SvarDOS: DR-DOS is Reborn as an Open Source OS (theregister.com) 61
SvarDOS, a compact open-source operating system derived from DR-DOS, has switched to using the EDRDOS kernel, marking a shift from its FreeDOS distribution roots. The change allows the operating system to fit on a single 1.4MB floppy disk while offering a network-capable package manager that can fetch from a repository of over 400 packages.
Unlike its rival FreeDOS, SvarDOS can run Microsoft Windows 3.1 natively, though the capability currently requires additional configuration. The system maintains compatibility with legacy DOS applications while providing modern features like FAT32 support and network connectivity.
Unlike its rival FreeDOS, SvarDOS can run Microsoft Windows 3.1 natively, though the capability currently requires additional configuration. The system maintains compatibility with legacy DOS applications while providing modern features like FAT32 support and network connectivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or IBM PC-DOS 2000 + PC-DOS 7.1 update for better tools and FAT32 support.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, just use MS-DOS 6.22 if you need a 'DOS'. Microsoft doesn't give one lick if you're "pirating" this.
While your sugestion is fine for period appropiate hardware (or VMs), as you move to more modern real (or virtual) machines, MS-DOS 6.22 or IBM's PC-DOS 7.1 do not cut it anymore.
Wether it is to boot into DOS for Firmware related tasks (for example, A-DATA drives need this), or to sell you a machine with "some" OS so that you can roll your own (say, Linux, BSD, Haiku, et al) like Dell sometimes does, or to run some DOS software (say a control for an embroidering machine) on modern hardware, there is still n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"to run some DOS software (say a control for an embroidering machine) on modern hardware, there is still need for MS-DOS compatible OSs"
Wow... been there a few times. One shop did mostly school and sports uniform type stuff and another a couple big machines doing nothing but churning out shirts for walmart in the sticks.
Another big source of dos holdouts were dairy farms. The whole fricking outfit ran on a DOS box with no chance of an upgrade. When the box itself had to be upgraded we had to downclock the s
Re: (Score:2)
Of if you need to run DOS, you can start with a native Linux system and put DOS on top of that!
Windows 3.1 in FreeDOS (Score:2)
Seems to work fine for me? What am I missing?
Re: (Score:3)
They probably meant Windows 3.x in 80386 Enhanced mode. It barely works, if at all, on FreeDOS.
CD-ROM included (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds fantastic for making El Torito boot discs.
I've struggled to get FreeDOS working well with some DOS-only tools that needed CD or USB support. Plain MSDOS7 worked but wasn't licensed.
That plus packet drivers, LFG.
The money quote:
```
It took some time doing some very 20th century fiddling with config files, but an hour or so later we had successfully installed the FreeDOS text editor fdedit, plus the DOSKEY command-line history tool, and used them to configure the JEMM 386 memory manager. Then, we enabled the built-in CD-ROM drivers, added the LBACACHE disk cache, the CTMOUSE mouse driver, and a few other essentials⦠and set the whole lot to load into upper memory blocks. The result was a whopping 625kB of free conventional memory. Early in this vulture's career, he made good money from his expertise optimizing DOS memory. It may not sound like much, but 640,224 bytes free is a lot for DOS, and that includes a network stack. The fact that it took next to no configuration other than changing DEVICE= to DEVICEHIGH= or inserting LH before some commands is very impressive.
```
Cool to have a CP/M kernel again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it laughable?
The most common use cases in the commercial embedded world not only require distribution, but likely distribution in [EEP]ROM which is FAR from trivial to deal with once (not if) Microsoft sends a cease and desist.
They aren't going to care if you use it for your hobby stuff, but they aren't going to just allow others to make money off of it.
Even in a corporate domain environment, as of 2022 the official Microsoft network auditing tool still flags MSDOS when found and since it isn't licen
Re: (Score:2)
RIP Gary Kildall (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern? (Score:1)
Re: Modern? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that FAT32 was introduced in 1996. Windows 95 RTM didn't support FAT32.
Re: (Score:2)
I had Fat32 on Micros~1 Windows 95 back in the day. I couldn't tell you precisely which version it was.
Re: Modern? (Score:4, Informative)
Like the usual source [wikipedia.org] says, it was introduced with Windows 95 OSR2.
I remember switching to it when it came out, it was kind of a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I never.
I always though that was a big standout feature!
Re: (Score:2)
It was! It just wasn't original. I ran a couple of Chicago betas, and every version of Windows 95 (original, OSR1, 2, 2.1, 2.5, and there was a thing called OSR3 that I'm not sure about its origins, I don't think it's this [archive.org] either) but only as a curiosity for some of that time and always at least dual booting Linux or sometimes using two machines. It was necessary for PC gaming at the time...
