Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos-user Digest, Vol 1471, Issue 1
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:06 AM Tom Schultz wrote: > > An observation; > > I just acquired a Lenovo 300e Chromebook which was developed for the > education market [schools]. I wonder what grade level? It includes a text > editor which I assume is used for writing code because it has a word > processor also. A whole new generation of "code talkers" is on it's way! We can hope. And it can run apps from the Google Play Store, which has an assortment of text editors and program development tools available. (Hmmm. I wonder if it will run Magic DOSBox Free, the port of DOSBox I use to run DOS programs on Android...) __ Dennis ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:32 AM Jan van Wijk wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:22:47 -0400 dmccunney wrote: > > > >> There is a new commercial OS/2 variant now, ArcaOS from arcanoae.com . > >> 32-bit, no 64-bit, no GPT, no refund it it doesn't work. > > > >64-bit can be lived without. 32 bit is nice. The question is what 32 bit > >apps? > > Well, the existing OS/2 ones for starters, but of course the number of those > is just a fraction of what you have on Windows. > > But there is a reasonably recent FireFox/Mozilla browser, OpenOffice etc. No surprise on Mozilla code. Mozilla tried really hard to be portable, and there's an amusing Mozilla developer's document on the topic, whose main point is "Just because it works in Microsoft Visual C++, don't assume it will work elsewhere." The slow child in Mozilla's C++ compiler class was the one shipped with HP-UX, which choked and died on constructs other compilers handled. Current Mozilla efforts just worry about Windows, Linux, and OS/X, and no longer try to support everything. I don't blame them. (I have no idea how many folks ever tried to run the Mozilla Suite on HP-UX to begin with, and I suspect people still running HP-UX now are very thin on the ground.) I also have no idea how many architectures have Rust compilers now, and Mozilla has been rewriting a chunk of the C++ code in Rust. Decent ports of Open Office/Libre Office are also not a surprise. > Then there are loads of ported Linux applications as well, and they also > include > a YUM/RPM packagemanager so they are not hard to install. Ah, neat! > That said, if you do not have any existing OS/2 apps, there is not that much > reason > to pick ArcaOS over Linux, macOS or Windows, apart from the WorkPlace shell, > which still is one of the best object-oriented desktops around. > (Allthough I am mainly a command line guy myself :) Back in the Win3.X days, Program Manager was the Windows shell, but you could substitute something else by diddling the SYSTEM.INI file to change the shell specification. I looked at a variety of replacements, and the one I mostly used was Workplace Shell for Windows, an IBM employee written freeware offering that tried to reproduce the Workplace Shell for OS/2 as much as possible under Windows. It had things like folders and icons on the desktop, and made migrating to Win9X easier because it already had a lot of the things Win9X brought to the table. > >The problem that did in OS/2 was lack of support for 32 bit *Windows* > >apps. The native OS/2 apps ecosystem wasn't broad/deep enough, and it > >needed to be able to run Win apps to compete with Windows. > > There is still no generic support for that, and it is unlikely there ever > will be. That's no surprise at all. > Many 32-bit Windows application can be run using the 'Odin' emulation layer, > that is functionally similar to WINE on Linux, but like WINE, it is not > perfect … Wine is good enough for a lot of what folks do, but perfection isn't possible. Is there a list anywhere of what Odin is known to support? > FWIW: > I develop my software mainly on OS/2, using the OpenWatcom compiler, > and cross-compile for 32-bit Windows, Linux, 32-bit extended DOS and OS/2. > Only my macOS versions are compile ON macOS (LLVM/CLANG). I'm aware of various folks who considered OS/2 a superior development environment. I mentioned the Stardock folks. Another was Rex Conn, author of the popular 4DOS COMMAND.COM replacement, and currently offering the Take Command GUI terminal. (I run the Lite version of Take command as a good freeware replacement for CMD.EXE with the features CMD lacks. I don't need it to be a GUI.) > (The DOS version is most often used with FreeDOS BTW) Cool. > I still find OS/2 a more comfortable and safe environment than Windows, > and have a lot of tools