Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
On Sun, January 18, 2009 09:02, Jim Lemon wrote: The extensions I'm interested in are mainly those that allow me to access newer filesystems so that the people who use my tests won't whinge as much about having to transfer files from DOS to NTFS or the like. Perhaps something like FUSE (Filesystems in Userspace) could be ported from Linux to FreeDOS? I don't know if it's possible... but I really like the concept of FUSE. -- Amedee -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
On Sun, January 18, 2009 19:28, Eric Auer wrote: As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some people want to run dos thinking that it can't browse the Internet. DOS is too old to support modern viruses, so unless you download infected copies of old DOS software, risks are quite acceptable. And of course you can use antivirus software for DOS... Disk space is almost ubiquitous. Lets say your 486 has a 500 MiB hard disk, which was quite big at the time. I can now fit that 16 times on my 8 GiB usb stick. Just make regular backups, and keep a clean image. Make one before you go in the interwebz. Got a virus? Just wipe the disk and put the image back. It only takes a couple of minutes. I think that, except for the embedded developers, most FreeDOS users use it on a hobby machine. It's not a bad idea to isolate it from your main network. Put it on a separate subnet, in a DMZ. Sandbox it. Or virtualize. Qemu works great on Linux. I want to go the Netware route because Netware without special IPX to IP gateway software isn't Internet compatible You want to avoid internet compatibility?? ² I just want to know, is FreeDOS IPv6 compatible? ;-) I'd like to see the MARS netware emulator brought over to freedos and revived. Why not, say, Samba? There already is smbclient for DOS. Didn't know that! Kewl! of Freedos being to revive old computers that aren't powerful enough to run Windows or Linux and I see it's purpose as being to provide a simple OS for the embedded computing market. Yes Freedos can be run in an emulator, but that isn't my favorite application of it. It is indeed useful for embedded computing and when you want a small OS which is not in the way while you want to access your hardware directly. I also like running it in dosemu or full emulators, for old games and testing. As I only use one (modern, fast, energy-efficient) PC normally, I do not typically revive ancient PCs ;-). I have an ancient laptop, small and light enough to carry around, and with reasonable battery life. I'll make it my netbook avant-la-lettre. I just have to get the network card working. Something that would be nice would be a modified dhcp client for freedos that through some reasonable trick can accept a different configuration for a particular machine than it would normally get. I'm thinking, an isolated network for freedos with an update repository on that network would be nice. The alternative... I see no reason to isolate DOS. Only servers are at risk regarding bad internet trying to infect your PC and in DOS, you do not have any server running in the background. That said, I wonder how safe Sioux / EzNos DOS servers are. (And you can also tweak dhcp SERVERS, instead of clients) Isolation of DOS isn't a client issue, it's a server/network issue. You don't need a modified DHCP client. You only need a well organized network with subnets/VLANs, and a good DHCP server. One request for freedos is a nice Gem based backup program that can back the system up in part or in entirety to anything from a network share to a local DVD burner or hard disk. I'm thinking a modern and free program with a MyBackup like environment. While it is not GEM, what do you think about: cdd c:\ and then... - xcopy /e /s c:\ x:\ (where X: is your USB stick or similar) - zip -r x:\everyth.zip c:\ (same idea as above but compressed) - use doscdroast GUI or mkisofs/cdrecord (iso9660 CD or DVD) Indeed. But for my personal use, I prefer 7zip. It has superior compression rates. -- Amedee who will be following this list with more attention, and who will ask questions, and maybe answer some too! -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