Re: (Score:2)
Mind genuinely blown! OK, since I apparently missed the first tranche how did it work? I always thought MS aggressively leaned in to their new found powers of FAT32 by going for directories with names like "Program files", "My documents" and so on and so forth. I guess the OG Windows 95 couldn't have that. What did it have?
[OK I went and googled, this took some digging]
Apparently I was confusing VFAT with FAT32. That nugget of info had left my brain somewhere in the last 25 years or so. This makes a lot mor
Re: (Score:2)
When it hosed itself, I could put the CD in, then dd /dev/cdrom to /dev/hda and have a completely set up and working Windows 95 plus games install in about an hour with zero interaction.
Pretty amazing how much we did with so little storage, isn't it? These days when I replace a mirror disk it takes a day and a half to resilver...
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty amazing how much we did with so little storage, isn't it? These days when I replace a mirror disk it takes a day and a half to resilver...
And RAM. With that said, hard disks have got much faster, but not enormously faster since the base mechanisms are broadly speaking similar. A 7200 RPM drive from 1997 has the same latency as one today. But I did recently buy one, and it was many terabytes (18? 20?) for a few hundred quid. Not bad if you ask me!
It's remarkable to think of a full graphical OS on a fi
Re: (Score:2)
It hadn't yet occurred to people to layer on graphical effects to a simple GUI rather than concerning themselves with reasonable response times.
This reminds me of the name of the program I used to adjust window transparency on Win2k, Glass2k! I knew it was in there somewhere, I was trying to remember it just a few weeks ago while I was arguing ;) about how long there have been graphics cards with 2d accelerated effects supported by their Windows drivers (since Windows 3.1, AFAIK, or maybe even 3.0.) The story as I remember it is that someone had noted that Win2k offered a setting for window transparency, but no controls to match. Alpha blending has
Re: (Score:2)
Relative to the American Civil War, this is all quite modern. [wikipedia.org]
(FAT32 was an OSR2 feature)
Re: Modern? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember at the time a number of people suggested they use (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction.
Re: (Score:3)
All I remember about the first Windows95 is that it made a grown man cry.
The first Windows 95 sends me spiraling into a never-ending stream of, "Oooo eee ooo I look just like Buddy Holly." I worked in Gateway's support area at the time. The techs played that fucking video all day long off the install CDs.
Re:Modern? (Score:5, Informative)
[Article author here]
> Um, wasn't FAT32 introduced in Windows 95 in 1995
No. Windows 95 at release only had FAT16 and Windows NT 3.1 through to the final service pack for NT 4.0 never supported FAT32.
It first appeared in Windows 95 OSR2 and as an end-user option in Windows 95, and for the NT family, in Windows 2000.
But the real point here is thatthe release of Windows 95 marked the end of development for actual original MS-DOS -- and almost completely for DR-DOS as well. Since DOS was bundled in with Win95, that meant no more standalone DOS and no more DOS sales -- and so no more R&D.
It was added to DR-DOS 7.01by Udo Kuhnt as part of the DR-DOS Enhancement after Caldera briefly open-sourcedDR DOS. (It then changed its mind and closed sourced it again. DR-DOS 7.02 -- 7.05 were closed source, as was DR DOS 8.x which only existed very briefly, as it contained FreeDOS code without source and so was a GPL violation.)
Re: (Score:3)
[Article author here]
> Um, wasn't FAT32 introduced in Windows 95 in 1995
No. Windows 95 at release only had FAT16 and Windows NT 3.1 through to the final service pack for NT 4.0 never supported FAT32.
See...I want to believe you...and the internet *seems* to agree with you...but I have VERY clear memories of changing to FAT32 on my dad's Win95 computer back in the day. It shipped with FAT16, but the 1.6GB Quantum Fireball hard disk was down to about 400MB of storage, so I saw the conversion utility, and ran it. 13-year-old me DEFINITELY should not have done that; there was no backup solution in place, and my dad's master's thesis was stored on that hard drive, and I had no idea what FAT32 meant...and hal
Re: (Score:2)
Original Win95 absolutely,categorically, with no wiggle room _whatsoever_ did NOT have FAT32.
There were 4 main releases of Win95 and some minor ones:
1. The first release, 14 July 1995
2. Win95A, AKA OEM Service Release 1, Valentine's Day 1996
https://news.microsoft.com/199... [microsoft.com]
Note: no mention of FAT32.
3. Win95B, AKA OEM Service Release 2, 30 August 1996
This version has the first shipping version of FAT32.
4. OEM Service Release 2.1, one year later (27 Aug 1997)
This version has the first shipping USB support.
5.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. There was no "conversion utility" of any kind.
Windows 98 had theability to upgrade an existing copy of Windows. That was the first version that could convert a FAT16 drive to FAT32.
You could not officially upgrade to 95A, 95B or 95C. It was in fact possible to install them over the top _if you deleted C:\WINDOWS\WIN.COM and it would do an in-place upgrade, but there was no way to get from FAT16 to FAT32 without 3rd party tools such as PartitionMagic. I reviewed PartitionMagic 2.0 in PC Pro in 1996 and
Too bad (Score:2)
that most computers these days don't boot BIOS-based OSes, which makes this thing runnable only under emulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen an x86-based PC completely incapable of booting from a BIOS-based OS yet, the boot mode can be set in the UEFI/BIOS menu.
Re: (Score:1)
Legacy boot has been completely removed from many, but not all PCs since 2020. Some PCs can still legacy boot from external, but not internal drives.
Not Open Source anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
SvarDOS, a compact open-source operating system derived from DR-DOS, has switched to using the EDRDOS kernel
The EDRDOS kernel is source-available, but not open source by any definition of the term. It is still bound by the OpenDOS license of Caldera, Inc. - the same infamous company that eventually became SCO Group, claimed that Linux violated its intellectual property, and sued Linux users for $$$$$$. Until it was put down. But it is not dead yet, merely hibernating, and if some high-profile company starts using this, it may spring back to life and sue with gusto.
I personally wouldn't touch the new SvarDOS implementation with a ten feet long pole.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the GPL have to do with this? Your own link explains the confusion: the original CP/M License only allowed CP/M code to be distributed by the Unofficial CP/M Site. The supposed current rights holders then responded to a query about this providing a new license:
Re: (Score:3)
Also "Open source does not imply free or do with it whatever you want". I'm afraid it more or less does bub.
No, it does not.
Here is the official definition of open source: https://opensource.org/osd [opensource.org]
No, it is not.
The OSI has no right to define "Open Source", a term which was in use since the 1980s before they even existed, let alone before they claim to have invented the term. Everyone who claims to have been involved in that creation already knows that the phrase meant something before that day, except possibly the person herself (who was just a hack tech writer at the time and has no technical chops of her own) who could possibly just be ignorant. Everyone else was willfully perpetrat
Re: (Score:1)
Open Source was a well used term, long before the GPL or similar existed.
Wittness: Angelo, myself.
I installed hundreds of "Open Source" software during my early years at University.
Re:Not Open Source anymore (Score:4, Informative)
The EDRDOS kernel is source-available, but not open source by any definition of the term. It is still bound by the OpenDOS license of Caldera, Inc.
The OpenDOS license is Open Source by the actual definition of the term, which was around since the 80s. You just didn't know about it [plaetinck.be], like Christine Petersen of the OSI claims not to have when she claims to have invented the phrase (proving that either she's not qualified to know who coined the term, or is a bald-faced liar.) You too are obviously unqualified to determine what it means, because you also apparently don't know when it's from.
I personally wouldn't touch the new SvarDOS implementation with a ten feet long pole.
I think that's wise, because as you say (with some bullshit wrapped around your statement) OpenDOS' license is only a source available license, it is not permissive like the BSD license. But both of those things are "Open Source" by the definition which existed when Caldera released OpenDOS.
Re: (Score:2)
The OpenDOS license is Open Source by the actual definition of the term, which was around since the 80s
There is no actual definition of the term, if it qualifies as a term at all, because there is neither an authoritative organization, nor even an industrial standard on it. Note that what was broadly recognized as "open source" in the 1980s is not the same as what it usually means today.
You just didn't know about it [plaetinck.be],
This was a fun story, thanks for it. No, I didn't know about it, because I'm not obliged to read the whole Internet. Yes, I knew at least some of things it tells about. Note that it tells a story about some combination of wor
Re: (Score:2)
This was a fun story, thanks for it. No, I didn't know about it, because I'm not obliged to read the whole Internet.
What you are obliged to do if you want to be taken seriously is not make declarative statements about things you don't know about because you weren't there.
Re:Not Open Source anymoreM (Score:1)
People in general do not know, what they don't know.
That should be pretty clear to an adult person.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are obliged to do if you want to be taken seriously is not make declarative statements about things you don't know about because you weren't there.
That's okay, but I didn't.
