> But so glad to see a distro that has gotten away from the 'not invented > here' mindframe.
What, because it aliases dir? Day, it has been pointed out to you time after time that plenty of distributions do this. Slackware has done it since 3.x IME. > BTW: there is some variation in .bat program > compiling. eg DRDOS offers GOSUB. howze it do with batch programs? Even the most primitive of Unix shells has control constructs far in advance of anything generic DOS batch files can do, GOSUB included. You'd need to run DOS/DOSemu/Wine to run COMMAND.COM and DOS batch files though. Regards, Ben A L Jemmett. (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Day Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: Re: SUCCESS with DOSemu and I need your input (LONG) (was Re:Lightweight Linux & DOSemu) > Bob George wrote: > > > 2. I downloaded a few packages (RPMs) including DOSemu. I'm not sure if it was > > before or after DOSemu was loaded, but I inadvertently typed "dir" at the MDK > > bash prompt and it worked. Day, please note: Some of your desired DOS-like > > functionality seems to be a default! I'll play with this more in upcoming > > weeks. > I usta run Mandrake 7. it was really nice. Somebody stole my mdk 7 > install disk. And the new Mandrake 9 lets me go thru the whole install > before it tells me 'MKINITRD FAIL'. :-( > But so glad to see a distro that has gotten away from the 'not invented > here' mindframe. Maybe the reason I like dos, is that if there is a > really useful program in some other platform, somebody will clone it. > And all the clutter of all the stuff folks dont really use, gets left on > the other os desktop. BTW: there is some variation in .bat program > compiling. eg DRDOS offers GOSUB. howze it do with batch programs? > > > I tried several of the programs using the default DOSemu settings (no "direct > > console" access) as root (yeah, I know. Just testing so far!), and most of the > > editors seemed to work fine with color using default settings. One (e88 IIRC) > > does some cursor trickery that did NOT work (no cursor) and one managed to bomb > > out the DOSemu program with a "protection error" though Linux itself was > > unaffected. So for MANY programs, it appears that basic screen functionality is > > OK with defaults. I suspect using the "console" features, I should be able to > > get others to work. > Have you tried any of the 32 bit dos programs? cwsdpmi, dpmi,... > > > 4. I made the config tweaks (3 entrys) in the dosemu.conf file to enable > > "packet driver" emulation. With DOSemu running in a separate console, I > > configured a bridge between eth0 (the physical ethernet interface) and the tap0 > > interface that DOSemu talks to. Much Linux voodoo here, and having done this > > before certainly helped. When I'm done, I'll write up some fairly detailed > > HOWTO instructions for anybody interested, and maybe some simple scripts. I was > > NOT able to get DOS Lynx working, but I suspect that's because of my > > unfamiliarity with the program setup (*grr*), BUT I was able to get HTTP-GET to > > work. So any DOS program that uses packet drivers for 'net access should be OK. > > This was the only tricky part in the whole network deal. Anything beyond this > > point is just routing and networking setup under Linux. > 'it should be ok'... except for the flash, JAVA, mp3, and other gui crap > being put into webpages so the webmaster can maintain his reputation for > kewl at the expense of functionality. But if a dos terminal can only get > email and ftp files, that's about as much as can be hoped for. > > When it comes to functionality, what the hell was wrong with the 'print > screen' key? > > > 6. Get absolutely silly, and think about things like content transformation to > > provide stripped out web and email content to DOS systems (maybe a small > > network?) and gateway mail back-and-forth. I personally think this is > > counter-productive, but the challenge is half the fun. Your mail app only does > > basic POP but your ISP requires more? NO PROBLEM. :) > That's pretty kewl. > > > Fundamental question: How far to take the DOS thing? Presumably, anybody still > > sticking with DOS isn't put off by technical challenges. Most seem to boast of > > it. So how much effort for things like: > > > 1. DOS multitasking software. You can simply run multiple instances of DOSemu > > using Linux "true" multitasking to run multiple DOS apps concurrently with > > probably fewer DOS configuration headaches and hardware conflicts. Do we expend > > effort trying to make difficult users happy, or get real and acknowledge that > > this solution is pretty slick? > Depends on the success of emulation. As mentioned in another post, DOS > does things with color and fonts that you dont do in the system > administrated monochrome terminal screen. > > > 2. DOS internet software. Is it worth fighting with DOS lynx, ftp, telnet etc. > > when more featureful programs with identical functionality are already provided > > by the base Linux install, and with nearly identical interfaces? Is it worth > > fighting with getting a specific program to work just because somebody doesn't > > like the fact that the equivalent program doesn't work with caps lock on under > > Linux? > I dunno. Seems like it takes a big outfit like MS, Mozilla, or Opera to > keep up with all the gui goodies being inserted into webpages. Are any > of them interested in supporting dos? How's the OS/2 version doing? I > dont see any intrinsic reason why a 32 bit dos with dpmi, QEMM, and > other forms of functionality cannot be done to run a browser, but > clearly Michael at Arachne could not keep up with it. > > > I can see a good case for this solution when you've got some DOS apps that work > > for your everyday needs (i.e. WordPerfect, POS solutions) and don't want to > > learn or buy new stuff. The gateway approach (one-machine) may even enhance > > things for printing. > > > > It makes SOME sense for a beloved DOS Internet app or two, but (to me at least) > > less sense as you do more. As a HEAVY DOS techie way back when, I had no > > aversion to using Unix CLI tools for network access. Admittedly, *nix CLI APPS > > are weak. DOSemu and Linux provide some wonderful capabilities for moving files > > back-and-forth with a fair degree of transparency, so "Linux for networking, > > DOS for apps" seems like a target use. > Yeah, I dont see any reason why the Linux text mode hasta be so clunky. > Dos users dont like being told they dont have permission to look at or > edit a file. The tranlation of market niche from network to the home > desktop needs work. Like they load up the distro with 1.5 gigs of system > administration and software developement tools, but they cant afford to > stick in a couple *k* to alias the DOS commands? > > But, like your saw with mandrake 9, they have made a lotta progress. I'd > prolly be content if the dos app *functionality* was ported to Linux, > but most of their distro programming efforts are aimed at the gui and > multimedia interface. Which is worrisome; you can say things with images > that you cant with text, but ulike with text, fabrication is a more > difficult problem to sort out. Text, being based on a fixed set of > symbols, can be more clearly evaluated, and either the numbers add up, > or- they dont. Reason vs emotion. > > 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 > > 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
