Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:33 UTC, submitted by danq
OSNews, Generic OSes The GNU/DOS Project has been discontinued. From the web site: "Further development of GNU/DOS has been discontinued due to: a lack of developer time for the project; the fact that the project's objectives were not fully met; and the fact that the latest stable release of FreeDOS, when combined with the DJGPP development tools, is very much superior to the final release of GNU/DOS."
Order by: Score:
well, this isn't too bad
by evilmegaman on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:52 UTC
Member since:

We don't really need two Open source DOS projects, so as long as we still have freedos, we can be happy. I think the choice to discontinue GNU/DOS is okay because the dev can move on and not have to keep up with freedos if they don't have the time. only downside I see is that there isn't really any alternatives to freedos. but I need more education on DOS. I don't know much about it

Reply Score: 4

RE: well, this isn't too bad
by markjensen on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:59 UTC in reply to "well, this isn't too bad"
markjensen Member since:

Well, from their website:
GNU/DOS is a distribution of FreeDOS which includes the following:

So, this doesn't seem like a project that competed with FreeDOS, but rather leveraged off of it and packaged quite a few 'extras'.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: well, this isn't too bad
by evilmegaman on Wed 29th Nov 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE: well, this isn't too bad"
evilmegaman Member since:

well then I guess as long as FreeDOS accomplished some of what they were aiming for, Then it still isn't too bad. But thanks for the correction

Reply Score: 3

by TaterSalad on Wed 29th Nov 2006 22:06 UTC
Member since:

At least they are willing to admit that another product does a better job at the same thing they were trying to accomplish. This in no way means they are a failure though. It means they found one of many ways of how not to code an OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Acceptance
by grfgguvf on Thu 30th Nov 2006 01:35 UTC in reply to "Acceptance"
grfgguvf Member since:

True. There are so many other projects out there that badly need to admit others are simply doing a better job.

The end result would be freed developer time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Acceptance
by danq on Thu 30th Nov 2006 16:31 UTC in reply to "Acceptance"
danq Member since:

I wasn't saying that my GNU/DOS distro was *bad*, I was simply saying that FreeDOS had matured enough and eventually became better than GNU/DOS. When FreeDOS was in its beta versions not too long ago, it was terrible - the installer never worked, CD-ROM drivers crashed, etc., which is one of the reasons why I put together GNU/DOS. This is no longer necessary, since FreeDOS is now very stable.

Was it popular opinion that GNU/DOS was a *bad* distro? I hope not...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Acceptance
by davematthew on Thu 30th Nov 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Acceptance"
davematthew Member since:


I never had a chance to use GNU/DOS, but I commend anyone who spends time on an open source project. Even if it didn't become quite as mature a product as a similar project, I can't help but believe that your work made a contribution to the field. Maybe it's hard to quantify the impact, but there are many intangibles to be recognized: the code base that might be used elsewhere, the interest generated in the field, the motivation for other projects. From what you tell us (I have not researched this), my guess is that your efforts helped spur FreeDOS to be what it is today.

I trust too that through this project, you have developed as a developer and can bring your skills as an invaluable asset to another venture.

Reply Score: 1

by SaidinUnleashed on Wed 29th Nov 2006 23:58 UTC
Member since:

There was a GNU DOS?

Reply Score: 0

v Why GNU/DOS when there is Linux ? =)
by gothic on Thu 30th Nov 2006 01:04 UTC
MSDOS = better
by valnar on Thu 30th Nov 2006 15:10 UTC
Member since:

If anyone is old enough to want or use DOS, they already have MSDOS. I still have DOS 5.0 and 6.22 disks laying around. If you aren't old enough to remember DOS, then you wouldn't care. What DOS software would a newbie have or need to run?

Say what you want about Microsoft, but their DOS is head and shoulders better than FreeDOS (or DR-DOS). That thing has more bugs and incompatibilities than you can shake a stick at. Try running Windows 3.11, DESQview, QEMM386 or 386MAX on a FreeDOS system (not at the same time, of course).

Edited 2006-11-30 15:10

Reply Score: 1

RE: MSDOS = better
by rcsteiner on Thu 30th Nov 2006 17:57 UTC in reply to "MSDOS = better"
rcsteiner Member since:

I use MS-DOS 5.0 and 6.22, PC-DOS 6.3 and 7, and OpenDOS 7.03 at home, and while MS-DOS is good, it's not really "better" than either PC-DOS or OpenDOS.

I tend to prefer PC-DOS 7 myself.

For running DOS apps, though, it's better to run OS/2 or Linux and then boot the various DOS versions you want in a VDM (either OS/2 VDMs or things like DOSEMU), since you can juggle the various DOS versions alongside all kinds of other useful tools. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

by Quag7 on Thu 30th Nov 2006 19:17 UTC
Member since:

Out of curiosity, for anyone who runs some version of DOS, why do you run it? Do you run it as the primary OS on your system or in some kind of emulator/VM?

What old DOS software do people still like to boot up?

I use "The Draw" irregularly so I use an emulator for that, but other than that, I don't have any use for it.

Just curious what kinds of things specifically people are using DOS for or want to use it for.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by nighty5 on Thu 30th Nov 2006 22:21 UTC in reply to "Why?"
nighty5 Member since:

FreeDOS is still used on some platforms. From memory Dell used to ship it for some time, not sure if they still do. Novell also used it for their later Netware products where MSDOS was used prior to it.

I run DOSemu on my Macintosh to play old Sierra games..

Reply Score: 1