Slashdot Mirror

It reduces the chances of tainting freedos since freedos already reverse engineered dos 1.x/2.x era functionality decades ago.

Yes, you're right. The previous source code release of MS-DOS (March 2014, from Microsoft) was under a "look but do not touch" license that said you could only read the source code, but you could not use it elsewhere, and you couldn't apply what you'd learned from the MS-DOS code in other projects. So the FreeDOS Project has been very careful and said several times that if you viewed the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute to FreeDOS Base because we didn't want to risk tainting the FreeDOS source code. We have a note to that effect on the FreeDOS History page:

"Please note: if you download and study the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute code to FreeDOS afterwards. We want to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been "tainted" by this proprietary code."

This source code release uses the MIT license (aka Expat license) which is compatible with the GNU GPL. That should mean that people who read this version of the MS-DOS source code can contribute to FreeDOS. (As always, if you've somehow viewed one of the unauthorized source code releases of MS-DOS, you should still not contribute to FreeDOS Base.)

Note: I'm the founder and coordinator of FreeDOS

Really liked Using FreeDOS from the FreeDOS folks. Kind of a blast from the past in there about old DOS programs, and its cool to see this favorite old OS also-ran still hanging around. It's for free as an EPUB or PDF, but there's a bound print copy too.

There are already working solutions for this. For example, having FreeDOS on a USB drive, downloading the BIOS to it, and booting from it is very simple.

Did it on my Dell Latitude a while back, and got the latest BIOS on it without any issues.

Format drive and install one of the following operating systems:

• BeOS
• Syllable
• AROS
• Plan 9
• Minix
• FreeDOS
• DR-DOS
• OpenVMS x86 port is coming!
• Visopsys
• SqueakNOS
• Haiku
• Kolibri
• ReactOS
• Tizen
• SkyOS
• MorphOS
• MenuetOS
• CP/M 86
• Multics, also see Multicians
• Erlang as an Operating System

There have been a large number of more or less obscure operating systems and not all have been ported to x86. Unfortunately the architecture has become a de facto standard even though it's not the best architecture or the most efficient but instead a patchwork of solutions to retain backwards compatibility. We have lost many interesting architectures over the years that would have deserved a better fate to the Intel bandwagon.

FreeDOS! Imagine playing the original Id Software games!

No way dude, those have source ports. FreeDOS is for stuff like Blood, Dark Forces, and System Shock.

FreeDOS! Imagine playing the original Id Software games!

FreeDOS is still under active development and has many features and enhancements beyond the original DOS. It'd be easier for you to browse the site rather than list them all here, as there are quite a few of them.

What's wrong with using freeDOS? http://www.freedos.org/

I used it to replace old failing machines before, with no problems running the original DOS programs. Plus you can boot it from a CD, which are a lot more common than floppy drives/disks nowadays (still have a usb 3.5 floppy drive if I ever need it though).

While PCs continue to ship with legacy BIOS support you should be able to continue booting DOS on bare metal PCs (as you did). However FreeDOS does not yet support UEFI so if/when UEFI only machines come out the grand parent's challenge will become more difficult.

Or just boot a FreeDOS CD that includes support for USB flash drives. No need to buy anything, assuming you already have a flash drive and don't consider working from the command line a dealbreaker.

Stop asking Microsoft for the source code to MS-DOS when there's already a compatible DOS available for free.

You said, "He is an intelligent guy, ..."

Is that true? Or, did he take advantage of a social weakness? Most people didn't know much about technology, so it was easy to take advantage. Microsoft made $40 billion selling DOS. I estimate that it took 10 man-years to write DOS. Or 20? For example, FreeDOS was written by volunteers.

See my comment above, Does Bill Gates know much about technology?

A relative of mine recently bought a laptop that was supposed to arrive with FreeDos, but had Ubuntu 12.04 on it instead.

You should have told http://www.freedos.org/ freedos is available here. I understand the massive growth in people wanting freedos, with its clutter free CLI.

This happens all the time. I would insist that new machines label themselves quite clearly as having Ubuntu inside. To prevent the hordes of freeDos users being disappointed. Perhaps its time for a Class Action Lawsuit!!

The summary gives the impression this is a patent, but the /. article title says trademark. Actually, according to the linked USPTO file, it's a service mark.

I had once considered applying for a registered trademark for the FreeDOS Project, just to protect the name. To be clear, a registered trademark is R not TM. But the Apple file is a service mark, or SM. To simplify, a SM is basically the same as a TM, but the understanding is a SM will be for a short term use, for various definitions of "short term" (usually a SM is applied to an advertising slogan, like Walmart's "Save money. Live better.")

