Slashdot Mirror


FreeDOS Turns 10 Years Old Today

Jim Hall writes "The FreeDOS Project turns 10 years old today! PD-DOS was announced to the world on June 28, 1994. The PD-DOS project was later renamed to the FreeDOS Project. We've come a long way in 10 years. Today, FreeDOS is ideal for anyone who wants to bundle a version of DOS without having to pay a royalty for use of DOS. FreeDOS will also work on old hardware, in DOS emulators, and in embedded systems. FreeDOS is also an invaluable resource for people who would like to develop their own operating system. While there are many free operating systems out there, no other free DOS-compatible operating system exists. Read more about the FreeDOS Project history in the About FreeDOS page."

16 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. DOS is still alive! by oldosadmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    DOS is still alive as a great platform for limited uses.

    If you need some utilities to go along with freeDOS, try my site, Old Os or if you have problems setting it up try our forums.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
  2. The "About FreeDos" Page before it gets /.ed by bairy · · Score: 4, Informative

    FreeDOS aims to be a complete, free, 100% MS-DOS compatible operating system.

    FreeDOS was previously known as "Free-DOS" and originally as "PD-DOS." For a little trip down memory lane: In 1994, I was a physics student at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Most of my work for school had been done using DOS - writing programs, dialing up to the university computer, network, analysing lab data, etc. I really loved DOS; I did everything with it. I had a '386 desktop system in my dorm room and an XT laptop that I would carry around with me to do work "on the go".

    I liked the simplicity that DOS offered. As a DOS user, you have the equivalent of 'root' access on your computer. Anything that you want to do on the PC is possible. Nothing is really stopping you, other than hardware limitations. I found that this additional degree of freedom was nice to have, although since I worked in both environments (UNIX and DOS) I tended to write programs that stuck to "safe areas" that worked on both platforms. DOS was great.

    But that year, there was an announcement that Microsoft would stop support for DOS, that a new version of Windows was going to be released that completely removed DOS from the picture. Of course, this was Windows 95, and it still did have DOS, but at that time we all had the vision that Microsoft was trying to kill our favorite operating system. Everyone was pretty shocked. We didn't want to be forced to use Windows, which completely removes the command line. In DOS, everything is done on the command line, and a true command line "guru" can do amazing things there. In Windows, you are stuck with the mouse, and if the menus don't let you do something, it pretty much can't be done. So things were looking pretty bleak. We were all very upset about Microsoft's decision to ditch the DOS platform.

    Then, I saw a discussion thread on the DOS groups asking "hey, why doesn't someone write their own free version of DOS?" Remember, this was about three years after Linus Torvalds announced his work on the Linux kernel, and by 1993 Linux had shown that free software can achieve incredible results. So in 1994, the suggestion that we could write our own free version of DOS, and give it away with the source code so others could work with it and improve it, really didn't sound all that far-fetched.

    Unfortunately, no one seemed to pick up the ball. The idea sort of sat there, waiting. I didn't have much experience in writing C or Assembly programs (most of my analytical work in physics was limited to FORTRAN) but I had written some C programs. So I sat down one weekend and hacked out code for a bunch of DOS file utilities. I posted what I had done to the DOS newsgroups, and announced that I intended to form a group on the Internet to write our own free version of DOS.

    I took the opportunity to fix some things. There are some things about what Microsoft did with DOS that do irk me. The biggest is that MS-DOS commands lack options, not that there are lots of MS-DOS commands anyway. I wanted to have more powerful tools than what MS-DOS provided me with. So I hacked some of my own. (I wasn't a strong C programmer at the time, so this wasn't very beautiful code.)

    There were several "beta" pre-release packages of my stuff:

    • 0.10 - contained a few basic utilities, just to get the easy ones out of the way: clear (like CLS), echo, more, rem, type, ver, wait (like Pause)
    • 0.11 - added date, test (some do-nothing test program), time
    • 0.12 - added choose
    • 0.13 - fixes and some cleanup
    • 0.14 - added tee (like UNIX 'tee')
    • 0.15 - added bgc (sets background color), fgc (sets foreground color), man (like UNIX 'man')
    • ...
    • 1.0 - clear replaced by cls, man replaced by help, wait replaced by pause, bgc and fgc moved into cls. Added del, find, reboot, unix2dos.

    Afte

    --


    Get paid to search..It's geniune and
  3. Re:Does it play games? by Mesaeus · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's where you use DOSBox, a DOS emulator (mainly) for old games. It doesn't play all dos games yet but every release gets better.

  4. Re:Does it play games? by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Runs Descent, Descent2, Jazz Jackrabbit and One Must Fall 2097 for me. Although DOS4GW doesn't work on it, but you can replace the extender with the Zurenava DOS Extender, for example.

    The site's in Russian, but it's simple to use. You run it on the game executable to replace the extender it uses. After that it works fine. Some games seem to lock up on exit on my laptop, but everything works fine during play, so it shouldn't be a huge problem.

  5. 1.0 isnt a magic number by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Informative

    FD has been quite useable for many years. The fact its not reached 1.0 is mainly due to debates on optional features needed to call it '1.0', and not related at all to its stablity or useablity.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. Re:os development by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 5, Informative
    User accounts on Win9x/ME can offer preference/config personilisation for different users sitting at the computer. Convenience was the goal, not security. As Win9x/ME reside on FAT16/32 filesystems, any user can gain access to any file.

