My understanding was that a couple of the games you mention would run under wine but due to your choice of a RHEL clone the mesa drivers weren't up to date because video on a server distro just isn't much of a priority.
I suspect to get what you want, you're going to either pay people to do it or do it yourself. On 6/19/09, Michael Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 00:22 +0200, Eric Auer wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> > Concerning ReactOS, please, it is only a hobby project for a few >> > developers who have no idea when it will come out of Alpha status. >> >> FreeDOS is also only a hobby project for a few developers, >> in the way that nobody is paid for writing FreeDOS... > > So what, that doesn't mean that Freedos is a project that it's > developers have no intention of advancing. With ReactOS, I get > the impression that there is low morale or something and huge > problems. That doesn't seem to be the case, at least not yet, > with Freedos. > >> > I've tried all the remakes of the gaming engine for Linux, they were >> > abandoned and don't work.(For Westwood Command and Conquer Red Alert I) >> >> You can run the Windows versions in Linux directly, using Wine. > > I tried that, I couldn't get it to work after I got it to install to a > bottle. > >> Even a project to create a free set of replacement updates for say >> Windows 3.x or Windows 9x would be appropriate. >> >> The people who write ReactOS had the idea that until they would >> be done, Win9x would be too outdated, I think, and this is >> probably why they made a replacement for NT/2000 instead... > > They haven't completed a replacement for NT/2000/XP/etcetera. > First off, ReactOS has a moving target for what it is supposed > to be like. Second off, it is probably easier to release bug > fixes for an old operating system than it is to clone a new > one from a few limited specifications. Calling ReactOS anything > at this point and using it in an argument against working on a > GUI for Freedos that could partially replace the old dos based > versions of Windows is totally unfair. You are lucky these days > if ReactOS works at all on your hardware and even under vmware > it is unstable. At least opengem, which is a start frankly, > works. It doesn't run Firefox, but it works. > >> The list idea is still a good idea even if people want to argue with >> me that Blake Stone and W3D work in Freedos. >> >> What do you think about the USB keyb theory, could that be the problem? >> Can you check whether PS/2 keyboards work better? > > I think my version of W3D, version 1.1, doesn't work with Freedos. > I went and downloaded a new copy from dosgamesarchive and lo and > behold it was version 1.4. 1.4 starts up and works just > fine under Freedos, although the sound seems to lag as I play. > Part of the problem may be my tar archive of 1.1 where arachne > doesn't seem to handle downloading tar archives properly. > Ultimately, I ended up using firefox under 98 to download a > new copy and I unzipped it with 7zip. > > As far as Blake Stone, I haven't checked if that works since my > 486 running Freedos died. > >> > It will create a picture of what dos based Windows software >> > people want and maybe just maybe something can be cloned or >> > ported >> >> Sounds interesting, but then, porting to GEM would be like >> reinventing the wheel now that Wine already supports the >> original Windows versions of many apps and now that those >> of the apps which are open source also have Linux versions. > > Well, those who run Freedos often do not or cannot run Linux. > It is as bad to tell people who want to run dos that they need > to run Linux as it is to tell them that they need to run > Windows. WINE is not an option under dos. I have crossover > Linux and it is not a panacea for every Windows program that > I don't want to boot Windows for. Many programs install > with crossover linux, but they run so poorly that they aren't > usable. > >> Love to have a Freedos compatible gui that runs Firefox. >> I would say Linux - it runs dosemu where freedos runs fast :-) > Only if you are on a computer that is fast enough to run > Freedos fast under emulation. For simplicity sake, there > are a lot of reasons to avoid emulation altogether. > DOSEMU is not the easiest project to work with. Straight > dos is beautifully simple, if I want to run Linux I'll run > Linux. > >> runs in Linux and that it runs in Windows, but if it would >> run in Freedos on a machine that can't run modern Linux or >> modern Windows, that might be useful to someone. > >> I tried several browsers for Linux and opened the FreeDOS >> homepage with them... The memory usage was: 150 MB, 32 MB, >> 12 MB, 120 MB, 8 MB, 100 MB and 8 MB respectively, but all >> browsers with RAM usage below 20 MB were text based only. >> Smallest RAM usage graphical browser was DILLO at 32 MB. >> Maybe you can have a look at that instead of Firefox :-). > > I know about Dillo. It has some of the same problems > that Arachne has. No, I need to run firefox because > there is a filtering plug-in for it where even the > 2.x versions are usable. My PIII running 98SE can run > Firefox 2.x no problem, but 98SE is a proprietary > unsupported bloated mess. Now, my PIII is slow but it > has more than 256 megs of ram so ram usage is not an > issue so much as processor speed. > > I have a PIII that I don't particularly want to run a > modern Linux on as it isn't even 1.2 GHZ, the minimum > to run Dirk Dashing secret Agent under Linux. Why > Disk Dashing needs a processor that fast is another > issue for another day. > > Well, there are plenty of PIII's out there that one > doesn't want to run a modern Linux on which are more > than capable of running Firefox 2.x under Windows 98SE. > It seems it should be possible to build something that > is lighter than 98SE that can support Firefox on top of > Freedos. That would save the trouble of messing with > DOSEMU and the trouble of rebooting to get into 98SE. > > Could X Windows run on top of Freedos? > Could Freedos be an X client? This would relieve > the Freedos box of having to be "powerful enough" > to run firefox. The X server would have to be > powerful enough, but the Freedos client box would > only have to be capable of drawing what the server > serves up to it. > > A lite version of Linux that runs from the Freedos > C:> prompt with X Windows and Firefox is another > possible option. I'm thinking something slightly > better than TWM, tab window manager, might do the > trick for a light window manager. > > There are versions of Linux that run on top of dos, > but I don't know what the status of them is today. > > I think a list of what people lose if they can't run > Windows on top of Freedos could be useful. For some > things on the list, there might be substitutes. For > other things, replacing Windows to some degree might > make sense ( maybe with an X Windows client ). > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > -- Sent from my mobile device _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
