Open Source OS that Uses BIOS for Drive Access?

Int13 asks: "I noticed a question in a review of a book on RAID controllers: 'Why, the author asks, do makers of controller cards put all their BIOS utilities on DOS floppies which require us to find a DOS boot disk?' The reason for this is actually very simple. DOS is one of the few mainstream operating systems that will ALWAYS boot on a PC from any supported boot device, and it doesn't require any special disk drivers at all to accomplish this task or to support any file system that has BIOS support. RAID controllers always supply BIOS support, usually in an extension ROM. This leads directly to the question: Are there any other alternative open source operating systems that will do the same? (no, not Open DOS, since it's just a DOS clone)"

"Why can't Linux use a virtual x86 box to call INT 13h when there is no driver for a particular drive type? It would also have to play nice with the BIOS data area and extended BIOS data area and respect the top of low memory, but that's only a few kilobytes at most. Then people probably wouldn't need a DOS boot disk anymore. If such a thing already exists, is there some reason the install disks for most distros don't support it?

(Before anyone tries to claim that Linux plays nice with the extended BIOS data area and the top of low memory, I can tell you from personal experience that it definitely does not, at least not by default).

Comments

Re:Nothing wrong with DOS

[battjt]

If I had a few boot disks lying about. I've only bought 3 MS products, DOS3.1 in 1986, WinNT 4.0 in 2000 and W2k in 2001. My 5 1/4 floppies for DOS3.1 don't work so well anymore.

This isn't the interesting question to ask.

[xyzzy]

The real question is: how long before these clowns get real and realize that the floppy drive is GOING AWAY -- I mean, seriously, most BIOSes are bigger than 1.44mb now! It's silly to still be manacled to this outdated, ridiculous technology.

Re:This isn't the interesting question to ask.

[walt-sjc]

Bootable CD's emulate floppies. That's how they work. The BIOS looks for a signature on the CD and if present, makes it look like a floppy. Of course, you can only use a floppies worth of information on that CD (I think 2.88M anyway) but that's enough to load drivers to access the rest of the CD in any case.

Some boot loaders such as GRUB which DO use INT 13 actually do quite a bit. They are almost as much (and maybe more so) of an OS than DOS was, and are quite small.
GRUB may actually be a good replacement for DOS for BIOS updates, etc.

Hey, it's open source. Play with it. Modify it to suit your application / needs. Whatever.

Re:This isn't the interesting question to ask.

[Spoing]

1. 1. I mean, seriously, most BIOSes are bigger than 1.44mb now!

   How long then before mainstrean manufacturers start shipping a standardized small "boot" or "rescue" O.S in their bios, with some kind of user interface, core device drivers and a few tools, available at boot time either in addition to or as a replacement for the bios options screen.

2 comments;

1.44MB bios files can be pre-compressed and then decompressed on the fly. (Some PC BIOS utilities do this already.)

Some PC system BIOSes already have a stub BIOS loader. (Boot the system and select BIOS setup, update the BIOS.) The ones I've encountered still use a diskette for the BIOS image. If the new BIOS has a bug, the stub is still available to restore the old BIOS or upgrade to a fixed one.

Easy, yet unknown

[veldmon]

You have to compile a DOS module into the Linux kernel. It's the 3rd or 4th link when you google for "DOS linux module".

FreeDOS worked for me last night

[iamcadaver]

I just flashed my ASUS MB from a FreeDOS diskette last night. Funky screen redraws, but who cares?

I'm now MS free. b)

Hello?

[His name cannot be s]

To start with, you can use the fully open source FREEDOS.

Secondly, I can't see any reason, other than performance why Linux couldn't work off of Int13 , and use Bios-level calls for all disk access. It's probably a good idea, and it would get use to some nice places.

Thirdly, the reason that the OEMs are using dos boot disks for bios updates and whatnot, is because it is far more simple, predictable and stable to use an OS that doesn't have anything clever going on when you are flashing the BIOS.

and Finally, simplicity. DOS is downright stupidly simple to build a boot disk for, and the commands are simple to use, and it is simple to talk someone thru an operation over the phone.

I know that there are many people who can build a boot disk for linux and they will come out of the woodwork to say it's easy, but it ain't as easy as SYS'ing a disk and dumping on IO.SYS ,MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM.

That, and try finding a Linux disk that is smaller than 300K ( as even the bloated IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS/COMMAND.COM combo from Win98 is) and you'll find that it is just not going to fit.

AtheOS

[red_dragon]

AtheOS uses the BIOS for disk access, according to the website:

There is an IDE driver on it's way (only tested on one machine, and not part of the current distro). But generally all disk accesses are done through the BIOS, so most IDE and SCSSI disks should work. I even boot AtheOS from my panic ZIP disk every now and then.

I have to wonder what AtheOS' disk performance is, though. It was common during the Windows 3.11 days for disk controller makers to produce 32-bit disk drivers for Windows that would bypass the BIOS and talk to the controller directly, thus avoiding expensive protected-to-real-mode-and-back switches.

Re:Nothing wrong with DOS

[yerricde]

Why should we be forced to use DOS (nothing against MS here) when I am sure that an OSS project could be implemented and go on to become as popular as DOS boot disks.

How are "DOS" and "an OSS project" mutually exclusive in light of FreeDOS (which several others have mentioned) and the DJGPP compiler suite?

cx domain

[Gothmolly]

Sorry, too scared to click the link.