Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Not Quite Mainstream OSes => Topic started by: mobrien_12 on 2 April 2004, 00:11
-
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1558309,00.asp (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1558309,00.asp)
quote:
Excerpt from the Article
"DOS is what it is," said Sparks. "We're not looking to add substantial features to it, as we're at the point of diminishing returns
-
quote:
The primary new feature of the 8.0 release is FAT32/large-partition support,
FINALLY!!!! \\\\\O///// :D
Still, no real reason to stick with DOS anymore, unless you wanna run some 286 and below, and *maybe* 386/486 (though Linux runs on that too).
As much as it sucks, it's sad to see it go. :(
-
The two old Nemeses are dead.
Mac OS 9.2.2 in 2001 was the last release of the classic Mac OS, and now it seems that DOS has seen its last commercial release.
May they rest in peace.
-
but didn't Wengier's MS-DOS 7.10 cut have FAT32 for a couple of years?
LONG LIVE DOS
-
Oops, you're right, MSDOS did have FAT32 support. But then again, MSDOS 7.1 wasn't really a DOS release, it was just the DOS part of Win9x.
-
dos has been dead for years. In a while there won't even be too many legacy systems running it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Oops, you're right, MSDOS did have FAT32 support. But then again, MSDOS 7.1 wasn't really a DOS release, it was just the DOS part of Win9x.
Yeah the last real MS-DOS was 6.22 (I think)
-
I think that if DOS was really dead, no one would use FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/).
-
freeDOS certainly isn't and shouldn't be dead. although FreeDOS should look into supporting fat32 and possibly ext2 filesystems.
FreeDOS really is like a proper GNU operating system. conceptually i think it is as much GNU as Linux is, although it is only an 8 bit system so the two can't be seriously compared for functionality.
a LOT of things only need an 8 bit system though, and i think that FreeDOS and perhaps DR-DOS (which isn't dead either) will still be able to be used in a lot of commercial, retail etc environments.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum is NOT a moderator:
FreeDOS really is like a proper GNU operating system. conceptually i think it is as much GNU as Linux
Are you sure? It doesn't look to me like FreeDOS contains any GNU software.
-
FreeDOS does have fat32 support now. I'm almost certain that it is 16-bit and know for sure that it supports 32-bit DOS programs.
-
The Free DOS project like DR-DOS have mad a good deal of improvemetnts to MSDOS. The really nice thing about DR-DOS was their task manager... Also Free DOS has support for DPMI.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Are you sure? It doesn't look to me like FreeDOS contains any GNU software.
well, GNU's Not Unix, neither is FreeDOS, and all the FreeDOS software is released under the GNU GPL. So unless you define GNU software as that which has been personally written by Richard Stallman, I think this qualifies.
-
GNU software is software that's part of the GNU project. Software isn't automatically part of GNU just because it's licenced under the GPL.
[ June 20, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
if you say so.
as it happens i am not aware then that a GNU system actually exists. in fact systems such as Debian GNU/Linux are misrepresenting themselves in that case since they include a lot of non GNU software. FreeDOS is as much GNU as the next open source OS is. it includes emacs (which was the first popular application from the GNU project (i am not counting GCC, since it is not an application)) and it includes compiled for DOS versions of many of the GNU versions of standard *ix tools.
draw your line where you may but from what you say i gather you think it's not GNU unless it's hurd (and none of that perl/samba/bsd/XFree86/any other non GNU stuff is allowed).
[ June 20, 2004: Message edited by: Calum is NOT a moderator ]
-
So it does include GNU software then? I got the impression from the website that it didn't.
quote:
systems such as Debian GNU/Linux are misrepresenting themselves in that case since they include a lot of non GNU software
So a GNU system ceases to be GNU as soon as you add non-GNU software to it? That's like saying that Windows isn't Windows if it's distributed with non-Microsoft software.
quote:
draw your line where you may
I'm not drawing any line. If it doesn't include GNU software then it isn't any more a GNU system than Windows is. If on the other hand it is powered by GNU software then it is a GNU system.
[ June 20, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
So a GNU system ceases to be GNU as soon as you add non-GNU software to it? That's like saying that Windows isn't Windows if it's distributed with non-Microsoft software.
that's what i thought you were saying in the first place, although i think it is a bit extreme.
now it looks as though you were just unaware that some gnu stuff was included in FreeDOS, although i am still a bit hazy about what constitutes GNU software in this case, does it have to be from the FSF to qualify? i am sure you'd agree that GIMP is GNU software, but it was adopted by the GNU project a good while after it was made available, as were many other projects, like abiword for example, an old piece of software recently included in the GNOME-Office suite, for GNOME, undisputably a GNU set of programs.
anyway. All i was saying was that in my opinion FreeDOS is as much a GNU system as many linux dostributions are, and nobody says linux is not a GNU system, in fact Stallman and others often attempt to get linux distros to describe themselves as GNU systems (even though most of them tend to have less than 30% of "GNU" software).
-
Ok, I think there's some confusion about what we're talking about. The issue of whether or not an operating system can be considered to be a GNU system is separate from the issue of whether or not a single piece of software is part of the GNU project.
The question of whether a whole operating system can be considered to be a GNU system (i.e. a system powered by, but not necessarily consisting solely of, GNU software) is contentious (e.g. the "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" question). Whether or not software is GNU software is unambiguous - a program is part of GNU if the GNU project says it is. For example, no "gnutella" clients are part of GNU, despite their misleading name. You're right that the programs don't have to have actually come from the FSF to be part of GNU, but they do have to acknowledged as GNU programs by the FSF.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#GNUsoftware (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#GNUsoftware)
quote:
GNU software is software that is released under the auspices of the GNU Project. If a program is GNU software, we also say that it is a GNU program or a GNU package. The README or manual of a GNU package should say it is one; also, the Free Software Directory indentifies all GNU packages.
Most GNU software is copylefted , but not all; however, all GNU software must be free software.
Some GNU software is written by staff of the Free Software Foundation, but most GNU software is contributed by volunteers. Some contributed software is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation; some is copyrighted by the contributors who wrote it.
quote:
All i was saying was that in my opinion FreeDOS is as much a GNU system as many linux dostributions are, and nobody says linux is not a GNU system
That isn't really the case if the system isn't dependent on GNU software (even if it includes some GNU programs) in order to work at all, as Linux-based systems typically are.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
so, in a nutshell, Linux is GNU because stallman wants it to be, but FreeDOS isn't because stallman couldn't give two hoots?
sounds like a dumb way of figuring it out, but if this is the right way of defining it then fair enough, but i still think it's confusing.
-
It really isn't confusing. I think you're still misunderstanding the difference between software being part of the GNU project, and an Operating System being 'a GNU system'.
Firstly, I'll assume by Linux you mean GNU/Linux. Linux itself is not GNU in any way - it's not a GNU system (it's just a kernel) nor is it part of the GNU project. GNU/Linux is a GNU system because it contains GNU software, and is dependent on that software to function. FreeDOS apparently (I'm taking your word for it) contains GNU software, but I'm assuming it isn't actually dependent on it.
And software being part of the GNU project is not just a case of Stallman giving a hoot about it - the authors have to want their software to become part of GNU in the first place. Stallman can't just point arbitrarily at any piece of Free Software he likes and declare it part of GNU.
Presumably the FreeDOS authors have no desire to donate their software to the GNU project. It wouldn't be much use to GNU anyway, since the goal of GNU is to create a unix like system, and the aim of the FreeDOS software is obviously to create a DOS-like system.
[ August 03, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]