First of all, to apply for either mark in the US, you need to pay a fee to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). But even if you file, there is the issue of diligence. If there's a violation (someone uses that trademark or service mark without permission) the mark holder fails to prosecute or take action, the mark can be found in a court to be unprotected and open for use. There are other ways to lose a mark as well.

However, it is not necessary to register a mark with the USPTO in order to claim it as a trademark or service mark. The USPTO says any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO.

Owning a mark registration on the Principal Register does give you several things:

• constructive notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark;
• a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
• the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
• the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and
• the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.

So really what Apple is doing here is registering the layout and design of their store as a service mark (an identity) so that if someone else comes along and uses the same layout and design, Apple can make a stronger case to sue them. The legal theory is that you could have looked up the service mark to see if someone else was using it so it's harder to defend yourself if you are found to be infringing. Not impossible to defend, just harder.

Companies do this kind of thing all the time. It just doesn't usually hit the news. Coke has a registered mark on the shape their bottle, for example.

This isn't an Apple patent, it's not an abuse of the patent system. It's just a service mark.

Alas, I don't have a 5,25" floppy drive any more, so I would run into some problems if I'd actually wanted to install Dos.

MS-DOS is simple enough that FreeDOS should be compatible with most applications.

Alright, here's my shtick... It's a great race between two open source software ecosystems: copyLEFT and copyFREE.

The copyFREE side is a more amicable pacifist bunch, with more freedoms and more choices, and it has been gaining ground in the last decade in all software categories but one - the kernels. The copyLEFT side was founded by a bunch of militant hippies trying to destroy capitalism, and it had several years' head start, so its viral licenses were grandfathered into some of the most important pieces of open source software. The OS projects within each team like to share code, and the copyLEFT team can also mooch copyFREE code as well, but not the other way around...

This race is contested on many fronts, and one obscure comparison (that I just came up with) is: while running the race forward, to still maintain support for the 80386 platform. Only UNIX systems (sorry, sorry, sorry) that can run on a 80386 PC (sorry, sorry) with actively maintained current versions (sorry) are to be included. Let's see how the two teams compare:

THE COPYLEFT TEAM:

(1) Linux - now i486, as mentioned in this article.

THE COPYFREE TEAM:

(1) FreeBSD - i486 since 2005.

(2) OpenBSD - i486 since 2007.

(3) NetBSD - i486, "80386 support removed" in 2007.

(4) MINIX 3 - i586, 32mb RAM, 635mb HD.

So it looks like the copyLEFT camp had this little "current UNIX on 80386" advantage, and now lost it...

--libman

Do you know about FreeDOS? If you don't check it out, it's a great MS DOS or other similar vintage DOS replacement. It is stable, updated and has heaps of features that you won't have if you are running an ancient DOS.

Also, it runs perfectly happily in a VM such as DOSEmu. Check it out.

Welcome to generational differences. I hope you enjoy your stay. And yes, this exists pretty much everywhere - although maybe not to the point you describe here. Depends on the people you hire, too. But speaking generally, it's a generational thing.

Every generation approaches their work in a different way. I spoke about this a few years ago at Penguicon in my Linux in the Enterprise (Powerpoint) talk. Although my slides don't have a lot of text on them, so you may not get much benefit by looking at the slides on their own. You can also find more on my blog.

In my Penguicon talk, it was about how to pitch Linux to the higher-ups. I mentioned 3 generations that might be your manager. In your case, you are likely experiencing only 2 of these groups:

1. My generation (the "Star Wars generation") in their 30's and 40's
2. The "boomer generation" in their 50's and 60's

Folks in their 30's and 40's tend to be very conservative. I don't mean to say politically conservative but conservative in their actions. Other slashdotters who are about my age likely saw one of their parents get laid off from their jobs while we were growing up. If your parents weren't laid off, I'm sure one or more of your friends' parents were. And while we may not recognize it, that caused many of my generation to think conservatively. We don't want to see that happen to us. So we tend to view things in terms of risk. Many in my generation are risk-averse, so you really need to be careful in how you introduce new technology and new concepts to them. Approach it as a way to reduce risk or to make things easier. Don't just jump in and expect them to follow, because they're waiting to see what you'll make of it before they touch it. Will this be something that "sticks" or will it be another flash-in-the-pan that goes away after a little while, so a waste of time to learn?

