I understand what you were saying. But remember that FreeDOS as an open-source project was created back in the 1990s, and more than 20 years had passed since then. Similarly, Linux as an open-source project was also created in the 1990s, and it has been getting mainstream support. There should be no doubt that both are open-source OSes, so the fact of being open-source project alone cannot explain the difference between FreeDOS and Linux. DOS and Linux have very different command-line styles. Both styles have their own advantages, and it is not the case that one is "better" than the other. Some people prefer the DOS style over the Linux style, so running Linux is not really the solution for them. While the kernels of most DOS flavors are single-tasking, there have been a lot of examples of achieving multi-tasking abilities on DOS systems, such as Windows 3.x and DESQView/X, although the latter has several limitations. Even Windows 9x is based on DOS, and it can be considered a greatly improved version of WFW 3.11. You can open several DOS command prompts in either Windows 3.x or 9x, and they are pretty stable for the most part. This did demonstrate that multi-tasking based on DOS is completely possible, and theoretically one can extract or try to replicate this ability from Windows 3.x or 9x and either made it a standalone multitasking manager for DOS, or embed it in an open-source DOS kernel. It does not need to be done by a single person - GNU/Linux is not developed by one person either, but many developers in the open-source community. This has not happened for the DOS community mostly because (unfortunately) many people mistakenly considered that multitasking is not possible for DOS, when it certainly can be done. Once there is a stable multitasking open-source DOS environment, then more people will realize the real potential of DOS, and there is a much better chance that DOS will develop in a way like Linux. Also, DOS is never limited to 16-bit. There are a lot of 32-bit programs or development environment for DOS, with DOS/4GW, DJGPP, and HX DOS Extender being some famous examples. So 32-bit is nothing new for DOS. HX-DOS Extender can even run some Windows 32 GUI PE programs on DOS, which is why programs like Bochs and DOSBox-X can run on DOS itself. Clearly, it is certainly possible for DOS to work like a modern OS like Linux, but some relatively common misconceptions of DOS severely limit its further developments so that it has not evolved into a modern environment. But if it gets substantial developments which attract more people in the open-source community, then it will develop even faster, unlike the current situation that its use cases getting more and more limited. Wengier On Friday, December 24, 2021, 09:07:11 p.m. EST, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Wengier W via Freedos-user <freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > I certainly hope to see more people using DOS/FreeDOS as the only (or > primary) operating system. However, without things like full support for > Internet and modern hardware (modern sound card, USB devices, etc) this > cannot occur, unfortunately. IMO, DOS/FreeDOS need to support things just > like a typical "modern" OS (e.g. Linux) does, so that the general public > won't consider DOS a "legacy" OS, or a system that is limited to very > specific uses.
Got access to lots and lots of money to throw at the problem? No? Assume it won't be solved. Aside from the questions of whether some of what you see as needed are *possible* on a single-tasking, single threaded system in a 16 bit environment, what you want will require serious system level hacking. The folks who *can* do that do it for a living and expect to be paid comparable salaries. They aren't going to spend the time and effort involved to contribute it as open source software to a hobby project that isn't even their hobby. If you want support for things like a modern OS like Linux does, *run* Linux. Assume DOS of any flavor will never have that level of support. ______ Dennis > Wengier > > On Friday, December 24, 2021, 05:35:06 p.m. EST, John Vella > <john.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to make it my new year project to finish getting the 80486 pc > working, and once I've upgraded the memory, (4 Meg isn't going to be enough, > is it?) I'll be using freedos as the only operating system for my distraction > free writing pc. > > On Fri, 24 Dec 2021, 22:00 Jim Hall, <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jon Brase <jon.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > > They're not talking about it in the context of log4j itself, they're > > talking about it in the context of other open source projects, that > > don't have something like the Apache foundation behind them, that > > are critical infrastructure, but have one or two maintainers working > > on them as a labor of love alongside a day job, and the potential, > > as such projects become legacy software, for them to still be > > half-maintained (and maybe maintain a significant user base) long > > after an institutionally maintained project would have officially > > been EOLed. > > > > And there is something of that kind of risk with any DOS variety > > still in use. Any remote execution vulnerability, through any > > network-aware DOS software, is basically automatically a remote root > > vulnerability by the nature of the system. Now, most FreeDOS users > > are probably using it for retrogaming and such and not for anything > > business-critical, but anybody using it in an embedded setting needs > > to be really careful about exposing it to the network. > > > > I really wonder how that would effect DOS, after all there is no > > web interface, nor any Java in (Free)DOS. So (without having watched > > this rather long video yet), any such conclusion seems to be a bit > > far fetch IMHO... > > > The statement in the video (starts at about 24:00, for others who want > to watch it) was awkwardly made. This person makes the statement that > some open source projects should just shut down rather than keep going > (I'm paraphrasing broadly here). And gives the example of "If MS-DOS > were open source" he opines that it shouldn't go on. > > Putting aside the fact that Microsoft did eventually release (early > versions of) MS-DOS under an open source license, this guy is just > wrong. Lots of people use DOS and FreeDOS to do useful things, like > running classic DOS games or applications, and supporting some > embedded systems or control systems. > > I usually try to see the other person's point of view - but in this > case, he's off base. Whatever. > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- _______ Dennis _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
_______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
