[HN Gopher] The new FreeDOS 1.3 is now available for download
___________________________________________________________________
The new FreeDOS 1.3 is now available for download
Author : CTOSian
Score : 142 points
Date : 2022-02-21 10:20 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sourceforge.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (sourceforge.net)
| doener wrote:
| I'm amazed every time anew that there are still projects using
| Sourceforge instead of GitHub/GitLab.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I too would love for most projects like this to be on
| GitHub/gitlab.
|
| However, in terms of looking at these things in decades where
| will git/github/gitlab be in two decades? What will be the new
| hotness? What evil/shady transgressions will github/gitlab have
| committed by then?
|
| If history is any guide in a decade people will post the same
| comment with projects on github/gitlab.
| Shared404 wrote:
| git-the-program/protocol will still be around, as it's in use
| by Linux and most big projects, and is easy to self host or
| use in ways not requiring $BIGCORP.
|
| Github could go either way depending on how screwy Microsoft
| gets, and Gitlab will do their own thing, and could also go
| either way.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I don't doubt that - the same way CVS, SVN, Bitkeeper,
| Sourcesafe, etc are still around. Many projects have also
| migrated from at least CVS -> SVN -> git over the years
| (and moved all over the place in terms of infra).
|
| Exactly.
| Shared404 wrote:
| FWIW, I expect at least Gitlab, Sourcehut, and Gitea to
| stick around for a while - It'll require another leap in
| quality similar to SVN -> git for people to move off of
| git[0], and being FL/OSS and self-hostable put them in a
| very strong place imho.
|
| I expect Github to be gone outside of enterprise in about
| a decade or two though, based on what I've seen looking
| at history. Microsoft at least will continue using it
| though.
|
| [0] Not impossible, but I do find it unlikely to happen
| on a scale of 1 - 2 decades.
| bombcar wrote:
| Honestly all it would take is for Linus to get pissed at
| git for some reason - if he were to switch the kernel
| again likely half the world would follow.
|
| Pretty unlikely considering that if git doesn't do what
| he wants he probably can get a pr adding the feature
| accepted ...
| cestith wrote:
| I'd be pretty surprised if the creator of git couldn't
| get a PR to git approved, honestly.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| GitHub/GitLab are for developers, SourceForge is for users,
| notice how one puts code up front and center while the other
| has a description, screenshots, category information, user
| reviews, ratings, etc, the most prominent buttons are to
| download it and get updates about it and at the top the links
| are about getting the project's releases (Files), reviews,
| support, mailing list, tickets, news - ie. stuff that are
| more of interest to end users than developers - and only at
| the end you have source code access.
|
| Some projects do not even use SourceForge for the code
| repository but only to host releases, provide mailing lists,
| forums, etc.
|
| Of course the UX could improve but that is another issue.
| nix23 wrote:
| I'm amazed that you still cannot download/upload "bigger"
| iso's/files from Github.
|
| Oh and the best thing....no twitter toxicity on sourceforge ;)
| tsak wrote:
| I second that! Always makes me a little nervous too. Wasn't
| Sourceforge riddled with malware and other "enhancements" for a
| while?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings...
| dicknuckle wrote:
| it was but someone bought it and turned everything around.
| fao_ wrote:
| Citation needed. The website is still as horrific to use as
| in times past. It might not have outright malware anymore,
| but that doesn't make it less painful.
| the_af wrote:
| I don't know the current status of SourceForce, but the
| problem wasn't one of usability of the website.
|
| The problem is that it had a change of owners, and the
| new owners started bundling non-free spyware and malware
| into the installers of otherwise free software. Which is
| way more serious than simply having a website that is
| hard to navigate.
|
| SourceForge got a well deserved backlash from the
| community following their underhanded tactics. Not sure
| what the situation is now.
| tssva wrote:
| SourceForge stopped including spyware and malware
| installers near the beginning of 2016 when new owners
| took over.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| Here is a post from a couple of years ago by Logan
| Abbott, the current president of SourceForge:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20750707
| gkbrk wrote:
| I'm amazed every time anew that there are still projects using
| Github instead of SourceHut/self hosting.
| [deleted]
| mrlemke wrote:
| Every now and then I goof around with FreeDOS. Now that 1.3 out
| it looks I will be doing it again.
