Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:32 AM From: "Ralf Quint" <[email protected]>
> Well, the problem with that line of thinking is that DOS is a single-user, > single tasking OS, NOT a server. And not only that makes a server use for DOS > rather useless, you need to consider that DOS also by itself does not contain > any networking. Any ways to turn DOS into a server > I don't quite get your point, FreeDOS has networking and there is plenty of "server programs" (maybe this wording makes more sense?) for DOS, I'm told there are even more than what is listed on the FreeDOS downloads. Others have said elsewhere that being a single-user, single tasking OS can actually be a plus for, say, security. For small projects or simply experimentation this could be very useful and more RAM could allow those "servers" to be even more useful, meaning, doing more interesting things. > Is there really a need for something like this? I am always curious when I > see people like you aiming high up in the sky, I don't get this either, all I've mentioned already exists in FreeDOS. I don't see much difference from extending accessible RAM from 1MB to 64 compared to extending from 64 to 1GB. Except if the change would entail so much change to the architecture it would not be worth it, would you say 64MB then is such a hindrance? > but nobody is able or even willing to contribute on some lower hanging > fruits... Maybe if there are more people bumping against that limit, a small fraction could be willing to improve on it. We will never know until they *use* it up to that limit. >> Also, glad to hear there is no interest in (even) more languages. > Seriously, what programming languages that don't already exist in some form > or another for actual programing in DOS would be there? Totally agreed. > Sorry, as mentioned before, I just don't see JavaScript as a viable option, > nor any of the other languages that came out after DOS officially died. And > personally, I don't see a need for this either. Like I said before, I saw other threads (maybe they were older threads) declaring such needs, therefore I'm happy effort needs not be spent in this regard. > I would much rather see some efforts in reviving some true DOS versions of > programming languages, in a open source form. That also run on DOS, not > require cross compiling on a multi-GB graphical OS. Sounds interesting, but what exactly do you mean by "DOS versions" of such languages? As in previous versions of the C standard for example? or perhaps the borland "mannerisms"? > Ralf F. [https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon]Virus-free. www.avast.com[https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link]_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel[https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel] _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
