Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jan_Sate's commentslogin

That's hilarious. I wonder if it'd be fixed today tho. Once a jailbreaking technique is identified, it can be implemented by adding guardrails (tho it'd possibly compromise the capability of the model)

I'm also surprised that it didn't get caught and removed by post-generation censorship. I thought that most cloud services would have that. Perhaps I was wrong.


lol. It's fun. Not that I could ever guess it right realistically but it's fun.

This kind of fun thing's exactly why I'm on the internet. Thanks for sharing! :D


It depends on your scale. I sell on my own site at a very small scale and I just made a webform that let the user select the quantity of product on their own and get the quotation and the order would be created automatically. After that the user would be provided a link to my Paypal and they'd have to manually enter the amount and the order ID on Paypal as a remark and make the payment. Then they'd have to click on the "I paid" button on their order on my website. Then I'd receive a notification on the payment, manually verify if it's paid and fulfill the order. The payment processing is done without the being technically integrated into my site.

Since my scale is small enough, even if the user forgot to enter the order ID, it'd still work because I could just map the order and payment manually by timing.

If you don't want to create your own order handling website, even a Google Form would work for that. Just get the user to pay you on their own and fill in a form. Then you'd do the payment mapping manually and send them the product.


Oh. I read "crabs" and I was confused until I clicked into the article. Guess I need coffee.

Uhm... excuse me? Why? Is there anyone even using DOS for anything serious these days?


Perhaps not serious, but I think people gravitate towards older systems these days because they are easier to conceptualize. It's not unrealistic for a single person to have a complete grasp of e.g. the C64 and it's programming environment. DOS is similarly constraint, but also easier for you to form a more or less complete mental model around.

Some people love computers and making them do weird stuff, older computers make certain tasks feel more manageable.


Yea, it is like looking at the insides of a mechanical clock vs looking into an electronic one.

The former is mesmerizing, intriguing, inviting and inspiring. The later? you can't wait to put the lid back on...


Most computers in Turkey come with FreeDOS preinstalled because there's a law that states all computers must be sold with an operating system. FreeDOS turns out to be the cheapest and easiest.

That's why you don't let people who have never touched a computer write tech laws. You get results like this.


The really weird case is where the computer isn't actually compatible with DOS, so they put in a locked-down Linux distro that emulates FreeDOS.


Wasn't it Dell or HP that did this? IIRC it was FreeDOS-on-QEMU-on-X11-on-Linux.



Those types of laws aren't all that bad.. they got us this: https://segaretro.org/Dottori_Kun


The computer is not very usable without an operating system. I think it would be reasonable for the computer to have Forth or BASIC or something like that in ROM, like many older computers do, so that the computer is usable without an operating system (but that you could also install an operating system if you wanted it).


Is there a reason they don't go with Ubuntu or something like that instead?


I guess they don't want to get support's call. DOS looks like firmware for non techies.


Linux drivers and certification is a whole lot of extra work and complexity compared to FreeDOS. Years ago, Nettops were sold with FreeDOS where the components didn't support Linux that well.


I wish that was the case where I live. I'm looking for a new laptop and the mainstream ones still come with the Windows Tax.


Russia has a similar law and yes computers with FreeDOS are also a thing. Alternatively, you're entitled to get a refund for the Windows license by having your hard drive wiped and license sticker removed.


Who said anything about "serious"?

(FWIW: I suspect there are more than a few old industrial control systems and such out there that are still running DOS, just because of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude)


My brother is in manufacturing. DOS is everywhere. Older things too (PDP-11? DG Nova? Seen both, semi-recently). Not just because "ain't broke, don't fix", but because when you have a cloth dying machine or brick forming machine you spent >US$5M for, that is often a bespoke install for your plant, you don't replace it because some guy who prolly slings Javascript all day sez "DOS is oooold, boomer".


These DOS machines for industrial control could probably be replaced by an Arduino or a far more reliable MCU, whereas running an actual legacy PC as a business-critical component in manufacturing has to be a bit of a nightmare by now. AI could probably do a good enough job of working out how the legacy DOS executables were intended to work.


This isn't hackaday or adafruit. Everything is easy when you don't have to actually do it. You are wrong on every point.


You might notice that I never once claimed that the replacement I described would be "easy" or, for that matter, even advisable given the broader real-world constraints involved; just technically feasible in the barest sense. I don't think many people would want to use DOS to design a greenfield system of that kind today, and there's a reason for that. Yes, you can buy newly made "DOS PCs" today, but can you really ensure that today's brand new DOS PC will behave in every way that matters like the actual 30 years old DOS PC that used to control the machinery? That's not a trivial question to answer.

If you design the system from the outset to work with an actual PLC/SCADA or similar (the typical solution for hooking up to big industrial machinery of that sort) that's a bit less likely to come up as an issue, and the hardware will actually be designed for that kind of environment.


Yes, if you ignore everything that was discussed, invent time travel do you can "design the system from the outset" as the prescient you are, and pretend anyone was talking about greenfield, you get to be right. Good for you...some people just need the 'win'.


Given the implications, I guess nobody is going to touch those setups to put an SDL-based program on them, though...


Yeah...this is "if you screw around with it enough, you void the warranty and we will no longer support it" for a potentially multimillion dollar machine.


