Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990423012009.007b1910@dragonbbs.com>
X-Sender: db6646 AT dragonbbs DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:20:09 -0700
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Daniel Pierce <db6646 AT dragonbbs DOT com>
Subject: Re: Another reason for DOS/FreeDOS/DOS32, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.990422085126.26473B-100000@travelers.mail.co
 rnell.edu>
References: <199904220405 DOT AAA16237 AT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

At 09:04 AM 4/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Part of what I left out of my short, short message:
>
>Dos is not secure.
>Dos is not sophisticated (relatively speaking).
>
>BUT
>
>Dos is SIMPLE
>Dos is SMALL
>Dos is FAST! (direct hardware access)
>Dos is single-user

I think we really need a multi-tasking DOS.

>
>The majority of "normal" computer users don't care about users 
>and permissions and security levels and ownership.  They don't need a 
>multiuser system.  Windows itself is complex enough.  They just need 
>something that makes their computer *work* (not even reliable it appears, 
>although the simpler the OS the easier it is to make reliable!).  And 
>something that is fast is even better.  By stripping away the features 
>that the target audience doesn't care about, one can improve on those 
>that they do.  I think there is plenty of room (if not an imperitive) for 
>a small, fast, simple OS (preferably 32 bit) that does everything one 
>wants it to do and nothing one doesn't need.
>
>My concern is that while people are pitching Linux and other modern 
>hi-tech operating systems as the Windows/DOS alternative, they miss the 
>point that some people really *don't* need the included features and 
>would *gladly* sacrifice them for performance, size, simplicity, etc.  I 
>don't see any player in this field right now.  There is no Windows/DOS 
>alternative that is as simple and fast (not to say Windows is that 
>fast), not to mention fully backward compatible with all the thousands of 
>DOS programs.  Bigger (in feature count, sophistication) is not necessarily 
>better.

Bigger sometimes really does get in the way.

My basic use of Freedos is in robotics. I am currently working on a large
C3PO-R2D2 sized robot with a standard pc for it's main brain and a number
of 68HC11 sub-brains. Main brain does all the thinking and the sub-brains
do all the work. I need a multi-tasking OS that is simple, direct, yet can
access standard ide hard drives. My machine (Arthur Wingnut) currently has
a 386sx-33 & 100 meg HD, but will be upgraded to a AMD-K6-200 & 800 meg HD
in a few months.

DOS & DJGPP & Allegro is the enviroment I would prefer to program in
(quick, simple, and direct access to all hardware elements) but it don't
multi-task.

I would like a Linux-like OS but Linux is overkill. I am trying it with a
300 meg drive and have found difficulty in taking out the un-needed network
& emacs type stuff.  X-windows is way too much bloat just to display a few
jpeg images. Progress IS being made though.

There is, or soon will be, a need for an in between OS for general purpose
robots. DOS ain't enough, Linux is the best for networked systems, and
Windoze is way too bloated and crash-prone for a possible future life-form.
PC's are pushing 1 gips (1000 mips). Ram is hitting a gig. Hard drives now
hit 10 gigs. Computer hardware and micro video cameras are at commodity
prices. All that is needed are small, cheap, alcohal burning 1 kwatt fuel
cells and robots would/may cost $5000-$10,000. The same as the very high
end power-user PC's cost. The field is not currently going anywhere, I
think, because there is no basic operating system and language with which
to work with, nor standard hardware design.  A 32 bit multi-tasking FreeDos
that is programmed/able with DJGPP & Allegro would be a big step in that
direction.

---------------   Daniel Pierce

Of what use is a general purpose robot? Of what use is a child?
Please. Oh please don't start another thread...