中国DOS联盟

What the person upstairs said is right. In some industrial fields, such as industrial control computers, single-chip microcomputers, etc., DOS still has room.

Social development, the development of things, not necessarily all in a straight line, and business operations may also hinder technological development.

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

Isn't that GNU/Linux?
If the batch script is like this...

#! c:\bin\bash
if balh balh ; then
ba ba ba
fi

Isn't it Linux?

Is your FreeDOS just Linux with a few lines of code changed by you?

What is the relationship between the code of FreeDOS and Linux? The source code of all versions of FreeDOS and all its tools is completely open.

But MS-DOS/FreeDOS and Unix/Linux have mainly different application objects. DOS is mainly used for PC, while Unix is mainly used for servers and computer hacker-level experts. In the PC market, DOS actually left Unix far behind 20 years ago (back then, who used Unix for personal users? Didn't everyone use DOS?). It's the same now.

Upstairs, do you think that the core of the operating system that the LZ idealizes is described exactly like LINUX? I suspect that he wants to modify FREEDOS a lot so that the pseudocode is similar to the functions implemented by LINUX. Moreover, most people in this forum seem to just talk big, without actual technology; even if there is actual technology, they don't work hard, and they are discussing overly basic things. Compare with other technical forums, their programming code must be ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times more than yours... So technology is not something that can be done by just talking. Besides, you are not Linus, nor are you a genius. I think only by establishing the correct ideas and working together with everyone is there hope. We'd better work hard to tackle UNIX technology as the correct path. For those who say or believe that LINUX is garbage, we can also take the BSD path?

10. Is DOS a single - task operating system? Can it perform multi - task operations?
Answer:
The so - called "single - task system" means that this system cannot support multi - task operations and can only execute one task at the same time. DOS has two modes, one is the local real mode and the other is the protected mode. Among them, DOS in the real mode is a single - task environment, and usually only less than 1M of memory can be used in this mode. In the protected mode DOS, not only can all memory be accessed, but also multi - task operations can be fully achieved (just like what Win3.x/9x has achieved, because Win3.x/9x is originally a large - scale protected mode DOS software). Since the real mode of DOS usually does not support multi - task, the efficiency of processing tasks in this state is naturally lower than that of multi - task operating systems, and the security performance is naturally not as good as that of the multi - task environment. On the contrary, the protected mode DOS programs are very powerful and can complete various advanced functions and operations such as multi - task, but their writing difficulty is relatively much greater. However, in recent years, in addition to Windows, many multi - task graphical operation environments under the DOS protected mode have appeared, such as SEAL, Qube, DesqView, etc., which can be downloaded in the "System Enhancement" of this website.

Adding a POSIX compatible layer on FreeDOS is an interesting idea. It may not be completely impossible, but in the end, it's likely to be a problem of which is dominant and which is subordinate.
Adding a Windows compatible layer is basically impossible. After all, it's far from the 9x era now. We can see that the PE format is even evolving to.net, and it's just talking nonsense to ask Microsoft for the source code. The difficulty is something that ordinary enthusiasts can't handle.

Although it's not realistic, still give a little support

If there are more than 23 partitions (AB are assigned to floppy drives + one CD-ROM drive), MS - windows can't be accessed. Although personal users are not very few and small, it can be said that no one will divide so many partitions. But this is also a shortcoming of MICROSOFT, isn't it? For ordinary users, it is a little difficult to understand how Unix (Linux) does this! But its flexibility is incomparable. For example, the file system type. It can be placed anywhere in the system and so on.

Everyone's remarks are very good, I still need to study!

Linux is a Unix-like operating system

Adding applications under LoveDOS - Simple

Why can't DOS have multiple parallel consoles like Linux, using Ctrl+F1~F12 to call? Just a humble opinion

DOS doesn't need to think about compatibility with XXXX at all; DOS is just DOS.
It's okay to absorb the essence of GNU. Personally, I think DOS can be completely like this:

0:0:\>copy 0:0:\a.txt
1 file(s) copied
0:0:\>subst 0:0: c:
C:\>copy 0:1:\b.txt
1 file(s) copied
C:\>

Also, the kernel can be completely improved, using a new file system, completely giving up short file names, and supporting various encodings such as Unicode. Although there are Bash, ls, cp, mv... under DOS now, although they are powerful, they have no DOS style at all, and I don't like it.

DOS is single-tasking and has certain real-time characteristics; and the kernel is very small, it only supports very few functions by itself, and has certain micro-kernel characteristics. So far, DOS is still the most universal operating system. Why is FAT32 the most universal file system? Because of DOS. Now there is no operating system that can directly read and write hardware like DOS. Whether it is Linux or Windows, they all have protection for hardware, so the underlying operations that other operating systems cannot do, DOS can do. At least for now, DOS will not disappear.

As long as the kernel is made 32-bit, other functions such as multi-tasking, multi-user, etc., can all be completed through third-party programs, and no kernel support is needed. The functions of DOS can be easily extended. In this way, the kernel can be made very small, can be easily ported, and can perform real-time and embedded work.

After implementing 32-bit, there is no need for TSR programs at all, because it itself supports multi-tasking. And there is no need to consider the memory limit problem anymore, and various function expansions and hardware supports can be easily written. It is completely possible to add a POSIX layer on DOS. Generally speaking, as long as a 32-bit kernel DOS is developed, everything can be done. And if it is developed completely with a high-level language, cross-platform can be more realized. Imagine running DOS on non-x86 CPUs in the future, how spectacular that would be!

The most important problem now is: very few people are willing to participate in the development of DOS. People generally think that DOS is outdated and have turned to Linux, BSD, etc. In fact, they have not realized that DOS is a very excellent operating system! We should work hard to promote it and attract more people to participate! Support FreeDOS, this is the biggest hope for the current development of DOS!

Last edited by brglng on 2006-8-28 at 14:00 ]