> As long as it emulates an Intel CPU with a BIOS, any DOS (FreeDOS and MS-DOS and DR-DOS) should work. PC-98 has entered the chat. (*runs a modified MS-DOS, but cannot run any version of DR-DOS or FreeDOS because it's not an IBM PC platform.)
There's a multitude of things that a hypervisor could do to modify the platform inside to no longer be PC-compatible. We don't assume ARM = iPhone because we realize it's prima facie foolish to do so. Why is the same foolish assumption made for x86 in the face of the numerous non-PC x86 platforms that exist? An EFI system with no CSM cannot boot DOS, but a hypervisor could provide a compatible sub-environment. There's nothing to imply the opposite cannot be true. Also, compatibility is not a binary, but a gradient or sliding scale. Small incompatibilities can lead to things working right 99% of the time and exploding spectacularly the remaining 1%. > And if VMWare someday stops running any DOS, we would say "VMWare doesn't support DOS" (*we would not say "FreeDOS doesn't support VMWare"). No, you state that FreeDOS doesn't support %HYPERVISOR%. That %HYPERVISOR% dropped support for DOS would be the latter rationale given in a FAQ. Not everyone's going to read Eric Raymond's "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way", so it's better to proactively guide how users read (and interpret!) documentation to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. If you're expecting the end user to figure out that %HYPERVISOR% doesn't support FreeDOS to also mean that FreeDOS doesn't support %HYPERVISOR% as a logical consequence, then you're grossly overestimating the intelligence of the average person (and are in for a very rude awakening!) Know Your Audience. -- Kirn Gill II Mobile: +1 813-300-2330 <+18133002330> VoIP: +1 813-704-0420 <+18137040420> Email: segin2...@gmail.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kirn-gill/32/49a/9a6 On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 5:04 PM Jim Hall via Freedos-devel < freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Tom Ehlert wrote: > >> What makes you say so? Other then "I hate BROADCOM's overtake of > >> VMWARE"? > > Kirn Gill II wrote: > > > > I provided, in my email you're quoting, the rationale - the "why". > [..unnecessary negative statements removed..] > > I don't have any skin in the hypervisor wars. I don't care if Broadcom > > tells their entire customer base to go to hell. I just care that if > > their products are a problem then getting rid of their products is > > the solution. > > It's not hard for a virtual machine system to support DOS. As long as > it emulates an Intel CPU with a BIOS, any DOS (FreeDOS and MS-DOS and > DR-DOS) should work. It might emulate all kinds of other things, but > Intel CPU + BIOS is all it needs to run "DOS." That hasn't changed > since the 1990s. > > And as long as VMWare supports DOS guests, then I don't see a need to > say "we don't 'support' VMWare." > > And if VMWare someday stops running any DOS, we would say "VMWare > doesn't support DOS" (*we would not say "FreeDOS doesn't support > VMWare"). > > > > P.S. I'd love to join the Sunday meetings, except I haven't had a > > Sunday off work since 2023. Perhaps we could have one at a different > > time (or maybe even day-of-the-week?) > > We've done a few Saturday meetings, but Sundays seem to work best. > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