I use FreeDOS because I have an old laptop which is somehow too slow to run DSL. I installed FreeDOS on it and I'm currently using it for keeping a journal on and writing an interactive fiction game in TADS. Since I'm keeping a journal on it, it needed to be lockable... which DOS traditionally has difficulty with. So I wrote up a screensaver program that does that for me. Skyler On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.comwrote: I like dos when I have an old computer and some old games that work under dos. Running Windows on a 486 is a pain in general. Even a low end Pentium these days is slow. As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some people want to run dos thinking that it can't browse the Internet. What I don't like about Arachne is that it doesn't have any kind of filtering apparatus built in. Internet Explorer does, but it's too paranoid. Not to mention, IE requires either Windows or Linux running Wine. I also don't like the fact the Arachne tries to integrate email access assuming a pop account. I use imap. There is a desire in some cases to network dos, but what for? Well, some dos games can be played over a network. Freedos can be upgraded over the Internet, though I'd rather build a local repository say on my Linux server and upgrade from that. The most valuable update to freedos that I can think of is one that makes it more compatible with MS-DOS. As far as breaking with MS-DOS, that needs to be carefully considered. In some cases where Freedos is not MS-DOS compatible, it may not be reasonable to make it so. Ideally, as Freedos is seen as a stable dos implementation with compilers and assemblers that are free to use, people will develop software for it specifically. I want to go the Netware route because Netware without special IPX to IP gateway software isn't Internet compatible (at least versions before the switch away from IPX). This seems to be very unpopular though. I'd like to see the MARS netware emulator brought over to freedos and revived. What is the purpose of Freedos? This is something that should be carefully considered as efforts to get a new release out kick into high gear. I see the main purpose of Freedos being to revive old computers that aren't powerful enough to run Windows or Linux and I see it's purpose as being to provide a simple OS for the embedded computing market. Yes Freedos can be run in an emulator, but that isn't my favorite application of it. Something that would be nice would be a modified dhcp client for freedos that through some reasonable trick can accept a different configuration for a particular machine than it would normally get. I'm thinking, an isolated network for freedos with an update repository on that network would be nice. The alternative, given compatible packet drivers for every dos machine, is to manually configure each freedos box that you want to isolate. Yuck! Ideally, dhcp would ask what kind of OS is seeking an IP address and if the answer is a DOS OS, it would put it on a different network than say a Linux or Windows box. Freedos needs to be as clean as possible and as stable as possible. Small is good, there should be a very small footprint base install. Cross dependencies where freedos has so called super packages that are meant to do everything should be broken purposely. Small utilities with very specific purposes are better than monstrous ones that try to do everything in a very constraining manner. One request for freedos is a nice Gem based backup program that can back the system up in part or in entirety to anything from a network share to a local DVD burner or hard disk. I'm thinking a modern and free program with a MyBackup like environment. Freedos is free and useful insofar as it is compatible with MS-DOS when it needs to be to run old software. Freedos is useful if there are applications written specifically for it for those of us who don't have functional MS-DOS software lying around. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Those who do not become dishonest or hostile are the most difficult to debate. Addressing others in a respectful and considerate manner conveys favorable impressions of their belief system. Providing rational answers to questions creates positive image of the person and their beliefs. Thank goodness there are very few such members and they are greatly outnumbered by those who are irrational, rabid, intolerant, and disrespectful. - An atheist
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi! Just make regular backups, and keep a clean image. Make one before you go in the interwebz. Got a virus? Just wipe the disk and put the image back. As you do not always notice the virus at once, you better also keep older images. Or maybe you keep a few generations of backups of your program folders and separate backups of your data files. Makes it easier to restore programs without rewinding data. It's not a bad idea to isolate it from your main network. Put it on a separate subnet, in a DMZ. Sandbox it. Or virtualize. Qemu works great on Linux. If you really think that DOS puts your main network at risk, then the easiest solution is not to install network drivers for your DOS programs at all ;-). I just want to know, is FreeDOS IPv6 compatible? No DOS uses any internet at all - only DOS programs do... A common network stack for this is Wattcp / Watt32, which is usually statically linked into the exe files of your browser, ssh client, email, etc. So the question is: Does Watt32 support IPv6 and is your browser