FreeDOS 1.0 Released

Noksagt writes, "FreeDOS 1.0 has been released only a little bit later than planned. The 1.0 milestone is considered to be 'a stable and viable MS-DOS replacement' and features long filename support, HIMEM and EMM386 management, and CD-ROM support."

Bootability

[Anonymous Coward]

How good are the boot disks? I am always running into situations where I need a "DOS" boot disk. Can we put this on a USB key or CD (in addition to the traditional floppy) and get our computers going?

Re:Moo

[Dun Malg]

Umm, aren't they a little late on this one?

You'd be surprised (or perhaps dismayed) to know how many old crawling horror DOS applications there are out there in use. My boss uses this abomination of a program for creating master key systems that was written in Turbo Pascal back in the 80's. He recently paid $60 for the newest "upgrade" (last year!), but the thing is still written in TP, and still cannot be made to print to anything other than LPT1. I wrote a look-alike, work-alike windows app in two weeks (using Borland C++ Builder) that worked with his USB printer and could even import the data files from the old shitty program-- but he "couldn't figure out how to work it" so he continues to use that DOS-based crap. There are lots of people like that, some stuck with legacy software that can't realistically be brought into the 21st century, some just dumbfucks like my boss.

Wonder what grade Tanenbaum would give them ?

[ray-auch]

After this:

I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
get a high grade for such a design :-)

what grade would you get for rewriting DOS 15 yrs later, and would it be higher or lower than the Hurd guys get for taking 20+yrs to get to 0.2 (but doing it the "right" way, with a microkernel) ?

"5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU" - Andy Tanenbaum, 1992

Re:Moo

[anagama]

It seems that the percentage of non-windows using slashdotters keeps falling. For example, the GP's notion that freeDOS isn't necessary because of WinXP utilities and from the recent tab closing posting regarding Firefox (FF works differently in windows than on many linux systems with respect to middle-click). Now I haven't been here forever, but it seems more common recently to see windows-centric "advice". I'm sure there are more examples of this, but what's the deal?

Re:Where does this fit into the map?

[misleb]

The best use for DOS IMO is to run a BBS, but then, who wants to do that any more?

Even that is a stretch. DOS was good because it had a very low footprint and would allow more resources for the BBS, but if you wanted a BBS these days you be much better off with Linux or *BSD... especially if you were writting one from scratch. I mean, with *nix you've already got your modem/session/authentication/multitasking code done for you. YOu just have to write a console app.

A boot disk to do some low level stuff to a PC is about the only use for DOS these days. And even then it makes me cringe. It seems like such an insult to modern hardware to boot an OS designed for the 8086 CPU.

-matthew
-matthew

Re:Old Dos Music Apps Can't Be Beat

[foreverdisillusioned]

Why not Linux + Dosbox instead?

Re:Not exciting...

[weasel5i2]

evilviper said: "FreeDOS has really poor compatibility with everything I try. Try to run some MS-DOS program, and it aborts before showing anything, or perhaps acts in very weird ways, sometimes doing real damage."

Perhaps?? What, you're not sure how it's acting? Sometimes doing real damage..??? What?! Like how, causing your hard disk to burst into flames? Causing your monitor's side paneling to melt off? Please, be specific about how FreeDOS "perhaps, does real damage" to your computer! It is extremely hard to do any "real" damage to a computer through software means. The worst-case scenario is BIOS-failure-based bricking of your box, and if FreeDOS is capable or likely to do that, I would be very afraid, but this is simply not the case.

It generally takes a very specific and directed effort to cause "real damage" to a PC. It's well known that there have been a couple of viruses in the past which were capable of nuking your CMOS. However, a sledgehammer is just as useful if you're looking for "real damage".

evilviper also said: "The main thing I tried it for, quite recently, was partitioning/formatting, as Windows has a few limitations in that regard. After finishing the job, Windows couldn't even read the partion. FreeDOS is a LONG way from 100% compatible."

Which version of Windows couldn't see the partition? How big was the FreeDOS partition you tried? Does your BIOS support the size of the hard drive you were testing? In order to make such statements, one should be specific with the details. And if you really want to convince people to NOT use FreeDOS, you should maybe explain just how it "is a LONG way from 100% compatible." besides vague failures.. For all we know, the problem could actually exist between the keyboard and the chair, you evil viper you!

You seem to have a lot of Anti-FreeDOS FUD with no real facts to back it up.. You work for Microsoft, perhaps?

My personal reasons to love FreeDOS (recent Win32-ports aside): Terminal Velocity, DOOM, DOOM II, Descent 1 & 2, Death Rally, Epic Pinball.. The list is almost endless! And it's not for the gaming, it's for the nostalgia and memories.

--Weasel

Re:Where does this fit into the map?

[Ron from Oz]

You can do all the internet and email (yes, including authenticated SMTP) in DOS.
Have a look at Arachne http://www.cisnet.com/glennmcc/ [cisnet.com], a fully graphical browser/email client/even a desktop if that's what you want.
As it happens, my entire business runs in DOS.
DOS dieth not !

Re:Moo

[Millenniumman]

Intel OS X cannot be bought off the shelf. Just FYI. It has to be downloaded or copied from someone else who has a copy.

10.5 will be available as universal binary, but you will still need to download the "modified for all PCs" version, unless you can figure out how to do it.

Re:I dunno man

[Jack Action]

Sure it's cool to see a MOD player with a robust cubic resampling engine to pitch shift a single note several octaves without distortion. However it's even cooler to have a 5GB sample bank that doesn't NEED pitch shifting, because all the notes have been recorded individually.

Trackers create and play their own samples. Soundfonts, however, are samples. They are loaded directly into the soundcard, where they are available to be used by a sequencer, keyboard etc.

The two examples cited above -- Sequencer Gold and CMU Midi Toolkit -- are both DOS sequencers that can play modern 5GB soundfonts because the samples are loaded in the card and available to any program (even one run through Dosemu). The two are separate. In my experience, these sequencers are better than anything now available for Linux.

Your point is definately true though that old Dos trackers are pretty feeble compared to what's available now.

Re:Not exciting...

[CrankyOldBastard]

FYI, the largest selling CPUs are 4, 8 and 16bit machines. There's also a lot of tiny 32bit hybrids (386 class with small memory footprints). For the kinds of jobs a lot of these systems do, DOS variants are ideal. There is still plenty of DOS based software in use, and it'll stay in use as long as it's more economical to use it.

I've found FreeDOS to be pretty compatible, as long as you (ab)use it right. Perhaps you forget the umteen choices on your Dos 6.22 boot menu that you needed to get all jobs done. FreeDOS is the same, there isnt a one-size-fits-all config. And in extreme cases it can be patched to suit, as it's nowhere near as complex as those "whole new OS" you talk about. Let's face it, program load, ports and 13h calls are pretty easy to write for. Not anywhere near as hard as say writing a device driver for a unix clone is.