Develop Our Own OS for Chinese People!! - China DOS Union Forum

Since foreigners can copy the Unix kernel and make a Linux, then why can't we absorb the best parts of DOS, Unix, and OS/2 to develop an OS of our own?!

Some people say our Chinese technical level still isn't enough. I don't think so. It's not that Chinese people aren't good enough at programming, but that our development thinking may be a bit lacking. Many people may think that to absorb the ideas of Unix, Linux, and OS/2, we have to completely analyze their kernels. Actually that's not necessarily so. There are already plenty of books analyzing these kernels. We can just read them and absorb the ideas in them, without having to fully understand their source code.

DOS with available source code is a very good model. Its scale isn't too big, and everyone is familiar with it. We could completely analyze the DOS source code and on that basis rewrite a completely localized 32-bit, multitasking, multi-user DOS-like operating system, while also keeping compatibility with the DOS command line. Then later add an X-Wndows to it—isn't that exactly the successful approach Linux took?

Some people may say that this kind of thing already exists abroad, and is already being done. But that's still somebody else's. We still have to do Chinese localization and so on, and after all that back and forth, the effort spent won't be that much less.

What we most need to do right now is carry out “DOS source code analysis.” As a model we can choose some version of any DOS with public source code, including Ms－dos6.22 (its source code has also been made public). We only need to analyze the kernel part. The external commands can be left alone for now, otherwise the scope will be too large.

Some people may say that we might as well analyze the Linux kernel, study Linux, and do Linux Chinese localization. But the Linux kernel is too huge. Even with so much reference material, it still takes a long time to fully understand its kernel. With that much time, if we had reference materials, DOS would already have been thoroughly analyzed. Linux Chinese localization in China doesn't seem to have been very successful either. After all, it's still someone else's thing.

Some people may say that DOS source code has comments, but does having comments make it easy to understand? Is everyone's English really that good? We are doing “DOS source code analysis” so the road ahead will be easier, and so people won't have to waste time struggling through English.

Finally, let me emphasize my point: what we want is to rewrite a localized OS, not to Chinese-localize DOS!!!!

Support, but the source code of MS-DOS 6.22 is not public. There is, however, incomplete source code for MS-DOS 6.0. On the other hand, the source code for FreeDOS, OpenDOS, PTS-DOS, etc. is completely public.

Strongly propose: this forum should organize a “DOS source code analysis” project team!!
Let's stop going around in circles over “DOS boot disks” all the time! After “DOS source code analysis,” we can then join with all the domestic elite to rewrite a completely localized OS. Many hands provide great strength. That would be hundreds of times better than “DOS boot disks”!

I'm also someone who came from DOS,
but I don't really understand much!
Still, I support it! I believe you definitely need open-minded thinking!

This kind of topic has no meaning at all.
It belongs to that sort of thing that keeps talking about “we,” “Chinese people,” “our own,” at the drop of a hat.
I hate seeing “we” abused like this.
What do you have to do with other people?
Did foreigners develop an os by standing up on some forum and calling for it?
“All you people” have left is calling for this and calling for that everywhere.
When someone else finally makes it, “you people” are happier than anyone: look, “we,” “our own”!

Let me show a little more contempt!
“We still have to do Chinese localization and so on, and after all that back and forth, the effort spent won't be that much less”
The hard work and effort of quite a few people doing Chinese localization in China is plain for all to see.
Granted, it has played a certain role in promotion and popularization.
But let me tell you, compared with the toil put in by the original software authors, it doesn't even begin to compare.
I'm not denying the work of those doing Chinese localization, and if anyone wants to make trouble unreasonably I absolutely won't accept it.
What I'm talking about is which is more important and which is less.
What “the effort spent won't be that much less,” ptooey!

“Some people may say that DOS source code has comments, but does having comments make it easy to understand? Is everyone's English really that good? We are doing “DOS source code analysis” so the road ahead will be easier, and so people won't have to waste time struggling through English.”

Aren't you ashamed? With comments, you still say you can't understand it; with English, you still complain it's not as easy to understand as Chinese.
Aren't you ashamed?!!!
And with that you're still shouting about “Chinese people” and “our own”?
Brother, go home. Stop making a fool of yourself.
You've made Chinese people lose all face.

What I would like, though, is to get the MS-DOS source code. Please point me in the right direction.

There are major reasons why we can't develop our own OS: there is too little material in Chinese.
At most we could write something like DOS that only supports VGA. Even if you finally understand a bit about the SVGA interface, you can still only use 60Hz refresh. Who could stand a GUI like that!
Also, without any documentation at all for USB, all kinds of sound cards, DVD, CDRW, 3D graphics cards, and all their drivers, how are you supposed to write an OS?????