exe compiled with a recent Watt32...? You can also have DOS network drive drivers which use internet - I do not even know whether those can be used at the same time as DOS networked apps such as web browsers for DOS. In general, one of the Wattcp and Watt32 annoyances is that it does not keep DHCP config in general RAM, so each time you start some network app for DOS, it asks the DHCP server again? Why not, say, Samba? There already is smbclient for DOS. Note that smbclient has the look and feel of a text mode ftp client. It does not create local DOS drive letters for your remote network shares or anything. I have an ancient laptop, small and light enough to carry around, and with reasonable battery life. I'll make it my netbook avant-la-lettre. I just have to get the network card working. If it is ancient, it should be possible :-). Modern PCI / PCIe / onboard network also has reasonable support, better than ISA / PCMCIA I would say. Just wireless everything has very missing drivers in DOS. Isolation of DOS isn't a client issue, it's a server and network issue. You don't need a modified DHCP client. You only need a well organized network with subnets/VLANs, and a good DHCP server. Indeed :-) - zip -r x:\everyth.zip c:\ (same idea as above but compressed) - use doscdroast GUI or mkisofs/cdrecord (iso9660 CD or DVD) ... I prefer 7zip. It has superior compression rates. If you have enough RAM and a suitable CPU (Pentium MMX / better?) to make 7zip work at acceptable speed, yes ;-) Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi! The extensions I'm interested in are mainly those that allow me to access newer filesystems so that the people who use my tests won't whinge as much about having to transfer files from DOS to NTFS or the like. Perhaps something like FUSE (Filesystems in Userspace) could be ported from Linux to FreeDOS? I don't know if it's possible... but I really like the concept of FUSE. This is already what DOS does, sort of. DOS has no separation of access rights, so there is no userspace, but it has a layered system of drivers. The kernel supports BIOS int13 drives as well as FAT filesystems. After booting, you can load drivers to give the kernel access to the sectors of other FAT drives, such as ZIP, USB drives or ramdisks, and the kernel does the FAT handling. Or you load drivers based on the network redirector and its close cousin the CDEX (mscdex, shsucdx) for optical drives. Without CDEX, a cdrom/dvd driver only gives you raw sectors and audio but DOS would not know that files can exist on CDs and DVDs etc ;-). Note that the shsu... drivers also support mounting ISO images. Whatever driver model you use, you can only boot from drives which are supported directly by the kernel. Then you can load more drivers to access more drives. But there is also MEMDISK (from the SYSLINUX and ISOLINUX etc boot loader family). That can be booted like Linux kernels but takes a diskimage as initrd. You can put FreeDOS with some drivers on a FAT diskimage, e.g. compressed floppy image and boot from that (!). Then you can let DOS load (disk and filesystem) drivers before it even starts accessing your normal harddisk :-). Similar to the Linux initrd method where you load drivers needed to access your hardware and filesystems in a ramdisk at boot time, too. Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
This is already what DOS does, sort of. DOS has no separation of access rights, so there is no userspace, but it has a layered system of drivers. The kernel supports BIOS int13 drives as well as FAT filesystems. After booting, you can load drivers to give the kernel access to the sectors of other FAT drives, such as ZIP, USB drives or ramdisks, and the kernel does the FAT handling. Or you load drivers based on the network redirector and its close cousin the CDEX (mscdex, shsucdx) for optical drives. Without CDEX, a cdrom/dvd driver only gives you raw sectors and audio but DOS would not know that files can exist on CDs and DVDs etc ;-). Note that the shsu... drivers also support mounting ISO images. The common problem of both interfaces is that they don't communicate anything between each other. So if someone has written, lets say, a DOS block device driver that allows DOS to access USB storage media, and then you load some redirector-type DOS NTFS driver you (usually) still won't be able to access NTFS partitions found on USB storage media. In fact, I don't know any redirector that uses DOS's block devices for device access instead of relying on direct Int13 access. Anyway, such discussions should probably be on Freedos-kernel. Christian -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi! Not all DOS USB disk drivers are one part... A driver pair that works well is for example USBASPI ASPIDISK where the former gives block level access while the latter connects DOS block devices