Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the still-better-than-windows-8 dept.

The Verge is reporting:

Microsoft is releasing the source code for its original Windows File Manager from nearly 28 years ago. While it's a relic from the past, you can still compile the source code Microsoft has released and run the app on Windows 10 today.

The source code is available on GitHub, and is maintained by Microsoft veteran Craig Wittenberg under the MIT license. Wittenberg copied the File Manager code from Windows NT 4 back in 2007, and has been maintaining it before open sourcing it recently. It's a testament to the backward compatibility of Windows itself, especially that this was originally included in Windows more than 20 years ago.

A port of Microsoft's File Manger made its first appearance in OS/2 1.1 and then became the primary file manager in Windows 3.0.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:18PM (18 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:18PM (#664947) Journal

    I don't remember very specifically what the file manager was like - but I do remember that it was primitive. There are dozens of file managers today, with or without extra bells and whistles, that do so much more.

    First thing you'd have to do with any Windows POS would be code in support for real file systems. The only thing a Windows file manager is likely to understand is FAT, FAT16, FAT32, and probably NTFS. Why would anyone cripple themselves with such a thing?

    And, permissions. The first time a Linux user tried to access something for which he has no permissions, is the program going to crash?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:25PM (5 children)

    by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:25PM (#664948) Homepage Journal

    The first time a Linux user tried to access something for which he has no permissions, is the program going to crash?

    My guess is that it's going to be a long time before a Linux user can try to do anything with this program.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:40PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:40PM (#664957) Journal

      heh - some of us try some crazy things!

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:45PM (#664959)

      I wouldn't be so sure, in the past I've successfully run Total Commander - a Windows-only file manager - under Wine.

    • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:19PM (1 child)

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:19PM (#665006) Journal

      It would probably be pretty straightforward to compile the code with WineLib, if anyone really cared.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:40PM (#665093)

        The other week, while we were discussing a release of WINE with a bunch of newly-added APIs, an AC mentioned how he would like to see support for XP's Windows Explorer. [soylentnews.org]

        This appears to be a baby step in that direction by M$.
        Let's see. Windoze 3.0 hit EoL 2001/12/31.
        So, how long will it be before...?

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:51PM (#664962)

    I'm trying to remember back to the bad old days. I remember that Windows 3.x was a horrible kludge and more a curiosity than anything else. Then we got Trumpet Winsock and Mosiac and eventually Netscape, and that was pretty much all I started Windows for.

    Did Windows 3.x really have no filesystem abstraction? I've never done any programming for 3.x.

    I guess I should grab that source code and build on my arcade boot (Windows 8.1, tile menu makes a great arcade interface) and see if ext2ifs enables it to read ext2/3/4 volumes.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:00PM (#664969)

    Finally, a decent alternative to Gnome 3's file manager 'Files'. Minimal design, no real features or user preferences to speak of...it's a perfect fit!

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:26PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:26PM (#664984)

      To include it in Gnome 3, you'd first have to reduce the features. Yes, I'm sure they'll find some to remove.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:20PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:20PM (#665048)

        And link it to systemd libraries.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:18PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:18PM (#665082) Journal

          I'd mod you funny, but that's a nightmarish idea. I laughed, but sort of cried too. That's what a friend calls a "Haha CHRIST" moment.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:07PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:07PM (#664975) Journal

    That is all abstracted by the virtual filesystem layer.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:49PM (3 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:49PM (#664991) Journal

    The biggest problem is it is unlikely to understand long file names. May only work with the old 8.3 names. I'd guess the file system is less of a problem, and even such an old version of File Explorer may function at a level of abstraction that it will work on NTFS or ext4 or whatever else you have underneath, but still with the file name length limitation.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:25PM (2 children)

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:25PM (#665009) Journal

      The version online supports long file names, along with several other useful features not in the original version (like include subdirs in directory file search).

      It looks to me like this is some Microsoft guy who's been maintaining File Manager all these years for his own personal use, and, now, due to cultural changes at MS, was finally able to get permission to open source it.

      It's pretty impressive someone's gone to this much trouble. I doubt I'll do much with the code myself, but there's no accounting for taste.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:46PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @08:46PM (#665095)

        What killed me about Windoze was the way they allowed not-DOS-compatible characters in filenames--but when you tried to do a file search that included one of those, the damned thing would bomb.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:17PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:17PM (#665105) Journal

          Another case of Micro$oft being case insensitive. If you cannot grok the glyph, you should not grep the tree.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Tuesday April 10 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Tuesday April 10 2018, @05:02PM (#665022)

    Indeed, WinFile was very primitive. Apple Macintosh users had been using the Macintosh Finder file manager for ages, GEM 1.x in 1985 also had a Mac-like file manager, and there were all ready piles of superior DOS file manager.

    Part of WinFile's shortcoming was that it was intentionally intended to be a standalone, non-integrated file manager. That is, it did not load at startup, alternate file manager could run in its place, and it could be removed.

    One of the things that bugged me most about Windows 3.x was that to get the the File Manager or other common tools like Control Panel, one would have to wade through a sea of program groups, constantly minimizing and maximizing to find the right one. And if it was not your computer, then users would get pissed if you didn't put the program groups back exactly the way you found them. It was so much easier to go to Program Manager, click "File", "Run", and then type "WinFile" (or Control). A clear failure for a GUI.

    Windows 95 fixed all of that with the Start Menu, placing standard options like that in a single standard place. But also finally added a Mac-like desktop file manager. Sadly both have devolved over the years.

    WinFile actually doesn't care much about the underlying file system. It could run from network drives, HPFS drives (OS/2 Win3.1), or Linux file systems when run under Wine. I don't recall that it worked with UNC paths though, network shares still had to be mapped as drives.

    This one does support long file names since it was taken from 32-bit Windows NT 4. Other than that it would mainly need tweeking for different specific file attributes or metadata. One of the custom bits of integration I liked the most was how in Windows for Workgroups you could just click a folder, select "Share", accept a few properties, and a new network share was ready to go - no fucking with a command line or seperate management application.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:14PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 10 2018, @10:14PM (#665122) Homepage
      > Part of WinFile's shortcoming was that it was intentionally intended to be a standalone, non-integrated file manager.

      That's a good thing, not a shortcoming.

      > That is, it did not load at startup,

      That's a good thing. If all I'm gonna do is do some web browsing, why would I need a file manager to be running?

      > alternate file manager could run in its place,

      That's a good thing. I might have more demands, or even simmple UX preferences it can't satisfy.

      > and it could be removed.

      That's a good thing. If it saisfies none of my needs, why should I have it hanging around unnecessarily.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves