China DOS Union

I haven't been learning dos for very long. I like dos and batch files, because they let me complete some tasks that would otherwise require programming, without using any programming software. I think it's very convenient.

Personally speaking, I also rather agree with the view in post #23. To be honest, DOS has basically fallen into being a less-than-ideal disk tool, and with the spread of PE, even that position is in jeopardy. We study DOS mainly in order to understand low-level working principles. As for dealing with hardware programming, if you just throw away your old experience and seriously study WINDOWS or linux driver programming, I believe you will soon give up the idea of using DOS. DOS architecture is already outdated, and its functions are too few. DOS is old—can it still do the job? — purely a personal opinion.

『post #5』:

I want to know, if we always advocate free and open, then how are us programmers supposed to make a living?


If it's like you say.. wouldn't that starve a huge bunch of people????

Is there really such a situation now？?

What you said.. is total garbage....!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ Last edited by linlinux on 2007-8-6 at 10:51 AM ]

Learned something, got to understand the state of DOS development. Hope it can continue developing.

Originally posted by linlinux at 2007-8-6 10:50 AM:
『第 5 楼』:

我想知道，如果总是提倡免费，开放，咱们程序员还怎么混饭吃？


如果像你說的..那不是要餓死一大片????

現在有這樣的情況嗎 ...

This is reality. Even if you're doing good deeds, you still have to fill your stomach first.

Originally posted by zykdos at 2003-8-1 12:00 AM:
我想知道，如果总是提倡免费，开放，咱们程序员还怎么混饭吃？

It doesn't necessarily have to be free. If the user has commercial secrets or state secrets, they wouldn't dare use it if it weren't open source. I'm not a programmer, but I'm almost 30 and I still have this ideal

[ Last edited by shanliang8008 on 2007-11-10 at 01:33 AM ]

I believe that in the near future, hardware manufacturers will hire large numbers of programmers. In other words, a lot of software will be sold together with hardware. That means there won't be too much extra cost (in anti-piracy, transportation, and so on). Of course commercial software will not be scarce or disappear either.

What the friends above are calling “DOS” mostly refers to MSDOS, right?
Actually, developing DOS does not mean it has to be developed based on the MSDOS environment, nor can it be confined only to this OS.
But because hardware specs were low and expensive at the time, DOS was already enough for device management under the hardware environment of that time; now hardware is developing so fast that DOS is no longer capable of supporting it. If you understand assembly, then expanding the user memory space provided by the OS and supporting more devices is also technically achievable.
But the security of a real-mode-based system still needs further study.
In short, I personally support an open-source DOS system based on the GNU license.

There are still copyright issues with using and copying MSDOS, right? If everyone really wants to develop products under DOS, then they should try to use FreeDOS as much as possible, but freeDOS still has stability problems at present.

Well written!

Haha, the OP really put it well, DOS is a good thing

Does anyone know ROM DOS relatively well? Please introduce it.

It's free because enough time has passed and it has entered the public domain; that doesn't mean it has no value. At least DOS is like that. If everything has to be counted in money, it's no fun to work with either. For example, the spread of computer software in China was helped by pirated copies. As for the person above talking about “programmers making a living,” that has to be looked at from the angle of distribution.
The above is just my own opinion, not worth much.

Back when Sun Yat-sen was studying and living in Britain, he found that the lives of ordinary British people were even worse than before industrialized mass production—it was industrialized mass production that destroyed the original trades and made the people in those trades unemployed. So in his later speeches on the Three Principles of the People, Sun Yat-sen often quoted Confucius: “Do not worry about poverty, worry about inequality,” and proposed that after China's political revolution succeeded, it should avoid taking that road and instead go directly toward socialism—with the state taking the lead in production. This is the “people's livelihood” part of the Three Principles of the People. It's the same now. For individual programmers to make a living, it's really hard in the face of some large high-end software organizations! If the state were to set up some software companies, and programmers competed for jobs or positions there, then not only would making a living be easier, even entering respectable circles would be easier. In addition, programmers could focus on program design without being distracted by marketing and sales.

Equality is an ideal. There are many beautiful ideals and wishes, and equality is the most enduring among them.
This ideal of equality generally comes up when the exercise of individual ability is obstructed. When considering the idea of equality, one should also include the corresponding range of uniqueness that goes with it, such as the relative hexagram-position relationships in the I Ching.
There seems to be a saying about seeking equality of starting point afterward in response to innate inequality, so equality seeks out a limited but effective living space that can be produced, appropriately promoting circulation within the whole and benefiting the whole.
That effective limited range is like the propaganda and death of free trade.
To discuss the concept of equality here in Chinese software and computers may also require a constraining, abstract idea. One can choose freely and without restraint at the individual level, with the exhaustion of natural forces as a constraint; or one can pursue gradual progress through multiple comparisons under the same constraints (multiple comparisons meaning not being limited by the usual comparative awareness of how much money, how many people, or how much influence there is).
Thinking on this level also needs to be divided into different industrial and practical schools, and how to communicate internally becomes another new problem.