中国DOS联盟

Random Thoughts Erupted from the Comparison between FreeDOS and Linux

For the new generation of FreeDOS 32, it has now achieved a 32-bit kernel, and the support for FAT32, large hard disks, and large memory is already very perfect. Then why does FreeDOS (or these modern DOS systems) still not compete with Linux? I think to a large extent, FreeDOS lacks a good graphical shell, that is, GUI. Everyone knows that Windows 9X is actually a luxurious graphical shell built on M$ DOS. And what FreeDOS lacks now is exactly an excellent graphical shell. What to do?

What would it be like if X-Window and FreeDOS were integrated?

X-Window itself is separable from the operating system. Strictly speaking, it is not a part of a certain operating system. It is a universal graphical shell. In theory, the integration with FreeDOS should not encounter too many technical problems. However, X-Window has always run on Unix-like systems. Whether the core of FreeDOS can coordinate well with X-Window may be a big problem. But both X-Window and FreeDOS are open-source projects, and such problems should be able to be solved through code rewriting by countless developers. Imagine the situation of starting the X-Window service and using Gnome (or KDE) after you enter FreeDOS!

Then, if FreeDOS can integrate the characteristics of the Linux shell?

For now, many people have forgotten DOS commands, and more and more people are beginning to accept the general UNIX commands of the Linux system. FreeDOS can absorb the characteristics of open-source Linux shells such as BASH, KSH, etc. on the command-line shell (maybe I can also call it shell), such as command/directory completion, redirection and other characteristics. This will be of great benefit to FreeDOS. At the same time, two sets of command forms can be provided, one set is traditional DOS commands, and the other set is Linux-compatible shell commands, so as to absorb the user group to the greatest extent.

If the huge idle resources of OS/2 can be fully utilized, the power will be terrifying!

In my impression, IBM's OS/2 has basically been idle all the time. Nearly half of OS/2 was developed by Microsoft people. It can be imagined that OS/2 should have a lot in common with Windows both from the bottom layer to the upper GUI. The fact that some Windows programs can run directly on OS/2 without modification is a proof. And since FreeDOS is itself a member of the DOS family, it will naturally have an inextricable connection with OS/2. It seems that there is also an open-source organization for OS/2. If FreeDOS can absorb the essence of OS/2 and use some technologies in OS/2 to improve its kernel and X-Window (if there is any), it will undoubtedly greatly promote the development of FreeDOS.

In terms of the desktop field, FreeDOS has a much better inherent affinity than Linux. A considerable number of PC users have been loyal users of DOS. And the Windows 9X system itself is built on a large DOS system, which makes FreeDOS have incomparable superiority in compatibility with Windows systems. Now the FreeDOS core is 32-bit, the file system is also FAT32, and the compatibility with Windows applications is also quite good. These are the trump cards of FreeDOS in the desktop field to compete with Windows (and Linux:-). If X-Window can be successfully ported to the FreeDOS system, through some code modifications to X-Window, then the difficulty of simulating and running Windows programs on FreeDOS will be much smaller than that of simulating with Wine on Linux. Finally, if the core of FreeDOS can absorb some advanced management modes of the Linux core and improve itself, it can be quite comparable with Windows in the desktop field.

Everyone, think about it. If FreeDOS is like this:

FreeDOS core (absorbing the excellent parts of the Linux core)
+
Command-line shell (Bash Shell)
+
Graphical interface shell (X-Window, with Gnome, KDE)

Plus the inherent compatibility with Windows systems, the prospect of FreeDOS is really very promising. However, at that time, FreeDOS will look more like a Linux distribution. Can it still be called DOS? The above are some personal thoughts of this junior, and I still need everyone's advice.

Well said! Actually, interfaces like X-Win are not the interface of Linux. At most, they are just an application that can run under Linux, just like the relationship between DOS and Win3.x/9x. Therefore, if someone says that X-Win is the Linux system (that is, says that X-Win is the interface of Linux), then Win3.x/9x are all DOS systems, that is, the interface of GUI programs under DOS such as Win3.x/9x is also the interface of DOS. There are many other GUIs parallel to Win3.x/9x, such as SEAL, Qube, etc.