The boomer generation is different. That generation is often motivated by societal change. Witness the societal upheaval in the 1960s and 1970s. And they definitely didn't grow up with technology, they probably "fell into it" and got their start working on mainframes. If they are honest, they may tell you they're more interested in society and social networks (this the generation that Classmates.com was built for) and less motivated by technology. Since they didn't grow up with technology, the boomer generation may not always be comfortable with the rate of change in technology - even those who work in technology. In general, don't expect boomers to share your enthusiasm for new technology. You may need to walk these folks through it. Draw parallels for them, show how this new thing is basically like this other older thing, but with a few improvements.

If you look at your coworkers' behaviors as a symptom of generational differences, you'll be pretty far along.

Your generation, by the way, is often very self-motivated to go search stuff out on their own. (You mentioned this in your post.) Kids in your generation don't often stop to bring other people into what they are doing, they just do their own research. (Sound familiar?) And your generation typically is not interested in going through the same "levels" that previous generations were content to follow. So while you didn't mention this in your post, I'll give it as a caution: if you find that your boss's boss is an expert in some area that you're working on, you probably will just send an email to pick his/her brain on the topic. You wouldn't think anything of it; that's the expert, so you asked. Your boss's boss will probably answer you, too, because that person is probably a boomer - and remember, boomers tend to be motivated by social networking. So your boss's boss will find it hard to resist having that dialogue with you.

And in doing so, you will have piss

In the announcement they said GRUB 2.00 supports FreeDOS as a boot protocol. I'll have to test that out to see what they mean - it's not that hard to boot DOS. But I am thrilled that the GRUB developers recognized us with explicit support. And of course, all the extra technical details they've added in the 2.00 release. Thanks!

Also, I saw that GRUB 2.00 supports a few other "alternative" operating systems, including Ntldr/bootmgr (to load Windows bootloader) and Darwin 11 (Mac OS X Lion.)

Dell ships computers with freedos on them today.

Wow. Just... wow.

In 1993 it was more or less impossible to buy a PC without dos and Windows 3.x on it because Microsoft charged a lot less to OEMs if they agreed to ship a copy of Windows 3.x with every PC sold. (IIRC it was $99 per copy or $19 per copy if you agreed to ship Windows on every machine.)

Yes, that was known as the "Windows tax". MS imposed that contract in attempt to make windows ubiquitous as it was under fire from every direction. (I didn't say it was 1993 btw, that date was for Linux) DESQview, for instance, died off in 90-91 for all intents and purposes. And quite a few OSes stubbornly hung on through around 96, When even though proving that Win95 was in essence an application running on top of DOS and DOS could be swapped out with DRDOS, DRDOS and its brethren faded away. Another MS dirty trick that they lost in court, but won where it matters since those targeted competitors had all failed.

Minix is still alive and being used by Prof. Tanenbaum. Microsoft had all OEMs shipping Windows with every PC, and you claim it was a rich time in computing history? I am sorry but the writing was on the wall that Microsoft was going to win (painted on the wall by Microsoft, with their competitors blood)

Ironically, Bill Gates was one of the few people to see that web browsers could eventually be the Desktop OS. Hence, the decision to cut of Netscape's oxygen.

Minix still being used by it's creator is about as relevant as MS Bob still being used by Gates. Sorry, but the boat sailed long long ago wrt Minix. Same for the assumed tiny group that's still using BeOS. That one had promise but I never had the time to look at it and it essentially failed long before I got to it. Bill Gates entirely failed to see anything related to Web Browsers until Netscape had mopped the floor. That MS was able to displace Netscape and destroy them is a classic example of monopoly predatory practices. Giving IE away for free and including it with their OS distributions made it virtually impossible for Netscape to monetize their main product and raised the bar significantly on getting people to try Netscape.

Dell ships computers with freedos on them today.

In 1993 it was more or less impossible to buy a PC without dos and Windows 3.x on it because Microsoft charged a lot less to OEMs if they agreed to ship a copy of Windows 3.x with every PC sold. (IIRC it was $99 per copy or $19 per copy if you agreed to ship Windows on every machine.)

