Talk:FreeDOS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Page reads like an advertisement. Additionally, information in introduction (software is under development in Beta stage) apparently contradicts information in later paragraphs that software was released on some computers (which is suggested to have happened in mid ninties)209.232.147.200 21:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FreeDOS is listed as being in beta stage because of minor bugs and missing features; it works well enough that fair number of embedded and legacy vendors have switched to it over the last few years. The Dell adoption was within the last three years or so. BobBQ 19 January 2006
It is not bad content that it is in need of cleanup but rather expanding the whole list to articles such as "installing FreeDOS as it is very limited. Freedom to share 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a new intro to this article. I found the old one to be very broken (in terms of both grammar and the degree to which it can be understood by a "lay-person"). I'm not sure if the stuff about Dell deciding to offer a desktop with FreeDOS on it already is appropriate for the intro, but I decided to include it anyways. Hope this helps! JesusjonezTalk 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Management Split

I don't think the Memory Management section merits its own article. --Hetar 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely, beats me why anyone would suggest it, no as if it's an over-long section or of special imporatance in it's own right. Ace of Risk 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Merging FreeDOS32 with FreeDOS

It might be a good idea to merge these two articles since they are both facets of the same operating system. Much of what can be said about one can be included in the other.

  • I agree. FD32 should be put as a separate section in the article, yes?Freedom to share 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, they are not the same, FD32 is a micro-kernel system and targeted to run 32-bit protected programs (including the compatibility for 32-bit DOS programs) Hanzac 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But the main issue is that both are based on the same OS. We should put FD32 as a section in the FD article indicating that it is a bit different, but it is a fork too small to have its own meaningful article. Freedom to share 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree it's small and it's only a OS kernel, and a replacement one for a computer with i386 CPU at least now. At this point, I have no problem. Hanzac 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Freedom to share, IMHO it depends on what you mean for "based on the same OS". FD32 started as a 32-bit port of the FreeDOS kernel in the early time, but this idea was soon abandoned. There is very little that is strictly DOS related in FD32 itself, and there is no common code base with FreeDOS. The FD32 kernel (and modules for the matter) is intended to provide a free environment that *may* be DOS compatible if you want to do so, and *may* be used as an alternate kernel for FreeDOS, intended as a complex operating system. FD32 shares most of the DOS concepts (e.g. no protection and full hardware control by default), and FreeDOS goals though. If it is made clear that it is not just "a 32 bit version of FreeDOS", but rather "a sister project" using Jim Hall's words, I have no problem for the merge as I'm glad that FD32 is considered an effort -among the others- for the FreeDOS project, that I care. SalvoIsaja 16:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not debating here about what would be better for the general context and meaning but what would be better for the Wikipedia. Is a person more likely to look at FD32 or know that it even exists from the "see also" section? No. Here, in the wikipedia, our goal is to inform people, not make them look for info. If one knows of FD, they will find FD32 as a section. The article is tiny! It is a stub! We can just put it into the FD article, where it will grow a lot more and then do a section split. I think that that would be the best for everyone wanting to learn and discover something new. Freedom to share 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • As I said in my previous comment, I'm not against merging the article, as long as it doesn't make confusion hinting that FreeDOS and FD32 are "the same thing" or something, namely not "a fork" as mentioned early. Feel free to go for the merge if appropriate for what my opinion's worth. SalvoIsaja 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think better to keep separate, since the projects are separate and have different goals. 69.87.193.26 13:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Since nobody has merged the articles, there is no strong consensus for the merge, and the request to merge is pending for more than two months, I'm removing the "mergeto" tag from the FreeDOS-32 page. Moreover the article has been slightly expanded (although using material from the FD32 web site, per GFDL permission), so it may no longer be a stub. SalvoIsaja 09:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NT cmd

Although Microsoft still supplies very basic DOS-like functionality in Windows NT called CMD, it is only useful for a few basic tasks such as making folders or formatting disks as some of the more complex and less-well known DOS commands are not in the program.

Eh? What can't CMD do? I'm puzzled by what this statement is getting at. CMD runs OS/2 processes, W32 command line programs, launches gui programs, and runs a fairly decent DOS 16 subsystem. Alas, if one of those dos programs attempts particular direct disk i/o, it gets its hand slapped. Also, particular dos graphics mode programs don't work—or work oddly—but that's pretty far from "useful for a few basic tasks". EncMstr 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, but we need to mention that it is not used that much anymore, i.e. everyone uses the window system. Freedom to share 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this line. It's not integral to the article and it's just plain wrong. CMD is more functional than anything MS-DOS ever did, and people use it every day for very advanced tasks. SchmuckyTheCat 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, the DOS 16 subsystem is no available on Windows x64... Nil Einne 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode?

Does FreeDOS and/or FreeDOS-32 support Unicode? I know the original MS-DOS did not, but was curious if FreeDOS does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.72.111 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] FreeDOS on Dell n-Series

Can anyone verify that FreeDOS is installed on the computer by Dell. I think it is not installed, but included, due to Microsoft licensing, but am not sure. Just want to make sure before any changes are made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.196.176 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Remove "soon"?

This paragraph under "History" contrdicts itself:

The FreeDOS project began June 26, 1994, when Microsoft announced it would no longer sell nor support MS-DOS. Jim Hall then posted a manifesto proposing the development of an open-source replacement. Within a few weeks, other programmers including Pat Villani and Tim Norman joined the project. A kernel, the command.com command line interpreter (shell) and core utilities were soon created by pooling code they had written or found available. Version 1.0 was released on September 3, 2006.

OK, I wouldn't call 12 years soon. Obviously, this paragraph needs cleaning up, but I don't know what the facts are, so I can't do it. 163.192.21.44 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted differently:
  • The project began...
  • Within a few weeks...
  • A kernel ... and core utilites were soon created...
-STOP-
  • The final version 1.0 was released in 2006.
Maybe a newline would have been helpful... --Andreas (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Hello!

I changed the screenshot from BOO1.png to FreeDOS-1.0-LiveCD-Boot.png. Is everybody happy with that? If not, please revert and state why...

Cheers, Andreas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] With Win9x

With this diff [1] I am removing a bunch of superfluous information. The point of this tiny paragraph is to state that FreeDOS can not be used as the bootloader for Win9x. It's not a general discussion of the DOS usage of Win9x, which was incorrect anyways. In discussion of a bootloader, it is irrelevant whether DOS was available as a separate product. "will refuse to run on anything but versions of MS-DOS that came with them" is a POV statement, it's not about refusal, it's a basic design issue that DOS is being avoided entirely. This was also a recent edit that prompted my edit. "As a result, FreeDOS can not run Windows 95, 98, or Millennium Edition" Yes, that says the same thing the previous sentence did. We do not need to repeat ourselves. I also cut the list of boot-managers to only mention the one that comes with FreeDOS. We don't need a list, because any number of dozens can manage this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)