>>>>> Michael B Brutman <mbbrut...@brutman.com> writes:
>>>>> On 5/4/2012 9:29 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
[…]
>>> By many definitions, DOS is not even an operating system.
There's no such thing as an operating system.
[…]
> Adding a GUI (X windows) was easy - that was an application.
Still, most X server implementations had to access the video
hardware directly, at least until recently.
(It's called X /window/, or simply “X”, BTW.)
[…]
>>> Windows is not a relative of DOS. Even something primitive like
>>> Win 31 or Win 95 basically looks at DOS like a boot loader. They
>>> are not in the same league.
>> Both of those 100% relied on DOS to do various calls behind the
>> scenes. They would not run without DOS. It's already been proven
>> that Win 3.1 could run atop DR-DOS (and even run Win95 GUI with a
>> small, proprietary hack). There is more stuff going on, yes, but
>> it's still heavily dependent on DOS proper.
[…]
> Win 95 and Win 98 are big pieces of code with lots of function in
> them. Once they are loaded and running, DOS is fairly irrelevant.
JFTR: it was (and may be still is) possible to boot a
Linux-based system from DOS via Loadlin [1].
[1] http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/loadlin/
[…]
>>> Want to keep DOS relevant? We need applications ... today.
>> Yes, but our bigger problem is the entire architecture is dying.
>> Not x86, that's thriving big time, but just 16-bit in general. They
>> want to replace the BIOS with UEFI, and who knows how long before
>> cpus no longer support legacy mode. VT-X is better than nothing, I
>> guess, but that isn't universal yet.
> So where should we spend our time? Trying to recreate all of the
> modern conveniences of Linux (32/64 bit support, multi-tasking,
> networking, modern device support, etc.) or writing some
> compatibility layer code so that we can boot our existing OS that
> runs our existing code?
> A lot of the DOS applications that we are using date back quite a few
> years. They need refreshing, and given that a lot of them don't have
> source code available it is not going to happen.
Is there a list of applications, currently available for DOS
only, that it may make sense to reimplement for contemporary
free software systems?
For me, it's probably only certain games. (In particular, those
still distributed via http://gog.com/.)
[…]
> Like it or not, the path for the future is going to be running DOS
> inside of virtual machines hosted by an operating system that is kept
> current and up to date. It's easier to keep the emulators going than
> it is to keep up with all of the device driver and hardware changes
> that we are going to need. Virtual environments are going to look
> pretty attractive when you can't boot a machine with DOS running on
> the bare metal in a few years.
So, the only use of DOS nowadays is to provide a compatibility
layer on top of a “proper” system.
Which makes me wonder, are there any efforts being made to allow
FreeDOS make use of Xen's paravirtualization?
Formely, DOSEMU provided a kind of paravirtualization, but as
the Virtual 8086 mode slowly moves into the oblivion, it makes
little sense to continue with DOSEMU development. (Which I see
has ceased by now. QEMU, including instances that use hardware
virtualization via Linux' KVM, provide a nice alternative,
though.)
--
FSF associate member #7257
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