So you can buy a new computer today with DOS on it from a major manufacturer. Minix is still alive and being used by Prof. Tanenbaum. Microsoft had all OEMs shipping Windows with every PC, and you claim it was a rich time in computing history? I am sorry but the writing was on the wall that Microsoft was going to win (painted on the wall by Microsoft, with their competitors blood)

Ironically, Bill Gates was one of the few people to see that web browsers could eventually be the Desktop OS. Hence, the decision to cut of Netscape's oxygen.

http://www.freedos.org/freedos/links/ -- and most of the stuff is free or shareware :)

In related news, last month FreeDOS turned 17, and in September FreeDOS 1.0 will have been around for 5 years. They're finally gearing up for another release (low manpower and trouble with package management and the installer have hindered attempts to follow the "release early, release often" mantra), and could really use people's help testing and polishing off the 1.1 release.

Still being developed.... Just search for FreeDOS and then shake your head in disgust.....

Sorry that you aren't as enthusiastic about it as we are.

Yes, we're still working on FreeDOS. In fact, if you visit our web site you'll see that we are currently working on the FreeDOS 1.1 distribution. We're almost there! After that is out, we'll start the discussion for what FreeDOS "2.0" should be, what a modern DOS should look like in 2011.

So yes, we are still doing some work there.

Hold your tongue, ya young whippersnapper!

And respect your elders, ya peppy little spit-f*ck. (paraphrasing line to Zuckerberg-like character in Zombieland)

Revised title: "MS-DOS would have been 30 if it were still alive today".

A recent load of FreeDOS in a VM worked great. The larger download came with tons of cool software too, but so far Tetris is about the only thing easy to identify from the DOS filename. Sigh... (everything was identified with descriptions when installed, but we old fossils can't remember much stuff like that an hour later)
If there was supposed to be a launcher or menu I screwed up that part of the install.

http://www.freedos.org/freedos/files/

"My employer is currently looking at adopting a content management system ... The candidates are currently Plone (OSS) and Confluence (proprietary, closed-source). For those with experience in each, what arguments in favor of Plone could be made to managers more interested in pragmatism than idealism?"

You hit the important point in your post: you cannot use idealism ("FOSS is neat!") to get your manager on your side.

When pitching any new idea to a manager, it's important to note the differences in priorities at each level. For examaple: with a line-level technologist (i.e. most geeks) technical knowledge is important, relationship-building and strategic planning are [generally] very unimportant. I'm talking about what's important to your job, not what's important to you.

But it's pretty much the opposite for managers, especially the further up the management chain you look. At the CIO level, strategic planning is the #1 most important thing, followed closely by interpersonal skills (CIOs often need to navigate lots of committees and meetings to get things done.) Individual technical skill is very unimportant to their work (some CIOs maintain some technical knowledge, but it's not used in their day-to-day work.)

I gave a talk about this very topic at Penguicon 2009, called "Linux in the Enterprise". My 1-hour talk used only a few conceptual slides, but you will be interested in the chart on slide #4. It presents this idea about "framing" very clearly. You can find the presentation at my blog, but the actual presentation is from May 2009. I think the data in the chart originally came from a Harvard Business Review study.

Your question indicated you were going to present this idea to a manager - I'm assuming (based on your wording) that you don't mean an IT Director or a Chief Information Officer, but instead an IT manager (probably your group manager.) Look closely as the chart from my presentation, and note the "Mgr" area of the graph. The "importance" lines all converge for the manager. That's not an error in the graph - that's indicative of managers stepping out of the "team lead" role, before they can make a transition to a "Director" role.

In the talk, I discussed how IT managers often have a hard time leaving their "tech person" role, moving into a manager role, because the IT skills that got them to the "manager" position won't carry them to the next level. And everything tends to have equal importance, because managers act as the filter between the technology teams and the director. So technical knowledge has about the same importance to their day-to-day job as budgeting and strategy. But I digress...

You'll need to make a case to your manager that addresses the points that he or she will find important, while at the same time thinking a step ahead to the level above your manager. Emphasize points that will be important to your manager's director. That means you need to de-emphasize the technology ("it's FOSS") and address the strategy. Does Plone fit into your organization's strategic IT plan? (Does your group even have an IT plan?) How easy can Plone integrate with other parts of the IT infrastructure? Can you tie Plone into your central authentication system? Who supports either package (patches, updates, new features, etc.) Your manager and director will not want to take on this effort, so be sure to mention commercial support options for Plone (usually this means "help desk"), the Plone developer community, and if it's available as a standard package in the Linux distro your sysadmins already run (meaning it would get updates by default as they regularly update the OS - which would be either good or bad, depending on your manager's preferences for testing after patches.)

It's not enough to say "FOSS is free". Especially because it really isn't. Talk about

The kids have all moved on to FreeDOS.

