Does anyone here have a copy of the second edition of "Writing DOS
Device Drivers in C"?

The first edition is trivial to find, but the second is impossible, it
seems. It hasn't been digitized AFAIK and I can't find it for sale
anywhere. Furthermore, I can't even find it to borrow via WorldCat.

Hell, I even e-mailed Clovis Tondo and he said that he doesn't have a
copy of it either!

Thanks,
--Anthony

Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us> wrote:
> Does anyone here have a copy of the second edition of "Writing DOS
> Device Drivers in C"?
>
> The first edition is trivial to find, but the second is impossible, it
> seems. It hasn't been digitized AFAIK and I can't find it for sale
> anywhere. Furthermore, I can't even find it to borrow via WorldCat.
>
> Hell, I even e-mailed Clovis Tondo and he said that he doesn't have a
> copy of it either!
>
> Thanks,
> --Anthony
>

It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?

--
Pete

On 1/13/24 13:56, Peter Flass wrote:
> Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us> wrote:
>> Does anyone here have a copy of the second edition of "Writing DOS
>> Device Drivers in C"?
>>
>> The first edition is trivial to find, but the second is impossible, it
>> seems. It hasn't been digitized AFAIK and I can't find it for sale
>> anywhere. Furthermore, I can't even find it to borrow via WorldCat.
>>
>> Hell, I even e-mailed Clovis Tondo and he said that he doesn't have a
>> copy of it either!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Anthony
>>
>
> It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?
>

Enough to necessitate a second book. The first edition was released in
1990 and second was released in 1999(!).

My interest in it is more related to digital preservation than education.

According to Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us>:
>> It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?
>
>Enough to necessitate a second book. The first edition was released in
>1990 and second was released in 1999(!).

Are you sure it was published? The US Copyright office has a
registration for the 1990 edition, and a bunch of Tondo's other books,
but not a second edition of that book.

It would be quite strange for Prentice Hall not to register the
copyright on a book they'd published.

On the third hand, the entry for the 1990 edition says "Edition: 4th ed." so who knows
what's going on. You can find a version of that book at the Internet Archive.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

> According to Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us>:
>>> It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?

[...]

Doesn't

X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

handle UTF-8?

On 1/13/24 16:55, John Levine wrote:
> According to Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us>:
>>> It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?
>>
>> Enough to necessitate a second book. The first edition was released in
>> 1990 and second was released in 1999(!).
>
> Are you sure it was published? The US Copyright office has a
> registration for the 1990 edition, and a bunch of Tondo's other books,
> but not a second edition of that book.
>
> It would be quite strange for Prentice Hall not to register the
> copyright on a book they'd published.
>
> On the third hand, the entry for the 1990 edition says "Edition: 4th ed." so who knows
> what's going on. You can find a version of that book at the Internet Archive.
>

It has the following unique ISBN numbers:

ISBN-10: 0-13-108622-7 / 0131086227
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-108622-7 / 9780131086227

The Alibris entry mentions it being a revision:
https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780131086227

One of the reviewers on its Amazon.co.uk listing mentions it being rare:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0131086227

Dr. Tondo didn't make any mention of it not having been published when I
last spoke with him.

Julieta Shem wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> According to Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us>:
>>>> It’s DOS, how much would have changed between the 1st and 2nd ed’s?
>
> [...]
>
> Doesn't
>
> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
>
> handle UTF-8?
Peter's, Anthony's and John's messages all read OK here (albeit using a
fancy single quote, instead of an actual apostrophe) it's your message
that's the first which appears mangled here ...

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:30:51 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Peter's, Anthony's and John's messages all read OK here (albeit using a
> fancy single quote, instead of an actual apostrophe) it's your message
> that's the first which appears mangled here ...

Peter's and Anthony's messages both have Content-Type headers
declaring UTF-8 content, John's lacks a Content-Type header which is
probably the root cause here.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:30:51 +0000
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> Peter's, Anthony's and John's messages all read OK here (albeit using a
>> fancy single quote, instead of an actual apostrophe) it's your message
>> that's the first which appears mangled here ...
>
> Peter's and Anthony's messages both have Content-Type headers
> declaring UTF-8 content, John's lacks a Content-Type header which is
> probably the root cause here.

So my Gnus v5.13 interpreted it as ASCII because his message didn't tell
it what encoding it was? That makes sense. It if it wasn't for my Gnus
v5.13 we would not even find out that John's message lacked such header.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:36:23 -0300
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
> > Peter's and Anthony's messages both have Content-Type headers
> > declaring UTF-8 content, John's lacks a Content-Type header which is
> > probably the root cause here.
>
> So my Gnus v5.13 interpreted it as ASCII because his message didn't tell

Probably - or whatever encoding it picks by default when not told
otherwise. My news reader picks a default based on the locale specified in
the environment (in my case en_IE.UTF-8), I expect it would have shown up
here if I'd chosen to use an iso-8859 locale.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency