> I don't want a graphical web browser at all in freedos. The
> current option does not support out of the box filtering or
> plugins comparable to what Internet Explorer and Firefox have.
True for the plugins, but one could write ad-filters for
Arachne, too. On the other hand, maybe Firefox is a bad
comparison: My firefox with ca 30 tabs open burns around
340 MB (incl virtual) memory at the moment, which is way
more than you would expect from any normal DOS app ;-).
How about the ram-efficiency of other browsers, maybe Opera,
Epiphany, Dillo, MidBrowser, Konqueror? I hear that Chrome
trades speed for RAM in giving each tab a separate thread?
> Freedos is not a system that completely insulates the hardware
> nor is it a multiuser system, so it's appropriateness for network
> applications is questionable. Especially, considering that the
The guys from deskwork.de DOS GUI write that their thing
is relatively secure - probably because it provides more
or less no server services accessible from the outside :-)
> general attitude seems to be use whatever exists for dos to
> network it, networking generally isn't attractive. Freedos
> currently doesn't support Netware 4.11 very well where a lot
> of the netware IPX drivers, if you can find any, are designed
> to be opened on a Windows system.
I had assumed that IPX and Netware 4 are very very old?
On the other hand, there is no DOS ADS client either ;-)
There also was some discussion about various kernels vs
various netware versions and workarounds in bugzilla and
on other locations, if you have netware, have a look :-)
> As far as compressed filesystems are concerned or supporting
> NTFS, you are getting away from being 100% MS DOS compatible.
Not if you ask me... Loading a new driver does not make
the system misbehave for old apps, does it...? :-)
> Freedos isn't 100% compatible yet, more reverse engineering
> needs to be done to make it so. MS-DOS 6.22 supported disk
I disagree. Reverse engineering might cause license troubles
but of course you can do things like comparing int call logs
between running apps in MS DOS and FreeDOS. WHICH apps apart
from 386enh mode of Win3 / WfW3 are not compatible yet?
> compression, but that was a late addition to dos and it
> created a lot of problems for some dos programs.
There were some patent issues for MS with the whole story
of compression, so I would avoid cloning their compressor.
But I did not know there were problems for apps! Which?
> Porting MARS netware emulator to freedos would make it far
> more attractive for networking than it currently is.
A new netware client for DOS? Why netware? Everybody
seems to be using SMB (Windows) or NFS (Unix) today??
> The advantage of supporting NTFS is that freedos could be
> used as a tool potentially to work on and repair a modern
> NT based Windows system. There are so many versions of
> NTFS though, a lot of work would be involved to create
> a decent implementation of NTFS for a dos based
> environment. It makes more sense to support NTFS under
> Linux as NTFS is meant for use on a multi user system.
Probably true. And for the repair task in DOS you already
have the semi-commercial NTFS4DOS driver anyways, but I
agree that Linux works fine for disinfecting Windows ;-)
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
Freedos-user mailing list