Hi!
> Is there a list of applications, currently available for DOS
> only, that it may make sense to reimplement for contemporary
> free software systems?
>
> For me, it's probably only certain games. (In particular, those
> still distributed via http://gog.com/.)
> Michael B Brutman writes:
> On 5/4/2012 9:29 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
[…]
>>> By many definitions, DOS is not even an operating system.
There's no such thing as an operating system.
[…]
> Adding a GUI (X windows) was easy - that was an application.
Still, most X server
Martin,
My intent was to make sure that you understood the magnitude of the
project that you are suggesting. If you think you can do it and lead
other people in helping you, great - go for it.
In the meantime, we need to keep working to preserve what we have
running so far ...
Mike
-
[QUOTE Mike: Here is a small example - I started working on mTCP in late 2005.
It was 2008 before I had an application suitable for an end-user to run. In
2011 the code was finally clean/stable enough to release. Right now the next
version is over 36000 lines of code and comments. It's taken tho
First of all I really enjoyed reading this discussion in the last days.
Thanks a lot to everyone!
Am 05.05.2012 um 05:21 schrieb Michael B. Brutman:
> Like it or not, the path for the future is going to be running DOS
> inside of virtual machines hosted by an operating system that is kept
> cur
Hi Martin,
> On an expansion of before. Just like BSD and Linux are relatives of
> each other and just as capable of each other, why shouldn't DOS be
> able to be just as capable as its relative Windows?
BSD and Linux have a culture of source-based software, often
even open source. With acceptab
Hi!
> something fast, clean, simple, able to access loads of memory, and
> still (mostly) use dos development tools, would be a great thing for
> a lot of embeded developers if nothing else.
Question to those who also know more embedded operating systems:
How would the suggested variant of D
On May 3, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
> If you want to really modernize DOS you are going to have to fix or
> break a lot of things that exist today. You can implement a simple OS
> that uses the INT 0x21 programming interface, but if it doesn't run
> existing software (because y
> i still say, if someone can program machine code,
> and can make his computer more like a turing machine,
> then he ought to go right ahead and do it,
> then others will adopt it; depending on how good it is.
thanks for sharing these deep insights with the common populace
Tom
---
> I have been trying to inject a bit of reality to this and it doesn't
> seem to be working
thanks, Michael, and I *really* agree with most of it.
> - If you break compatibility with existing DOS, you break compatibility
> with a lot of applications.
you don't have to break compatibility to enhanc
On 5/5/2012 1:27 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> What comes across to me is that if you remove the what i was
> suggesting entirely from the equation... That a) it all seems like to
> much effort and its much easier to whinge about the current
> compatiblity issues than try and implement a possible so
I think one should not just discuss technical details. You should define
objectives who shall use DOS or any enhanced DOS?
There is Windows, Mac OS, Linux and DOS. Plus countless real time and home
grown operating systems. What should convince a computer user to use DOS
instead of all the other
What comes across to me is that if you remove the what i was suggesting
entirely from the equation... That a) it all seems like to much effort and its
much easier to whinge about the current compatiblity issues than try and
implement a possible solution or b) You don't want to because your afrai
Hi again,
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> On 5/4/2012 9:29 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>> In other words, original UNIX (tm) didn't have all the GUIs,
>> multi-threading, 64-bit, job control, networking, tons of memory, etc.
>> that we take for granted today. Heck, the PDP w
On 5/4/2012 9:29 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> In other words, original UNIX (tm) didn't have all the GUIs,
> multi-threading, 64-bit, job control, networking, tons of memory, etc.
> that we take for granted today. Heck, the PDP was 16-bit!
Grr.
The original Unix didn't have all of the things you list.
i still say, if someone can program machine code,
and can make his computer more like a turing machine,
then he ought to go right ahead and do it,
then others will adopt it; depending on how good it is.
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.
Hi,
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> Analogies are a slippery slope.
>
> By many definitions, DOS is not even an operating system. It is a
> device driver, file system, and rudimentary memory manager that stays
> resident while a user program is running. When the us
On 5/4/2012 3:55 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On an expansion of before. Just like BSD and Linux are relatives of
> each other and just as capable of each other, why shouldn't DOS be
> able to be just as capable as its relative Windows?
>
> The DOS limitations are the limitations of old technology w
On an expansion of before. Just like BSD and Linux are relatives of each other
and just as capable of each other, why shouldn't DOS be able to be just as
capable as its relative Windows?
