Hi Martin, > The main aim behind the idea is to make a DOS system that is comparable > to Linux, Windows or any other of the 100+ OS's out their while still > using the DOS Kernel at the core, which if my idea is viable would allow > DOS to be 16, 32 & 64-bit compaitable, seems like a crazy idea huh...!
Well that idea is probably based on the misunderstanding that Linux is bloated and complicated while DOS is fast, small and simple. HOWEVER, when you create a system that can run "all" Linux programs, it also will be big and complex, even if you use DOS as core component. On the other hand, you can have a TINY Linux if you only want a small set of features... If you want to run, say, Firefox, you need a very big DOS, or a big collection of libraries that you have to add to a Firefox to make it work on a simple DOS. Either way, you will have much work and a complex collection of software until you get the comfort of Firefox. On the other hand, if you only want to run, say, Midnight Commander (or NC or similar) you can do that in either DOS or in a very minimalistic version of Linux, maybe even a Linux that would fit on one or very few floppy disks :-) Of course a Firefox would be dozens of disks big if you made a DOS version, or you would need a Linux that takes, say, 10 floppies to install plus a Firefox of 10 further floppies in size. The Firefox itself for Linux is smaller, but needs to be run on a less minimalistic Linux to work. In short, before you start re-inventing DOS and/or Linux, you should have a close look at the possibilities with a NORMAL DOS or a NORMAL Linux. Maybe Rugxulo can folloup my mail by suggesting some small Linux versions. To stick with the internet example, you can have a look at, for example: mtcp, ssh2dos, lynx, Arachne and Dillo, which are a few of the possibilities to use the internet with any normal DOS, sorted by complexity. The Dillo browser is known from Linux and Windows - smaller and lighter and less comfortable than Firefox. The Arachne browser is one of the most feature-rich web browsers which has a "more DOS than any other operating system" user group. For some further reading about Dillo for DOS, check: http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=10797 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dillo http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/DOS/ http://code.google.com/p/nanox-microwindows-nxlib-fltk-for-dos/downloads/list > -A secondary 32/64-bit capable kernel that *doesn't* replace the current > FDOS kernel but expands upon the existing kernel by writing new 32-bit > and 64-bit binaries/ code. The design of the FDOS64 kernel is take care > of converting between 64-bit to 16-bit. This kernel would take care of > the processing load and any other applications that require higher memory > address space (I.e. GUI's, graphics card Drivers, any current software > would run through this kernel, while DOS command would run through the > the FDOS kernel.) DOS extenders, running in a normal DOS kernel, already access up to 4 GB of RAM. There is no graphics card driver in DOS, because apps usually include their own drivers for that, same for sound. Only software written AFTER you introduce the new "Linuxish DOS" would be aware of your new architecture for drivers. You could either use real Linux with the standards for drivers there, but you can also use drivers and toolkits like FLTK for DOS to make software with modern GUI looks. However, FLTK based software is already happy with a real, classic DOS and does not need the suggested "Linuxish DOS" to run... > - Direct access to the FDOS64 kernel could be obtained by expanding a new > category within DOS Command (e.g. adding 64 to the start of each command > or something like that) It would probably be more user friendly to only have a 64 bit DOS extender running in a classic DOS. Performance will be minimally worse. For comparison, FD32 is a bit faster for certain things in comparison to normal FreeDOS, but the difference is quite small and there are not as many fans of FD32 as there are for FreeDOS. > HAL, Win32/ 64 API & Windows Drivers: > - Most of the HAL compatiblity already exists within FreeDOS, and what > doesn't could be ported from ReactOS. Then it would be more straightforward to use ReactOS itself :-) Also, HXRT (similar to a DOS extender) lets you run (not overly complex) Windows software in a classic DOS :-) > - Like HAL alot of the ReactOS Win32 APIs and Win32s are either DOS > compatible or partially DOS compatible, thus minimal work would be > required to port these drivers to work with the FDOS64 kernel. DOS does not have any real HAL (hardware abstraction layer). This is one of the STRENGTHS of DOS: You can have all hardware for yourself without a complex OS interfering. But you also do not have much comfort. If you want a HAL, use ReactOS or Linux. > I have rough simple kernel layout sketched, alot of the other things are > preference, such as running with a Windows based GUI like ReactOS or > using a compatiblity layer like Cygwin and Cygwin/x and use the X-Windows > System. Feel free to explain more :-) Regards, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
