DOS is a low-end Linux? (was: freedos 1.2 LSM files without CR)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

DOS is a low-end Linux? (was: freedos 1.2 LSM files without CR)


(changing the subject a bit)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ralf Quint <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 1/19/2017 1:16 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>> Rugxulo, Tom,
>> DOS files should always use DOS linebreaks,
>> even if some DOS apps can deal with Unix ones.
> +1
> It's just too bad that a lot of people are seeing FreeDOS just as
> another (low end) Linux these days...

I don't think anyone realistically treats DOS as a "low-end" Linux.
Maybe some DJGPP (GNU) tools are *nix-centric and must be treated
accordingly, but overall I don't think anybody else is really pushing
for DOS to be the "next Linux".

I know you've mentioned this before, and I know you abhor the heavy
*nix-isms and bloated (non-native) ports. Everyone always wants to
suggest that DOS should have more modern features, but we always
devolve into pessimism. "Why add to DOS? Just use Linux!"

Which I think is unfair, I do think there's still room for
improvement. It's not fair to let FreeDOS stagnate. It's open source,
it should definitely be improved, and there's more than enough that
could easily be done. Heck, we've already accomplished a great deal.


Regarding text encodings, although it's a petty complaint, I do think
that we should be careful not to just use what's popular without
regard for space efficiency. I'm not really an i18n expert, but even
things like UTF-8 aren't perfect for some languages, thus it wastes
more space than a less-popular encoding.

Same with CR+LF, why use it if you don't truly need it? I know it's a
bit presumptuous, but I think most people can handle themselves and
know how to convert files. It's not necessarily worth wasting lots of
space on the 1% chance that somebody might use an old tool that can't
handle it. Granted, this is a bad example, but overall you get the
idea. With thousands of files, you have to be careful that you don't
overlook the obvious inefficiencies. (I'm sure someone has a better
example, perhaps MP3 vs. OGG or whatnot.)


And, although this too isn't a major issue, I want to emphasize that
using only DOS-native tools is a bit naive. I'm not against using
familiar DOS tools when appropriate, but I don't think it's wrong to
rely on some (reasonable!, limited number of) *nix tools if they
perform the job better, easier, faster, etc.

Just for example, common things like grep, sed, awk have been
well-ported to DOS many times and are very convenient. Sure, I could
whip up a quick QBasic or Rexx script instead (or edlin or even plain
C or Pascal). But if sed is easier, I figure I might as well use that
since it's easy to find ("standard"), even for DOS. This doesn't quite
mean I want AutoTools polluting every DOS source build. In fact, I
hate the complexity and billion dependencies of POSIX toolchains, but
sometimes a few utilities can make a world of difference, even in
non-*nix environments. As long as we aren't ignoring more obvious and
simpler solutions, it's fine.


Okay, so that was mostly obvious rambling, but I felt like I should
mention it anyways.   :-)

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites,!
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]