From: "Marvin G Wise Jr" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP: the future is... FreeDos? DJ-DOS? Linux? Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:05:12 -0400 Organization: University of Cincinnati, ECE/CS News Server Lines: 109 Message-ID: <7ejuap$q73$1@news.ececs.uc.edu> References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19990408222215 DOT 24978170 AT shadow DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: t02-19.ra.uc.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com 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 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. >