At 03:57 PM 7/18/2012, C. Masloch wrote: > >> BTW, is FreeDOS-32 dead or what? > > > > IMHO, it was dead right from the start, as those folks that started > > it didn't have a clue on what they would get them self into. > > You can simply not create a 32bit OS that is still compatible with > > DOS, you will end up writing a complete new (and different OS)... > >That depends on whether you'd consider MSW 3.x or 4.x respectively to >constitute a "complete new and different OS" on top of MS-DOS =P
What is MSW? >Well, at least as far as I understood it, FreeDOS-32 did aim for something >similar - specifically, running the new (FreeDOS-32) kernel in protected >mode, and ultimately allowing to run virtual(ised) machines for (V)86M DOS >compatibility similar to regular tasks in that system (as well as DPMI or >native applications, or potentially others). Sounds easy, but people seem to forget the problems with all DOS internal structures and calls/interrupts being 16bit real mode, this would be a far from trivial task. Even DOS extenders have already quite a hell of a time to stay compatible with that... >DOS, however, allows external file system drivers to (relatively speaking) >easily integrate into the kernel as redirectors. (As mentioned, a >consistent LFN extension has not yet been defined for the redirector >interface.) The roots of this go back to MS-DOS 3.x and the redirector >interface has been used (provided) ever since by various networking >clients as well as *CDEX programs, as well as more 'exotic' file system >drivers. But you can't use the redirector interface really for any file system running on DOS itself, not to mention that on the receiving end (DOS), you still have all the inherited limitation of DOS. Different character representations are just a start here (256/512 bytes code pages compared to UTF8/16/etc)... >So while you are certainly right in saying that DOS's (native) file >systems are the classic FAT FS family, there is also limited support for >extensions. (Not to mention that even before such support was available, >Netware clients apparently just intercepted applications' calls to the >high-level DOS API without any special help - certainly more complicated >to implement, of course. Same as what redirectors currently have to do to >support LFNs.) "limited" is the essential point here. And Netware was from the start developed with compatibility/communication to DOS in mind. And you were still restricted with your standard applications to DOS naming conventions. Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