It doesn't seem that simple. The interface is a major reason hindering its development. It's acceptable for ordinary users, but why do those bottom - layer technical personnel developing operating systems show far less enthusiasm for FREEDOS than for LINUX? And when LINUX first came out, there was no X - WINDOWS system. But its development speed and the number of participants are unprecedented.

Let's talk about an off - topic thing. OS/2 and WIN~. When Microsoft was still a small company, it cooperated with IBM to develop the GUI kernel of IBM's graphical operating system OS/2. Some important breakthroughs in the development process were successfully monopolized and kept secret by Microsoft. When the technology was approaching maturity, Microsoft withdrew from the development process of OS/2 and independently developed WINDOWS. And then OS/2 became a mess at that time. Actually, the predecessor of WINDOWS is OS/2.

Hehe, but Linux came out in 1991, while X-Window started in 1986. Actually, Linux is a case of taking what's available. I think OS/2 is anyway a very good window to peek into Windows design, and it would be best to absorb nutrients from the source code of OS/2.

GNU is indeed good. But I don't want DOS to be completely GNUish. Like:
GNU/DOS login:root
Password?someth
Login OK
#ls
aaa
......
For GNU, we should absorb its essence, but don't discard DOS itself (it will eventually become GNU/Diskix), this is what I hope DOS to be.
c:\home\root>mount (hd0,0) d:
c:\home\root>d:
d:\>dir
fdslkjdslfjds
fdsjfkrd
That is what GNU/DOS is (nah GNU/Diskix).

Uncle, well said. Windows is more user-friendly than Linux and DOS only in the graphical interface, and of course it's not as good as Apple's interface. But the openness of PC machines has made MICROSOFT achieve unprecedented success. DOS has inherent deficiencies in security and networking compared to Linux, which are areas that need to be strengthened. I also like operating systems that have a command-line kernel combined with a beautiful graphical interface.

The fact that DOS is simpler than Linux is an irreplaceable advantage of DOS. There's no need to fully use those concepts of Linux. It's also fine to have drives like C, D...

Unix/Linux programs (especially command-line programs) are extremely troublesome to run, while DOS is much simpler. For example, to view help, Unix/Linux programs often use the --help option, while DOS uses the /? option.

Yeah. DOS is simple, Linux is powerful, both are great, I like them all (but I'm still a bit more familiar with DOS).

I think for end users, it doesn't matter whether the system is complex or simple; it just depends on whether it's easy to use. The success of LINUX first lies in the server field, and then it advances to the desktop field. DOS is the favorite of many software developers, and at least it's the foundation when they start learning, but it's not the case for desktop users.

I think that so far, in real life, ordinary people don't care what an operating system is. They only care about what functions they can use, and then whether the interface is beautiful or not. The open source of DOS is a great good thing for professionals, just like the original intention of Richard Stallman when he founded FSF, which is to let people improve it better.

Personally, I think DOS should develop and strengthen network functions in the field of proprietary operating systems.
And LINUX should always develop in the server field, until it drives out or unifies major UNIX systems (to put it a bit too much ;-), and don't let Microsoft come in.
As for Windows, let it take its course :)

In my personal opinion, DOS should develop and strengthen network functions in the field of proprietary operating systems.
And Linux should always develop in the server field until it squeezes out or unifies major UNIX systems (to be honest, that's a bit overstated ;-), and prevent Microsoft from encroaching.
As for Windows, let it take its own course:)

I share the same view. I also think DOS should develop in the field of proprietary operating systems.

But many hardware manufacturers have stopped developing drivers for DOS, which is also a major factor hindering the development of DOS. The AC97 of Intel is not easy to drive, which is a proof!!!

好主意，比如 BSD+Aqua Mac OS X

Personal opinion: The role of business operation is immeasurable. For free things and open things, there are -- security issues in commercial use. So, some excellent operating platforms gradually decline without the background of business operation.....