Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:06:24 -0700
From:	"Alan S." <as173 AT cornell DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: DOS issues #2
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Message-id:	<3ADF3730.B0683029@cornell.edu>
MIME-version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
References:	<200104191133 DOT HAA09260 AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

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 -