Hello!
El jue, 05-12-2002 a las 04:33, Jensen, Gerard escribió:
...
> As we seem to have Dosemu specialists here: how would one set up an account
> under Linux so that it won't use bash as the shell but rather give you a DOS
> terminal screen? And: do we actually have a working VT100 capable teln
Hi,
Something interesting! Now I remember where I took my information from: Undocumented
DOS, the times of NT4 came later, I guess ;-))
Aitor
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 10:34, Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
> > > And I'll admit that I don't know much of the internal structure of NT,
> > > but I'm
no longer. its free. and you are allowed to distribute it (changed or not),
as long as the copyright notice remains intact ( very similar to SHSUCDX)
Yes, the source code has been released i think 1 or 2 month ago.
bye, flox
--
Florian Xaver
http://www.drdos.org
unofficial dr-dos site
http://www
> > Sorry for a newbie to enter the discussion here. Was just wondering,
it
> > appears to me this is just the sort of thing that "Tripple Dos" does -
> > multitasking so you could run multiple instances of DOS. Maybe you
> > were thinking of something else, I don't know...
> >
>
> Yes, but Tr
> Sorry for a newbie to enter the discussion here. Was just wondering, it
> appears to me this is just the sort of thing that "Tripple Dos" does -
> multitasking so you could run multiple instances of DOS. Maybe you
> were thinking of something else, I don't know...
>
Yes, but Tripple Dos is c
Gerard and/or somebody uttered:
as you can much easier start multiple instances of Dosemu, it
is unnecessary work to add a VMM to FreeDOS. Just use the one
of Linux to run multiple Dosemus... However, file locking and
sharing in Dosemu could be improved for that style of use.
Sure - if you'r
> Hi Gerard,
Hi Eric,
> as you can much easier start multiple instances of Dosemu, it
> is unnecessary work to add a VMM to FreeDOS. Just use the one
> of Linux to run multiple Dosemus... However, file locking and
> sharing in Dosemu could be improved for that style of use.
Sure - if you're runn
Hi Gerard,
as you can much easier start multiple instances of Dosemu, it
is unnecessary work to add a VMM to FreeDOS. Just use the one
of Linux to run multiple Dosemus... However, file locking and
sharing in Dosemu could be improved for that style of use.
You can always add "start Dosemu" to your
Hi,
> The Virtual Machine Manager. The true 32-bit operating system under
> "Windows 386 enhanced mode" (but unbounded to Windows itself).
Just as a thought on the side: there seem to be quite a number of people
that use Dosemu with FreeDOS on a Linux machine. Would it not be interesting
to writ
Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
What's VMM?
The Virtual Machine Manager. The true 32-bit operating system under
"Windows 386 enhanced mode" (but unbounded to Windows itself).
Ah, I believe in NT it's called the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer).
And I'll admit that I don't know much of the
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 10:34, Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
> > And I'll admit that I don't know much of the internal structure of NT,
> > but I'm pretty sure that at least until 4.0, you could have device
> > drivers that would run in kernel mode, which would be indicative of a
> > monolithic k
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
> I like DOS despite its limitations. Some say that DOS is monolothic, but
> I can't understand this, bearing in mind that there are loadable device
> drivers, and many other stuff that is "plugged" by hooking interrups. I
> tend to consider that
I don't think so, because this would mean that NT is microkernel and
VMM is monolithic...
What's VMM?
The Virtual Machine Manager. The true 32-bit operating system under
"Windows 386 enhanced mode" (but unbounded to Windows itself).
And I'll admit that I don't know much of the internal st
Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
NT = Microkernel? Not exactly. The difference between monolithic- vs.
micro- kernel is mainly how device drivers run. In a microkernel
design, all device drivers run in user mode, and there's only 1 or 2
processes in kernel mode (a task switcher, and the code t
Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
X-Comment-To: Aitor Santamaria Merino
Hi!
4-äÅË-2002 13:15 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aitor Santamaria Merino) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ASM> NT is microkernel too, in my understanding it's a little advantage over
ASM> Linux at this moment (?).
This ("NT is microkernel"
X-Comment-To: Aitor Santamaria Merino
Hi!
4-äÅË-2002 13:15 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aitor Santamaria Merino) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ASM> NT is microkernel too, in my understanding it's a little advantage over
ASM> Linux at this moment (?).
This ("NT is microkernel") is only marketing hype.
Paul Case wrote:
Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
Minix is based on a microkernel architecture. Linux uses a
monolithic kernel
instead - and this inherent difference of architecture caused that
by now
well known "fall-out" between Tannenbaum and Torwalds, remember? No
wonder
thus that when in
Hi,
Jensen, Gerard wrote:
Has anyone tried GNU-Mach and GNU-Hurd?
At a version level of 0.2?
A pitty ;-)
NT is microkernel too, in my understanding it's a little advantage over
Linux at this moment (?).
Woah, hang on: NT uses a modified microkernel. Process Manager and Virtual
Memory M
> Interprocess communication in a true microkernel architecture is a drag
> though (simply a question of overhead you generate if you send messages
> instead of directy talking to the hardware).
It's mostly a drag, because 'pure' message passing involves context
('process')
switching, which is *ve
Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote:
Minix is based on a microkernel architecture. Linux uses a monolithic
kernel
instead - and this inherent difference of architecture caused that by
now
well known "fall-out" between Tannenbaum and Torwalds, remember? No
wonder
thus that when in March 1994 versio
> NT is microkernel too, in my understanding it's a little
> advantage over
> Linux at this moment (?).
NT is not true microkernel architecture.
>From www.rectos.com: "The ReactOS architecture is based on that of Microsoft
Windows NT 4.0. Although Microsoft claims that the architecture is a
mod
> Has anyone tried GNU-Mach and GNU-Hurd?
At a version level of 0.2?
> I didn't have time to have a look myself, but I am willing to see a
> replacement of Linux kernel where one does not have to recompile, for
> example, to activate the FrameBuffer, to add devices or to many other
> things
Minix is based on a microkernel architecture. Linux uses a monolithic kernel
instead - and this inherent difference of architecture caused that by now
well known "fall-out" between Tannenbaum and Torwalds, remember? No wonder
thus that when in March 1994 version 1.0 was presented at the Universit
23 matches
Mail list logo
