Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/14/13:53:20
On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:05:18 -0700, Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu> wrote:
>Michael Kearns wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> Boot time - This is generally quite long, even compared to windows. I
>> realise it could maybe be streamlined somewhat, but could it ever get close
>> to the DOS 2-second minimal boot ?
>
>Try passing the kernel "init=/bin/sh" sometime. Sure, it won't be a
>very useful system, but it'll boot fast, and probably still be better
>than DOS.
Agreed that it will speed things up considerably. However, DOS will still
win at this point, as I can run a protected-mode application and it will
work fine. Yes, i realise Linux could do the same with linux apps, but it
won't run my DOS apps :o)
Okay, so maybe you do a "init=/bin/dosemu" or equivalent, but it seems a
waste of Linux for such a thing.
>> Configuration - DOS is great because in 2 files (config.sys & autoexec.bat)
>> you can configure the drivers, runtime apps etc. Compare this to any Unix
>> variety with all the RC files, and modules etc...
>
>Not quite true. I've never seen a real application for DOS that was
>configured solely in autoexec/config. And even if it were, can you
>imagine the creeping, unmaintainable horror that autoexec.bat would
>become if it included all your settings for Wordperfect, Quake, Netware,
>Turbo Pascal, etc, etc?
Okay. So I used slight artistic license on that :)
>Oh wait, I don't have to imagine it, I've seen it. It was called the
>"Windows Registry" :)
Please don't get me started on that piece of bloat...
>IMHO, many separate files, each controlling one well-defined thing, are
>a lot easier to manage.
>
>Besides, most of the config files on Unix are for daemons that don't
>even exist on DOS. Drop those, and things will be much simpler (though
>perhaps useless).
Okay. This is an opinion-argument I guess. I prefer the idea of having a
config file, in the same directory as the application. Therefore under DOS,
you'd have the 2 main sys configs in the root directory, and then each
applications specific config alongside the binary.
My main problem with Linux is just the organisation of the RCs. I don't
think they're quite as neat, but that is just *my* opinion.
>> Multiuser - This is more a requirement of myself than of DOS, but one of the
>> reasons for wanting such a lightweight OS is that I want something to use at
>> home. For myself. 1 user. It shouldn't have all the excess baggage
>> associated with multi-user support, if it's not needed.
>
>I use Linux at home, and I don't think the multi-user stuff is at all
>wasted. It helps protect me from myself. By running as a user when
>most of the system is owned by root, I limit the damage I can do with
>`rm -r'.
Whenever I use Linux on my home system, I always use Root. Why ?? Because
I'm a control freak :o)
Yes, I could completely wipe my system, and lose everything, but it would me
*my* fault, and only *my* data would be lost. I resent having to keep SU'ing
to do certain functions, or to install some apps. And having to clear out
all the standard users that other applications provide.
Again, just my opinion, but I really don't see the need for multi-users.
In a commercial sense, well, that's a completely different argument.
>Besides, once you have multitasking and a real file system, "multi-user
>support" is essentially free. It's just another layer of protection.
Fine if I'm a sysadmin, but I don't need protection from myself (unless you
count my straightjacket).
>But this is horribly off-topic. Oh well. :)
Well, it seems that the whole 'updated DOS' thread is becoming a Linux
advocacy thread anyhow. Don't get me wrong, I've used Linux (I posess 3
distros) and like it, for what it is. I think it has uses where it's by far
the best OS to use (network servers, etc).
It's just not what I want to use at home. I want a better DOS.
Damn selfish, but true :o)
Regards,
Michael.
- Raw text -