Using Freedos in 2022
======================
I recently spoke with an older coworker of me (he is a bit over 70, semi-
retired and an electronics - genius), who asked me if i could come over
to his house some day and help him with a few problems regarding his new
PC.

So, this weekend i grabbed my bicycle and rode over to him. He has now an
semi-modern Fujitsu Thinkcentre and had already copied over all files from
his old computer and installed every software he needs. The only problem he
has is to get online. So, no problem you would probably think. The catch:
He uses FreeDOS as his primary operating system and since the days of
MS-DOS 6.22 never made the transition to Windows or Linux. So... this was
going to be an interesting afternoon.

To give you a perspective what software he uses daily (as far as i can
remember):

* WordPerfect as text processor
* As-Easy-As as spreasheet calculator
* Arachne as webbrowser, email- and ftp software

Followed by a large collection of Shareware and PD Software for various
tasks.

But returning to the problem how to get him online: His main problem was
that he had no DOS compatible driver for integrated network card on his
mainboard. I started to dig in the various (surprisingly plenty!) DOS
related forums and stumbled upon a nice tool named NICSCAN.EXE by
Georg Potthast [1] which should be able to identify the build in
network adapter. Which it did. The network card turned out to be Broadcom
Netlink 57XX compatible so we just needed to download the packet driver
from Mr. Potthast's site, copy it over to his computer and put it into
his fdauto.bat (think of it as an init script). After this we only needed
to edit his wattcp.cfg (the network config of FreeDOS) and he was ready
to go again (things like configuring his email and so on was no problem
for him).

So... why did he stay with DOS i asked him. He answered that he liked the
simplicity of the OS, that it is - at least in his opinion - more "human
sized" than bigger OSes like Linux or - god beware! - Windows. And, after
taking a longer look at FreeDOS i kinda like it. It has clearly evolved
from its humble origins, and comes now with USB support, an apt like
package manager, Fat32 support and kinda everything you would otherwise
seek in a modern console based os. I think i will give it a try someday
in the future...

[1] <http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm>

From: <gopher://sdf.org/0/users/ralfwause/freedos.txt>

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:

>
> So... why did he stay with DOS i asked him. He answered that he liked the
> simplicity of the OS, that it is - at least in his opinion - more "human
> sized" than bigger OSes like Linux or - god beware! - Windows. And, after
> taking a longer look at FreeDOS i kinda like it. It has clearly evolved
> from its humble origins, and comes now with USB support, an apt like
> package manager, Fat32 support and kinda everything you would otherwise
> seek in a modern console based os. I think i will give it a try someday
> in the future...

I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
it always had too many limitations.

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
> Using Freedos in 2022
> ======================
<snip>

> I think i will give it a try someday in the future...
>
> [1] <http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm>
>
> From: <gopher://sdf.org/0/users/ralfwause/freedos.txt>

You and me both :)
I really miss the simplicity of DOS.

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
> adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
> I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
> it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

Soapbox time:

Now i use Linux as my daily driver. As to whether Linux or DOS are
more human scale, i think it is similar to asking "Which is simpler?
ASCII or Unicode?" The obvious answer is that ASCII is simpler
because it is a subset of Unicode. But there's more to it than that.
All the world is not a Vax, so to say.

I still can't shake the obvious answer. ASCII is easier to fit into
my head than Unicode. The DOS source code is easier to grep through
than the Linux source code, simply because it is so much smaller.
A pocket-sized paper calendar seems to have fewer points of failure
than a digital calendar.

Another question is how far back will a retro-enthusiast rewind the
clock? In my case i am not inclined to use an abacus, sliderule,
pre-ASCII, or even pseudo-ASCII computers. But i think it is
important for people to enjoy those hobbies, if they wish, in order
to keep in touch with history and stay "honest".

I used to work with a supervisor whose father did not have a formal
education in engineering, but his hobby was to build model steam
engines that would perform different kinds of work. Steam engines
are undeniably obsolete but the steam engine itself is not the
important part. The important parts are the ingenuity and
resourcefulness that enable an uneducated person to construct working
steam engines. In my mind, these are not associated with the status
quo. They are outliers who are willing to try something different.

