The blog post "DOS APPEND" from the OS/2 Museum meticulously details the functionality and nuances of the APPEND command in various DOS versions, primarily focusing on its evolution and differences compared to the PATH command. APPEND, much like PATH, allows programs to access data files located in directories other than their current working directory. However, while PATH focuses on executable files, APPEND extends this capability to data files, specified by various file extensions.
The article begins by explaining the initial purpose of APPEND in DOS 3.3, highlighting its ability to search specified directories for data files when a program attempts to open a file not found in the current directory. This eliminates the need for programs to explicitly handle path information for data files. The post then traces the development of APPEND through later DOS versions, including DOS 3.31, where a significant bug related to networked drives was addressed.
A key distinction between APPEND and PATH is elaborated upon: PATH affects only the search for executable files (.COM, .EXE, and .BAT), while APPEND pertains to data files with extensions specified by the user. This difference is crucial for understanding their respective roles within the DOS environment.
The blog post further delves into the various ways APPEND can be used, outlining the command-line switches and their effects. These switches include /E, which loads the appended directories into an environment variable, /PATH:ON, which enables searching the appended directories even when a full path is provided for a file, and /PATH:OFF, which disables this behavior. The post also explains the use of /X, which extends the functionality of APPEND to affect the EXEC function calls, thus influencing child processes.
The evolution of APPEND continues to be discussed, noting the removal of the problematic /X:ON and /X:OFF switches in later versions due to their instability. The article also touches upon the differences in behavior between APPEND in MS-DOS/PC DOS and DR DOS, particularly concerning the handling of the ; delimiter in the APPEND list and the search order when multiple directories are specified.
Finally, the post concludes by briefly discussing the persistence of APPEND in later Windows versions for compatibility, even though its utility diminishes in these more advanced operating systems with their more sophisticated file management capabilities. The article thoroughly explores the intricacies and historical context of the APPEND command, offering a comprehensive understanding of its functionality and its place within the broader DOS ecosystem.
A nineteen-year-old individual, identified as Zachary Lee Morgenstern, hailing from the municipality of Gilroy situated within Santa Clara County, California, has entered a plea of guilty to a singular count of conspiracy to transmit interstate threats, a transgression that carries a potential maximum penalty of incarceration for a period of twenty years. Morgenstern, operating under the online pseudonym "UchihaLS," partook in the illicit practice of "swatting," wherein an individual fabricates a false report of a serious crime, such as a hostage situation or bomb threat, to law enforcement agencies, with the intention of provoking a heavily armed response, typically involving a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, to a specific target address.
The young perpetrator confessed to engaging in this dangerous activity against an array of targets, including individuals, educational institutions, and businesses located across various states within the United States. His motivations appear to have been primarily financially driven, as he offered his "swatting" services for hire, soliciting payments through online platforms. Furthermore, he reportedly harbored resentment towards specific individuals and entities, which further fueled his actions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, conducted a meticulous investigation into Morgenstern's activities. This inquiry encompassed the examination of digital evidence, including online communications and financial transactions, ultimately leading to his apprehension and subsequent prosecution. The gravity of the charges stems from the inherent risks associated with swatting, which can result in severe psychological trauma for the victims, as well as the misallocation of valuable law enforcement resources and the potential for unintended violence or even fatalities during the ensuing police response.
Morgenstern's guilty plea signifies an admission of his culpability in this serious offense. He now awaits sentencing, scheduled for the 24th of March, 2025, before Judge Edward Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The potential twenty-year sentence underscores the severity with which the justice system views the crime of swatting and serves as a stark warning against engaging in such perilous and irresponsible behavior. This case serves as a prominent example of the increasing prevalence of cybercrime and the ability of law enforcement agencies to utilize digital forensics to identify and apprehend perpetrators operating within the online sphere.
The Hacker News post titled "Teen serial swatter-for-hire busted, pleads guilty, could face 20 years" has generated a number of comments discussing various aspects of the case and the broader phenomenon of swatting.
