> We can't rest on our laurels. We need to be open to obvious
This is a high-minded, wise way of talking I hadn't heard in a while. One
point to you, deserved
(But I'm not talking about stupid multimedia stuff or
> anything overkill like that. I'm thinking much more reasonable goals.)
I know that there many more important things to care about, and that there
aren't neither many developers, nor much free time to develop anything for
anyone. I suspected it to be a bit childish or, at least secondary to any
project regarding any way to improve FreeDOS in what it currently does and
does not, so I was prepared to receive such an answer.
Anyway It was just an idea I wanted to share about what I thought FreeDOS to
be missing. There are indeed many other ideas and projects to carry out, but
I saw that those things were somehow a work in progress, while I felt dthose
aspect were being left behind..now I know why, thank you for this
>> Multitasking might be nice ....disliked in the Linux
and GNU communities)>>.
As I said, I agree that these are not viable options
> Win95 (aka, MS-DOS 7.1) had FAT32 support.
I know, but its really easier to find a working copy of FreeDOS than one of
Win95 or simple MS-DOS 7.1. I do not own any of these and albeit being
likely available on some legacy software site, like winworld pc, they would
be, for experience, only for 50% of likelihood working.
> Do you mean licensing or just simplicity? For the latter, the easiest
> way is virtual machines / images.
I was talking of both indeed :). However I was speaking of installing a
pocket system on a USB drive (not burning the installer, but installing the
system itself and make it bootable) and boot it on every machine you use and
you actually do not own. Or even boot it using your own computer if you do
not want to have a dedicated partition for that OS.
Using Virtual Machines would require the host computer to have a virtual
Machine installed (and there aren't many), and, in addition you'de be forced
to use a reduced resolution if guest additions were not available for that
OS, and to bring all the iso you need to mount (with all files and programs)
> Small size is good, but better is compatibility, which Kolibri
> somewhat lacks. Better are systems
> that allow you to download / install (or better still, rebuild)
> various third-party apps.
Agreed, at the end, a good OS, is most of times an OS with the least
> GUI is irrelevant. It may be somewhat more convenient, but it improves
> almost nothing else (e.g. raw functionality).
Speaking of DOS, I agree with you. The fact I was talking about a GUI in
DOS, was due to the possibility of adding the softwares I mentioned (after
having read and understood those replies, I admit they're not worth the
struggle), as well as the important advantage of making it more
> I disagree. Honestly, much could be done to improve it. Heck, it's got
> free sources! But most people aren't developers, and most developers
> are too busy with other priorities (or just too lazy) to care about
Glad to hear that XD
>MS Word has a billion different formats, so it's a crapshoot on what
> format you'll need to support. I haven't tried all the various DOS
> converters, but surely some can handle some things appropriately. I
> don't think relying on old, proprietary Win16 is the answer here.
> Surely it depends on the situation, but there's many workarounds
> Presumably you want Blocek (editor) if you want to edit Unicode in >
> DOS. (Or maybe Mined or GNU Emacs.)
> XPDF will convert to text. And there are some GUI viewers that will
> jump to page. I don't know if any is truly perfect, but at least we
> (barely) have "some" support.
Thanks for those tips
> I know it's cheap to keep saying, but hardware is so cheap these days
> (and Linux so mature) that you will get derisive looks if you attempt
> to use DOS with (bloated, incompatible, overkill) PDFs. "Just get a
> Chromebook!" is probably the simplest solution.
> Unless you're running an old 486, then you "probably" can handle Linux
> (although I'll admit that anything other than Firefox or Chrome is far
> from perfect, and those two can eat lots of RAM if you're not
I've been a Linux user for a very long time, and I'm very satisfied of it.
Here i was posting some others Ideas I had gathered with the passing of
time, since apart from music and sports my next favorite hobby is to have
fun and mess with my computer during spare time (and sometimes beat about
the bush on forums like I'm doing now). I didn't want to steal any precious
time on that mailing list and I apologize for that. I know there's better
software out there, but it was just a matter of fancying out workarounds for
people who are really determined to run DOS for those purpose in 2017,
instead of waiting for free software that is never going to be developed.
> Old Quake 1 was DOS (DJGPP) even back in 1999.
yeah but Once I had a CDrom and I remembered there were inside both
launchers for DOS and windows. Guess I'm wrong
> It's hard to suggest or even dream because some people don't like
> change. Some just can't see the forest for the trees.
> Personally, I've got my own little projects, so I keep chipping away
> at the stone, hoping that it helps somebody with something eventually.
> So while I agree with some of what you said (and would like to suggest
> various other enhancements), I don't want to burden anyone else
> without having done some of the legwork myself.
Thanks for your answer, it' been a surprise to read such a detailed reply.
I'm sure you'll be able to work out your projects and see them come to
I guess that means "stay tuned!" (but don't get your hopes up ... at
all). "Patches welcome!" :-)
View this message in context:
Sent from the FreeDOS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Freedos-user mailing list