The real question is "why not?" :)


I think this PR is awesome, and I can totally see myself playing around with this at some point. Being able to create DOS executables of SDL projects is just ... cool!

But I do wonder about the practicality. This would, I presume (never done DOS development, never touched a memory extender) only run on 386+ CPUs, and maybe more importantly, probably require a newer CPU than that to run anything non-trivial at acceptable performance. So I wonder how many "real DOS machines" this can practically target.

Still, it is massively cool.


> "real DOS machines" this can practically target.

Define "real DOS machine".

But I would give you my definition: something with ISA slot so you can hear that awful 2.0 stereo SB Pro-compatible with a hiss what could be almost parseltongue. Video card of choice.

So basically anything between 386sx to P3 Tualatin and some rare and weird cases even P4 and AMD Athlon.

https://theretroweb.com/motherboards?page=1&itemsPerPage=24&...


I did testing on a K6-2 300Mhz, and yes it has 2 ISA slot, one of which is where I put the Sound Blaster 16.

Compiling an SDL port of Quake quake gives you 90% performance at 320x200 and 97% at 640x480 compared to the original. That's about 45fps which isn't bad I think.

SDL3 should now work with any i386+ with a VGA and 4MB of RAM which is roughly the requirements of Doom.


A real DOS machine is running on a 8086 (or 8088)

ISA is part of IBM-compatibility.


Hacker News


Because it's fun, at least for certain folks? Crazy, right?


There used to be stock exchanges running happily on DOS. Maybe there still are.


Worked at an exchange in 2007/2008 and... we had systems still running from the 80s. Mostly tape audit stuff.


Most use Linux now, and specifically RHEL. I did see some IBM z, but that was specifically for one old DB that handled oil pipeline stuff.


SDL is written in C. So it can support it without too much trouble. And some people are compiling stuff to run on DOS. So it makes sense. And your objection doesn't hold any water.


There's a lot of interesting projects and even innovation going on making new games for old PCs/consoles. James Lambert and Kaze are doing fantastic work in the N64 space as one example (watch their videos on Youtube)


It's a simple enough implementation that implicitly helps document how SDL is supposed to work (DOS being a well understood platform by now). Plenty of reasons to maintain it based on that alone.


There are several reasons. One possible reason is, if you do not need the functions of other operating systems, then DOS will be much simpler.


Uhm... excuse me? Why? Is there anyone even using DOS for anything serious these days?

Translation: "Stop liking things I don't like!"


I suppose it's an issue of ignorance; even IT veterans often don't know that DOS was, and still is, the driver of many highly specialized industry applications, or an OS running the software of individuals as well as small business owners around the world.


because you can


Because computers can be used to do things that are not...so serious?


More specifically it's part of my quest to get Diablo (DevilutionX) running on anything it can, using modern tools. Next up PS2 and PSP.


> it's part of my quest to get Diablo

Sorry, I didn't quite get what you refer to as "it" here. Nevertheless, I also have a similar quest going.


DevilutionX

The same could be said for software from the US. Could be a vector of CIA. For average US citizens, it might even be safer to use Russian software because FSB can't come after them.


Funny thing that it's exactly the same for Russian citizens - they'd rather use US government malware. Same goes for mail providers.


It is not a bad rule, to use online services / software where you know that the malicious owners are likely not after you nor in cahoots with the government where you live. Or you can take the Swiss option with stuff like ProtonVPN, Signal etc. :-)


Signal is not Swiss, though, although I'd like they to be ;-)


Anyone else doesn't like modern minimalist icon design? It looks boring.


Boring and same. Harder to use. It is for people who organize their books by the color of covers.


icons should prioritize usability first,and design, intersting afterwards.

if your users need billboards, then your job is to make great bill boards


The current icons really aren't that good. Looking at apple specifically: The facetime and messages icons are almost completely indistinguishable. Get angry and say I'm blind, but so is a lot of the userbase - like legitimately, legally blind people.

The camera icon on iOS is just a fucking camera lens with a grey background. No context.

The calculator one is actually pretty good.

The photos one is also bullshit lol.


FaceTime is a video camera, messages is a speech bubble. They look nothing alike except they share the same colors?


they share so much visual language that I always do a double-take when I am about to click on MacOS.

You’re right that in isolation they are visually distinguished, but our eyes don’t see colour uniformly, and these icons do not exist in isolation.

I guess frosted white on green is not a good combination for quickly discerning shape.


Sure, but it's not clear they're unrelated. Maybe interesting is necessary (but not sufficient) for usability?

Also, the newer icons don't really indicate a word processing application. If anything, they're look like they might be for a drawing program. So regardless of interesting/abstract/whatever, it seems like a poor icon choice.


Usable icons _are_ a bit interesting. A bunch of same shapes with same-ish colors on a grid is NOT prioritizing usablity. It's prioritizing minimalism. The middle icons in that list are interesting enough that your visual cortex can pattern-match to your previous experience selecting that app without much conscious effort. The oldest is a bit much but at least still recognizable (not necessarily "well known", that's different), but the new ones are worse: so boring and generic that it takes actual conscious effort to select them from a sea of sameness.


I still love the KDE Oxygen icon theme.


ew! why? Why?


So that's what the people were using before commercial flights were common.


The title of the article is misleading. The API documentation is indeed useful but I wouldn't call publishing the API documentation open source.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: