Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:06:24 -0700 From: "Alan S." 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) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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.