Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/13/19:40:35
Michael Kearns wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:26:34 +0100, Thomas Harte <T DOT Harte AT btinternet DOT com>
> wrote:
>
> >> The only thing DOS does is load a program and then let it take
> >> complete control of the machine. That turns out not to be a very
> >> good model if you ever want to run two programs at once. Why not
> >> run DOSEMU under Linux, either on the console or in an Xwindow?
> >
> > To me it seems the goal is to create an efficient operating system with the
> >feel of DOS rather than a multi-programming DOS compatible. But, in that case,
> >would it not be quite a bit easier and still achieve the same targets if a DOS
> >shell for UNIX was created? Not only would you be able to port it around quite
> >easily in terms of target hardware, but you would appease UNIX distributors
> >who are looking for a way to make things such as Linux look easier to the
> >DOS/windows user and so probably gain a lot of support.
>
> My knowledge of Linux isn't as good as it should be, but whenever I have
> used it, it has the following 'aspects' which I don't see as very DOS-like.
>
> Boot time - This is generally quite long, even compared to windows. I
> realise it could maybe be streamlined somewhat, but could it ever get close
> to the DOS 2-second minimal boot ?
Try passing the kernel "init=/bin/sh" sometime. Sure, it won't be a
very useful system, but it'll boot fast, and probably still be better
than DOS.
> Configuration - DOS is great because in 2 files (config.sys & autoexec.bat)
> you can configure the drivers, runtime apps etc. Compare this to any Unix
> variety with all the RC files, and modules etc...
Not quite true. I've never seen a real application for DOS that was
configured solely in autoexec/config. And even if it were, can you
imagine the creeping, unmaintainable horror that autoexec.bat would
become if it included all your settings for Wordperfect, Quake, Netware,
Turbo Pascal, etc, etc?
Oh wait, I don't have to imagine it, I've seen it. It was called the
"Windows Registry" :)
IMHO, many separate files, each controlling one well-defined thing, are
a lot easier to manage.
Besides, most of the config files on Unix are for daemons that don't
even exist on DOS. Drop those, and things will be much simpler (though
perhaps useless).
> Multiuser - This is more a requirement of myself than of DOS, but one of the
> reasons for wanting such a lightweight OS is that I want something to use at
> home. For myself. 1 user. It shouldn't have all the excess baggage
> associated with multi-user support, if it's not needed.
I use Linux at home, and I don't think the multi-user stuff is at all
wasted. It helps protect me from myself. By running as a user when
most of the system is owned by root, I limit the damage I can do with
`rm -r'.
Besides, once you have multitasking and a real file system, "multi-user
support" is essentially free. It's just another layer of protection.
But this is horribly off-topic. Oh well. :)
--
Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu
- Raw text -