P.S. Nobody today gives a flying f*ck what "Open Source" meant in the 1980s and before, and rightly so.
Re: (Score:1)
They did not sue anyone about Linux.
They sued a real Unix company, like IBM or AT&T.
It's already an UEFI world (Score:3)
As most of you know, BIOS was deprecated long ago by UEFI.
Still, most UEFI PC systems still includes a compatibility mode, usually named CSM that provides a BIOS emulation that it's a BIOS replacement and still works on most systems.
But they are pushing for remove even the CSM mode.
Without a CSM software replacement, these projects are doomed to work only on legacy systems or emulators.
As DOS is a legacy system where almost no new significant software is done, I don't see the effort will be rewarded. I see better interest in push better emulators to increase the base of legacy software can work there. After all, emulation can be ported across multiple platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that a lot of modern PCs still support floppy drives and DB9 serial, hopefully CSM deprecation won't be anytime soon. Even if it happens I think the moddability of UEFI could make it relatively easy to bring back.
Another possibility might be hacking some UEFI-to-BIOS compatibility layer into GRUB. A lot of the new UEFI features do have backwards compatibility that could make it feasible even with a closed-source OS.
For emulation check out MartyPC for emulating really old DOS PCs, or PCem for new
Re: (Score:3)
Problems with adding a bios compatibility layer on the latest hardware, PCI memory in the lower 4GB has expanded so you're lucky to have much more then 1GB of address space available, generally shouldn't matter with pure DOS as long as there's enough memory below 1MB, this box has 620KiB but it is somewhat old, Intel 6th generation. The other problem is that the framebuffer in some new systems is above 4GB. Need to have a video bios for DOS and access to the framebuffer.
Is there some practical aspect ? (Score:2)
And nowadays for very low (or ancient) power systems it's so much easier to use Linux... If all you want is to run ancient sof
Re:Is there some practical aspect ? (Score:4, Informative)
Turbo Pascal, Sidekick, Wordperfect for DOS, and many other DOS software packages are wonderful and wonderfully efficient. Microsoft Word by comparison is incredibly slow these days and most modern C++ compilers aren't about to set any speed records either.
Re: (Score:2)
Turbo Pascal, Sidekick, Wordperfect for DOS, and many other DOS software packages are wonderful and wonderfully efficient.
Agreed, but realistically, how many people actually need or want to run Sidekick or Turbo Pascal?
It's 2025, it's a cool project but beyond niche use cases and hobbyists, what's the need for this?
(And I speak as someone who started off with DOS 1.1, tried DR-DOS, and then switched to Windows as it eclipsed the DOS world. My point is, I'm not unfamiliar with DOS by any means.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not many, but I would. Turbo Pascal is fast, and Pascal and its cousin programming languages are much neglected. You could translate something like the Linux kernel to Pascal or Modula-2 much easier than to Rust and the Linux kernel could easily fit on a DOS machine with a 32 bit or 64 bit DOS extender. It might be tricky to port to an 8088 or 80236 but 80386 has already been done of course. Pascal is also a much simpler programming language than C++, much safer than C, and definitely easier to learn than
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, it's an impressive achievement, but I feel like this is 30 years too late. The last few times I used FreeDOS were something like 10-15 years ago to update some difficult BIOS, but I don't think any PC made in the last 15 years can be updated like that anymore. Even then you had to find the right boot options for FreeDOS and it was difficult and often impossible.
And nowadays for very low (or ancient) power systems it's so much easier to use Linux... If all you want is to run ancient software the VMs or simulators are also much easier. So I wonder what the use cases might be.
There are still some uses.
Whether it is to boot into DOS for Firmware related tasks like you said (for example, A-DATA drives need this)
Or to sell you a machine with "some" OS so that you can roll your own (say, Linux, BSD, Haiku, et al) like Dell sometimes does.
Or to run some DOS software that controls some complex/expensive machine (say a control for an embroidering machine, or some CNC) on more modern hardware. And no, a CNC or an embroidering machine would be a bitch to control from an emulator or VM.
Ru
Re: (Score:2)
Running ancient CNC machines (and some other factory equipment) could be one use case, the control systems on a lot of them essentially are just ancient DOS PCs that need to make use of the parallel port, forcing CNC operators to become retrocomputing enthusiasts and hunt down ancient replacement hardware. With this software it might be possible to find a new mobo with a parallel port and run the machine with the original software on top of SvarDOS on brand new hardware, plus added netwoking which could be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Running the DOS software to interface with the parallel port on Linux gets a lot more complicated however.
Never forget! (Score:3, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code