Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/04/09/22:47:31
Personally, I'd love to write a new OS ....it'd be a challenge, and I'd love
to make it something that has a little bit of everything hehe
WG
Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net> wrote in message
news:3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19990408222215 DOT 24978170 AT shadow DOT net...
> At 01:58 AM 4/9/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> >>It seems that much of the incentive behind the development of DJGPP was
> >>due directly to the inadequacies of DOS that you are ranting about.
> >>Wouldn't changing that underlying DOS `engine' in the ways you suggest
> >>just amout to reinventing DJGPP in the image of Linux? Why not just
> >>move to Linux, then, and abandon DOS and DJGPP?
> >>
> >
> >>From my perspective - I am happy using DOS and djgpp and Linux too. I
would
> >think that it would be a real shame to lose djgpp, just because the
> >underlying OS is systematically destroyed. There is a wealth of other
good
> >software/applications/games which is going to become unusable because MS
are
> >engineering the OS so people are not going to be able to use the old
stuff.
> >I personallity don't have the large quantities of money to purchase
> >expensive unreliable software, when a better system exists with the
source
> >code, and is written using the GNU philosophy. Organisations such as
schools
> >and computing in developing nations are dependant on good software like
> >djgpp and Linux to allow them to educate people to use computers, and I
> >would like to keep that avenue open for them..Some people may not want to
> >use Linux because they will lose the investment they have in made buying
> >software for DOS/Win95. This is one segment of end-user who will lose out
in
> >the end if their existing OS is not supported.
> >
> >I think that if djgpp is to survive we are going to need a DOS-based OS
to
> >keep us going, with sources. FreeDOS is 16-bit and although closer to the
> >original DOS, is not the best system that we *could* have (for 386 and
above
> >systems). If we are going to have to build a free software DOS which runs
> >all existing software, the I would like it to be the best version
possible.
> >Make it POSIX compliant. Make it 32 bit. Build all of the useful stuff in
at
> >a low level, so that everything running on the OS has access to all the
> >devices. Build an optional windowing system as a enhancement to run
windows
> >programmes, rather than the only way to get things done as in Win NT. Add
> >Xfree and Gnome if people feel they need it. Make DOS configurable for
> >individual users requirements.
> >
> >Providing that the system runs all people's current software, is reliable
> >and is supported, then people will stick with it.
> >
> >>There are many of us who just want to do away completely with M$
> >>software. DJGPP can take you all the way there *except* for the kernel,
> >>and can do it with fewer system resources than can a full-blown Linux
> >>distribution, and it lets you keep your DOS machine. Very neat.
> >>
> >>Yes, there is lots of room for improvement in DOS. These improvements
> >>could be made to enhance the cooperation of DOS and DJGPP and to
> >>provide some of the capabilities you mention, but DJGPP won't be of
> >>much use without DOS of some kind. It doesn't *have* to be FreeDOS,
> >>but the advantage of the FreeDOS project is that their kernel is
> >>maturing rapidly, and it might deserve consideration as a starting
> >>point for building a better DOS that will still support DJGPP.
> >
> >
> >I agree with this. I think that if a djgpp DOS is to exist, it would be
> >silly not to take advantage of the existing code available and save
> >ourselves some work. Any enhanced DOS system does not need to be as
> >complicated as Linux (although there are some useful features which could
be
> >added as extras such as virtual terminals) and can retain the same basic
> >functionality, but with the retro-fitted features of the original built
as
> >standard..
> >
> >Do people care enough about djgpp to ensure its survival by engineering a
OS
> >to run it? Is this thread leading nowhere? I'd be interested in seeing
> >whether people see this as the way forward...or any other ideas they
have..
> >
> >---
> >Arron Shutt
> >version8 AT ashutt DOT demon DOT co DOT uk -- www.ashutt.demon.co.uk
> >"You can jump all you like but it's the day of the cow" - Mike Keneally
>
> Bravo!, Arron. I fully agree, and would stress that those who also want
> the multi-user/multi-tasking which Linux provides will still have their
> old friend DOS in some form and their good DOS program library plus
> DJGPP. No contradiction in this philosophy.
>
> HOWEVER, some of us will have to have an MS-approved machine in the
> house to run those programs some members of the family want. That
> means (gasp) having to have the latest MS Windows--whatever that
> might be. But that's no fault of DOS, DJGPP, or Linux--they will
> remain good as gold IMHO.
>
> Ralph Proctor
> Still waiting for the underlying window.
>
- Raw text -