|
| Some features are missing on newer hardware due to the lack of
| driver support (notably, audio). If you want to run it on bare
| metal, you can install it on a USB drive (using the USB as C) and
| not mess around with dual booting.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > improved install process, especially with the MBR
|
| Do they mean it's a DOS for which MBR is not the only option,
| i.e. it supports GPT&UEFI?
| BirAdam wrote:
| You cannot have an MSDOS/PCDOS compatible DOS with GPT/UEFI.
| DOS relies on the PC BIOS explicitly, and beyond the BIOS calls
| required not being compatible with UEFI, the MBR is called by
| BIOS directly as well. On some machines, CSM is enough to
| emulate the BIOS and get DOS running, but this is not universal
| at all. More importantly, if you want sound and proper video
| support you will require an ISA machine or a full PC emulator.
| If you get into games that are clock speed sensitive, even that
| won't always be enough.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Too bad the ArcaOS guys are not going to share. I read
| recently that they are adding UEFI support by booting first
| into a BIOS emulation layer and then starting the still BIOS
| dependent OS/2 kernel from there.
|
| That would work for DOS as well I imagine.
| alophawen wrote:
| They mean the installation process was improved, particularly
| with regards to the MBR.
|
| GPT and UEFI is not supported.
|
| GPT:
| http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/(Free)DOS_development...
|
| UEFI: http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/UEFI
| ale42 wrote:
| This is expected, given how hard it would be to DOS in a
| UEFI-based environment. Is anyone aware of a BIOS emulation
| layer (or an actual BIOS...) that can be loaded into UEFI to
| start BIOS-aware OS/programs?
| fredoralive wrote:
| As far as I know it would be hard to do it outside of the
| boot firmware's own compatibility options (which most
| systems currently have AFAIK, but is probably on the way
| out). Whilst the old BIOS starts external code in Real
| Mode, with UEFI it sets the CPU into the operating mode.
| This means with most systems you'll be in 64 bit / Long
| Mode, and you can't leave that once entered.
|
| You could have fun with hypervisors etc., but I guess we're
| thinking bare metal here?
| leeter wrote:
| You can absolutely leave long mode once entered; it's
| just annoying and silly. In fact one of the plausible
| options for running a DOS on UEFI would be downgrading
| the mode to 'unreal' mode. But you'd still have to put
| BIOS replacement code in memory to manage that part.
|
| However the better option IMO is to allow the DOS kernel
| to just virtualize the applications using the
| virtualization extensions on almost all modern CPUs. Then
| you could do something like adding an emu.ini file next
| to the exe/com that sets things like memory and emulated
| hardware settings.
|
| Furthermore virtual machine BIOS code already exists for
| things like qemu etc. so there is a place to start on
| that too.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Then you could do something like adding an emu.ini file
| next to the exe/com that sets things like memory and
| emulated hardware settings.
|
| The standard DOS-extender feature for setting these modes
| is a Program Information File (.PIF extension).
| leeter wrote:
| Honestly I was thinking similar but not exactly the same.
| More something with a VT-d memory map/port map so that
| the DOS application could potentially directly interface
| with legacy hardware without interfering or making the
| PIF incompatible. This has applications particularly in
| factories where they still use ISA interface cards with
| tooling etc. At the same time it would allow setting
| things like EGA/CGA compatibility requirements. Could you
| do it in the PIF? Probably, but I'd rather not risk
| breaking compatibility if possible. It's an idea only and
| would require research anyway assuming I actually had the
| time and energy to implement.
| anthk wrote:
| Just boot BiEFIrcate from UEFI and chainload FreeDOS from
| there.
|
| https://github.com/tkchia/biefircate
| ale42 wrote:
| Looks like very early stage, but this is wonderful news
| if it works or will eventually work!
| leeter wrote:
| Nice didn't know this existed!