to those partitions on the USB disk which are FAT formatted. You can have (write) some ASPINTFS driver which would use USBASPI for the lowlevel stuff, for example :-). Eric system of drivers. The kernel supports BIOS int13 drives as well as FAT filesystems. After booting, you can load drivers to give the kernel access to the sectors of other FAT drives, such as ZIP, USB drives or ramdisks, and the kernel does the FAT handling. Or you load drivers based on the network redirector and its close cousin the CDEX (mscdex, shsucdx) for optical drives... The common problem of both interfaces is that they don't communicate anything between each other. So if someone has written, lets say, a DOS block device driver that allows DOS to access USB storage media, and then you load some redirector-type DOS NTFS driver you (usually) still won't be able to access NTFS partitions found on USB storage media. In fact, I don't know any redirector that uses DOS's block devices for device access instead of relying on direct Int13 access. You could write such a driver but you have to remember that DOS block device already implies FAT anyway. A more lowlevel block view would communicate directly between lowlevel driver and non- FAT filesystem driver, as in the above ASPINTFS example. This is just between both drivers (via ASPI) so there is no need for the kernel to give any support. Another example is GCDROM / SHSUCDX: The lowlevel ATAPI access and CDEX can use any interface for the communication with each other, the DOS kernel does not have to be involved at all. In the ATAPI CD/DVD case, that interface is some int2f and some DOS character device interface, nothing block. Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
You could write such a driver but you have to remember that DOS block device already implies FAT anyway. This implication is a part of the problem I'm talking about. DOS (rather, the DOS device loader) shouldn't assume that just FAT exists (it also shouldn't discard non-FAT partitions from the MBR) but instead it should first provide any filesystem to all loaded redirectors so if one of the redirectors finds a non-FAT partition with a supported filesystem it could add this block device to it's devices. In the ATAPI CD/DVD case, that interface is some int2f and some DOS character device interface, nothing block. Why do CD/DVD drivers need to have a DOS device visible to the DOS kernel at all, then? Actually, they don't. Pretending that it's a character device (which CD-ROMs usually aren't) is a hack (probably to save some memory compared to dumb PSP TSRs). If MS-DOS (3.x) had support for linking the redirector interface with block devices, CD/DVD drivers would probably be written as DOS block devices, reporting impossible values when asked for a (FAT-specific) BPB. (This won't require reading the CD-ROM.) The *CDEX redirector would then search unhandled block devices and provide access to those that access some sort of CDFS. A NTFS redirector would just search unhandled block devices for a device that accesses NTFS, instead of CDFS. The major problem seems that the redirector interface was designed for network redirectors, not for any kind of local non-FAT filesystem driver. Christian -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi! You could write such a driver but you have to remember that DOS block device already implies FAT anyway. This implication is a part of the problem I'm talking about. DOS (rather, the DOS device loader) shouldn't assume that just FAT exists (it also shouldn't discard non-FAT partitions from the MBR) but instead it should first provide any filesystem to all loaded redirectors so if one of the redirectors finds a non-FAT partition with a supported filesystem it could add this block device to it's devices. You could indeed simplify some drivers a bit by letting them use knowledge from the partition table parser of the kernel (initdisk.c) or the disk access code (which onlly does int13 CHS and LBA calls anyway). Not that it would make a big difference, though... In the ATAPI CD/DVD case, that interface is some int2f and some DOS character device interface, nothing block. Why do CD/DVD drivers need to have a DOS device visible to the DOS kernel at all, then? Actually, they don't. Pretending that it's a character device (which CD-ROMs usually aren't) is a hack... Character devices can be found by their name and can be controlled via IOCTL... In addition, because you pass the device name as command line option to CDEX, this way is slightly more end user friendly than int2f handlers, in particular if you have more than 1 CDROM driver loaded. But as you say, it does not make a real difference :-). If MS-DOS (3.x) had support for linking the redirector interface with block devices, CD/DVD drivers would probably be written as DOS block devices, reporting impossible values