I was thinking the same thing. I've been writing my own set of UNIX tools for DOS for personal use. I've written cat, head, wc, and split, and I've made my own implementation of getopt which uses DOS-style flags (begin with '/', use ':' to separate flag from argument) called getswitch. I used WCC specifically for binary size and 16-bit compatibility/efficiency.
Would anyone like me to publish these here in their own thread? If so, are there any other commands that would be nice to add to them? Only slightly related, I also wrote a utility for taking a split archive spread across multiple diskettes, reassembling it, and unzipping it at C:\. I made this as a backup utility for DOS games I have in case the original diskettes fail. I can publish that as well if requested. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) Life Member, National Rifle Association of America (#226579338) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 05/25/2017 06:59 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Ercan Ersoy <ercaner...@outlook.com> wrote: >> >>> But looking at the source commited 20 minutes ago, it seems that no commands >>> are yet implemented, it is only like a stub. >> >> Please read README. Also, Minibox includes commands in one executable file. >> (e.g. Busybox) >> >> Command Line: minibox command [arguments] >> >>> I am curious why it need DPMI and DJGPP for that? It is not enought Watcom >>> C++ >>> in 16 bit real mode? >> >> Because, Minibox porting for other platforms easily. >> > > > Minibox is an interesting project, but I wonder why implement > everything in one large binary, just to execute simple commands. I > know you are mimicking Busybox (above). But on a DOS system, it seems > very resource heavy to load a large exe that requires DPMI to do > commands like: (from the README) > > beep > cat > cd > clear > cp > date > echo > ls > mkdir > mv > pwd > rm > rmdir > sh > time > > > Wouldn't it be easier and more resource efficient to implement these > as small, individual programs? "cat" is not a very big program, for > example. > > -- > > There's an interesting parallel here, and I think this would make a > good project for someone: Years ago, there was the "GNUish" project, > which ported the GNU utilities to DOS. But eventually the project > stalled. Before GNUish shut down, they reached out to me to mirror > their files. You can find them here: > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/gnuish/ > > Info here: > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/gnuish/gnuish.htm > > > I think it would be great for someone to pick up the GNUish project > again. Port the GNU Utilities (ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/) to FreeDOS > using OpenWatcom, or DJGPP. This is likely challenging, as it will > require creating wrappers for different functionality, workarounds for > other functionality that doesn't (or can't?) exist on DOS, etc. > > *That* is something that would be really interesting on FreeDOS! We > already have some Unix-like programs in FreeDOS (cal, du, bc, grep, > sed, ...) and a few utilities exist at DJ Delorie's repo, but AFAIK no > one has created a comprehensive update to GNUish. > > > Jim > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
