/tech/ - Technology★

>>997191 (OP)

A lot of GNU software works on FreeDOS. However, networking on that OS is a mess afaik. Without networking a computer is just a glorified document manager.

>>997194

Oops forgot to remove my wangblows flag

Freedos has a Ciforth port.

Dude, DOS barely qualifies as an operating system and it's certainly not a viable alternative to any variety of Unix.

MS DOS may have been used into the 90s, but it's still little more than a shim to make writing and loading software on a microcomputer more convenient.

Trying to poorly replicate the features of a Unix shell was something of a rite of passage for anyone stuck working on a DOS machine.

>>997199

DOS is a viable alternative to Unix if your computing requirements amounts to single tasking (TSR services notwithstanding) applications and limited access to memory (4MB RAM).

>>997219

I used the packet drivers and other DOS stuff that was hosted on ftp.cdrom.com back in the day. It wasn't too bad, could run the typical Unix stuff like arp, ping, tracert, telnet, ftp, lynx, pine, and so on. No multitasking though, unless you had Desqview. But probably the FreeDOS is nicer and easier to setup.

>>997347

>Disk Operating System

>Operating System

>It's not OS

>>997194

networking on every os that copied berkley sockets is a mess.

>>997358

your a mess

>>997214

FreeDOS comes with an integrated multitasker. You can switch virtual consoles like on a linux box.

>>997347

<It's not a hamburger. It's lettuce + a beef patty + several condiments all sandwiched between two buns.

>>997191 (OP)

>Aside from just ancient proprietary shit, does it have any good software?

Much of the "ancient proprietary shit" was actually pretty good, like early MS works, Borland C, WordStar, etc. If you want to go the free route that's out of the question though.

GEM is the best free GUI, not sure about 32-bit support or UTF-8.

There's TELNET and FTP clients/servers, and web servers if you're on an 8088. If you've got a 286 or better there's SSH and web browsers.

In all honesty though, if you're using something old enough for DOS to be a contemporary system, you might as well run Minix or an early Debian/Slackware with DOSEMU. 386 and higher isn't really utilized by DOS. Even an 8088 will run XENIX, Minix, or ELKS, but you'd probably want to dual-boot as there's much less software than for DOS.

I run FreeDOS on a 286 and it's pretty comfy as an office and C/QuickBASIC machine. It's sluggish on earlier hardware though, probably because there's much more C than ASM compared to MS-DOS.

>>997347

All an OS has to do is let you load, save and run programs. There's nothing that mandates it has to let you multitask. DOS and CP/M are operating systems. So is the ROM BASIC that came on most 80's home computers.

You can compile programs under DOS, you can download the current gcc toolchain (8.2.0) pre-compiled somewhere, there's even ncurses in there somewhere. (don't remember where right now, google it) Then you can compile lua under DOS which is a very nice programming language and runs just fine. There's also vim and emacs for DOS, so you can pick your poison. I'm pretty sure microemacs and nano works too.

I have an old Cyrix (About ~Pentium 166 Mhz speed, with some CPU flag tweaks) setup with FreeDOS which even has appropiate realtek network packet drivers which are quick to setup if you know how. It's a nice, botnetfree machine I don't go online with but use for documents, spreadsheets and such. I can also remote into my linux system via RS232 and Kermit. It's all very minimalistic and nice. No weird updates that break shit. Nothing like that. Also uses very little electricity.

FreeDOOM, I think. I don't know if you could run any sort of GUI on it, though.

>>998749

DOS normally doesn't have or need a GUI, but you can still run GUI programs, like for example Deluxe Paint, or a Doom editor.

Not going to lie, but something about DOS software always looked appealing to me. Especially the blue backgrounds. Maybe because it always reminds me of the computer that was used at the VHS rental place back in the day.

Even now DOS word processors have an ability to draw me in, but maybe it's all just because I've never been keep on large screens and the 80x25 resolution scales down well.

>>998863

Unix is worse than DOS though. DOS ran well on a 4.77 MHz machine with 640k memory and two floppy drives.

>>999009

That'd be fine, but DOS becomes a mess when you legitimately need more ram than that- whether it's games or productivity software. Luckily the newer stuff often does its own memory management, so you're not completely doomed to mess with system config files.

>>999015

I would just let QEMM optimize memory, and then make a boot menu in autoexec.bat for different profiles. Don't think I ever needed to make a boot floppy for HD-installed games, even though some manuals mention that as a way to free up memory.

>>999015

>DOS becomes a mess when you legitimately need more ram than that

That mess was fixed with the introduction of DPMI. Earlier programs using EMS or XMS (or, heaven forbid, manual protected-mode shenanigans) were indeed a mess.

>Luckily the newer stuff often does its own memory management

No, the newer stuff comes with a DPMI server like DOS/4GW or CWSDPMI that does its memory management when ran on bare DOS.

Shit is broken, even the installer doesn't work properly.

Utter garbage

>>999224

Are you using the legacy or standard CD image? It could help if you're installing it on an extremely old machine.