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Do you mean CSM?
| ale42 wrote:
| Something like that, but rather on the form of a .EFI
| executable (for example), to load it on UEFI firmwares
| that don't provide a CSM: there are many of them...
| jaclaz wrote:
| Yes, what would be needed would be a "reversed Clover",
| but, though there is some work in this space, I don't
| think that there is anything actually working (besides
| the much simpler int10h provider for EFI, needed for
| Windows 7 and 2008 on motherboards without CSM), here a
| few projects are listed:
|
| http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=22488
|
| but, even if something will come out, it will likely need
| to be adapted/targeted to specific hardware, unless
| _somehow_ it is possible to translate transparently UEFI
| functions to and from BIOS interrupts.
|
| I believe that bare-metal DOS is going to become extinct
| and be relegated inside emulators or virtual machines.
|
| In itself it would not be that bad if we had actually
| working/useful native EFI programs/shells, or grub (or
| grub4dos, now also in a grub4efi version) related ones
| but AFAIK - and for _whatever reasons_ - these are very
| rare.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Sidenote, but have we collectively forgiven Sourceforge for
| bundling crapware installers into binaries?
| tssva wrote:
| Sourceforge was sold over 6 years ago and the current ownership
| never bundled crapware installers into binaries.
| rob74 wrote:
| Good to know, but I'm afraid the negative publicity generated
| by the crapware debacle reached a much larger audience
| compared to the change of ownership, so the public sentiment
| toward Sourceforge is still largely negative...
| petee wrote:
| Visiting the site today you are greeted by large popups and
| imitation download buttons (same size, color, style) so
| it's easy to assume they are still following dark patterns,
| even if it's not the case.
|
| After garnering such a reputation I'm surprised they didn't
| do more to make it clear it's not the same company, though
| I see its Slashdot Media, which doesn't have a great
| reputation anymore either, if I recall
| colordrops wrote:
| They are following dark patterns, just not the bundling
| one.
| rob74 wrote:
| TBF, when you integrate ads, you also integrate all the
| dark patterns that the advertisers choose to use (unless
| the ad provider blocks them, but I wouldn't rely on that)
| unixhero wrote:
| I am surprised the Freedos project hasn't moved off it.
| mrspuratic wrote:
| The UI is a trainwreck and the download redirections are
| a mess (but at least every download isn't called
| "master.zip").
| unixhero wrote:
| Would be sweet if they would leave Sourceforge and host it
| somewhere else. Sourceforge will never be forgiven.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| It lingers on mostly to host the MS Web Safe fonts.
|
| https://sourceforge.net/top/
|
| IIRC this is from where the core fonts installer on Debian
| fetches them. Hence the 2.7B downloads.
| bsuvc wrote:
| No, not really. Maybe I hold a grudge longer than others
| though.
|
| On the very rare occasion I click a link that takes me to
| SourceForge, I just leave.
|
| I wonder why anyone still uses SourceForge. How is it better
| than GitHub or GitLab? This is a serious question, so if you
| do, can you explain why?
| nix23 wrote:
| Big downloads...like iso's
| eitland wrote:
| Yep. Why not after 6 years?
|
| Sourceforge was a useful tool back in the days, had a brief
| connection with adware, changed owner and was never caught
| doing it again.
|
| Compare to certain FAANG companies that still spy and push ads
| and still have billion dollar valuations they paid an
| unreasonable large price for comparatively small
| transgressions.
| Koshkin wrote:
| > _requires about half as many diskettes_
|
| Can a USB floppy disk drive be used with FreeDOS?
| lproven wrote:
| This is not a canonical answer, because this question isn't
| amenable to a simple yes/no answer.
|
| If you booted from the hard disk: no, but there are USB drivers
| for DOS you could load.
|
| Some BIOSes support USB floppy drives and can fake them being
| DOS ones. So, on some machines, yes.
|
| If you booted from a USB device: some (many?) BIOSes enable USB
| emulation via BIOS calls for all USB devices connected when the
| PC was booted from a DOS device. So in that case, yes.
|
| Best answer I can give: maybe -- try it.
| mrlemke wrote:
| For install? Probably. I used a USB floppy to transfer files,
| but it did have to be connected at boot. Obviously, not a
| problem for installation.
| HeadlessChild wrote:
| Nice! I've used FreeDOS in the past to edit SMBIOS entries for
| workstations such as asset tags.
| marcodiego wrote:
| One thing I always think about when I read about DOS-era small
| laptops is how complicated would it be to stuff a raspberry-pi-
| like board inside it, connect both boards using the serial port
| and use the bigger machine as a terminal for the smaller one.
|
| I wonder if anybody has done it.
