> > Any thoughts, suggestions- or is dos in fact really DEAD dead in the
> > minds of survpc folks?
>
> One of the reasons i rarely participate here is because this list has turned
> into Yet Another Linux List.
>
> Yes, I still use DOS, on a variety of machines (an 8088, 286 & 486). None of
> these have (or ever will have) a Linux distro on it (that's on the "modern"
> machine in use here). as far as using Linux on the earlier machines - not
> bloody likely! DOS does more & better from the command line on those
> machines & I see no pressing reason to change.
folks might wanna check out http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Now, I remember lotsa times when dos crashed, or whatever I was trying
to do, that the best thing to do at that moment, is turn off the PC an
move on with the rest of what passes for a life. But I dont remember
seeing that a crash trashed the entire drive unless the drive actually
died. So, when BasicLinux crashes, since it is running in a ramdisk, can
it still fry the FAT?

When I see a message that the kernel failed, if it is after running the
BL 'BOOT.BAT', wouldnt I still have the dos kernel booting? would I be
totally dead in the water and havta repartition the drive?

Thing about Linux is, that it is multitasking, and some of those tasks
write on the hard drive when you aint looking. But if you had a distro
that was running entirely in a ramdisk, (and with DRAM so cheap
nowadays, why not?) wouldnt it run faster and if it crashed, rebooting
would solve your problem. Just- like it does with dos.

And, when I want to shutdown dos, it takes half a second to dump the
diskcache, and the computer turns itself off. (no questions asked) When
I want to shut down the distro, I havta click on the logout, when it
will stop me again to make me click to ignore the ppp driver or
whatever, then make me click again because I dont want to login as root,
and make me click again, cause I dont want it to reboot. I can
understand, that since Linux is a multitasking os, that sysads really
like it for networks, which is fine, but I note that you dont turn off
network servers if you can help it, so an inconvenient method is no
problem. And there are home users who dont mind leaving the PC on
forever. Which offends my sense of frugality and the waste of resources
which is ruining the planet.

With dos and BL, you have a sequential process in which the CLI is up
and running first, and no matter how badly you screw up the video
settings, you still have the text mode screen to figure out what the
problem is. With xwindows, I have seen the text mode screen blinking so
badly you could not work with it. And with windoz, its often completely
dead in the water. With windoz, if you change any of the critical parts
of the hardware, you havta dig out the instlal disk and re-enter the
phucking pirate code before you can update the system. With Linux, well
for instance, Redhat just released a new .rpm for the Cyrix VIA CPU, but
I dont recall seeing a motherboard cpu combination that dos would not
run. Yes you can tweak the os to improve operation, but then you run
into these variables.

DOS & BL seem to show us a route to take, to get the system booted, then
add the BL support for xwindows, and then add the browser & ppp driver
to get here. What would the total download be? FREEDOS.ZIP is a few
hundred k, or the FREEDOS.IMG for 1.44m, then a couple meg for BL, and
then there's mozilla or opera.... seems like the whole setup would be
less than 20 meg. That's feasible even with a 56k.

And every step of the way, whatever crashes dont wipe out everything you
did up to that point. Whatever else, short of a hardware failure, you
still got dos, you can still boot, still get online with lynx to
download the rest of BL, and still get to the familiar browser gui. It
dont look like you havta choose, you can have both dos and linux running
on the same drive, with the power of linux when you need it, and the
security of the dos file system when you dont.

It'd be slick if it gave you your email in text mode while it loaded the
gui apps in the background.

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

Reply via email to