X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: OT HX etc.
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 05:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <b377527f-cffb-4cd9-9908-312f5a5a10d5@o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <qah3t59tamdcag9gm26mkkhddj96gs984s AT 4ax DOT com> <4c64a5b1-bf8a-49e1-843e-9a0594856e82 AT c36g2000yqm DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<hqu6vv$28n$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <83mxwt17tq DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> 
	<hqvuv5$noj$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <5045aa1f-6a1d-4d1a-a1a3-1ae82d412d15 AT z3g2000yqz DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<hr3ir3$kni$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <0aa8aea0-9b0c-44ba-a488-c06a720a458d AT b6g2000yqi DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<6dd4831d-0c82-4ced-9b69-993066ef4168 AT e1g2000yqe DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<hrsm0k$93t$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1273150242 25330 127.0.0.1 (6 May 2010 12:50:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 12:50:42 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; 
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.5.24 
	Version/10.53,gzip(gfe)
Bytes: 7484
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On May 5, 3:57=A0pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h DOT  DOT  DOT  AT havenone DOT cmm> wrote:
> "Rugxulo" <rugx DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmail DOT com> wrote in message
>
> news:6dd4831d-0c82-4ced-9b69-993066ef4168 AT e1g2000yqe DOT googlegroups DOT com...
>
> > I just now noticed that Elvis/Win32 works under Japheth's latest HX!
>
> Yeah, I tried to run something (QEMU? DOSBox?) with Japheth's HX a couple=
 of
> years ago on an old machine. =A0IIRC, that machine wouldn't run it.
> (Insufficient memory?) =A0I should try this machine.

Somebody should really port QEMU or BOCHS to DJGPP.

> Oh! A month back the FreeDOS-32 webpage was updated by one of the project=
's
> authors: Salvo Isaja. =A0So, maybe the stalled-for-a-few-years-now projec=
t is
> officially restarted. =A0

Yes, I noticed that too. I remember asking a year or two ago, and they
had stalled due to one developer leaving as well as licensing issues.
My main gripe was that they never even officially released 0.006 or
whatever (except on the mailing list).

> I'm a bit confused about their OS design, but
> everything they did seemed to work. =A0

Well, they had the basics done, but it still lacked a few things. It
had its own built-in DPMI host, and didn't implement every call. I
think 0.005 needed a special command just to run real-mode stuff
(fixed in 0.006?). But hey, they claimed DJGPP and Mpxplay worked. I
only very very briefly tried it, didn't kick it too hard. It compiled
in DJGPP (and Cygwin also?), I think, but I never rebuilt it myself. I
think it actually booted off real-mode FreeDOS initially. The plan was
something like to keep things modularized, so not even protected
memory nor multitasking was forced to be implemented. Oh, and they
(also) used LeanFS. You probably know more than me, but I only recall
FYS-OS using that also.

> If FreeDOS' kernel and command
> interpreter had been "C only" or "mostly in C", it might've been possible=
 to
> port it to 32-bit. =A0

FreeDOS proper is indeed 99% C, but it uses a lot of DOS-isms (far
pointers?). FreeCOM, the shell, is also like 99% C, and you can
optionally use Centroid's COMMAND.COM clone (written in DJGPP). In
fact, I can't remember, but I thought FreeDOS-32 used Centroid's.
Granted, FreeCOM is better, but Centroid ain't bad. (BTW, they
apparently have moved entirely to Linux, go figure.)

> I've found a bunch of bits n' parts, and pieces, other
> than FreeDOS-32, that could be used as a start to make a GPL'd 32-bit DOS=
 in
> C. =A0

IIRC, the "new" FreeDOS-32 will be GPL-compatible and allow unmodified
use for proprietary companies. (Honestly, the world is held back so
much by dumb license infighting.)

> I can't seem to locate enough for a PD (Public Domain) DOS though. =A0

FreeDOS (previously Free-DOS) was originally called PD-DOS, but I
think that was before they had a kernel (since DOS-C was/is GPL). A
few alternatives to DOS-C exist (RxDOS: GPL, OpenDOS: crap), but
obviously the licenses and features and portability (and
maintainability, the real kicker for FD devs, says Tom Ehlert) made
them choose DOS-C.

The funny part is that DOS-NT (commercial predecessor to DOS-C) ran on
68000 machines, I think, so it was always meant to be portable
initially. The big complaint is that even if you got the kernel and
tools working on another architecture, you'd not have any apps
anyways. Oh, and of course, everybody always says, "Just use
Linux!" (argh, somewhat valid I guess, but still ...). Then again,
that never stopped *BSD.

> Of course, it'd be nice if one could create a 32-bit DOS using a mature
> project, like DOSBox PC emulator or a DOS "dosbox" using the DOSEMU PM
> monitor - perhaps with HX... =A0

DOSBox itself is dirt slow. We're talking a 486 DX2/100, and that's
only if the host machine is 1+ Ghz. Max 64 MB RAM (defaults to 16).
The good part is that it emulates VESA 2, GUS, SB, etc., for you. Also
they explicitly target only games, for good or bad. But at least you
can capture video, audio, screenshots, and somewhat manually speed up/
slow down stuff.

Actually, RDOS now is a valid target for OpenWatcom, and it's 32-bit
and multitasking. I think it's open source, but I've never tried it.
It has a DPMI 1.0 host inside. (Similarly, ZDOS also had some support
at one time, but I haven't heard anything lately, and it reportedly
didn't run DJGPP stuff. I also never really messed with that.)

> However, there are always a bunch of problems
> that seem to need to be resolved: assembly or C++ code, license
> incompatibilities such as GPL v2.0 only code and/or "as-is" code, no
> technical information on how the application works, and some projects use=
 an
> excessive number of libraries, etc.

DOSBox uses SDL, not sure what else (optionally ZLIB + PNG or
whatever). Yes, it's mostly C++ these days, but luckily pretty
portable. What needs to be mentioned is that it uses its own built-in
"kernel" subset, i.e. doesn't use any "real" DOS at all. Yes, it's
GPL, not sure if v3 by now (or how that would affect it).

> While I use DOS, KernelEx for Win98SE has allowed me to run many recent
> applications from Win NT/2K/XP/Vista etc. =A0Unfortunately, they are stil=
l
> working out some bugs. =A0And, some software is becoming incompatible as =
fast
> as they make it compatible (e.g., Mozilla Firefox...) =A0

You could always use Opera, I think one guy told me it (still) works
even on Win95.

> It seems there are
> just two main developers. =A0A third guy supposedly got the project to
> compile. =A0But, I haven't seen any contributions from him yet. =A0I can'=
t seem
> to locate the ancient, out of production MS compiler they're using, or I'=
d
> attempt to locate two irritating issues.

Yeah, sad how some projects need a specific compiler (ahem, 4DOS).
Sometimes it really is just easier to rewrite something than convert
from old sources!