Say fewer things blaming each other!!
Produce some results

Just watch

5 years from now, an expert named movenalnalby......
Hehehe
Hahaha

We should work hard starting now

Who wants me to translate!
[email protected]
[email protected]

Isn't using freedos fine? Why must it be our own os? “Our own” is nothing more than a Chinese interface. It would be more worth considering developing some practical software, like network software such as a web browser with perfect Chinese support.

This post has been deleted by the original author

Replying to “llm”:
Make more technical contributions and talk less empty philosophy.
This is a rare technical forum, after all!

Basic OS requirements

DBR boot sector -- must be written entirely in ASM, cannot call any interrupts -- for this part we can directly use someone else's DOS
IO.SYS -- must also be written entirely in ASM, cannot call any interrupts, same as above. But this part can't use someone else's, because this is where the core functionality is implemented. Taking someone else's and modifying it (byte-level modification) is meaningless; it needs source-level modification. For the moment I still don't really know ASM or C (in ASM I know a few NOP, MOV, INT; in C I know a few cio, printf, for)
COMMAND.COM -- this part is easier; there are plenty of C experts here (though I'm not one yet). For execution efficiency, it can't be written in QB... best to compile the commands into the internal part (the common ones)
... (hope everyone works together)

About the memory management mechanism
I don't want to say much here. For compatibility and expandability, two sets of memory management mechanisms must be made.
1. 640K + XMS
2. Define a new kind of memory
A 32-bit system can be made (64-bit??? I'm not against it, but I'm afraid it may be technically difficult), and then make a 16-bit Pure DOS virtual machine...

Floor1　wangzai	Posted 2003-12-10 00:00
初级用户　Posts 9　Credits 125
Since foreigners can copy the Unix kernel and make a Linux, then why can't we absorb the best parts of DOS, Unix, and OS/2 to develop an OS of our own?! Some people say our Chinese technical level still isn't enough. I don't think so. It's not that Chinese people aren't good enough at programming, but that our development thinking may be a bit lacking. Many people may think that to absorb the ideas of Unix, Linux, and OS/2, we have to completely analyze their kernels. Actually that's not necessarily so. There are already plenty of books analyzing these kernels. We can just read them and absorb the ideas in them, without having to fully understand their source code. DOS with available source code is a very good model. Its scale isn't too big, and everyone is familiar with it. We could completely analyze the DOS source code and on that basis rewrite a completely localized 32-bit, multitasking, multi-user DOS-like operating system, while also keeping compatibility with the DOS command line. Then later add an X-Wndows to it—isn't that exactly the successful approach Linux took? Some people may say that this kind of thing already exists abroad, and is already being done. But that's still somebody else's. We still have to do Chinese localization and so on, and after all that back and forth, the effort spent won't be that much less. What we most need to do right now is carry out “DOS source code analysis.” As a model we can choose some version of any DOS with public source code, including Ms－dos6.22 (its source code has also been made public). We only need to analyze the kernel part. The external commands can be left alone for now, otherwise the scope will be too large. Some people may say that we might as well analyze the Linux kernel, study Linux, and do Linux Chinese localization. But the Linux kernel is too huge. Even with so much reference material, it still takes a long time to fully understand its kernel. With that much time, if we had reference materials, DOS would already have been thoroughly analyzed. Linux Chinese localization in China doesn't seem to have been very successful either. After all, it's still someone else's thing. Some people may say that DOS source code has comments, but does having comments make it easy to understand? Is everyone's English really that good? We are doing “DOS source code analysis” so the road ahead will be easier, and so people won't have to waste time struggling through English. Finally, let me emphasize my point: what we want is to rewrite a localized OS, not to Chinese-localize DOS!!!!

Floor2　Wengier	Posted 2003-12-11 00:00
系统支持　Posts 10,521　Credits 27,736
Support, but the source code of MS-DOS 6.22 is not public. There is, however, incomplete source code for MS-DOS 6.0. On the other hand, the source code for FreeDOS, OpenDOS, PTS-DOS, etc. is completely public.

Floor3　wangzai	Posted 2003-12-11 00:00
初级用户　Posts 9　Credits 125
Strongly propose: this forum should organize a “DOS source code analysis” project team!! Let's stop going around in circles over “DOS boot disks” all the time! After “DOS source code analysis,” we can then join with all the domestic elite to rewrite a completely localized OS. Many hands provide great strength. That would be hundreds of times better than “DOS boot disks”!

Floor4　5460	Posted 2004-01-04 00:00
初级用户　Posts 4　Credits 121
I'm also someone who came from DOS, but I don't really understand much! Still, I support it! I believe you definitely need open-minded thinking!