when asked for a (FAT-specific) BPB. While both the DOS block device interface and the CDROM driver interface are relatively small, they are not as similar as you might assume. The latter has various CD audio related calls, for example. The major problem seems that the redirector interface was designed for network redirectors, not for any kind of local non-FAT filesystem driver. You could indeed design some interface which gives block based easy access to non-FAT int13 devices, possibly duplicating some involved small parts of the kernel... Then you could evaluate how many and which DOS drivers for other filesystems would use it, and then based on the outcome, some implementation of that interface can be put directly into the kernel. As said - my guess is that you would only simplify life for non-FAT drivers a bit. On the other hand, you might only complicate the kernel a bit either, so the pro and contra of your suggestion are both relatively small...? Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi, Character devices can be found by their name and can be controlled via IOCTL... In addition, because you pass the device name as command line option to CDEX, this way is slightly more end user friendly than int2f handlers, in particular if you have more than 1 CDROM driver loaded. Nothing you couldn't do on a Int2D (AMIS) or a well designed Int2F interface. If MS-DOS (3.x) had support for linking the redirector interface with block devices, CD/DVD drivers would probably be written as DOS block devices, reporting impossible values when asked for a (FAT-specific) BPB. While both the DOS block device interface and the CDROM driver interface are relatively small, they are not as similar as you might assume. The latter has various CD audio related calls, for example. Well, some calls might be reserved for FS-specific tasks (such as audio tracks). Just as function numbers = 80h are now, but on block instead of character devices. The major problem seems that the redirector interface was designed for network redirectors, not for any kind of local non-FAT filesystem driver. You could indeed design some interface which gives block based easy access to non-FAT int13 devices, possibly duplicating some involved small parts of the kernel... I'm talking about non-FAT DOS block devices. This especially includes (beside Int13 devices) any SCSI/USB/whatever device that is _not_ accessible through Int13 (and therefore invisible to usual Int13-only local filesystem redirectors). Unrelated: I don't see why this should require duplicating any code. While it would need new code for the actual interface, why should I duplicate any code? Then you could evaluate how many and which DOS drivers for other filesystems would use it, and then based on the outcome, some implementation of that interface can be put directly into the kernel. It would be useless outside a kernel, won't it? As said - my guess is that you would only simplify life for non-FAT drivers a bit. On the other hand, you might only complicate the kernel a bit either, so the pro and contra of your suggestion are both relatively small...? The pro is that life for the local filesystem redirectors isn't just simplified (in fact, it isn't - they would need more installation code if they also want to support MS-DOS or other versions that don't support the interface), they could act on drives that aren't visible to them on Int13. BTW, I tried Mik's smbclient and it seems to work. (Keyboard input at the smb: \ prompt is uncomfortable, but retrieving files from a MS Windows 5.1 server works.) Currently requires about 80 KiB when shelling out, but I assume a DPMI TSR for DOS drive redirection could do better. Christian -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
I'm talking about non-FAT DOS block devices. This especially includes (beside Int13 devices) any SCSI/USB/whatever device that is _not_ accessible through Int13 (and therefore invisible to usual Int13-only local filesystem redirectors). no idea what you are talking about. as a matter of fact, all SCSI/RAID/USB/whatever disk devices are either Int13-visible (using the boot eprom for SCSI/RAID or by emulation ), or not visible at all. Tom -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi all, I read Michael Robinson's email with great interest. About my only interest in DOS is that it allows me to take over the machinery without the operating system butting in. It is a fantastic environment for test programming and other uses that require real time I/O. I've been away from the test programming for a year or two, and I'm about to start another project, so I'll probably try to upgrade to the latest FreeDOS. The extensions I'm interested in are mainly those that allow me to access newer filesystems so that the people who use my tests won't whinge as much about having to transfer files from DOS