Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[TK Chia]

Hello Steve Nickolas,



I've had ideas for bootstrapping a DOS using a separate IPL - and in
fact FreeDOS did do this at one point.  This way, I'd be able to keep
basic drivers out of the main kernel, enhancing portability - which
wouldn't be a big deal with PC-compatibles, since the basic drivers
would essentially be the same.  But on other systems, maybe you would
want to be able to swap IPLs (one for floppy disks, one for FAT16, one
for FAT32 as an example), or swap console drivers (maybe you're running
on a system that doesn't speak BIOS and needs to speak to the keyboard
and display some other way)...and keep the kernel itself down to a



I think having separate modules for non-IBM-compatibles is not as weird
as it might seem --- the historical division between io.sys and
msdos.sys existed for a reason.

Actually, with Intel talking about deprecating support for legacy BIOses
and CSMs on newer UEFI machines, I think the idea of a DOS having to
support non-IBM-compatibles sounds even less far-fetched now.

(Having separate pluggable modules for FAT16 and FAT32 is something
else, though.)

Thank you!

--
https://github.com/tkchia :: https://gitlab.com/tkchia


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Ralf Quint]

On 12/30/2020 7:29 AM, Robert Riebisch wrote:



the question was about  'any "official" format', like in a standard,
not if that can be done at all.

When creating "a (new|first) standard", it's probably a good idea to
look at existing solutions.


Well, this all looks to me like looking for a solution for a problem 
that nobody has... ;-)


Ralf



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Robert Riebisch]

Hi Tom,

>>> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under
>>> MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS had...
>>> what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of anything
>>> official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such thing (unless
>>> you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) but I figured it
>>> doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years under various
>>> flavors of DOS than I.
> 
>> Another one, but docs (12 pages) are in German:
>> 
> 
>> One example for the ATARI Portfolio:
>> 
> 
> the question was about  'any "official" format', like in a standard,
> not if that can be done at all.

When creating "a (new|first) standard", it's probably a good idea to
look at existing solutions.

Cheers,
Robert
-- 
  +++ BTTR Software +++
 Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[tom ehlert]

>> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under
>> MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS had...
>> what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of anything
>> official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such thing (unless
>> you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) but I figured it
>> doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years under various
>> flavors of DOS than I.

> Another one, but docs (12 pages) are in German:
> 

> One example for the ATARI Portfolio:
> 

the question was about  'any "official" format', like in a standard,
not if that can be done at all.


what you and others propose is https://xkcd.com/927/

Tom



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Robert Riebisch]

Hi Mercury,

> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under
> MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS had...
> what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of anything
> official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such thing (unless
> you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) but I figured it
> doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years under various
> flavors of DOS than I.

Another one, but docs (12 pages) are in German:


One example for the ATARI Portfolio:


Cheers,
Robert
-- 
  +++ BTTR Software +++
 Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Robert Riebisch]

Hi Mercury,

> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under
> MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS had...
> what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of anything
> official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such thing (unless
> you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) but I figured it
> doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years under various
> flavors of DOS than I.

DJGPP has DXE:
1) http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq22_15.html
2) http://www.geocities.ws/dborca/djgpp/dxe3/dxe3.html
3) https://www.shawnhargreaves.com/freebe/
4) https://www.freebasic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929

Cheers,
Robert
-- 
  +++ BTTR Software +++
 Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Steve Nickolas]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:


On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 11:44 AM, Steve Nickolas usots...@buric.co wrote:


...
I've had ideas for what I'd do if I were writing my own OS or my own DOS 
clone... but they'd probably be too weird for this list.
...


But I, for one, would love to hear those ideas.


Well, maybe some people would be interested. ;)  Feel free to ignore the 
rest of the post, because it's really gonna go off into lala land, 
although some of it does relate to FreeDOS.


