中国DOS联盟

I also want to participate, but unfortunately I'm not an old-timer from the DOS era, and I don't understand many things

Will fully support and actively participate.

I also support. Although I have been playing with computers for several years, my programming ability is only limited to Windows library such as MFC, VB, etc. The DOS programs were only used during school time with GWBasic (completely forgotten), QBASIC and TC2.0. The strongest trick on DOS is just writing BAT files. Now I have time to pick up the ASM book and read it. I am really far behind the above great masters.

When does it start?

To make an operating system, we can draw on good things from any other excellent systems. We'd better have clear ideas, development rules and a series of specific goals. We shouldn't pursue being big and comprehensive. Simple things can often play their might better.
The poster can talk about the development plan and specific ideas, and divide some specific tasks for everyone to do. With everyone's joint efforts, I think the system development will no longer be a dream.

Support! I don't have the profound skills of the各位 above, have more knowledge about OS and also have enthusiasm. How to participate in this project?

小心！

如果你（tinybit）打算通过编码为新项目做贡献，最好不要进行任何形式的非法逆向工程。例如：softice

我建议有人可以整理并记录这些信息，然后其他人可以据此编码。REACTOS在（法律）逆向工程问题上遭受了很多困扰。WineHQ在这方面更加谨慎。建议你研究一下Wine的洁净室逆向工程方法。

只是我的一点建议。

I think what we need is just a system that can "replace" MS-DOS, and "replace" doesn't mean "completely compatible". For programs that are not compatible, if we can make completely alternative new programs, then what's the need to be compatible with the original programs? We need a "clean" "new" good system, not an "old" system. Therefore, I think FreeDOS has gone in the wrong direction from the very beginning.

How to be "fully compatible"? If you want "full compatibility", then certain things must be the same as MSDOS. Will this fall into Microsoft's trap?

Unconsciously, another long period of time has passed. It seems that only things based on FreeDOS are more tangible...

There was another quarrel in the FreeDOS email communication.... It's nothing more than there are many and chaotic versions, each person's tools are different, and there are too many source codes that can be organized inside (but no one does it)...

In fact, we can first organize the source codes...

Originally I shouldn't say anything here. Looking at assembly is like looking at天书, and for C I can only do a HELLO WORD.

I've looked for a long time, but I still don't understand what everyone really wants in a DOS. Any operating system needs third-party support. What's the use of an operating system without software? It's hard to have a free and open-source DOS. It also needs to be compatible with MSDOS programs and be able to boot WIN98. The most important thing is to know what programs Microsoft wrote in MSDOS. This is a very difficult thing. Either develop a system from scratch, or choose a non-open-source one, or choose the open-source LINUX. This isn't something one or a few people can do. The Chinese Academy of Sciences took a shortcut and developed a piece of junk Hongqi. Moreover, what can a few people do.

I think when developing an operating system, you need to consider what it's used for. You choose between compatibility, open-source, freedom, and free. You can't choose all. It's hard to make a living without income from developing software, let alone developing a system that needs to be compatible with MSDOS and boot WIN98. Actually, the government should step in to solve this. Unfortunately, the government chose LINUX and made it so much like WINDOWS, which shows it's for making money, and it's just a set of office software. If you have the ability, you should develop a system from scratch starting with CPU instructions (without your own CPU, AMD should have opened up the instructions, otherwise China wouldn't cooperate with them to develop supercomputers).

I don't know what kind of system you all want or what effect you want to achieve. From the perspective of a novice, what we should improve may not necessarily be the DOS kernel, or rather, what we actually want is not DOS but an open-source and free system that can be compatible with many programs (not necessarily free).

The solution is to develop a virtual machine system or a system that can run virtual machines. This system itself consumes relatively little resources, provides drivers, and then develop an open-source virtual machine similar to VBOX, and of course, it can also run VBOX. It's not giving up DOS nor wanting our own kernel. What is the purpose of having our own kernel? We can completely improve FREEDOS, then develop its drivers and then develop its virtual machine.

This virtual machine should be able to run some common systems such as other DOS, Windows (XP/98, etc.), and Linux. Then all problems will be solved.

There is another way:

It seems that Grub has been able to boot other operating systems independently of other operating systems, so the next step is to skip those few boot files... I don't understand what goal everyone wants to reach (what is the purpose of developing the DOS kernel)?

Last edited by shanliang8008 on 2007-11-4 at 11:07 PM ]

Report several messages:

1. A new version of FreeDOS's debug (free software) is out:

http://www.japheth.de/Download/debug107.zip

2. A new version of Get Real Debugger (free software) grdb is also out, version 9.2. Do you want to download? No way, unless you can access the author's homepage (requires special means, which can't be mentioned here).

The difference between debug and grdb is that debug's syntax is fully compatible with MS's debug, while grdb is only partially compatible. Both debuggers are better than MS's because MS's debug doesn't support 386 instructions. These debuggers can of course run under Microsoft's DOS. So they are very good and indispensable tools for players.

3. Found a message on the FreeDOS homepage that MPlayer has been ported to DOS. This is a big news! MPlayer is a free software media player running on Linux/Windows9x/NT series, and now it runs on DOS too.

From various signs, DOS development is very active, and DOS will not disappear as MS hopes. DOS represents technology that MS doesn't want, but it doesn't mean that no one else in the world doesn't want it.

So, I hope those who are hesitating and vacillating will build up confidence, see the road ahead, and not be deceived by some illusions, and have a long-term vision.

Of course, I'm not inciting anyone to do any risky things. You must be sure of the direction yourself and not be easily incited by others.

What I mean by DOS having prospects mainly refers to free software DOS having prospects. If you want to develop a proprietary software DOS, it's not within the discussion scope (maybe it has prospects, maybe not, I can't draw this conclusion because I don't care about this situation and haven't studied it).

shanliang8008: What you said about grub is correct. Actually, I'm mainly developing grub4dos, and I also attach great importance to the development of grub4dos. I don't have time to do DOS development. If I have a little spare time, I hope to contribute to grub4dos, not DOS, because grub4dos needs a lot of development. The current development progress is still far from our goal. grub4dos may develop into an operating system in the future, but that's also very far away.

Last edited by 不点 on 2007-11-8 at 09:06 PM ]

Originally posted by Budian at 2007-11-8 17:59:
Get Real Debugger (free software) grdb has also released a new version, version 9.2. Do you want to download it? No way, unless you can access the author's homepage (which requires special means, and this can't be talked about here).

Just waiting for you to talk about "special means are required"!!!