On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:

> Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
>>> For me, a FreeDOS that does not properly run on a real PC is utterly
>>> useless.
>
>> DR-DOS still works on an 8086.  ROM-DOS works on an 80186 (but not an
>> 8086).  I think even RxDOS will run on an 8086, but its compatibility
>> leaves much to be desired.
>
> MS-DOS 3.20 also runs fine on my 8088, but that is not the point. I do
> appreciate your helpful suggestions, but at the same time you seem to
> suggest that 8086 compatibility should not be a priority for FreeDOS.

You read the opposite of what I intended to mean (see below).

> I strongly disagree with that view. The status of FreeDOS as a drop-in
> replacement for MS-DOS is at stake. If FreeDOS moves to 32-bit, people
> with old hardware have to go back to their illegal copies of MS-DOS.

Again, see below.

>> If FreeDOS were to go 386-only... then someone
>> might fork it to keep it 8086-compatible.

By this I meant, if FreeDOS doesn't stick with 8086 compatibility, someone 
will need to take the last 8086 version, and fork it, so that it continues 
to be developed.

> Only with a lot of extra effort. Besides, I think there is little to be
> gained from moving to 32-bit:

I agree.

> - If the currently used C compilers are bad, we simply need to find a
> better 16-bit compiler. (The compiler would not necessarily have to run
> on 16-bit, just provide it as a target.) Some work has been done on a
> 16-bit target for GCC; LCC may also be an option. I am willing to look
> into this and report on the options.

I haven't had any problems with Turbo C, as long as I kept its limitations 
in mind, which aren't many.  So it can't build bash.  Big deal.  I have 
built some UNIX apps with it, and in fact my name is on the GNUish project 
for contributing the cpio.exe :)

> - If the currently used libraries are bad (no LFN support or something),
> we simply need to fix that.

That's the big lack - no lfn in the libc.

> Note that I do not oppose specific extensions for modern hardware
> (HIMEM.SYS), or even a compile time option to optimize for 32-bit, as
> long as the main part of the OS remains backwards compatible.

This is also my perspective.

-uso.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Reply via email to