From: afn03257 AT freenet2 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: What's all the hype about OpenDOS Date: 29 Jan 1997 13:08:36 GMT Lines: 66 Message-ID: <5cni4k$dg@huron.eel.ufl.edu> References: <32EDE79B DOT 6DF9 AT eik DOT bme DOT hu> NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet2.afn.org NNTP-Posting-User: afn03257 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp "DR. Andras Solyom" wrote: >>> That's just because the average end user doesn't know crap about UNIX. >>> Linux, AFAIK, is simply UNIX written specifically for the 386 processor. >>No kidding. That's why it is not an end-user product. And I think it >>could be. Other Unices work out of the box, why can't Linux do >>that? >If you are experienced with an operating system then you can solve the >problems that arises when you install anything on it. If you are a >newbie ... >First: I have never had any problem installing Linux, if it included I couldn't get Linux to install correctly, I've never had a problem with anything else, but 7 attempts at slackware resulting in 3 DOS partition wipes [that's right, wipes, as in no files] and 4 installs that didn't bring up a login prompt I gave up on slackware. Yes, I did acquire the sources multiple times to ensure that wasn't the problem. Determined not to let this thing get the best of me, I went for debian which booted with a boot disk, showed me all those lovely messages and then proceeded to reboot my system, it repeated this process about 20 times before I was positive it wasn't testing hardware or anything like that. Than I'm told to try RedHat, I looked at it, the docs instructed me to download 3 files, so I followed the path given only to find 2 files. Figuring it might have been a typo, but it wasn't. I'm thinking about FreeBSD, but the distribution I don't like. All those 256K files. Sheesh!! I think I've had enough headaches from Linux for everyone. Next time it will be via a CD-ROM, the one that comes with Using Linux from Que publishing whom I've always had luck with in the past. >Second: If you have installed your OS, you can manage it even with >control panels, at leas in Windows and in Linux. (In Linux you can use >the RedHat distribution which has a Win95 like X window manager with >taskbar, start menu, control panel and the like, etc.) And the design Never even tried X-windows, just Linux. >The reason, IMHO, that we do not want to switch to Linux from DOS is >that we want our computer to be compatible with the majority of the >software (e.g. games )out there. Actually there is more software available for Unix than DOS. However, Unix not being a Home-user's OS as was mentioned, means there isn't a lot of home-user type software. I can only balance my checkbook so many times before I want to type a letter in WP. ;-) >But I am a little bit sceptical about OpenDOS's future. It is too late >now for DOS. Like it or not the dominance of DOS was a result of >Microsoft's and IBM's software strategy. Now everyone (except us...) >wants to use some version of Windows. Not really, a 32bit dos that still supports old 16Bit Apps could have a future if enough commercial companies helped it along, etc.. However, MS pays big bucks to advertise and hype their products, so it is not likely to happen. IBM had little to do with DOS's success other than needing an OS for a system they weren't sure would succeed [many failed during that time] and foolishly licensing and not buying DOS which would have either prevented clones or allowed IBM to make money off of them. DOS was a friendly OS with little to no maintenance, and still is today.