Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Phaneuf Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com To: OpenDOS Mailing List Subject: Re: Back on track... Opendos's Not Unix! In-Reply-To: <199705120218.OAA03271@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 May 1997, Mr M S Aitchison wrote: > OBJECTIVE 1: Whatever special versions of OpenDOS might come along, > there will always be a plain "vanilla" version that runs > on low-end computers such as an original IBM 256Kb RAM PC. I don't think this is a primary objective. This is *exactly* FreeDOS goal and it is the reason the FreeDOS project will carry on even if OpenDOS and its sources are now available. They heard OpenDOS will become a state-of-the-art OS, 32-bit and everything and since it is not what they want/need (an OS that'll run on all the PC), it's not stopping. From the FreeDOS FAQ: 2.2 What will FreeDOS not be? FreeDOS will not be multitasking. It will not be object oriented. It will not include a Graphical Interface, a flat memory model, or operate in 32-bit protected mode. > OBJECTIVE 2: OpenDOS will continue to run old DOS applications; it will > be about as compatible with PC-DOS/MS-DOS as one version > of MSDOS is with another. This one is rather easy. The DOS platform as it is today is such a braindead piece of software, not very hard to emulate... > OBJECTIVE 3: The setup and on-going administration will be as easy as > possible, and the user interface both ergonomic and > compatibile with traditional COMMAND.COM (if there is any > conflict between convenience and compatibility, the user > should get the option). What do you think: let's keep our fingers away from COMMAND.COM (except for debugging purposes) and make a whole new shell either derived from this one or made from scratch, so that new users will have the choice to have a "normal" COMMAND.COM or a better one... > OBJECTIVE 4: Security (against viruses, access to private data, and > ability to restore a working system) should be as good as > reasonably possible. This means, at the least, restoring > access rights available under the old Multiuser DRDOS, but > it could go a lot further (especialy virus resistance, not > just detection). Wholeheartedly agreed! > OBJECTIVE 5: Provision of modern conveniences, such as long filenames, > object-orientation, web browsers. It should be easier to > port sources from other systems to OpenDOS than plain DOS, > perhaps in the way that EMX makes it easy to port Unix > sources to OS/2. OpenDOS should not only "keep up with > the Jones", it should be able to get features before most > commercial counterparts. LFNs and a built-in TCP/IP stack would be extra nice, but futuristic things like object-orientation, while very interesting, will make for a weird OS that won't be quite your regular DOS anymore! > OBJECTIVE 6: OpenDOS should be the most inter-operable DOS; it should be > happy with Mac/VMS or Unix text files (i.e. not CR-LF), be > able to use industry-standard printing and file sharing > systems without headaches (e.g. should work with > Unix-style permissions on mounted file systems; use > distributed configuration systems like NIS, DNS, NDS). It > should be able to use X11, and even if a low-RAM system is > using a non-X11 standard GUI, the system should be similar > enough to administer. Yes! That's one of the things preventing the inclusion of things like object-oriented file systems... It's going to be so alien to a "normal OS" that it won't be interoperable... X is broken IMHO, but the principle of client/server is nice... Take a look at NeWS from Sun, much better! > OBJECTIVE 7: When it comes to high-performance 32-bit facilities and SMP, > it might be best to not try to extend OpenDOS to do do things > Linux has solved already, but to run OpenDOS within Linux > "seemlessly". SMP is probably not needed. If you need an operating for a SMP computer, by all mean, go with Linux-SMP! OpenDOS shall be the perfect client workstation operating system, with high performance on current popular systems (that mean Intel 32-bit single processor) and leave the serving end to the "big boys"... Note that being multiuser is just as important on a client machine! Pierre Phaneuf