Mail Archives: opendos/2001/04/19/16:13:04
I guess I'm a little confused-- Aside from specialized needs for (say)
embedded platforms, why are we looking for another NEW non Microsoft
DOS? and what functionality would/should it have that is not already
present in, e.g., the OS/2 DOS emulator? [which I frequently see
remaindered in California for about $4.95 per copy of OS/2 version 2x.]
Alan S.
4-19-2001
florianx wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> >> I think the most serious problem with FreeDOS is that there
> >> is only a handful of people, who have solid knowledge of
> >> DOS internals. Developing a new DOS now implies the
> >> serious risk that many of the known peculiarities in older
> >> DOS issues and older DOS applications are long forgotten,
> >> but by ignoring them, one will never be able to design and
> >> develop a 100% compatible DOS...
> >>
> > [da Silva, Joe]
> >
> > You're quite right. That's why the DR-DOS kernel is
> > the most important thing to open-source. Most of the
> > utilities would not need such specialist knowledge,
> > nor require so much manpower ...
>
> Yes... and the memory manager (emm386+dpms) and the taskmanager,
> I think. Because FreeDOS f.e. will never have such a good
> memory manager. Only if QEMM and Desqview would be opensource
> ...but I don't think that this could ever happen.
- Raw text -