Unless something huge changed about freedos I think “1.4” should be the next version apposed to a jump to 2.0 and while its nice to update packages to the latest versions what is the problem developers are trying to fix? What is the roadmap?
Like its been a while since ive actually used freedos and while I have been working on a new version of Aura GUI here and there over the past few years it has always maintained a roadmap. The next version features a graphical sdk that can generate c code, read c code and can test your apps in widget and apps can access the watt32 tcp library. New features? The ability to "apt-get” packages should allow users to connect to the internet and download the packages & save space for the official distro. Something else to consider is for many older systems that have serial ports I think wifi modems (esp8266 modules etc) should become a standard. An easy SDK, how will freedos bring new users in to keep developing for the platform?? A working djgpp (or whatever) environment from boot that can download sources and compile small applications. dead seas is an its game which will be playable online on the “k-world” game service which includes DOS systems. K world is not being developed by me but aims to be like a “steam” for retro games that allows you to chat, download games etc.. For me freedos has not really developed past being a dos clone, many people make great contributions towards freedos but it feels like the scene is ageing and loosing momentum. making freedos an online os with services, for education for coding… ludumdare kind of developing contests…etc make freedos a community > On 3 Mar 2022, at 4:13 pm, Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:16 PM Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > [..] >> I'm sure we'll want to discuss "1.4" or "2.0" or whatever version >> comes after 1.3. (I can start a new conversation next week to talk >> about that.) > > > Now that FreeDOS 1.3 has been out for a little while, I wanted to > start thinking about what comes next. Let's use this thread to discuss > it. > > What would you like to see changed or added (or removed) in the next > distribution? > > My top three ideas: > > > 1. Move to a "rolling release" > > It's taken several years* to release a new version of FreeDOS. Yes, > DOS is pretty stable, so we don't need a new distribution very often > anyway. But for many folks, the new official distribution is the only > way they get the updated tools (most people don't download individual > tools to update a running FreeDOS system.) > > *Not counting Release Candidates, the last few releases were: > 1.0 (2006) - 1.1 (2012) - 1.2 (2016) - 1.3 (2022) > > I think it would be interesting to set up a system that builds a new > FreeDOS "test" distribution whenever we update packages on the FreeDOS > Files Archive at Ibiblio. That doesn't need to be a new build every > night, but maybe every month. > > I think these distributions would come in only two versions: a "full" > FreeDOS that looks like the LiveCD (see also #3 below) and a "mini" > FreeDOS that contains just the FreeDOS "Base" packages, without source > code. (The "mini" should be very tiny, and basically the same as a > "floppy" FreeDOS install .. I guess "floppy" is a third distro > version, but I think it could be derived from the "mini.") > > Folks can try out the new "test" distribution and always be on the > latest version. When things are stable, we can choose a "snapshot" > that works well, and make that the next official distribution. That > might happen on some interval (every 6 months? 12 months?). > > > 2. Simplify FreeDOS > > The FreeDOS distribution has grown. We've added a bunch of packages > over the years, and FreeDOS has become quite large. We added the > BonusCD (634MB) because we couldn't fit everything on the LiveCD > (401MB). > > Over time, we added some things because they were useful at the time, > but we added others because they were a neat thing to have. Are these > useful in 2022? I think we should re-evaluate what's in FreeDOS, and > trim down what we include. DOS should not be that big. > > For example: I think the Unix-like utilities should go. I thought the > Unix-like tools might generate interest from new developers, but I > think the Unix-like tools just confuse things and make FreeDOS look > like a "mini Linux." Let's just be DOS. > > I think we can also remove some packages from Editors, Archivers, and > Utilities. We might remove all of the Graphical Desktops, since these > are of limited usefulness and not maintained anyway. > > What packages to keep and remove is probably a larger discussion that > we could move into a dedicated thread. > > The full list of packages (LiveCD and BonusCD) is in the FreeDOS 1.3 > report document: > https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.3/official/report.html > > > 3. Make LiveCD the default > > We know from the 2021 user survey** that a lot of people run FreeDOS > in a virtual machine. Why require an "installation" if you just want > to boot FreeDOS and run it in a VM? I think we could set up the LiveCD > so that you can just boot it and run FreeDOS. > > **Here's the user survey: > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Survey/2021 > > Imagine setting up a new VM with FreeDOS. You download the LiveCD, > define a new VM, point the VM at the LiveCD (or the "mini" FreeDOS > CD), and boot. Now you're running FreeDOS. You don't have to *install* > to a hard drive to run FreeDOS; run everything from the LiveCD. > > If you want workspace to edit files, set up a virtual disk in your VM, > then use FDISK and FORMAT so you can use it. You don't have to install > it to the disk; you can just use the disk for files. But I think we > should still have some kind of "install" available for those who > really do want to install FreeDOS to the hard drive, such as folks who > want to run on real hardware. > > Using the LiveCD this way probably also means looking closely at the > packages we include. We'd need to be able to run everything from that > read-only media, so programs that require updating files in their > "home" directory will not work here. > > > I think all of these changes suggest the next FreeDOS should be > "FreeDOS 2.0" instead of something like "1.4." It's a big change to > how we set up FreeDOS in the 1.x series, so it deserves a bump up to > "2.0." > > > > What do you think? > > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
