going to call this claim utterly bogus.

Is it Actually MS-DOS 4.0?

Just to make everything far more confusing than it already is... this may not actually be MS-DOS 4.0.  It might be MS-DOS 4.01... or PC-DOS 4.01... or some strange combination.

Take a look at SETENV.BAT in the source code release and you will find the following line:

echo setting up system to build the MS-DOS 4.01 SOURCE BAK...

What files I have been able to build appear to exactly match the MS-DOS 4.0 (not 4.01) release images.  But, being as some of this source code release is mangled beyond use, unfortunately we can't really be sure that everything matches the actual 4.0 release.  It might be an interim build between 4.0 and 4.01.

Oh!  That's right.

Did I mention that this source code release of MS-DOS 4.0 doesn't successfully build?

The Code Does Not Compile

Allow me to repeat myself:

The code that has been supplied contains significant problems which will prohibit it from compiling a complete, working version of MS-DOS 4.0.

I attempted build under multiple environments (including on a released version of MS-DOS 4.01, MS-DOS 5, PC-DOS, and under DOSBox) -- and dug through the errors until I was confident of the issues (and, importantly, was confident that we weren't simply looking at an obvious case of user error).

Note: If you want to skip the "How To Build It" portion, simply scroll down to the "BOOM!  ERROR!" section below.

Want to unsuccessfully build MS-DOS 4.0 yourself?  Here are some super easy to follow steps.

1. Download the contents of the MS-DOS 4.0 GitHub repository.
2. Install DOSBox.  (Seriously, this works just as well in DOSBox as it does anywhere else.)
3. Within DOSBox run the following command: "MOUNT D PATH" (replace "PATH" with the path to that folder you downloaded in step 1).

If you did everything correctly, you will now -- within DOSBox -- have a D:\ drive with a directory named "SRC" in it.

The BAT and make files which build MS-DOS 4.0 expect all of the files to be in D:\SRC.  So replicating that environment will make it so you don't need to tweak any files at all.

Now we actually do the build.

1. Change to the D:\SRC directory.  "D:" then "CD SRC".
2. Now run "SETENV.BAT".  This will setup the paths and whatnot for the build environment.
3. Then simply run "NMAKE".  That will kick off the build for everything.

Easy, right?

BOOM!  ERROR!

At this point you will quickly see that several files compile cleanly.  Until you get to GETMSG.ASM and, later, USA.INF.  Both of these files are mangled.  I was able to force GETMSG.ASM to compile by commenting out some lines... but USA.INF is completely hosed.

I don't see how whoever uploaded this source could have possibly done a successful compile prior to releasing it.

Seriously.  Hosed, I say!  Hosed!

It's not all bad news, luckily.  The majority of the code does appear to be here -- and most of it builds without any catastrophic errors.  With some work (a replaced file here, some re-written code there) I am confident a variant on this MS-DOS 4.0 release will be able to be built... unfortunately, because of changes needed to make it compile, it won't be a historically perfect replica of the system.

Not without Microsoft figuring out what they did wrong and re-releasing the source code.  Which, considering how rarely Microsoft releases source code for these historical pieces of software... I won't be holding my breath.

Fun Side Note #3: After Microsoft announced the source code release of MS-DOS 4.0, a huge number of articles have popped up on a number of Tech News sites.  Tech Journalist after Tech Journalist praising the release.  Yet not one of them has reported that the code does not actually compile.  Which means that none of them even tried to verify the claims from Microsoft.  Not.  One.  Except for The Lunduke Journal, of course.  I'll let you draw your own conclusion about what that means.

The historical record has been compromised... a little.

It doesn't build.  That's a problem.

Also, it's kind of hard to be 100% sure what this specific release even is (is it 4.0... is it 4.01... is it from IBM or MS?  An interim build?  It looks mostly like 4.0... but there's some weird bits that could use clarification.).

But what makes this even worse... is that not only has some of the code been mangled and corrupted... but some of the code comments were actively modified in the few hours after the source code was publicly posted!

Thus further destroying the historical value of this source code.  Which, to put it mildly, kinda sucks.

Brain-damaged Tim Patterson

But, as luck would have it, that source code change... is really, really amusing.  And pretty minor.

