Hi again, :-)
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> Just my opinion, but here it is ...
Everyone's got one ... :-))
> Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
> feasible and not going to happen.
1987 called, it wants its OS/2 back. (Oh
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Martin Kelly wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong lol. I am running both Linux, BSD and FreeDOS currently,
> and FreeDOS is amazingly fast in comparision to Linux.
Linux is great but my main gripes are 1). build complexity, 2). too
many incompatible distros, 3). litt
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> I really like the core of Martin's idea, and I think it shows a lot of
> initiative and energy. I say go for it, give it a try, and see if it
> works. That's how these things start.
Sure, he can do whatever he wants. But it's easy to bite o
Hey Rugxulo,
> In short, before you start re-inventing DOS and/or Linux, > you should have
> a close look at the possibilities with a > NORMAL DOS or a NORMAL Linux.
> Don't get me wrong lol. I am running both Linux, BSD and FreeDOS currently,
> and FreeDOS is amazingly fast in comparision t
I really like the core of Martin's idea, and I think it shows a lot of
initiative and energy. I say go for it, give it a try, and see if it
works. That's how these things start.
Years back, I had a somewhat similar idea, so maybe Martin can use
this: Rather than writing any kernel stuff, or redef
Just my opinion, but here it is ...
Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
feasible and not going to happen. The biggest problem is DOS
compatibility - as soon as you start messing with the memory management,
APIs or fixing the "bugs" then existing DOS softwar
Hi (again), hope my ramblings aren't too useless, :-)
On May 2, 2012 2:31 PM, "Georg Potthast" wrote:
>
> I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
>
> You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change
e.g.
> Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you canno
Hi,
On May 2, 2012 5:43 PM, "Eric Auer" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Rugxulo,
>
> > Almost definitely doesn't fit on floppy anymore, not since 2.2.0 or
> > such. Even 2.4.x branch is basically (officially?) dead now.
>
> Yes a modern Linux kernel and initrd (boot time ramdisk with basic
> tools and drivers lo
On May 2, 2012 12:10 PM, "Eric Auer" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> > The main aim behind the idea is to make a DOS system that is comparable
> > to Linux, Windows or any other of the 100+ OS's out their while still
> > using the DOS Kernel at the core, which if my idea is viable would allow
> > DOS
Hi Rugxulo,
> Almost definitely doesn't fit on floppy anymore, not since 2.2.0 or
> such. Even 2.4.x branch is basically (officially?) dead now.
Yes a modern Linux kernel and initrd (boot time ramdisk with basic
tools and drivers loaded before the harddisk is accessed further)
can easily be 5 an
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> http://lennartb.home.xs4all.nl/linux.html
>>
>> has plenty of pointers for creating your own minimalist Linux bootdisk.
>> Personally, I'm still looking for a minimalistic Linux distro that
>> contains GCC. Somewhere around 500MB to 1GB ma
Tried tomsrbt; was able to burn an iso with it(in img form), but it could
not run because it was expecting to see older drivers, older than even a
2004 machine, which I tried it on. As for security,
I only use it, though the modern linux kernel may hve locked it out for
that reason. The older GPM,
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 11:41 AM 5/2/2012, kurt godel wrote:
>
>>Now that you mention it, I have been toying with the idea of a
>>"linux startup disk" that would be comparable in size to a '98
>>startup disk'; problem is, I am too dumb to figure out how to ta
Hi again,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Georg Potthast
> wrote:
>>
>> This 52 MB linux distribution contains gcc:
>> http://www.ttylinux.net/dloadPC-x86_64.html
Oops, forgot to mention, I assume (?) that maybe you're thinking that
this would
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Georg Potthast wrote:
>
> This 52 MB linux distribution contains gcc:
> http://www.ttylinux.net/dloadPC-x86_64.html
The i686 one is similar, so you should've linked to that one instead, IMO. ;-)
Anyways, I'm surprised it's a fairly new gcc (4.4.6). I'll bet
On 02/05/2012 21:29, Georg Potthast wrote:
> I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
>
> You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change e.g.
> Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you cannot write
> application programs in C or C++ using 64bit. Also w
Hi Bernd,
> http://lennartb.home.xs4all.nl/linux.html
>
> has plenty of pointers for creating your own minimalist Linux bootdisk.
> Personally, I'm still looking for a minimalistic Linux distro that
> contains GCC. Somewhere around 500MB to 1GB maximum.
Rugxulo probably knows one :-)
> If you h
This 52 MB linux distribution contains gcc:
http://www.ttylinux.net/dloadPC-x86_64.html
Georg
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has cha
I agree with Eric. Some additional points:
You could write a 64bit DOS extender but you would also have to change e.g.
Watcom C or DJGPP to work with a 64bit DOS extender or you cannot write
application programs in C or C++ using 64bit. Also while in 64bit mode you
have no 16bit support so the
Op 2-5-2012 20:41, kurt godel schreef:
> Now that you mention it, I have been toying with the idea of a "linux
> startup disk" that would be comparable in size to a '98 startup disk';
> problem is, I am too dumb to figure out how to take a
> vmlinuz and boot it up. I assume the vmlinuz has a minima
At 11:41 AM 5/2/2012, kurt godel wrote:
>Now that you mention it, I have been toying with the idea of a
>"linux startup disk" that would be comparable in size to a '98
>startup disk'; problem is, I am too dumb to figure out how to take a
>vmlinuz and boot it up. I assume the vmlinuz has a minimal
Now that you mention it, I have been toying with the idea of a "linux
startup disk" that would be comparable in size to a '98 startup disk';
problem is, I am too dumb to figure out how to take a
vmlinuz and boot it up. I assume the vmlinuz has a minimal number of built
in functions like the proverb
Hi Martin,
> The main aim behind the idea is to make a DOS system that is comparable
> to Linux, Windows or any other of the 100+ OS's out their while still
> using the DOS Kernel at the core, which if my idea is viable would allow
> DOS to be 16, 32 & 64-bit compaitable, seems like a crazy idea
if you can program, you should start that,
and have it hosted somewhere on the web like sourceforge,
and all the freedos people would go from there.
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
.
Hey,
I don't know if this is the right list to post in or not as i am rather new to
the maillist.
I have a rather large idea probably more a seperate project, with draft ideas
already sketched out but i wanted to run via the FreeDOS community to check
that it would actually be viable, so comm
25 matches
Mail list logo