| netsharc wrote:
| But then the laptop would need to boot minimal OS that can load
| a telnet client that automatically connects through the serial
| port to the Pi, and GUIs might be hard, but I guess an X server
| (display, running on the laptop) could be configured to be
| listening for connections on the laptop - but the laptop need
| to be a bit more powerful.
| marcodiego wrote:
| > But then the laptop would need to boot minimal OS
|
| Yes. Like FreeDOS.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| DOS can handle being a serial terminal just fine. It's also
| capable of being an X11 client (see DESQview/X), though I
| don't know how well that works with modern versions of Xorg
| or modern X11 applications.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| highly likely on Reddit /r/cyberdeck
| bombcar wrote:
| I remember an old thinkpad I think it was that had swappable
| bays for battery, cdrom, floppy. I bet with some work you could
| make one bay take a smaller pi.
| londons_explore wrote:
| It isn't trivial to do networking or serial Comms over an IDE
| or Sata connector...
|
| You'd need pretty custom hacked up software on both ends of
| the link.
| bombcar wrote:
| I can't recall if a modem attachment was an option but I'm
| pretty sure pcmcia was - maybe that has serial somewhere
| inside it.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkPad_UltraBay - I bet
| one of those could work somehow.
| snvzz wrote:
| I have multiple machines with FreeDOS 1.2, and I am wondering
| what the upgrade process is.
| ok123456 wrote:
| sys c:
| snvzz wrote:
| As far as I am aware, doing that only updates the kernel.
| pkorzeniewski wrote:
| I've FreeDOS installed on my retro laptops (Toshiba Libretto and
| Toshiba Satellite, both from 1998) and it works great for my
| nostalgic needs, although some games like to crash but they would
| probably crash on a "classic" DOS anyway and it's a matter of
| fiddling with memory management. One cool thing is that I've
| configured USB support and because FreeDOS supports FAT32 I can
| easily transfer files from my regular laptop using an USB flash
| drive.
| BirAdam wrote:
| I use IDE to CF adapters, and I have USB hub with a CF slot on
| it attached to my Mac mini. Super easy. I can just drop the
| executables onto the DOS disk and plug it in.
|
| I am super stoked to try the 8086 version. I have a DX4-100, an
| AMDK6-2, and an old XT. Love all three, but the XT gets the
| least use due to having to run MSDOS3 and therefore being
| somewhat annoying (like going from GNU to BusyBox and having
| restrictions on what flags are usable, same annoyance level).
|
| The XT did just get an 8bit NIC tho, so time to have some fun
| with FreeDOS 1.3 8086!
| anthk wrote:
| http://svardos.org/
|
| It installs an 8086 slim FreeDOS distro.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| I wanted a Libretto so bad when they first hit the market, but
| it was out of my price range.
| usr1106 wrote:
| A couple of years ago FreeDOS was needed to do BIOS upgrades if
| you had Linux machines with no Windows (e.g. on Dell). Now I
| haven't seen any BIOS upgrade for a while that cannot be
| installed without Windows. Either they are UEFI executables or a
| format that the BIOS can handle or even supported by fwupdate on
| Linux.
|
| Is there still any reason to run a FreeDOS except for fun and
| nostalgic reasons?
| retzkek wrote:
| Just this weekend I needed to run both a FreeDOS and Linux ISO
| in order to reflash the Dell PERC in an R520 to support IT mode
| to use it with ZFS. I wondered the same thing - why can't it
| all be done from Linux - and found this recent issue where the
| maintainer says it just doesn't seem to be possible:
| https://github.com/Fohdeesha/lab-docu/issues/18
| yc-kraln wrote:
| Legacy. There are tons of industrial machines whose control
| software runs on DOS. The machines are still good, and it's not
| like you can just pick up a new 20 ton press or 5 meter long
| lathe...
| badsectoracula wrote:
| Fun and nostalgia are reasons, entire multibillion businesses
| are made out of those :-P.
|
| For a more serious reason there is still DOS-based software in
| use that can't be replaced (or the replacement would be more
| costly) and FreeDOS is more compatible with modern hardware
| than MS-DOS in case replacements/fixes are needed.
| ralphc wrote:
| Can this be a base for Windows 3.1, 95 or 98?
| svacko wrote:
| I love FreeDOS still exists! I used it ocassionally in past to
| load a new BIOS.exe to update a Dell Latitude laptop not having
| any Windows OS installed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-21 23:02 UTC)