A modified comment.  "Brain-damaged Tim Patterson" becomes "Brain-damaged TP".

It's a simple change -- obscuring an insult of Tim Patterson (the original creator of Quick & Dirty DOS)... replacing his full name with his initials.  But, if this is a historical record, this change should not occur.

Here's a fun question: Who, exactly, made this change?  Microsoft is not accepting any changes to this source code repository from the outside world.  So, whoever made the change has the blessing of Microsoft.

Well, hold on to your butts!

This change was made by GitHub user "mzbik", with the simple comment "MZ is back!".

Ok.  Great.  But who the heck is "MZ"?

None other than the legendary Mark Zbikowski.  One of the early Microsoft employees (joining in 1981) -- and the programmer who took over the MS-DOS project (from Tim Patterson) starting with version 2.0... and leading DOS through version 4.0.

Clearly Mark -- who usurped Tim as the Dev Lead / Manager of MS-DOS -- did not want that little "Brain-damaged" insult of Tim to be part of the historical record.

Or, perhaps, he really wanted to call attention to it by making the change.

Either way, we now can be somewhat sure that Mark Zbikowski, himself, wrote that comment way back in the 1980s.  And, even more fascinating, Mark remembered that comment -- from the '80s -- so clearly that he knew to quickly go and change it -- almost immediately -- once the source was made public.  (I barely remember source code comments I made last week, let alone almost 40 years ago... this really stuck with him!)

And that level of irreverent whimsy -- one historically significant programmer insulting another historically significant programmer... in source code comments -- makes me smile.

Ok, sure.  That change isn't a huge deal.  In fact, I'm now glad it happened as it drew my attention to it.

But what else has been changed?  What else will be changed?  It's worth asking.  This is for the preservation of history, after all.

Lots and Lots of Questions

In fact, this release raises a lot of questions.

• Why was building of this source code not tested prior to release?
• What process caused these source code files to be mangled?
• What all was changed from the original source archive?
• Why has Microsoft only released source code for the 3 least popular versions of MS-DOS (1.25, 2.0, & 4.0)?  Microsoft does not profit from versions 3.3, 5.0, or 6.x (far more popular and/or useful releases).  Why are those being held back?
• Microsoft loves to tell people how much they love Open Source... yet they have released source code for only a very small number of products (far less than 1% of their total software releases).  Even ancient software, unsuported for decades, remains closed source.  Why?
• The last release of MS-DOS source code (versions 1.25 and 2.0) occurred 10 years ago (2014).  Why has it taken 10 years to release source code that Microsoft hasn't used since the 1980s?  Will the next release of source code be 10 years from now... in 2034?
• And, shoot, why has not one other Tech News publication actually tried to compile this code... or notice the changes being made... or look into the details at all?

I don't mean to sound like a Negative Nancy, here.  This release is, without a doubt, incredibly interesting and important.

And Microsoft is under no obligation to release the source code for these pieces of software.  No obligation whatsoever.  If they wanted to keep it all locked away in their vault, that's entirely their call.

That said, Microsoft's near constant declarations of their "love for Open Source" -- including their ownership of GitHub -- would suggest to me that they would be eager to release the source for 30 and 40 year old software that they haven't earned a penny on in decades.

If they truly loved the idea of "Open Source"... they would do it.  In a heartbeat.  But they don't.  Which tells me a lot about their actual views on "Open Source".

Some things never change...

When I worked at Microsoft -- in the late 1990s and early 2000s -- I pushed, regularly, to release code, binaries, and documentation of historicaly significant Microsoft software.  The old stuff that nobody used anymore, but which should be preserved and studied for posterity.

Back in those days, I got a lot of push-back.  To put it mildly.

Microsoft management was extremely hesitant to release code -- and even free binaries -- of these historic products.  And, honestly, it looks like that situation has barely improved since then.  Shoot.  What they do release doesn't even compile.

Just the same: I applaud Microsoft for releasing this MS-DOS 4.0 code!  Truly, I do!

Now... release some more!  Preferably without mangling the code this time.

And don't give me any of that "we can't find the code for our most famous products" malarkey.  The Lunduke Journal knows better.