The DOS limitations are the limitations of old technology which are no longer
current limitations. This mea
[QUOTE: Robert Riebisch:
Newbies, please use your enthusiasm to write new apps! :-) :QUOTE] Well thats
a bit of a statement and makes a huge assumption on your part!
No offense intended, How does enthusiasm relate to lacking knowledge in a
given area. How can you even summise that there is ev
On 04/05/2012 07:01, Martin Kelly wrote:
> Thanks Jim for your encouragement and support. What your suggesting is an
> interesting idea, like Pat Villani's original idea of implementing FreeBSD
> drivers into DOS. This idea intrigues me alot, i am a big BSD fan especially
> NetBSD and DragonflyB
Thanks Jim for your encouragement and support. What your suggesting is an
interesting idea, like Pat Villani's original idea of implementing FreeBSD
drivers into DOS. This idea intrigues me alot, i am a big BSD fan especially
NetBSD and DragonflyBSD, thus implementing a Hybrid DOS-BSD system wou
Hi,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> Rugxulo,
>
> You read into things too literally at times ... ;-0
I know, and I was being facetious (somewhat).
> The 808x series of processor was segmented.
But compared to CP/M (64k max. per app), it was a big improvement.
>
Michael B. Brutman wrote:
> Just my opinion, but here it is ...
>
> Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
> feasible and not going to happen. The biggest problem is DOS
> compatibility - as soon as you start messing with the memory management,
> APIs or fixin
Rugxulo,
You read into things too literally at times ... ;-0
The 808x series of processor was segmented. It was used on a machine
that reserved a portion of memory for system BIOS, system BIOS
extensions, and video RAM.
The first versions of the operating system (DOS) did very little to mas
Hi again, :-)
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> Just my opinion, but here it is ...
Everyone's got one ... :-))
> Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
> feasible and not going to happen.
1987 called, it wants its OS/2 back. (Oh
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Martin Kelly wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong lol. I am running both Linux, BSD and FreeDOS currently,
> and FreeDOS is amazingly fast in comparision to Linux.
Linux is great but my main gripes are 1). build complexity, 2). too
many incompatible distros, 3). litt
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> I really like the core of Martin's idea, and I think it shows a lot of
> initiative and energy. I say go for it, give it a try, and see if it
> works. That's how these things start.
Sure, he can do whatever he wants. But it's easy to bite o
Hey Rugxulo,
> In short, before you start re-inventing DOS and/or Linux, > you should have
> a close look at the possibilities with a > NORMAL DOS or a NORMAL Linux.
> Don't get me wrong lol. I am running both Linux, BSD and FreeDOS currently,
> and FreeDOS is amazingly fast in comparision t
I really like the core of Martin's idea, and I think it shows a lot of
initiative and energy. I say go for it, give it a try, and see if it
works. That's how these things start.
Years back, I had a somewhat similar idea, so maybe Martin can use
this: Rather than writing any kernel stuff, or redef
Just my opinion, but here it is ...
Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
feasible and not going to happen. The biggest problem is DOS
compatibility - as soon as you start messing with the memory management,
APIs or fixing the "bugs" then existing DOS softwar
Hi (again), hope my ramblings aren't too useless, :-)
On May 2, 2012 2:31 PM, "Georg Potthast" wrote:
>
> I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
>
> You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change
e.g.
> Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you canno
On May 2, 2012 12:10 PM, "Eric Auer" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> > The main aim behind the idea is to make a DOS system that is comparable
> > to Linux, Windows or any other of the 100+ OS's out their while still
> > using the DOS Kernel at the core, which if my idea is viable would allow
> > DOS
On 02/05/2012 21:29, Georg Potthast wrote:
> I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
>
> You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change e.g.
> Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you cannot write
> application programs in C or C++ using 64bit. Also w
I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change e.g.
Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you cannot write
application programs in C or C++ using 64bit. Also while in 64bit mode you
have no 16bit support so the
Hi Martin,
> The main aim behind the idea is to make a DOS system that is comparable
> to Linux, Windows or any other of the 100+ OS's out their while still
> using the DOS Kernel at the core, which if my idea is viable would allow
> DOS to be 16, 32 & 64-bit compaitable, seems like a crazy idea
From: Martin Kelly
>To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:19 AM
>Subject: [Freedos-devel] DOS Development Idea
>
>
>Hey,
>I don't know if this is the right list to post in or not as i am rather new to
Hey,
I don't know if this is the right list to post in or not as i am rather new to
the maillist.
I have a rather large idea probably more a seperate project, with draft ideas
already sketched out but i wanted to run via the FreeDOS community to check
that it would actually be viable, so comm
38 matches
Mail list logo