Well, that would depend upon what role this OS is going to play. Server? He did mention he liked OpenSolaris enterprise tools. Desktop? The Ports Collection opens up a lot of compatible linux software. Do you need a semi-truck or a motorcycle? But you also left out Syllable, a linux/BeOS hybrid, in server and desktop edition, FreeDOS for those nostalgic moments, or MenuetOS for when you really want to get your freak on.

So write the code yourself OSS boy. Mr. XP

Hi, Mr Troll.

Thanks, but I already have. Need anything else?

OSFree is an open source alternative to OS/2. As IBM could not open source OS/2 because of over 300 licensed code bases that went into developing it, they instead spund it off to Serenity systems to create an OEM version of OS/2 named eComStation. But OSFree is an attempt to build an open sourced OS/2 from scratch to work with MS-DOS, OS/2 1.X command, OS/2 2.0 3.0 and 4.0 (Warp and Merlin), and even some eComStation compatibility. I am not sure if they will try a WIN-OS2 substation or use ODIN to run 16 bit and 32 bit Windows applications. ODIN was the OS/2 version of WINE.

OSFree hasn't reached Alpha phase yet, but they are working on creating a LiveCD version that boots, and a version of OSFree that runs in Linux but runs OS/2 programs inside of Linux, like that Borg or Ferengi version of OS/2 ran under Windows to run OS/2 programs in a different OS.

Why has Slashdot almost ignored AROS Amiga Research OS? It has gone beyond what HaikuOS has and has had a LiveCD and VMWare image for a long time now. It is based on AmigaOS 3.1 APIs and written from scratch, IIRC AmigaOS 4.X was using AROS code to build it on. So while it is like an older AmigaOS 3.1 version it can run in a virtual machine or LiveCD or even a version that runs inside of Linux to run AROS programs. What Amiga Fan that runs Linux wouldn't want an AROS subsystem? All AROS lacks is decent applications, but that is being worked on with the AROS bounty system.

FreeDOS is a MS-DOS replacement. It can run the FreeGEM replacement GUI for Windows 3.X (basically a 16 bit GUI that runs GEM programs over DOS) or OpenGEM. But most think OpenGEM is the better of the 16 bit GUIS for DOS.

ReactOS is based on WINE to become a stand alone OS that is Windows XP/2003 compatible. It hasn't reached Beta stage yet, and lacks proper driver support, but it can be run via VmWare virtual machines or a LiveCD. The Virtual machine comes bundled with QEMU available from the downloads section and it is good to download and try out. It doesn't support modern 32 bit Windows programs but can be made to run the older ones that don't require .Net libraries or the BITS service. In about five years time it should become stable enough to reach the Beta stage and support most drivers and be able to be installed to an actual machine. By the time it reaches 1.0 status, Microsoft will have abandoned Windows XP and most likely have Windows 8 or 9 with a Virtual PC mode to run XP software like Windows 7 does. The Windows Legacy Software is not going away, and Microsoft proved that with the XP Virtual Machine for Windows 7 Pro and up users. Many software companies cannot afford to upgrade their software to work on Windows Vista or above and many small businesses have their old business software written for DOS, 16 bit Windows, or Windows XP or lower, and cannot afford to buy new machines that run Windows Vista or Windows 7 and lose compatibility with their legacy Windows software for business.

FreeDOS is still maintaned, gets new drivers all the time, and so on. I can't see how DOS can be dead either.

I think you're being a little unfair (or trolling). I'll bite. First, a qualifier:

I'm not a huge fan of MS, but I confess that I like Windows 7. (To qualify: I used Gentoo as my primary desktop OS for about 1.5 years, switched to XP when I had a semester of .NET development at uni, and then recently switched to Win 7 to try it out with the public beta--I've been impressed thus far.)

Looks and 'feels' aren't going to increase productivity. The complete lack of text on the task bar means I have to learn what each icon represents and then have to mouse over it or open the item to figure out what it actually is. In XP or Vista I can just look at the task bar and figure out which server's I've RDP's and SSH'd into, what page my browser is on, any IM's demanding my attention and who they are from. I'm going to lose a crap load of productivity from this alone and probably some hair as well. There are good reasons we favour text based language over a pictogram or hieroglyphic language, complex text is far easier to read.

Spend about 5 minutes learning the OS. The new taskbar wasn't something I appreciated at first--but it grows on you. Although another couple folks have already suggested this fix, here's mine: Right-click your start button, go to properties, and under the Taskbar tab, change "taskbar buttons" to "combine when taskbar is full." Poof! Text magically appears on your buttons. I don't select "never combine" as someone else suggested, because I happen to like having similar applications groups together.