Several commenters express shock at the potential 20-year sentence for a 17-year-old, with some questioning the proportionality of the punishment, especially considering his age and plea deal. They argue that a sentence of that length could severely impact his future opportunities and that rehabilitation should be a primary focus. Others counter this by pointing out the severity and potential consequences of swatting, which can involve heavily armed police responses to unsuspecting individuals' homes, creating highly dangerous situations for both the victims and the officers involved. They argue that a strong deterrent is necessary given the potential for tragic outcomes.
The discussion also delves into the legal intricacies of the case, with some commenters questioning whether the plea deal was the best option for the teenager. They speculate about the possible charges he faced and the potential strategies his defense team might have considered. There's also discussion surrounding the complexities of charging minors as adults and the implications for sentencing.
Some commenters focus on the psychological aspects of the case, wondering about the motivations behind such behavior. They speculate about the teenager's background and the potential influence of online communities or gaming culture. Others discuss the broader issue of online anonymity and the difficulty in tracking down perpetrators of cybercrimes.
A few commenters share personal anecdotes related to swatting or similar online harassment, highlighting the real-world impact of these actions. They describe the fear and disruption caused by such incidents and express support for harsh penalties for perpetrators.
Finally, some commenters raise concerns about the effectiveness of long prison sentences as a deterrent. They suggest alternative approaches, such as focusing on rehabilitation and addressing the underlying issues that contribute to this type of behavior. They also discuss the need for better online safety measures and education to prevent future incidents.
Summary of Comments ( 56 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42475011
Hacker News users discuss the DOS
APPENDcommand, primarily focusing on its obscure nature and surprising functionality. Several commenters recall struggling withAPPEND's unexpected behavior, particularly its ability to make files appear in directories where they don't physically exist. The discussion highlights the command's similarity to environment variables likePATHandLD_LIBRARY_PATH, with one user pointing out that it effectively extends the file search path for specific programs. Some comments mention the utility ofAPPENDfor accessing data files across drives or directories without hardcoding paths, while others express their preference for more modern solutions. The overall sentiment suggestsAPPENDwas a powerful but complex tool, often misunderstood and potentially problematic.The Hacker News post titled "DOS APPEND" with the link https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-append/ has several comments discussing the utility of the
APPENDcommand in DOS and OS/2, as well as its quirks and comparisons to other operating systems.One commenter recalls using
APPENDfrequently and finding it incredibly useful, particularly for accessing data files located in different directories without having to constantly change directories or use full paths. They highlight the convenience it offered in a time before sophisticated development environments and integrated development environments (IDEs).Another commenter draws a parallel between
APPENDand the modern concept of environment variables like$PATHin Unix-like systems, which serve a similar purpose of specifying locations where the system should search for executables. They also touch on howAPPENDdiffered slightly in OS/2, specifically regarding the handling of data files versus executables.Further discussion revolves around the intricacies of
APPEND's behavior. One comment explains howAPPENDdidn't just search the appended directories but actually made them appear as if they were part of the current directory, creating a virtualized directory structure. This led to some confusion and unexpected behavior in certain situations, especially with programs that relied on obtaining the current working directory.One user recounts experiences with the complexities of managing multiple directories and files in early versions of Turbo Pascal, illustrating the context where a tool like
APPENDwould have been valuable. This comment also highlights the limited tooling available at the time, emphasizing the appeal of features likeAPPENDfor streamlining development workflows.Someone points out the potential for conflicts and unexpected results when using
APPENDwith programs that create files in the current directory. They suggest thatAPPEND's behavior could lead to files being inadvertently created in a directory different from the intended one, depending on how the program handled relative paths.The security implications of
APPENDare also addressed, with a comment mentioning the risks associated with accidentally executing programs from untrusted directories added to theAPPENDpath. This highlights the potential security vulnerabilities that could arise from misuse or improper configuration of the command.Finally, there's a mention of a similar feature called
apppathin the REXX language, further illustrating the cross-platform desire for this kind of directory management functionality.Overall, the comments paint a picture of
APPENDas a powerful but somewhat quirky tool that provided a valuable solution to directory management challenges in the DOS/OS/2 era, while also introducing potential pitfalls that required careful consideration. The discussion showcases howAPPENDreflected the computing landscape of the time and how its functionality foreshadowed concepts that are commonplace in modern operating systems.