FreeDOS 1.3 RC2 Released With "Live CD" Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: FreeDOS 1.3 RC2 Released With "Live CD" Support

On Christmas it will mark three years since the release of FreeDOS 1.2 while it appears FreeDOS 1.3 is right around the corner and could potentially be released around that same time. FreeDOS continues going strong as a complete DOS-compatible open-source environment and with this next release can even function as a DOS Live CD...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FreeDOS-1.3-RC2-Released

[wizard69]

I’m embarrassed to say I still use FreeDOS at work. We literally have automation hardware so old support software was never moved to Windows.

[kpedersen]

I still often receive firmware updating "boot disks" running FreeDOS. I think it is about 50:50 whether it is FreeDOS or Yocto based Linux image.

[Elv13]

I’m embarrassed to say I still use FreeDOS at work. We literally have automation hardware so old support software was never moved to Windows.

There is nothing special or wrong about this. This is super common. Tons of vendors still sell DOS-powered industrial equipment. The alternative would usually be VxWorks, QNX, FreeRTOS or plain microcontrollers. Windows isn't realtime, Linux isn't (low-latency) reliable enough (by design) either. DOS is realtime by accident, but it is. The only change these manufacturer ever made was to replace the floppy with physical floppy emulators. AMD still sells the in-order Geodes CPUs and keep pushing the EOL forever (and Intel made the Quark to compete in this segment). I heard or some vendors still trying to source second-hand 286 and 386 chips for *new* sales.

This is the case of a simple solution that works.

[danmcgrew]

I’m embarrassed to say I still use FreeDOS at work. We literally have automation hardware so old support software was never moved to Windows.

What a lucky individual!
One would think that perhaps you're confusing emotions here. Maybe you have ambivalent feelings, but embarrassed? Given what a great OS it is, I doubt that you are truly embarrassed. FreeDOS is one of the best OSs available, no matter what the millennial airheads think.
I, like you (once you think about it a little more), am proud to say that I'm starting to use FreeDOS as much as I possibly can. Can anyone these days possibly imagine an OS which does NOT come with bugs and regressions baked in with all the flash and glitz required by the latest 6-month World-Beater...and of course, there's no time to correct all these BRAND NEW bugs and regressions--they get FIXED by ignoring you AND THE PROBLEMS.

[kylew77]

What a lucky individual!
One would think that perhaps you're confusing emotions here. Maybe you have ambivalent feelings, but embarrassed? Given what a great OS it is, I doubt that you are truly embarrassed. FreeDOS is one of the best OSs available, no matter what the millennial airheads think.
I, like you (once you think about it a little more), am proud to say that I'm starting to use FreeDOS as much as I possibly can. Can anyone these days possibly imagine an OS which does NOT come with bugs and regressions baked in with all the flash and glitz required by the latest 6-month World-Beater...and of course, there's no time to correct all these BRAND NEW bugs and regressions--they get FIXED by ignoring you AND THE PROBLEMS.

So is FreeDOS so small that all the bugs have been worked out then? I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1 but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free.

[RahulSundaram]

So is FreeDOS so small that all the bugs have been worked out then? I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1 but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free.

FreeDOS shares no code at all with Dos 6.2 or Windows 3.1. It is a from scratch reimplementation and doesn't really see a huge amount of active development anymore. It is unlikely you are going to run into major bugs at this point

[danmcgrew]

So is FreeDOS so small that all the bugs have been worked out then? I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1 but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free.

Not to put TOO fine a point on this, but it is DEFINITELY NOTED THAT WHAT YOU SAID WAS: "...I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1...".
And THEN you went on to say, "...but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free."

A quick course in Aristotelian logic for you: the subject here, since you seem to have missed it, is "FreeDOS". Unless you have used "FreeDOS", and are totally familiar with IT, then (1) being old enough to remember 'Dos 6.2' and 'Windows 3.1'; and (2) "...your knowing, in general, that DOS PRODUCTS ARE NOT BUG FREE stretches whatever point you're trying to make to beyond the breaking point.

I'm actually old enough to remember Intel 4004 Assembly Language.
I didn't know that the CP/M operating system was bug-free.
Your contributions to these observations of mine would be deeply appreciated.

For the sake of crystal clarity: precisely what point are you TRYING to make?

[Guest]

FreeDOS shares no code at all with Dos 6.2 or Windows 3.1. It is a from scratch reimplementation and doesn't really see a huge amount of active development anymore. It is unlikely you are going to run into major bugs at this point

Just because there's no work going on, doesn't mean it'll be bug free. Unless they took great care during the design and development phases, and added a lot of good tests, it's most likely riddled with bugs. And even if they did take great care and added a lot of good tests, it will still have bugs.

[illwieckz]

it's most likely riddled with bugs.

> it's most likely riddled with bugs

Prove it.

I'm not saying there is no bugs, I just don't have the knowledge to either tell there is no bug at all either tell it's crippled with bugs. But telling an OS has no bug at all or telling an OS is crippled with bugs is a very strong statement that requires a formal demonstration from the one doing it. If the one doing it does not do any formal demonstration to prove it, no one has to take this statement true (more precisely: everyone has to ignore the statement).


On the contrary, saying it would still have bugs is not a strong statement, it's a common thing about software development, you don't have to prove it. I'm myself able to list multiple OS but I'm not able to list a single one that does not have a single bug. So, on the contrary this is a platitude you don't have to prove.

Interesting knowledge would be to tell us a mass use OS which you can stare it would have no one remaining bugs. That would be very precious knowledge, especially if it can replaces the OS we use for our use cases, for example a FreeDOS alternative you can say it would have no one remaining bug.

Until that, people will continue to use software that does not look to be crippled with bugs, even if one may occur sometime…