Fancy that.

That stupid "network and sharing centre" is still there, still trying to tell me that it knows what to do with my network. Why do I have to assign a "location" popup to every different DHCP address I get, the OS should handle this invisibly.

I agree the network and sharing center is stupidly designed (and severely dumbed down). I'll grant you this. I haven't noticed the DHCP issue, but then... I don't use 7 on a laptop. I suspect this might just be specific to your configuration, however.

Customisability is a two edged sword, with customisability comes more chances for something critical to fail. I'm not saying that extenisve customisability is a bad thing but most users will only change their screensaver and background. Some will pick a different pre-selected colour "theme" but most will leave it as default. Most users do not care about customisability beyond major superficial points like the background.

That's being a bit petty, IMO. Gnome, KDE, and just about every other user-facing desktop allows for the customization of some things. Are they bad? Maybe.

If it were as horrible as you suggest, perhaps you should stick with bash? csh, maybe? Actually, forget I said that bit about csh.

Actually, screw this bit about multiprocessing OSes. Why not head back to a modern DOS-based system?

Game performance is nowhere near the level of XP and the old games which didn't work in Vista still don't work in 7. I'm not completely cynical however, I know 7 is still immature and many of the drivers will have issues. It will take time for the drivers (esp graphics drivers) to mature.

Umm, I haven't noticed a difference. Mind you, I don't play a lot of games, but the ones I do play actually appear to have a higher average framerate (~5-10, so it's within the margin of error) than XP.

Unfortunately in the Windows world, upgrades are synonymous with planned obsolescence. If you want your old games to work, run your favorite Linux distro and install them under Wine (no, I'm not kidding). I got Carmageddon 2 to play just fine (joystick included) under Wine. I could never get it working, even under XP.

The RC does not start nearly as quickly as a fr

As others have already pointed out on this thread, use encryption. If you're booting Linux, use LUKS encryption on all of /(root). For Windows, use TrueCrypt. Use a strong passphrase! If a thief ever gets your laptop, they won't be able to access anything on the drive.

I do this on all the laptops I have access to. Makes it very secure. I even have an 8GB flash drive that I use to boot my subnotebook (runs Windows when I'm at work, now runs Linux when I'm at home.) Works great.

If you're really paranoid, create a multi-boot system. You have a netbook, so you don't have a lot of hard drive space to install a (second?) Linux distro. You need something tiny like FreeDOS or a really minimal Linux install. Then set it up to nuke the entire drive without prompting the user first. (Linux can easily do an unattended shred, but FreeDOS will need a third party program to do it.) Set the bootloader to not boot an operating system by default but instead to just prompt the user. The default option should be the "nuke" instance, labeled something obvious like 'Microsoft Windows XP'. Label your real operating system something less obvious like 'Tools'. Guess what option the thief would choose?

Just don't forget and choose the wrong one yourself, or you're going to spend some time rebuilding your system.

Here's a free MS-DOS clone.

http://www.freedos.org/

eBay is fine for obtaining a supply of disks, but not necessarily so fine for finding software. However, see the FreeDOS site for a likely operating system. That software should allow you to connect a CD-ROM drive (again eBay can be your friend), after which you should be able to find all sorts of DOS software you can run (eBay, again!).

"Classic DOOM and DSL Linux Desktop inside your Java-enabled browser! The latest JPC, the fast 100% Java x86 PC emulator, is now available with online demos and downloads. JPC is open source [...] Visit the website to try out some classic games and [...]"

Where it mentions playing DOOM and other DOS games, JPC is booting FreeDOS. So yes, this can run FreeDOS.

Here's a screenshot of FreeDOS in action on JPC, if you need one.

In fact, we've discussed the Java PC emulator on the FreeDOS web site since JPC was first released. We even link to it on our "About" page and "Links" page. It's a great way to introduce new users to the idea of running DOS, without asking them to install their own PC emulator, or even install FreeDOS at all.

Java PC has been released under the GNU GPL since May 2007, so to answer your question: source code is available. We mirrored an old copy of the source code from 2007, but looks like we haven't made further copies. But maybe it's enough to interest folks who don't want to wait for the JPC site to recover from its slashdotting today.

"Classic DOOM and DSL Linux Desktop inside your Java-enabled browser! The latest JPC, the fast 100% Java x86 PC emulator, is now available with online demos and downloads. JPC is open source [...] Visit the website to try out some classic games and [...]"