Linux used to be something different. It was the upstart perceived as
too much of a risk by the business types. Now it is Linux people in
positions of leadership who are labelling outliers as irrelevant.
Success went to their heads, so to say.

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
> On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
>> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
>> adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
>> I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
>> it always had too many limitations.
>
> From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
> grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2024-04-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
> it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
> loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
> mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
> you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
> of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
> support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
> from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).
>
> Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
> exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Much of this stuff is a matter of perspective. For someone who has
never touched DOS, it will represent MORE complexity since it is an
additional learning curve on top of whatever they are used to. And
with all that configurability and minimalism come a lot of corner
cases and gotchas.

What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a
Linux VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i
started DOSBox on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had
GNU stuff from DJGPP and some games.

In my perspective, this is where i see DOS shine. Within single-task
constraints, the OS can run equivalent programs using a fraction of
the resources. A recent stock Linux kernel can't really do anything
useful in 32 mb of memory, but DOS can.

Useful for what? Not for consuming mass media. For making old
hardware run, for tinkering around, and having fun. For example:
https://krg.club/gb3kd/

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):
> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
>> On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
>>> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
>>> adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
>>> I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
>>> it always had too many limitations.
>>
>> From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
>> grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.
>
> I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
> it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
> loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
> mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
> you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
> of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
> support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
> from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).
>
> Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
> exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):
> > Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
> >> On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
> >>> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
> >>> adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
> >>> I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
> >>> it always had too many limitations.
> >>
> >> From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
> >> grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.
> >
> > I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
> > it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
> > loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
> > mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
> > you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
> > of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
> > support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
> > from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).
> >
> > Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
> > exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?
>
>
> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:49:58 +0100
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
> > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):
> > > Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
> > >> On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
> > >>> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
[]
> > Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>
> A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
> killed off to save Windows sales.

DOS 4.0, sorry.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell
>
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):
>> > Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
>> >> On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
>> >>> I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
>> >>> adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
>> >>> I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
>> >>> it always had too many limitations.
>> >>
>> >> From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
>> >> grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.
>> >
>> > I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
>> > it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
>> > loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
>> > mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
>> > you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
>> > of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
>> > support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
>> > from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).
>> >
>> > Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
>> > exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?
>>
>>
>> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>
> A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
> killed off to save Windows sales.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell

Interesting, I'd never heard of it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
> On 2024-04-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
>> it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
>> loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
>> mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
>> you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
>> of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
>> support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
>> from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).
>>
>> Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
>> exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?
>
> Much of this stuff is a matter of perspective. For someone who has
> never touched DOS, it will represent MORE complexity since it is an
> additional learning curve on top of whatever they are used to.

Well it's less complex for the computer running it. Hence faster to
start, more memory free. But for the human trying to understand it
all, yes it did come with a book-sized manual, and a lot of
standard Linux functionality only becomes available once you load
3rd party TSR programs on top of that, which have their own
documentation to read.

> What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a
> Linux VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i
> started DOSBox on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had
> GNU stuff from DJGPP and some games.
>
> In my perspective, this is where i see DOS shine. Within single-task
> constraints, the OS can run equivalent programs using a fraction of
> the resources. A recent stock Linux kernel can't really do anything
> useful in 32 mb of memory, but DOS can.

32MB is pretty generous and really if you build a current Linux
kernel with minimal options enabled and drivers built-in (still
doing far more than a bare DOS installation), you'll have over half
of that RAM free. The trouble is that all the user-space software
you run on top will usually chew through RAM even more agressively.
But Linux doesn't make you run all that software, to run a single
program you could start the kernel with "init=my_program" and it
will just run "my_program", nothing else, and if my_program doesn't
need more than ~16MB RAM then you're set. Like I said before you
can even use LOADLIN.EXE to start Linux from DOS, so you could even
select Linux programs to launch from inside DOS and start them like
that using LOADLIN. You'd have to reboot when you're done though.

