China DOS Union

If so, FREEDOS is sure to be popular.

Although I'm new here, I want to say a few words. It's not that I'm pouring cold water on you, but the elder brother above is right. The idea is good but meaningless. No matter how stable the DOS kernel is, can it really compete with Linux? Will task scheduling, process killing, etc. really play a good role? Is it true that Microsoft's systems are bad? The 2003 in my company is hardly ever shut down (due to business needs), and XP has long crashed. I make an inappropriate analogy: comparing the DOS you finished with Linux is like comparing XP and 2003 in terms of which has better performance (of course, Linux is much stronger than 2003). If you really want to do it, I suggest trying to integrate WinME and DOS together, maybe it can get a good effect. Some games can't run on XP/2003, and virtual machines can't either. It's also very fun. I have many such games now, and I can only put them aside. In terms of application, DOS can only be used as a powerful auxiliary system. I'm not saying it's outdated (don't get me wrong). The above only represents my personal opinion.

Although I don't support it, if you really want to do this, my suggestion is to first rewrite the task management and memory management modules of the kernel.

Agree with LS's opinion. Many things need to be rewritten, and maintenance is also a problem.

In fact, personally, it's not bad to develop DOS into a powerful auxiliary tool like WIN. For example, making some commonly used third-party tools into configurable installation packages for release, which is convenient for both batch file writers and users.

Maintain this tool package regularly, and at the same time add some good and new tools or batch files into the tool package. First, popularize the application.

The one at floor 71 is really an expert!
When DOS was very glorious, I just heard about it. When I got in touch with it, it was already 9.X.
It was popular for a few years and was prone to crashing. Then came 2000, then XP. MS's systems did improve a lot in performance.
Because it was a pirated version, it didn't matter whether the source code was open or not, and it didn't matter whether it was powerful or not. It was just that everyone else was using it. From the first day I entered the computer city, I learned to install systems from others, and it was MS's systems.
Later, after trying out Linux, I found it really good, but there were still some awkward places in many aspects. What was the reason?
Was it because Linux was not good? Was it because Linux was not user-friendly? No. It was because we were used to MS's systems.
DOS is a historical product. It was glorious, and it will decline... and it will definitely decline. So there is no need for us to arm DOS with anything to make it powerful. What we like is not how powerful or easy-to-use DOS is. What we like is that DOS is compact and has strong operability.
If operating systems were also products of war or were for war service, then they would have been updated many times.
So I think discussing these is meaningless. First, there is no economic value. Second, the practical value is not high. Third, it is too far-fetched.
Computers are developing towards diversification and openness. MS will always change. Linux may be the mainstream of future development. Some applications and performances of Linux are really excellent. We can neither make DOS into Linux nor make Linux into DOS. There is a saying that what exists is reasonable. Then please remember that what is unreasonable we will also discard.
The function of DOS as a maintenance system has been replaced by WINPE. Then in which fields that can make its development better can the practical value of DOS still be reflected?

Now I have occupied the position of floor 81.
Looking down carefully from floor 1, if I add up all the opinions of you all, then DOS needs to be updated and replaced many times.
Maybe DOS is just a group of unique people still persevering with unique love.

Post 71, I'm not cursing you. You're just a dog of M$.
Do you know the application of Linux in servers?
Do you understand the power of Linux?
Do you think you know DX, USB, etc.? Do you think only you understand protected mode?
DOS is indeed a product of history? But no one says it's outdated.
Have you used an operating system other than M$?
You're just a slave, a slave always living under the deception of M$.

The black screen of m$ makes me re-examine this topic. We've all been harmed by m$. I find that it's really difficult to live without PE format executable files. I've been thinking about this topic all the time. As long as someone can do it, it should be no problem to develop. Freedos32 can be modified and tried. It's said to be a 32-bit multitasking DOS running in protected mode. I'm sorting out the hard drive now, and I'm also busy with work, so I don't have time. We can study it together later.

[ Last edited by caseygreen on 2008-12-11 at 16:07 ]

The LZ's idea is quite original, but it can be seen that the LZ still lacks a lot of basic knowledge about the operating system and the x-window itself.

The x-window fundamentally depends on Unix. DOS and Unix are completely two systems. The DOS system is much worse than Unix in terms of expandability at the operating system level. Don't expect to port the x-window to FreeDOS. From a theoretical point of view, porting the x-window to DOS is like the idea of raising fish in the desert.

However, in Unix, one can imitate FreeDos to make a FreeDos shell. This is completely feasible, and perhaps it will bring convenience to some old DOS users who are turning to Unix.

This view is good. DOS should absorb the strengths of others and make up for its own weaknesses. But don't make it a hodgepodge system. It should develop deeply in a certain field. Just as the 11th floor said. Or develop versions suitable for different working environments.

I think DOS is like C. It's the foundation. If you learn it well, others are easy to get started with.

Open source + collective interactive evolution + respect for individual contributions (noted in the source code: corrections, improvements, alternative uses,......)
These are my three suggestions, based on reflections on the differences between Eastern and Western cultures over the years.
Only through open source can there be inheritability, and it doesn't require everyone to start from scratch - which is the "specialty" of Eastern culture.
Only through collective interaction can there be real communication, complementarity, and long-term development.
Respecting individual contributions (noting differences in the source code) is the real open source, interaction, learning, and development.
These are all matters of nature. Without these prerequisites, the things that follow can at most be just flash in the pan or a solitary success. This is an important reason why Eastern culture lags behind Western culture, and it has nothing to do with the specific theoretical or product treasures of any particular family.

It is said that the biggest gimmick of DOS nowadays is being down-to-earth.
The Chinese stock market still uses DOS as a terminal, while the US Securities and Exchange Commission has not changed those "screens with up and down grids" after many Chinese people have already used liquid crystal displays.
And now, many securities business halls have replaced with new machines, those above 2G, using the old DOS, isn't that burning the machine!
In my humble opinion, what should be developed urgently is DOS power management, which is not only down-to-earth but also economically and environmentally friendly. Some should also retire according to the Western democratic system, and this is also the reason.