working there, so that makes it an easy decision. I suspect you aren't the only one, and if you can develop on it but cross-compile to other targets, it makes sense. > Most of the work is done in a VirtualBox running ArcaOS on top of macOS, > but ArcaOS also runs OK on pretty recent real hardware. There is support > for things like ACPI and navtive SATA (AHCI) for example. How much fun was getting the VirtualBox environment set up? > >> Website says they use network drivers from FreeBSD, bit in that case, > >> surely one is better off using FreeBSD rather than ArcaOS. OS/2 > >> successors/descendants have fallen far behind. > > That is just for the core of the network drivers (with some wrapper software) > and mainly done to keep development costs down, and get new drivers > for newer cards more easily (wired and wireless). One thing I did under Linux previous was use a wrapper to use Windows drivers under Linux. My problem child was video drivers. The machine in question used onboard ATI graphics, but the generic Linux driver didn't support the full feature set. > >People get computers to do work. Work is done by
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos-user Digest, Vol 1471, Issue 1
An observation; I just acquired a Lenovo 300e Chromebook which was developed for the education market [schools]. I wonder what grade level? It includes a text editor which I assume is used for writing code because it has a word processor also. A whole new generation of "code talkers" is on it's way! On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:08 AM wrote: > Send Freedos-user mailing list submissions to > freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > freedos-user-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > freedos-user-ow...@lists.sourceforge.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Freedos-user digest..." > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: FreeDOS website (Eric Auer) >2. Re: FreeDOS website (Don Flowers) >3. Re: FreeDOS website (Jan van Wijk) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Eric Auer > To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 00:22:28 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website > > Hi Don, at the risk of making this thread even longer... > > Yes, ebook readers tend to use Linux. Nicer brands even > publish development kits ;-) But Linux is a whole OS. So > as long as Amazon publishes any changes to the kernel > with sources, they can run any of their closed source, > DRM protected document viewers they want on their box. > Or you just buy another brand without DRM, of course. > > Another "fun case" was the modem chip in some smartphone, > I think even one by Apple. It took some GPL enthousiasts > some lengthy discussions to get ENOUGH sources for the > firmware to be able to understand their embedded Linux. > > Seems it was some Qualcomm Quectel module, also used in > iPhone 5, among others (EC20 MDM9615). There is a talk > about it: "Dissecting Modern (3G/4G) Cellular Modems". > > Cheers, Eric > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Don Flowers > To: "Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS." < > freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 20:58:28 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website > Thanks Gents! > You ave shed additional light on a rather complicated subject. > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:24 PM Eric Auer wrote: > >> >> Hi Don, at the risk of making this thread even longer... >> >> Yes, ebook readers tend to use Linux. Nicer brands even >> publish development kits ;-) But Linux is a whole OS. So >> as long as Amazon publishes any changes to the kernel >> with sources, they can run any of their closed source, >> DRM protected document viewers they want on their box. >> Or you just buy another brand without DRM, of course. >> >> Another "fun case" was the modem chip in some smartphone, >> I think even one by Apple. It took some GPL enthousiasts >> some lengthy discussions to get ENOUGH sources for the >> firmware to be able to understand their embedded Linux. >> >> Seems it was some Qualcomm Quectel module, also used in >> iPhone 5, among others (EC20 MDM9615). There is a talk >> about it: "Dissecting Modern (3G/4G) Cellular Modems". >> >> Cheers, Eric >> >> >> >> ___ >> Freedos-user mailing list >> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >> > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Jan van Wijk > To: "Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS." < > freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:15:45 +0200 (CES) > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:22:47 -0400 dmccunney wrote: > > > >> There is a new commercial OS/2 variant now, ArcaOS from arcanoae.com . > > > >I missed that one. Thanks! > > > >> 32-bit, no 64-bit, no GPT, no refund it it doesn't work. > > > >64-bit can be lived without. 