I also think the task should look exactly like DOS. This either means
that resources (e.g. serial ports, printer ports, usb, ect) must be
given exclusively to one task which owns it until it closes or the
kernal must administer the conflicts WITHOUT one task being able to
crash another.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Andreas Berger wrote:
Writing a multitasker is easy, but I have no understanding about how
DPMI, rings and resource allocation work. I think the idea of a
bare-bone linux behind the scene is a very good. Truth be told I would
like to see OS/2 resurrected with true DOS
Mike, I like your suggestions. One thing that always bothered me
about dos versions that have come out since ms dropped the ball is
their complete lack of inovation. I realize there's only so much
that can be done if you're intending to keep 100 percent
compatibility, but still, it's not
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Travis Siegel wrote:
Mike, I like your suggestions. One thing that always bothered me
about dos versions that have come out since ms dropped the ball is
their complete lack of inovation. I realize there's only so much
that can be done if you're intending to keep 100
On 9/14/2011 7:31 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
Mike, I like your suggestions. One thing that always bothered me
about dos versions that have come out since ms dropped the ball is
their complete lack of inovation. I realize there's only so much
that can be done if you're intending to keep 100
There was a project, quite some time ago, it was called LiDos. I liked
the idea very much:
It was a very simple Linux distro runing Dosemu at boot time. You could
switch to a bare Linux console and use Linux Commands. Unfortunatly it
was Slackware based and had too many modifications, so when
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Andreas Berger wrote:
Writing a multitasker is easy, but I have no understanding about how
DPMI, rings and resource allocation work. I think the idea of a
bare-bone linux
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Travis Siegel tsie...@softcon.com wrote:
Another thing I wonder, is why it is that nobody has built anything
that allows executing of multiple oses on a single computer, using
one cpu core for each os, thereby allowing each os to run natively on
it's own cpu,