I actually really dig DOS, although I'd prolly stir in a little bit of 
OS/2 and NT if I were coding for a more advanced CPU.  And prolly make the 
shell a bit more like the Bourne shell - which really isn't that big a 
deal, the Bourne shell was a major influence on COMMAND.COM.


I've had ideas for bootstrapping a DOS using a separate IPL - and in fact 
FreeDOS did do this at one point.  This way, I'd be able to keep basic 
drivers out of the main kernel, enhancing portability - which wouldn't be 
a big deal with PC-compatibles, since the basic drivers would essentially 
be the same.  But on other systems, maybe you would want to be able to 
swap IPLs (one for floppy disks, one for FAT16, one for FAT32 as an 
example), or swap console drivers (maybe you're running on a system that 
doesn't speak BIOS and needs to speak to the keyboard and display some 
other way)...and keep the kernel itself down to a minimum, just plugging 
in what it needs at boot time.  And with this kind of a system, things 
like mouse.com or mscdex.com wouldn't be implemented the same way they are 
on DOS.


What I think would result from this is a sort of modularity similar to 
Linux, but with a more DOS-like footprint.  At this point it wouldn't be 
DOS anymore - it will have sacrificed too much, and will have morphed into 
a strange mutant beast, perhaps similar to Microsoft's unreleased "XEDOS", 
not quite DOS, and not quite a Unix, but somewhere in between, where it 
would load like Linux, the command line would feel about like Linux but it 
would more or less be able to run MS-DOS applications.


On the other end, I've been doing some experiments with UEFI, and mused 
about the possibility of creating a 64-bit "DOS".  Again - wouldn't quite 
be DOS.  But it would almost resemble OS/2 1.0, with its task switcher, 
and the ability to run DOS apps - transparently, not in a penalty box like 
OS/2 1, but like 32-bit Windows.  This could be more DOS-like; but the 
more I thought about it the more I realized it would bear far more 
resemblance to OS/2 without the Presentation Manager.  It would probably 
have to have NT-like USB support, allocating drive letters on the fly - 
and it would need to emulate legacy hardware for the sake of legacy 
software, although newer and cleaner APIs could be provided to expose the 
real hardware to native software.  The command shell would need to more or 
less emulate CMD.EXE.  This concept would also need to be able to emulate 
stuff like GO32 and DOS/4GW, for the many 32-bit DOS apps that rely on 
them.


-uso.


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 11:44 AM, Steve Nickolas usots...@buric.co wrote:

> ...
> I've had ideas for what I'd do if I were writing my own OS or my own DOS 
> clone... but they'd probably be too weird for this list.
> ...

But I, for one, would love to hear those ideas.___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Steve Nickolas]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, DosWorld via Freedos-devel wrote:


Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under MS-DOS?
...
Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D


Here is no any standard. I can purpose few way:
Experimental library format in msa2 - 
https://github.com/DosWorld/msa2/tree/master/original/examples/OVL-TP7
Way, described into Turbo Pascal 3. Here is example, how to use GRAPH.BIN 
library (from TP3) into other languages. Imho, here is no problem link it 
static or dynamic.
https://github.com/DosWorld/pl2/blob/main/EXAMPLES/TP3GDEMO.PL2
https://github.com/DosWorld/pl2/blob/main/LIB/TP3GRAPH.PL2

Also, we have BGI - this is about graphics, but it is shared library.
And next way - "everything is a file" (this is unix way) - write library as 
device driver (.sys)

One more - load unix a.out format (it is easy and well documented).

And last way, (more hard) - dynamic loading .obj file. .obj contains all 
required info.


I've thought of the possibility of using ELF.  Never got off the ground 
though.


I've had ideas for what I'd do if I were writing my own OS or my own DOS 
clone... but they'd probably be too weird for this list.


