howard schwartz wrote: > > Call me a ludd-ite, but I still prefer dos to linux as a command based shell > for an OS. Unix of all kinds has a lot of extra stuff built in designed for > being multi-user, multi-taking, running on larger machines, and supporting > developers. Single users on PCs do not need this overhead, even if 20 gig > hard disks are now common place. > > With windows 9x, I could still install about all the features of dos > I needed, in a `box box', and such commands as `start' allow one to > run windows programs from the dos command line. Dos is more simple, > crases less, and is much easier to configure than the complex linux > versions (I believe). > > In this connection, I wonder how feasible it is to configure my shell > experience so I do most of my work in the dos box, using the lovely > small freeware programs I have come to apprechate, and only occasionally > pop up to windows for an internet gui program or two? In principle, I > would not need to use explorer, exe as the gui shell, since I only > need windows for a single program or two. > > Any thoughts, suggestions- or is dos in fact really DEAD dead in the > minds of survpc folks? I think BasicLinux might have a solution. 'Boot.bat' launches BL from the dos prompt to the hash prompt.
Agreed, that my dos tools are generally better. Although, I've yet to see a dos file manager that will show you both the source and the destination directories like MC does. It's nice to be able to see whether what you mean to copy already exists, or which version of a given file is the one you want to keep. But otherwise, MC is a dog compared to DW.exe, and DWCONFIG.EXE lets you setup file/archive management far better than anything in Linux. BUT- I have no way to get online with dos anymore. All three of my local ISPs have win xp servers which use MS-CHAP, and there's no dos ppp driver that can work with it. LSPPP mentions expressly that it does not support MS-CHAP, saying it is rare. But I think there is some planned obselescence at work, for only the most recent distros will logon on either. KPPP sometimes works. But if people have trouble logging on, why then, just buy the newer distro from REDHAT. I think Redhat has figured that out. The xp servers are sold with cd burners so that the isp can just hand new customers the windows install disk. Redhat, Suse, or whoever, gets a copy of the ISP install cd, and tweaks the ppp driver to work with whatever the windoz server wants. Then too, after you do get online, I increasingly noted that arachne could not render the pages. Again, I see that the software houses sell webcrafting tools to the hosts, while they give away the browsers to render them. Only, increasingly what I see is that the tools are used to create banners, popups, popunders, and other crap that we users dont want. But they are selling the advertising, using our screens to display it. I'd like to see us setup a spam free VPN, but til then, I need a browser that can deal with it. Which means opera or mozilla. but there's no dos versions. Although, since I see there are some for os2, I wonder if something cant be done with DV on dos. Nevertheless, the one other option is something like BL, which lets you boot in dos, then when you're done with the dos tools, use BL, then xwin, then maybe the browser. BL says it runs on 4 meg dram. I dunno how it can handle webpages in that.... To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