Floor5　llm	Posted 2004-01-04 00:00
元老会员　Posts 294　Credits 840
This kind of topic has no meaning at all. It belongs to that sort of thing that keeps talking about “we,” “Chinese people,” “our own,” at the drop of a hat. I hate seeing “we” abused like this. What do you have to do with other people? Did foreigners develop an os by standing up on some forum and calling for it? “All you people” have left is calling for this and calling for that everywhere. When someone else finally makes it, “you people” are happier than anyone: look, “we,” “our own”!

Floor6　llm	Posted 2004-01-04 00:00
元老会员　Posts 294　Credits 840
Let me show a little more contempt! “We still have to do Chinese localization and so on, and after all that back and forth, the effort spent won't be that much less” The hard work and effort of quite a few people doing Chinese localization in China is plain for all to see. Granted, it has played a certain role in promotion and popularization. But let me tell you, compared with the toil put in by the original software authors, it doesn't even begin to compare. I'm not denying the work of those doing Chinese localization, and if anyone wants to make trouble unreasonably I absolutely won't accept it. What I'm talking about is which is more important and which is less. What “the effort spent won't be that much less,” ptooey!

Floor7　llm	Posted 2004-01-04 00:00
元老会员　Posts 294　Credits 840
“Some people may say that DOS source code has comments, but does having comments make it easy to understand? Is everyone's English really that good? We are doing “DOS source code analysis” so the road ahead will be easier, and so people won't have to waste time struggling through English.” Aren't you ashamed? With comments, you still say you can't understand it; with English, you still complain it's not as easy to understand as Chinese. Aren't you ashamed?!!! And with that you're still shouting about “Chinese people” and “our own”? Brother, go home. Stop making a fool of yourself. You've made Chinese people lose all face.

Floor8　qinqong	Posted 2004-01-04 00:00
高级用户　Posts 148　Credits 599
What I would like, though, is to get the MS-DOS source code. Please point me in the right direction.

Floor9　dwing	Posted 2004-01-14 00:00
初级用户　Posts 32　Credits 177
There are major reasons why we can't develop our own OS: there is too little material in Chinese. At most we could write something like DOS that only supports VGA. Even if you finally understand a bit about the SVGA interface, you can still only use 60Hz refresh. Who could stand a GUI like that! Also, without any documentation at all for USB, all kinds of sound cards, DVD, CDRW, 3D graphics cards, and all their drivers, how are you supposed to write an OS?????

Floor10　movenalnalby	Posted 2004-01-15 00:00
中级用户　Posts 56　Credits 334
Say fewer things blaming each other!! Produce some results Just watch 5 years from now, an expert named movenalnalby...... Hehehe Hahaha We should work hard starting now Who wants me to translate! [email protected] [email protected]

Floor11　sosorabbit	Posted 2004-01-16 00:00
初级用户　Posts 5　Credits 113
Isn't using freedos fine? Why must it be our own os? “Our own” is nothing more than a Chinese interface. It would be more worth considering developing some practical software, like network software such as a web browser with perfect Chinese support.

Floor12　xylz	Posted 2004-01-16 00:00
初级用户　Posts 9　Credits 134
Following this...

Floor13　tdj	Posted 2004-01-17 00:00
银牌会员　Posts 332　Credits 1,131
This post has been deleted by the original author

Floor14　陈沫	Posted 2004-01-21 00:00
中级用户　Posts 54　Credits 250
Replying to “llm”: Make more technical contributions and talk less empty philosophy. This is a rare technical forum, after all!

Floor15　iceboy	Posted 2004-01-21 00:00
银牌会员　Posts 512　Credits 1,681
Basic OS requirements DBR boot sector -- must be written entirely in ASM, cannot call any interrupts -- for this part we can directly use someone else's DOS IO.SYS -- must also be written entirely in ASM, cannot call any interrupts, same as above. But this part can't use someone else's, because this is where the core functionality is implemented. Taking someone else's and modifying it (byte-level modification) is meaningless; it needs source-level modification. For the moment I still don't really know ASM or C (in ASM I know a few NOP, MOV, INT; in C I know a few cio, printf, for) COMMAND.COM -- this part is easier; there are plenty of C experts here (though I'm not one yet). For execution efficiency, it can't be written in QB... best to compile the commands into the internal part (the common ones) ... (hope everyone works together) About the memory management mechanism I don't want to say much here. For compatibility and expandability, two sets of memory management mechanisms must be made. 1. 640K + XMS 2. Define a new kind of memory A 32-bit system can be made (64-bit??? I'm not against it, but I'm afraid it may be technically difficult), and then make a 16-bit Pure DOS virtual machine...