I doubt you could build current Linux kernels to be useful on a
computer with 3MB of RAM, but if you go back to Linux software from
the very end of the MSDOS era then you get things like BasicLinux:
http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/

There you also have the advantage of the software running on top of
Linux being smaller and faster because it's all become so much
fatter since then. DOS software generally didn't get enough
attention in years after that in order to get fat.

But of course the real case for DOS is if you want a useful system
with 640KB of RAM, and there Linux won't help you. In fact if you
never need more than 640KB of RAM in your life then DOS is pretty
much made for you. :)

> Useful for what? Not for consuming mass media. For making old
> hardware run, for tinkering around, and having fun. For example:
> https://krg.club/gb3kd/

That looks like something where a single-task OS might be an
advantage for real-time operation. Another example of how the
technical complexity of Linux can be a disadvantage.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

> I really miss the simplicity of DOS.

Nobody is stopping you from running it.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:05:38 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

> Linux used to be something different. It was the upstart perceived as
> too much of a risk by the business types. Now it is Linux people in
> positions of leadership who are labelling outliers as irrelevant.

Linux is Open Source, and Open Source is whatever you want to make it.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
its neck. Example: drive letters.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:34:29 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

> What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a Linux
> VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i started DOSBox
> on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had GNU stuff from DJGPP
> and some games.

How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
<https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

Or UZI, a Unix-like system for a Z80 processor
<https://github.com/chettrick/uzics>? Or something similar for the 6502-
based C64 <https://github.com/ytmytm/c64-lng>?

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>
> And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
> its neck. Example: drive letters.

Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
now.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
>
>> I really miss the simplicity of DOS.
>
> Nobody is stopping you from running it.

True

But I hate VMs and I need to find hardware, plus, more
importantly, a place to set up the hardware where I am
living now :)

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote at 09:26 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>>
>> And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
>> its neck. Example: drive letters.
>
> Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
> now.

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
><https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
that to my list of things to check out.

In article <l8s1hsFt8lfU2@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>>
>> And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
>> its neck. Example: drive letters.
>
>Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
>now.

Try telling that to (l)users. I might refer to network shares by their UNC
path, but most of the people I work with have those shares mapped to various
drive letters. They're not always the same between departments, or even
within departments, and we have no documentation of who's using what drive
letters to map to which shares. It can make troubleshooting a bit of a
pain. :-P

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
>>
>>> I really miss the simplicity of DOS.
>>
>> Nobody is stopping you from running it.
>
>True
>
>But I hate VMs and I need to find hardware, plus, more
>importantly, a place to set up the hardware where I am
>living now :)

It doesn't take much hardware, which is part of the nice thing about it!
And FreeDOS will actually run off a USB stick, which makes it incredibly
handy to run small stuff because you don't have to dedicate a machine
completely to it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:04:43 -0000 (UTC)
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

> On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> > How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
> ><https://github.com/mit-pdos>?
>
> I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
> that to my list of things to check out.

from github

comment from Auf 2020

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:30:10 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote at 09:26 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
>>>
>>> And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross
>>> around its neck. Example: drive letters.
>>
>> Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
>> now.
>
>
> The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.

Or in Disk Management, which is perfectly logical.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

In article <20240424200725.00a0ffad377d868938b9f670@127.0.0.1>,
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:04:43 -0000 (UTC)
>Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> > How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
>> ><https://github.com/mit-pdos>?
>>
>> I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
>> that to my list of things to check out.
>
>from github
>
>comment from Auf 2020
>
>Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

xv6 is a pedagogical system, and not really suitable for general
purpose use (by design). MIT has switched the nexus of their
instructional materials to RISC-V; that versioin of xv6 is still
maintained, but as a pedagogical system is deliberately almost
too simple to be generally useful.

There are reimplementations that may or may not be more useful.
For example, I did a reimplementation a few years ago in Rust:
https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64

- Dan C.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:07:25 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

Notice the versions they *are* maintaining?