to NTFS or the like. Too many features is a pain. We can get too many features anywhere, even my latest Linux OS is annoying me with features that I don't want and can't turn off. I understand the enthusiasm of those who want to do all that is possible in DOS, but spare a thought for those like me who just want the bare minimum to work. Jim -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Hi Michael, I like dos when I have an old computer and some old games that work under dos. Running Windows on a 486 is a pain in general. True true. You kept a 486 because games are too fast otherwise? I think a Pentium 3 or K6-2 is a good compromise: Fast enough for newer OSes and mainboards have ISA (DOS sound!), PCI, AGP. As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some people want to run dos thinking that it can't browse the Internet. DOS is too old to support modern viruses, so unless you download infected copies of old DOS software, risks are quite acceptable. And of course you can use antivirus software for DOS... What I don't like about Arachne is that it doesn't have any kind of filtering apparatus built in. Internet Explorer does, but it's too paranoid. Try adblock plus and noscript for Firefox. That and the nosquint (zoom), colorful tabs and download helper (youtube) plugins are the ones I always recommend ;-). For Arachne you have no such plugins, but it supports not much javascript in the first place and you might be able to filter some ads by using a hosts file to put banner servers on 127.0.0.1 etc. Arachne tries to integrate email access assuming a pop account. I use imap. So basically you are happy with having email software but unhappy with the missing imap support ;-). There is a desire in some cases to network dos, but what for? If you have a 486 as mentioned above and somebody else is already browsing the internet on your modern PC, it could be fun to use the 486 as second internet PC... Unless you use a Pentium 3 or so which you can dual-boot DOS / Linux. Well, some dos games can be played over a network. Freedos can be upgraded over the Internet, though I'd rather build a local repository say on my Linux server and upgrade from that. Or just download the zips from the fdupdate repository on any operating system manually and then unzip them in DOS ;-) The most valuable update to freedos that I can think of is one that makes it more compatible with MS-DOS. But WHAT is not compatible with MS DOS yet? I mean apart from the one known case, Windows 3 386enh-mode and Windows for Work- groups... By the way, for that case, you can try the winkern of FreeDOS 1.0 which has experimental support for WfW 3.11 etc. Note that old Windows often has problems with new hardware... I want to go the Netware route because Netware without special IPX to IP gateway software isn't Internet compatible You want to avoid internet compatibility?? I'd like to see the MARS netware emulator brought over to freedos and revived. Why not, say, Samba? There already is smbclient for DOS. of Freedos being to revive old computers that aren't powerful enough to run Windows or Linux and I see it's purpose as being to provide a simple OS for the embedded computing market. Yes Freedos can be run in an emulator, but that isn't my favorite application of it. It is indeed useful for embedded computing and when you want a small OS which is not in the way while you want to access your hardware directly. I also like running it in dosemu or full emulators, for old games and testing. As I only use one (modern, fast, energy-efficient) PC normally, I do not typically revive ancient PCs ;-). Something that would be nice would be a modified dhcp client for freedos that through some reasonable trick can accept a different configuration for a particular machine than it would normally get. I'm thinking, an isolated network for freedos with an update repository on that network would be nice. The alternative... I see no reason to isolate DOS. Only servers are at risk regarding bad internet trying to infect your PC and in DOS, you do not have any server running in the background. That said, I wonder how safe Sioux / EzNos DOS servers are. (And you can also tweak dhcp SERVERS, instead of clients) Freedos needs to be as clean as possible and as stable as possible. Small is good, there should be a very small footprint base install. Cross dependencies where freedos has so called super packages that are meant to do everything should be broken purposely. Small utilities with very specific purposes are better than monstrous ones that try to do everything in a very constraining manner. BASE already fits on 2-3 diskettes depending on how much of the docs you want to include. Most dependencies in FULL are only things like needs internet or needs cwsdpmi. List: http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?n=FdDocEn.FdDependencies (note: FdInstall already is in our new wiki but not FdDependencies) One request for freedos is a nice Gem based backup program that can back the system up in part or in entirety to anything from a network share to a local DVD burner or hard disk. I'm thinking a modern and free program with a MyBackup like environment. While it is not GEM, what do you think about: cdd