32 bit is nice. The question is what 32 > bit apps? > > Well, the existing OS/2 ones for starters, but of course the number of > those > is just a fraction of what you have on Windows. > > But there is a reasonably recent FireFox/Mozilla browser, OpenOffice etc. > > Then there are loads of ported Linux applications as well, and they also > include > a YUM/RPM packagemanager so they are not hard to install. > > That said, if you do not have any existing OS/2 apps, there is not that > much reason > to pick ArcaOS over Linux, macOS or Windows, apart from the WorkPlace > shell, > which still is one of the best object-oriented desktops around. > (Allthough I am mainly a command line guy myself :) > > >The problem that did in OS/2 was lack of support for 32 bit *Windows* > >apps. The native OS/2 apps ecosystem wasn't broad/deep enough, and it > >needed to be able to run Win apps to compete with Windows. > >
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:22:47 -0400 dmccunney wrote: > >> There is a new commercial OS/2 variant now, ArcaOS from arcanoae.com . > >I missed that one. Thanks! > >> 32-bit, no 64-bit, no GPT, no refund it it doesn't work. > >64-bit can be lived without. 32 bit is nice. The question is what 32 bit >apps? Well, the existing OS/2 ones for starters, but of course the number of those is just a fraction of what you have on Windows. But there is a reasonably recent FireFox/Mozilla browser, OpenOffice etc. Then there are loads of ported Linux applications as well, and they also include a YUM/RPM packagemanager so they are not hard to install. That said, if you do not have any existing OS/2 apps, there is not that much reason to pick ArcaOS over Linux, macOS or Windows, apart from the WorkPlace shell, which still is one of the best object-oriented desktops around. (Allthough I am mainly a command line guy myself :) >The problem that did in OS/2 was lack of support for 32 bit *Windows* >apps. The native OS/2 apps ecosystem wasn't broad/deep enough, and it >needed to be able to run Win apps to compete with Windows. There is still no generic support for that, and it is unlikely there ever will be. Many 32-bit Windows application can be run using the 'Odin' emulation layer, that is functionally similar to WINE on Linux, but like WINE, it is not perfect ... FWIW: I develop my software mainly on OS/2, using the OpenWatcom compiler, and cross-compile for 32-bit Windows, Linux, 32-bit extended DOS and OS/2. Only my macOS versions are compile ON macOS (LLVM/CLANG). (The DOS version is most often used with FreeDOS BTW) I still find OS/2 a more comfortable and safe environment than Windows, and have a lot of tools working there, so that makes it an easy decision. Most of the work is done in a VirtualBox running ArcaOS on top of macOS, but ArcaOS also runs OK on pretty recent real hardware. There is support for things like ACPI and navtive SATA (AHCI) for example. > >> Website says they use network drivers from FreeBSD, bit in that case, surely >> one is better off using FreeBSD rather than ArcaOS. OS/2 >> successors/descendants have fallen far behind. That is just for the core of the network drivers (with some wrapper software) and mainly done to keep development costs down, and get new drivers for newer cards more easily (wired and wireless). >Whether you are better running FreeBSD depends on what you want to do. >If you are running a server, it might be worth doing. If you want to >run it in a desktop installation, you face the question of what apps >are available that run under it. > >People get computers to do work. Work is done by applications, and >your question is what applications can do it. With increasing >portability of apps, we are at a point where what the underlying OS is >may not *matter*. True, even more with the quite capable virtualisation products around that allow running programs for other platforms as well. I have two development laptops, one running macOS and another running Windows-10, but I can use both for the same work, since I run OS/2, Windows-XP, FreeDOS and even macOS in virtual machines, connected using regular networking ... Regards, JvW Jan van Wijk, author of DFSee; http://www.dfsee.com/dfsee/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