Where it mentions playing DOOM and other DOS games, JPC is booting FreeDOS. So yes, this can run FreeDOS.

Here's a screenshot of FreeDOS in action on JPC, if you need one.

In fact, we've discussed the Java PC emulator on the FreeDOS web site since JPC was first released. We even link to it on our "About" page and "Links" page. It's a great way to introduce new users to the idea of running DOS, without asking them to install their own PC emulator, or even install FreeDOS at all.

Java PC has been released under the GNU GPL since May 2007, so to answer your question: source code is available. We mirrored an old copy of the source code from 2007, but looks like we haven't made further copies. But maybe it's enough to interest folks who don't want to wait for the JPC site to recover from its slashdotting today.

"Classic DOOM and DSL Linux Desktop inside your Java-enabled browser! The latest JPC, the fast 100% Java x86 PC emulator, is now available with online demos and downloads. JPC is open source [...] Visit the website to try out some classic games and [...]"

Where it mentions playing DOOM and other DOS games, JPC is booting FreeDOS. So yes, this can run FreeDOS.

Here's a screenshot of FreeDOS in action on JPC, if you need one.

In fact, we've discussed the Java PC emulator on the FreeDOS web site since JPC was first released. We even link to it on our "About" page and "Links" page. It's a great way to introduce new users to the idea of running DOS, without asking them to install their own PC emulator, or even install FreeDOS at all.

Java PC has been released under the GNU GPL since May 2007, so to answer your question: source code is available. We mirrored an old copy of the source code from 2007, but looks like we haven't made further copies. But maybe it's enough to interest folks who don't want to wait for the JPC site to recover from its slashdotting today.

How do you run FreeDOS inside DOSBox? DOSBox doesn't separate out the DOS-emulation parts from the hardware-emulation parts and doesn't support installing another OS. Are you confusing DOSBox with DOSEMU? DOSEMU is a virtualisation program used to run DOS (MS-DOS or FreeDOS) on Linux/x86. DOSBox is a portable DOS and PC emulator.

morgan_greywolf's followup makes clear that he confused DOSEmu with DOSBox (probably because the window title under DOSEmu says "DOS in a box".)

However, the DOSBox wiki specifically mentions FreeDOS as an excellent source for utilities, many of which DOSBox does not provide internally. For example, the MORE program. Since DOSBox was originally intended to run games, DOSBox just doesn't include very much on the CLI than what you need to run games. If you want to be more of a DOS power-user (and prefer running DOSBox) then you need the utilities provided by FreeDOS.

-jh

The one requirement I have for DOS is to do bios upgrades to older laptops which still requiring booting to dos. This seems to be one use case which I didn't have much luck with FreeDOS. Is that intentional part of the design (perhaps freedos protects the bios?) or was it just an incompatibility of the bios upgrade tool I have?

At a guess, I'd put this on the BIOS upgrade tool you have. Lots of BIOS updaters run fine on FreeDOS, and in fact several vendors such as ASUS [used to?] include a bootable copy of FreeDOS with their BIOS software if you got it on CDROM. The intention was to use this bootable CDROM to install the BIOS update from DOS.

I know that ASUS did this - at least as late as 2004 - because we wrote a technote on how the ASUS CDROM that came with your motherboard was borked. Specifically, it looks like they didn't bother to completely remove the "installer" parts, which made it easy to break your Windows system by [accidentally] installing FreeDOS on it.

-jh

Possibly, but if you know anyone doing so, tell 'em about http://www.freedos.org/

We casual computer users will use the applications we find unless they don't do what we want.

I never wanted to learn computer science, I wanted to use a word processor instead of a typewriter back in 1990 when I got my first PC. I used WordPerfect-5.1, had to learn DOS memory management to get WP to run in (faster) expanded memory mode. Note I said "had to" not "wanted to." I even wrote macros to make editing docs more rational than WP's infamous interface.

When Windows 95 came out, DOS was obviously deprecated, and I got on the upgrade treadmill, installing WP-6.0a for WIndows. Alas, my macros wouldn't work. Also I hated Windows' registry. I could still run WP-5.1 under DOS, but W95 kept crashing under it.

I tried Linux in 1997. Got SuSE 5.0 installed and it was ugly. Tried again in 1998 when WP ported version 8 to Linux. My distro was Caldera 1.3; I liked KDE, which seemed more advanced than W95 to me, and ran WP-5.1 under DOSemu. I moved to Red Hat 6.0, which I used for six years, learning to update and upgrade with RPM and by compiling. By then, I needed a newsgroup client; Pan was just coming into existence, and I volunteered to build RPMs for that project while using NX under Wine as Pan was still unstable as all hell.