Re: [Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
Is no one else running DOS on late model machines to do actual work. My primary machines now are Pentium D. With a mix of PATA and SATA. I have rather recent suites from Corel and M$. But my word processor of choice is still WP 6.2a DOS. My accounts payable program was written in 1995. Once in a while I do a serious search for a new program, and then stick with what I have. I have had a UPS driver with a COD, and I have booted DOS and printed a check, and the driver did not feel I unnecessarily delayed him. Try that with a GUI. I also have a material requirements planning program that can still keep up. I actually think chasing numbers and letters around the screen with a mouse is not very efficient. I also have a printed circuit layout program. And I have to work real hard to crash DOS. Ray -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Purpose of dos...
I like dos when I have an old computer and some old games that work under dos. Running Windows on a 486 is a pain in general. Even a low end Pentium these days is slow. As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some people want to run dos thinking that it can't browse the Internet. What I don't like about Arachne is that it doesn't have any kind of filtering apparatus built in. Internet Explorer does, but it's too paranoid. Not to mention, IE requires either Windows or Linux running Wine. I also don't like the fact the Arachne tries to integrate email access assuming a pop account. I use imap. There is a desire in some cases to network dos, but what for? Well, some dos games can be played over a network. Freedos can be upgraded over the Internet, though I'd rather build a local repository say on my Linux server and upgrade from that. The most valuable update to freedos that I can think of is one that makes it more compatible with MS-DOS. As far as breaking with MS-DOS, that needs to be carefully considered. In some cases where Freedos is not MS-DOS compatible, it may not be reasonable to make it so. Ideally, as Freedos is seen as a stable dos implementation with compilers and assemblers that are free to use, people will develop software for it specifically. I want to go the Netware route because Netware without special IPX to IP gateway software isn't Internet compatible (at least versions before the switch away from IPX). This seems to be very unpopular though. I'd like to see the MARS netware emulator brought over to freedos and revived. What is the purpose of Freedos? This is something that should be carefully considered as efforts to get a new release out kick into high gear. I see the main purpose of Freedos being to revive old computers that aren't powerful enough to run Windows or Linux and I see it's purpose as being to provide a simple OS for the embedded computing market. Yes Freedos can be run in an emulator, but that isn't my favorite application of it. Something that would be nice would be a modified dhcp client for freedos that through some reasonable trick can accept a different configuration for a particular machine than it would normally get. I'm thinking, an isolated network for freedos with an update repository on that network would be nice. The alternative, given compatible packet drivers for every dos machine, is to manually configure each freedos box that you want to isolate. Yuck! Ideally, dhcp would ask what kind of OS is seeking an IP address and if the answer is a DOS OS, it would put it on a different network than say a Linux or Windows box. Freedos needs to be as clean as possible and as stable as possible. Small is good, there should be a very small footprint base install. Cross dependencies where freedos has so called super packages that are meant to do everything should be broken purposely. Small utilities with very specific purposes are better than monstrous ones that try to do everything in a very constraining manner. One request for freedos is a nice Gem based backup program that can back the system up in part or in entirety to anything from a network share to a local DVD burner or hard disk. I'm thinking a modern and free program with a MyBackup like environment. Freedos is free and useful insofar as it is compatible with MS-DOS when it needs to be to run old software. Freedos is useful if there are applications written specifically for it for those of us who don't have functional MS-DOS software lying around. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