-uso.___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[DosWorld via Freedos-devel]

> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under 
> MS-DOS?
> ...
> Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D
>
Here is no any standard. I can purpose few way:
Experimental library format in msa2 - 
https://github.com/DosWorld/msa2/tree/master/original/examples/OVL-TP7
Way, described into Turbo Pascal 3. Here is example, how to use GRAPH.BIN 
library (from TP3) into other languages. Imho, here is no problem link it 
static or dynamic.
https://github.com/DosWorld/pl2/blob/main/EXAMPLES/TP3GDEMO.PL2
https://github.com/DosWorld/pl2/blob/main/LIB/TP3GRAPH.PL2

Also, we have BGI - this is about graphics, but it is shared library.
And next way - "everything is a file" (this is unix way) - write library as 
device driver (.sys)

One more - load unix a.out format (it is easy and well documented).

And last way, (more hard) - dynamic loading .obj file. .obj contains all 
required info.


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel]

First, thanks to all who replied! Good stuff. :)

Also:

On Monday, December 28, 2020 5:02 PM, Danilo Pecher 
danilo.pec...@data-experts.biz wrote:

> Well, one could also question the point of shared libraries in a system that 
> doesn't support multitasking.
> ...

It's not so much a matter of multitasking, but of code re-use - ideally, there 
shouldn't be duplicates of certain code in each program which requires it. For 
example, a paint program and a video game may both need to load images/assets 
in various formats. It would be better, therefore, to have a standard library 
containing code to load and store images in a variety of formats than for the 
paint program and the video game both to contain code which performs the same 
exact function.___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Danilo Pecher]

Well, one could also question the point of shared libraries in a
system that doesn't support multitasking.

Dynamic loading has a point in so far as to load binaries based on the
availability of hardware, as in the BGI drivers. Having the code to
support all gfx cards in the exe would be wasteful, so it made sense
to load them dynamically. C and PASCAl support that through their
ability to define functions as data types.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 22:30, tom ehlert  wrote:
>
> Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,
>
> am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 17:06 schrieben Sie:
>
> > On 12/28/2020 2:39 AM, tom ehlert wrote:
> >> Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,
> >>
> >> am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 10:59 schrieben Sie:
> >>
> >>> On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:
>  Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere
>  else, for that matter.
> 
>  Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library
>  under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS
>  had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of
>  anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such
>  thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after)
>  but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years
>  under various flavors of DOS than I.
> 
>  Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D
> >>> Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...
> >> This almost would have been my answer as well.
> >>
> >> But I recently learned 
> >> http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=17354
> >> that there exists Borland BGI (Borland Graphics Interface) drivers
> >> that are arguably equivalent to DLLs (for Borland compilers) as they
> >> are separately compiled binaries.
> >> So this is not a DOS, but Borland standard.
> >>
> >> I know of no other example of this.
> >>
> > Yeah, that came to my mind too, but then it is commonly referred to as
> > drivers, so it is a border line case of this kind of functionality, but
> > it is not a "shared runtime library under DOS"...
>
> 'drivers' usually refers to functionality available to everyone, and
> the interface are defined by the OS.
>
> BGI 'graphic drivers' were only open to Borland compilers; I'd call
> them runtime libraries.
>
> but this is more wording then actually functionality difference.
> no point to have a long thread discussing this ;)
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[tom ehlert]

Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,

am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 17:06 schrieben Sie:

> On 12/28/2020 2:39 AM, tom ehlert wrote:
>> Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,
>>
>> am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 10:59 schrieben Sie:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:
 Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere
 else, for that matter.

 Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library
 under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS
 had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of
 anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such
 thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after)
 but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years
 under various flavors of DOS than I.

 Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D
>>> Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...
>> This almost would have been my answer as well.
>>
>> But I recently learned 
>> http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=17354
>> that there exists Borland BGI (Borland Graphics Interface) drivers
>> that are arguably equivalent to DLLs (for Borland compilers) as they
>> are separately compiled binaries.
>> So this is not a DOS, but Borland standard.
>>
>> I know of no other example of this.
>>
> Yeah, that came to my mind too, but then it is commonly referred to as
> drivers, so it is a border line case of this kind of functionality, but
> it is not a "shared runtime library under DOS"...