Now I use an Ubuntu variant and run WP-5,1 under QEMU. Pan is now useful, so I quit using FA; VLC, Dragon Player, Gnome viewer and Digikam have replaced Irfanview under WINE for me. Ytree has replaced Xtree Gold. Sylpheed mail replaced Forte Free Agent under Wine.

I found Linux programs I needed on the internet, gradually, over time, the same way I found Windows apps.

As I said, I never *wanted* to learn CS. But I have, I have.

And doubtless many other unwilling CS hobbyists will do the same, find Adept or Synaptic and explore it, or find mention of an app on the internet and try to install it.

Shuttleworth is quite right, but after almost twenty years, I have NOT replaced WP-5.1 with emacs or the like; I most profoundly do NOT want to learn another macro language. WP-5.1 serves me very, very well still, thanks to Freedos http://www.freedos.org/ Ultimate Ubuntu and QEMU.

It was 1993, and I installed Slackware Linux 1.03 (Linux kernel 0.99 pl11, I think) on my '386 PC. I was still a physics student then, and was starting to do more with computational lab analysis in FORTRAN77 (random sampling of data, R-K simulation, etc.) I used to make frequent trips to the UNIX labs to do my analysis there, which was actually better than using the (shared) systems via the campus dialup.

Before moving to Linux, my primary platform was MS-DOS. I used WordPerfect 5.1 to write term papers and lab write-ups, and As-Easy-as 5 (a shareware Lotus 1-2-3 clone) to do my spreadsheet-driven data analysis (linear fit, std dev, etc.)

Moving to Linux certainly made my lab analysis easier (using 'f77') since I could now do it all from my dorm room with no trips to the labs. I could run X Windows (using 'twm') same as the labs. I had already tinkered with LaTeX before then, so it was easy to switch to that to write the rest of my college papers. I don't remember what I used as my spreadsheet under Linux, but I know I had one. And I had a terminal emulator (looked a lot like ProComm) so I could dial into the main computer lab if I needed to use Mathematica.

Later, DOSEmu let me run MS-DOS under Linux, so I eventually moved back to As-Easy-As until I graduated in 1995.

I remember that the success of Linux, even then, encouraged me that we could get a free version of DOS off the ground in 1994, when Microsoft hinted that DOS would "die" in 1995. :-)

placing an INT 3 (on other platforms, it's an illegal instruction)

WTF? You aren't serious are you? M$ debug used that, IIRC (x86 not SPARC). I am fairly certain that the http://www.freedos.org/ version uses it too. Hardware breakpoints are slick, but weren't available when DOS was stol... written. Yes, I void warranties and edit binaries.

It's called FreeDOS, but it's a product made by some commie bastards copying the work of honest American workers, the popular and much loved MS-DOS. It's also "Open Source" which is commie talk for "hacking tools", so don't allow your child to use it or he'll become a dirty, smelly commie hacker.

Just stay with the products of honest American companies like Windows Vista, you support our economy, you spit on the face of those commie bastards, and you get a solid, reliable product as only good ol' American craftmanship can produce.

I've also heard some rumors of a "Lenix" OS or something, made by some finnish commie but trust me, son, you don't wanna piss off the boys at the NSA by using that. I've even heard it includes some sort of "manifesto" with it, fucking commies, always trying to brainwash you with their commie crap.

Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell. I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that. Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.

MS-DOS had a half-decent command-line environment - don't knock it. For those of us that grew up with DOS, it was great, and moving to an all-GUI "Windows" environment was a painful shift.

I say MS-DOS had a half-decent CLI, but DOS is much better now. You're welcome, btw. :-)

FreeDOS is not quite the old DOS you are thinking about.

http://www.freedos.org/freedos/news/technote/190.html

http://www.freedos.org/cgi-bin/lsm.cgi?mode=dir&dir=edit

direct link for a smattering of editors for it...

should be quick - setup the autoexec.bat to start the editor of choice if want even faster...

So, you want fast booting?

Get FreeDOS and one of the text editors from here.

I can't think of anything that will boot faster, although EMACS will likely be the friendliest editor available.

So, you want fast booting?

Get FreeDOS and one of the text editors from here.

I can't think of anything that will boot faster, although EMACS will likely be the friendliest editor available.