Mail Archives: opendos/2001/04/24/00:38:40.2
OK, let's make it clear then, shall we? ;-)
To be blunt - there is no long term future for any product
that does not continue to be developed, to meet the needs
and challenges that arise (eg. for DOS, it's things like
FAT32, LBA, LFN, bug fixes, etc.).
That is why we need some action from Lineo to either
develop the missing DR-DOS functionality or to allow
others to do so (by releasing it as open-source or similar).
That is why your suggestion that the future of DOS was
emulation under an obsolete (AFAIK) version of OS/2 is
ridiculous.
That is why FreeDOS *might* be of interest. At least _that_
is capable of further development ...
Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan S. [SMTP:as173 AT cornell DOT edu]
> Sent: Friday, 20 April 2001 14:15
> To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: DOS issues #2
>
> Hi Neal! [plus other listees who actually follow the threads...]
>
> I was under the impression that I was asking a serious question about
> the reasons behind the continued push for FreeDOS and any other "still
> in development" DOS's.
>
> I don't run much in the way of DOS applications, but I've managed to get
> by using the OS/2 DOS emulator and DR DOS 6 & 7 for the last decade or
> so [I've even run DR DOS in OS/2 virtual machines on occasion]. DR DOS
> has its deficiencies [e.g., 'no boot from FAT32' & 'install only to
> first primary partition on disk'], but am I supposed to believe that
> FreeDOS -- or whatever else is 'almost ready for prime time' -- will end
> up with fewer problems (within some reasonable timeframe)?
>
> [See, Neal, I still didn't say anything good about MS DOS...]
>
> Alan S. ["confused in California"]
> 4-19-2001
>
>
>
> [2] Neal wrote:
> > Alan -
> > If MS-DOG is so good, why are you on the DR-DOS list ???
>
>
> [1] Alan S. wrote:
> > 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.]
- Raw text -