'drivers' usually refers to functionality available to everyone, and
the interface are defined by the OS.

BGI 'graphic drivers' were only open to Borland compilers; I'd call
them runtime libraries.

but this is more wording then actually functionality difference.
no point to have a long thread discussing this ;)

Tom



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Ralf Quint]

On 12/28/2020 2:39 AM, tom ehlert wrote:

Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,

am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 10:59 schrieben Sie:


On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:

Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere
else, for that matter.

Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library
under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS
had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of
anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such
thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after)
but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years
under various flavors of DOS than I.

Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D

Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...

This almost would have been my answer as well.

But I recently learned 
http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=17354
that there exists Borland BGI (Borland Graphics Interface) drivers
that are arguably equivalent to DLLs (for Borland compilers) as they
are separately compiled binaries.
So this is not a DOS, but Borland standard.

I know of no other example of this.

Yeah, that came to my mind too, but then it is commonly referred to as 
drivers, so it is a border line case of this kind of functionality, but 
it is not a "shared runtime library under DOS"...


Ralf


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Danilo Pecher]

IIRC there was never something like a standard DLL concept, but we
used to use flat binaries for that concept. Back in 1994 or something,
a friend of mine and I wrote something akin to fractint and we defined
a 'fractal driver' for each type. What it basically boiled down to was
typedef'ing a function type in the calling program, then pointing it
at a dynamically loaded flat binary and calling it.

Cheers, Danilo

On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 11:40, tom ehlert  wrote:
>
> Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,
>
> am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 10:59 schrieben Sie:
>
> > On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:
> >> Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere
> >> else, for that matter.
> >>
> >> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library
> >> under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS
> >> had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of
> >> anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such
> >> thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after)
> >> but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years
> >> under various flavors of DOS than I.
> >>
> >> Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D
>
> > Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...
>
> This almost would have been my answer as well.
>
> But I recently learned 
> http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=17354
> that there exists Borland BGI (Borland Graphics Interface) drivers
> that are arguably equivalent to DLLs (for Borland compilers) as they
> are separately compiled binaries.
> So this is not a DOS, but Borland standard.
>
> I know of no other example of this.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[tom ehlert]

Hallo Herr Ralf Quint,

am Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 um 10:59 schrieben Sie:

> On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:
>> Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere 
>> else, for that matter.
>>
>> Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library 
>> under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS 
>> had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of 
>> anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such 
>> thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) 
>> but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years 
>> under various flavors of DOS than I.
>>
>> Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D

> Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...

This almost would have been my answer as well.

But I recently learned 
http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=17354
that there exists Borland BGI (Borland Graphics Interface) drivers
that are arguably equivalent to DLLs (for Borland compilers) as they
are separately compiled binaries.
So this is not a DOS, but Borland standard.

I know of no other example of this.

Tom




___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Ralf Quint]

On 12/27/2020 10:54 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote:
Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere 
else, for that matter.


Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library 
under MS-DOS? Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS 
had... what, exactly? In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of 
anything official like this, so I'm pretty sure there was no such 
thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not really what I'm after) 
but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you have more years 
under various flavors of DOS than I.


Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D


Well, it is very simple. There is no such thing under DOS...

Ralf



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

[Freedos-devel] DOS runtime library format

[Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel]

Hey, all! Just a question I've never seen addressed here - or anywhere else, 
for that matter.

Was there ever any "official" format for a shared runtime library under MS-DOS? 
Windows has .DLL files, Linux has .KO files, and MS-DOS had... what, exactly? 
In all my years DOSsing I've never heard of anything official like this, so I'm 
pretty sure there was no such thing (unless you count a TSR, but that's not 
really what I'm after) but I figured it doesn't hurt to ask you folks, as you 
have more years under various flavors of DOS than I.

Any constructive feedback would be appreciated! :D

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel