Slashdot Mirror
FreeDOS Turns 15 Years Old Today
Jim Hall writes "The FreeDOS Project turns 15 years old today! PD-DOS (later, 'FreeDOS') was announced to the world on June 28 1994 as a free replacement for MS-DOS, which Microsoft had announced would go away the following year, with the next release of Windows. There's more history available at the FreeDOS 'About' page and my blog. Today, FreeDOS is used by people all around the world. You can find FreeDOS in many different places: emulators, playing old DOS games, business, ... even bundled with laptops and netbooks. FreeDOS is still under active development, and recently released a new version of its kernel. A 'FreeDOS 1.1' distribution is planned."
And can it run Linux?
Dyna, and the last time I played it was about 1 month ago :P
Why would you do that?
These days, there are three main uses for FreeDOS:
1. Running classic DOS games
2. Running business software that only supports DOS
3. Supporting embedded DOS systems, such as a computerized cash register or till
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Ever since moving away from MS DOS (and gui they called windows 95/98/me) compatibility with legacy software has been dreadful - Microsoft practically forced the whole world into rewriting most of their applications for several times now! Since this is (kinda) happening again, they should start FreeWindows7 emulator now, so that it's ready in cca 2018 when Microsoft decides that its way too old and it needs to be replaced with whatever brand spanking new OS they are forcing on the world by then.
I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for. Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates? Or run hard drive diagnostic software?
... and I'm sitting there shaking my head, wondering how they overlooked the alternate, DOS-based updater provided by the motherboard manufacturer (or whatever), and how the hell they can't know about FreeDOS.
... is anyone having a hard time getting FreeDOS to work with SATA optical drives? I never had a problem with parallel ATA, but I'm not sure I've ever managed to get FreeDOS to find and work with a SATA CD/DVD-ROM drive.
In other discussions I've actually seen people comment that an inability to apply BIOS updates is a big drawback for Linux ('cause the update applications they refer to are Windows based)
If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?
Now, that said
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?
Years ago I used FreeDOS to make dedicated hardware test stations. These were super cheap boxes with text only displays, an ISA extender card for the DUT, and a floppy. FreeDOS was a great way to use our existing DOS test code on the cheap. We had a floppy for each product type. Boot off the floppy, insert a card to test, hit one key and get an easy pass/fail indication. We had total control and the price was right.
In the age of PCI/PCIe I now do the same thing using Linux and a CD-ROM. You have a wealth of development tools, support for modern bus types and larger address space, and still no expensive per box software license.
And frankly, I also love this:
http://www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/modboot/
I would love to see someone take up development of this and to update the network drivers collection and the like. There are still times when a tech needs DOS if for no other reason than to flash a BIOS or to run Ghost over the network or with a local USB storage device.
15 years and their disk partitioning utility still can't partition a disk properly. Guys, an MBR partition scheme is fucking simple, and you have every OS on the planet to test your results against. Please get it right.
It's probably because every other OS on the planet can do it that they don't feel the need to fix it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Party on Garth!
When I discovered DOSBox, I never used FreeDOS again. My experience is that DOSBox supports way more DOS software and games than FreeDOS. Can someone explain to me the (exact) differences between these two packages and why anyone would pick FreeDOS? (Is FreeDOS is faster, maybe?)
I like to tinker... For some of this, FreeDOS is a ideal solution: I recently bought a box of old thin clients. They're all VIA x86 based with flash drive on CF cards. They all have serial ports, legacy parallel ports, USB and ethernet. They are small, don't draw much power, and are only like $15 each when you're willing to buy more than 5 at a time. That's cheaper than any dev kit based on any embedded processor that I know of, and certainly cheaper than using a dedicated PC.
Free-DOS is perfect for these... with an old DOS C compiler you can quickly whip up small programs that can do all kinds of things (Think parallel port = 8 bit DIO with dedicated control channels). If the job gets too big for FreeDOS to handle, I punt and install linux; but, for most simple things, DOS is really all you need.
I could write code to run on a microcontroller like a PIC or ARM, or anything in between. I could also write the code in LabView or a Microsoft .NET language to run on a PC. Why go to all the trouble and expense?
FreeDOS is a logical extension of DOS in the same way that Linux or BSD is a logical extension of UNIX
... GNU is a logical extension of UNIX userland utilities
Fixed that for you.
*BSD are "Unix-like" operating systems.
Linux is a "Unix-like" kernel.
"Linux is an extension of UNIX" sounds like a bad joke.
- Angry Solaris Admin
FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly. Anyone can download it, install it into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
http://www.winehq.org/ While it does not run everything, it is always worth a try. Probably more capable at this point than ReactOS (although I have not tried ReactOS myself).
C - the footgun of programming languages
Why isn't anyone commemorating its anniversary? ;-)
ReactOS and WINE are actually sharing code where possible. The difference is, WINE is meant to run Windows apps on *nix, ReactOS is a complete Windows operating system with a kernel intended to be 100% compatible with NT 5.2 in API and drivers, and a userland 100% compatible with the current release version of NT (so currently 6.0 (Vista.))
Obviously, there's going to be some overlap in the projects.
I come back to /. and see this...
Of course it is about horribly broken distros/installs (what else?...). Benq, for example, used to ship with their laptops some Asian Linux distro (in the vein of Linpus)...that booted into pure textmode and didn't have drivers for the laptops it was shipping with. Toshiba used to ship with DVD of Knoppix; sligthly better, still no drivers. And HP...yeah, they were often shipping with FreeDOS on theiur cheapest laptops.
All of them (with the exceptions withing staistical error) were ending up with pirated copy of Windows XP.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Even more stunning is that both Wine and ReactOS aim not only to be compatible with Vista programs, but also XP and earlier programs at the same time! A feat not even Vista can perform!
isn't there a point where running computers older than a certain age simply to get something out of them is counter-productive?
Most popular PC operating systems and popular PC applications do not support sharing a single PC between simultaneous users, each on one set of monitor, keyboard, and mouse. You need a separate PC per user. So even if the old PCs are old, they still might suffice to run a given app. Or are you talking about junking them and replacing them with new PCs? I read on, and apparently you are.
Would they (for example, if you were using it as a router) include Ethernet hardware that wasn't a bottleneck on a modern 10/100 or 10/1000 network?
If your connection to the Internet isn't more than 3 Mbps, why would you need more than 10 Mbps between the gigabit switch and the router PC?
how much electrical power will it require to keep running? Probably more than a small, inobtrusive modern device with the same functionality.
Unlike old PCs, a lot of "small, inobtrusive modern device[s]" use cryptography to lock out the use of any free software. Game consoles and digital video recorders are key examples of this.
If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?
For one thing, the old IBM commercials with the little blond boy talked about Linux, but not FreeDOS.
Show me one operating system that can run binaries from 15 years.
Virtual Console on Wii emulates the Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Master System, which are old enough to be off patent (20 years).
And for Linux why would you need to run 15 years binaries if you (theoretically, at least) have the sources and (theorethically, at least) can build them again.
Because you need a 15-year-old compiler to compile the older dialect of the programming language in which the program was written. GCC, for instance, has noticeably changed the semantics of several constructions since 1994. Besides, there are several categories of applications where it is almost unheard of for end users to have source code, such as major label games.
ReactOS trying to build everything from scratch is probably the main reason that they are behind WINE:
The ReactOS team still has to develop a lot of things where WINE can already rely on mature Linux systems. If you read the latest ReactOS newsletter, you find things like
Sound Regression
Ever so briefly, ReactOS had some minimal sound support, only to have it disappear due to a bug in the object manager.
Of course, in theory ReactOS has the better long term perspective for compatibility because it does not need to make compromises for supporting Linux drivers and applications. I just wonder if the ReactOS team can ever overtake WINE considering the extra workload.
C - the footgun of programming languages
But does it run Windows? Oh wait....
For what it's worth... IBM System Z is backwards compatible with System 360 which has maintained binary compatibility all the way back to 1969.
Of course, System Z is not a consumer level operating system.
So even if the old PCs are old, they still might suffice to run a given app.
Let me emphasise this point:- The original poster was proposing (and I was responding to) the use of pre-386 machines; i.e. those around 20 years old.
Yes, *obviously* they can still run plenty of apps- that was what they were meant for. Unfortunately, most of those single-user apps will be around 20 years old, and in the majority of cases newer versions will be far more powerful and usable.
And if you tried using a 286 for even the most undemanding "modern" uses for an obsolete machine (e.g. pressing into service as a router, etc) you'd probably realise just how incredibly underpowered it was compared to even the most insignificant modern embedded processor.
Or are you talking about junking them and replacing them with new PCs? I read on, and apparently you are.
Then you weren't paying attention. That was *one* suggestion- and it was for small, energy-efficient devices, not equally large "big box" PCs.
But to address your point... In the next **** sentence I suggest using a 6-7 year old computer. That's not wasteful; even at that age they're on the edge of being unused if not thrown out, and you can get them for free or very little. So given a choice between two unused and possible junk machines, it makes more sense to use the one that's merely pretty outdated- but still useful in some ways- than one that can't even run the 13-year-old Windows 95.
The only good reason for using a 286 is for legacy apps that are reliant on specific obsolete hardware.
If your connection to the Internet isn't more than 3 Mbps, why would you need more than 10 Mbps between the gigabit switch and the router PC?
That assumes that you only wish to actively route to and from the Internet- and that you wish to use a separate switch. And would the network hardware a 286 comes with even be able to manage that? Would it even support modern Ethernet connections (I honestly don't know).
Unlike old PCs, a lot of "small, inobtrusive modern device[s]" use cryptography to lock out the use of any free software. Game consoles and digital video recorders are key examples of this.
I don't know why you jumped to the conclusion that that's what I had in mind, because it certainly wasn't! (I sure as hell wouldn't waste time trying to turn my USB-less DVR into a PC). Small, energy-efficient Atom-based PCs are available. And general-purpose plug-based devices running Linux are also coming onto the market.
Even if the Linux plug things are pathetically underpowered compared to a modern PC, they'll still knock the living daylights out of a 286 or 386, and probably much more "recent" PCs than that.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).