China DOS Union

Originally posted by alin at 2004-4-14 12:00 AM:
Personally, I think DOS shouldn't compete with WIN on the desktop system. It should make use of its advantages such as small size, fast speed, rich software, and relatively simple operation to develop applications on mobile devices like PDAs and mobile phones, so that it can shine again.

I once thought about this problem. But the command input on the keyboard of a mobile phone is dizzy. It's okay to develop a GUI interface based on DOS. DOS can be multitasking because WIN98 can, so there's no need to be overwhelmed by the name of DOS. As for that lousy Microsoft, it has its reasons for giving up on it. It wants to make money, and commercial interests determine that it gives up on DOS. I haven't used bare Linux, but I think as long as the partitions are well divided, FORMAT SYS can install a system, and there aren't many such systems. Simple, simple, fast, fast. What can compare with it

[ Last edited by shanliang8008 on 2007-11-10 at 12:04 AM ]

I'm just wondering how NT was developed, assembly machine code?

Originally posted by beastie at 2004-7-27 12:00 AM:
Upstairs, do you feel that the core of the operating system that the LZ idealizes is not described exactly like LINUX. I suspect that he wants to modify FREEDOS a lot, so that the pseudo-code is similar to the functions implemented by LINUX...

For this floor, I want to say two things. Except for the last part about working hard to develop, I don't agree with the rest. What is pseudo-code? I don't want to argue with you. If you are a LINUX user, you should know:

GNU software can be downloaded, sold, copied and modified by anyone, but the program source code must be provided or the user must be informed where to obtain the source code! But regardless of whether it is free or charged, any user who obtains these software has the same rights as the provider, and can give them away or sell them.




FreeDOS is open source software; you can view and edit our source code. Most FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public License ("GNU GPL") which means they are not only open source software, but they are Free software. Because of this, FreeDOS would not exist were it not for all the people who contribute to it. Even if you didn't write code, you helped out the FreeDOS Project by submitting comments and bug reports.


You don't understand LINUX and even less understand FREEDOS,


I admit that I don't understand anything and can do nothing, but I haven't said any big words.

[ Last edited by shanliang8008 on 2007-11-10 at 12:48 AM ]

Originally posted by Buddenberg at 2007-3-12 12:34 AM:

In the above post, there are vinegar, soy sauce, chili peppers, pepper powder, wine, oil, salt, sugar... After reading it, there is no novelty in tasting any flavor.

Also say a few opinions:

DOS is DOS, don't turn it into Linux. DOS is formed by history. Since it exists, there is a reason for its existence. In the past, DOS ruled the world, but now it is not as glorious as before. How to view this problem? History is always evolving. Microsoft doesn't want the shadow of history to overshadow it, so that it can't do whatever it wants, so there is a subjective desire to gradually destroy history. It wants to eliminate DOS, then eliminate win9x, then eliminate NT, 2000 and XP, and this is what Microsoft must do. In such a context, DOS will definitely be affected.

However, open source has changed the pattern of this struggle, making it impossible for Microsoft to arbitrarily control other people's life and death. Microsoft has tasted the sweetness from the huge size of windows, that is, by creating an extremely complex system, it can effectively prevent the threats that followers may bring. From windows 3.x to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP, and then to vista, its volume gradually increases and complexity increases day by day. Coupled with many incompatibility measures, it makes you have to believe that Microsoft is actually doing this to get rid of the imitation and tracking of others. The more mysterious and complex Microsoft builds its system, the more secure it is for itself. However, the open source world has dealt a heavy blow to Microsoft: you Microsoft deliberately construct a behemoth, I open source can be small and exquisite, with the same functions as you. Although in the short term, Microsoft can still resist for a while凭借 historical advantages, in the long run, Microsoft is finished. The complex and incompatible system it constructs will only destroy itself. Those powerful developers will not follow Microsoft's such tossing, and such tossing is also meaningless. This is an important reason why people are flocking to the Linux camp (some people also turn to ReactOS, and the project progress is also very fast).

Everyone is full of awe of Microsoft in the above discussion. This is a bad psychology. If we underestimate Microsoft too much, some people may say we "daydream" and say we "envy" Microsoft's wealth and technical strength (of course, the views of these people themselves are also a bad psychology, which doesn't need to be discussed in detail). However, if we look at Microsoft with admiration, is this normal?

Everyone should not be自卑. You are the master, not a slave. You should have the courage not to accept what others force on you. DOS is very good. I once suggested setting up a DOS kernel development group on this site. The advantages of DOS can be said to be remarkable. I even believe that one day, Linux and DOS will be unified in some form. Starting from zero, starting from me, this is the course of Linux development. Why can't DOS be like this? Why do we feel that we are not as good as Windows or Linux? Why not the other way around: Linux and Windows are both not as good as DOS?

I think that carrying out a DOS kernel project with good compatibility, and then doing GUI development, for example, integrating with ReactOS (or absorbing ReactOS into DOS), its development prospects are limitless!

Up!

Nowadays, MS-DOS is extremely backward in terms of functionality (and so is FreeDOS). It is simply incomparable with modern Unix-like systems.

support

Please ask someone else to provide some usage methods of FreeBASIC 1.06b. Thanks a lot.

Supported, everyone has their own insights

Originally posted by shanliang8008 at 2007-11-10 12:02 AM:
I'm just wondering how NT was developed, in assembly machine code?

C (a small part of C++) and assembly. The structure is very good.

Quote:
Originally posted by shanliang8008 at 2007-11-10 12:02 AM:
I'm just wondering how NT was developed, in assembly machine code?


C (a small part of C++) and assembly. The structure is very good.


From Shandong, currently living in Shenyang

After reading this post and everyone's remarks, I can only say that all are ignorant!!
Have you figured out what the difference is between DOS and WINDOWS?

Do you just turn a blind eye to other things except seeing that DOS is open source + small + simple??
I really can't stand it. Can adding a window interface turn the tables?

You guys not only don't understand WINDOWS, but even don't understand the most basic and important protected mode!
Adding a window, multitasking? It's too simple!
Let's talk about the simplest one. How much time does it take to refresh a screen of 1024*768*16M colors??
Without hardware acceleration such as DX, it's just empty talk!!
Not to mention sound card drivers, video decoding and drivers...........

The complex operating systems like WINDOWS can be so powerful today for deeper reasons! First, look at MS's USB and also DX, can you develop them?? LINUX can't solve these hardware problems and can only be garbage!

Think it over well! Don't think that knowing something like int 10h int 13h makes you invincible and can make an operating system! For today's dual-core and 64-bit hardware systems, which one of you understands??? Come and try!!

Don't believe it? Try entering protected mode under dual-core! Try enabling paging in 64-bit! You恐怕can't even find materials now!!!

Really, the more I look at it, the angrier I get. A group of ignorant people are yelling here? Even some people with some ability are meddling like this!

But what about the advantages of DOS? In that case, it's not as convenient as directly installing and learning any Linux distribution.

That idea is good, but it's meaningless

The idea is good, but we still need to see whether it can become popular. Only when it becomes popular can it develop.