    If one of those users wanted "complete control" of the computer - all they have to do is reboot the computer with an OS on a bootable CD (Knoppix, Gnoppix, etc). This can be done to take control of Linux, Win2K, WinXP, etc. NTFS is no obstacle, nor are the myriad of file systems available for use by a Linux installation. Encrypted file systems can prevent root access - but very few people have the time for this setup - plus recovery can be a real beatch.

    The strong point of DOS is not being able to run another OS - it's being able to have more control over how you run certain applications. It can also facilitate recovery when things go wrong. The hardware requirements are less. Flexibility is a good thing. There is no need to port legacy apps that have been working flawlessly for years.

    I personally dont use FreeDOS - I still have a Win98 partition with DOS installed. If I didn't own Win98 - FreeDOS is something I would explore for the rare occasions I would want to play old-school games.

    DOS 6.22 (unsupported) can be downloaded free from: Micro$oft.com

  7. Re:emu by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

    You'll also find it on =80486 webservers. And yes, they do exist.

  8. Re:Why? by schwaang · · Score: 3, Informative
    Why on earth would anyone want to use a DOS clone?

    That post wasn't flamebait - it's a reasonable question.

    Here's one example -- Steve Gibson released a new version of his SpinRite hard disk test/recovery tool. grc.com It uses FreeDOS so you can boot from a floppy and test every sector.

    [I haven't tried the product, just noting one relevant modern use of DOS.]

  9. Re:Will it run bash? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have developed many systems running in DOS. A TSR will do pretty good when task scheduling isn't a big problem. But I do miss a good command interpreter. It's much quicker to write "ls *", rather than setting up the structures and calling the functions that read a directory in C. Wait... Is there Perl for freeDOS?

    Then just use Linux, or if you strongly prefer Windows, use Cygwin. I use both equally. Perl is a standard package in Cygwin (have to select it, tho) or you can install Perl in Windows with several different binary ports.

    For those of you that are unfamiliar with Cygwin (cygwin.com), its a Unix like environment for Windows. It takes up one directory and if you put the ../bin directory in your path, you can use the utilities in a Win9x/XP command prompt. Its called as a batch file, and its like SSHing into your own machine. it has a virtual directory structure that gives you full access to your whole drive or its own / structure under its windows path (safe), and most of the useful Unix utilities.

    The setup program lets you install Perl, GCC, plus other languages and compilers, and even an Xserver, although my luck with that is not so good. Even if you are a Windows only user, its a great way to get introduced to a fairly powerful shell, with several options like tch and bash, without the problems of a dual boot.

    It is NOT "Linux in Windows", its a set of APIs to be able to compile and run many Linux programs from source, with just a few mouse clicks to install the most common programs. Find it here. It's Free.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  10. Re:Cool! by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Free os/360? wait no more (run it on the Hercules emulator on your pc) Some FreeNeXTSTEP would rock too!

  11. Re:Will it run bash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The bash.exe from the Free Software Foundation's "GNU Tools for MSDOS" cd and book should work just fine, as long as you have a memory manager.

    I know someone who ran the FSF's bash.exe through an exe-to-com converter, and then named it command.com. It worked, and viruses which typically depend on jumping to particular place in command.com to run something now failed. However, I believe Word Perfect 5.1 also would not run.

  12. Re:DOS is small! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just did a bootable 1.44MB FreeDOS floppy that plays mp3/ogg files with MPXplay, and then put it on to a bootable CD-ROM with all the music content I like. Voila, free, open source, standalone car/home/whatever music player which does not need a hard drive (for swapping). Just boot from ATAPI CD-drive and play some tunes, even at your friend's house!

    Now try to do that with Linux/Windows/*BSD.

    I did it three years ago:

    http://freshmeat.net/projects/mjbd/

  13. Re:Cool! by McDutchie · · Score: 3, Informative
    Some FreeNeXTSTEP would rock too!

    It isn't quite an OS, but GNUStep comes closest to being a FreeNeXTSTEP...

  14. Mmm.... I'll feed the troll! by solios · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tell that to Dell, yo. They ship FreeDOS on some of their boxes.

  15. The DOS Legacy by AVryhof · · Score: 3, Informative

    DOS is a true RTOS. If you want mission critical and fast, DOS does it. It can boot up in seconds, it's fault tolerant (reboot=fixed) and had full direct hardware access.

    I have run a lot of operating systems. QNX claims to be an RTOS, Windows CE Claims to be an RTOS, neither are as responsive as DOS.

    There is no stupid hour glass in DOS. Batch files make automation a piece of cake, and you don't need a degree in Computer Science to write one.

    There are players for all your wonderful media types available. There are also a number of classic game emulators (Genesyst, Nesticle, etc.) available as well.

    So, next time that video poker game sitting on the counter at your local bar goes kaput, just remember, it's still running DOS.... turn it off (unplug it?) and turn it back on, you'll doo the next poor drunk a big favor.

    Thank you, have a nice day.

  16. Re:64 bit support by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder how freedos will deal with 64 bit CPUs. I just read that Intel's 64bit CPU will no longer support virtual x86 sessions anymore. So this means no more DOS. Will FreeDOS deal with it?

    Intel IA64 chips can emulate x86, AMD64 (and Intel's clones) supports x86 natively. Unless you enter long mode, it will act as fast 16-bit/32-bit CPU.