Sudden whimsy due to comparison between FreeDOS and Linux

Article title: whimsical comparison between FreeDOS and Linux. Linux is a technology channel of the IT lab in China. Includes basic categories such as desktop applications, Linux system management, kernel research, embedded systems, and open source.

For the new generation of FreeDOS 32, the 32-bit kernel has been implemented, and the support for FAT32, large hard disk, and large memory is perfect. So why is FreeDOS (or these modern DOS systems) still no better than Linux? I think to a large extent, FreeDOS lacks a good graphical shell, that is, GUI.

As we all know, Widows9X is actually a luxury graphics shell built on M $ DOS. What FreeDOS lacks is an excellent graphic shell. What should we do?

What would it be if X-Window and FreeDOS could be integrated?

X-Window itself is separate from the operating system. Strictly speaking, it is not a part of an operating system. It is a universal graphical shell. The combination of theory and FreeDOS should not encounter too many technical problems. However, X-Window has always been running on UNIX-like systems. whether the core of FreeDOS can be well coordinated with X-Window may be a big problem. However, both X-Window and FreeDOS are open source code projects. this problem can be solved through code rewriting by countless developers. Imagine how spectacular it would be to enable the X-Window service after you enter FreeDOS and use Gnome (or KDE!

What if FreeDOS can be integrated into Linux Shell?

Many people have forgotten DOS commands, and more people begin to accept general UNIX commands in Linux. FreeDOS can use BASH, KSH, and other open-source Linux shell features on the command line shell (maybe I can call it shell), such as command/directory completion and redirection. This is of great benefit to FreeDOS. At the same time, two sets of commands can be provided. one is the traditional doscommand, and the other is the Linux-compatible shell command, which can maximize the user base.

If you can make full use of the huge idle resources of OS/2, the power will be terrible!

In my impression, ibm OS/2 is basically idle. Nearly half of OS/2 was developed by Microsoft. it can be imagined that OS/2 should have many similarities with Windows, from the underlying layer to the upper layer GUI. Some Windows programs can run directly on OS/2 without modification. since FreeDOS is a member of the DOS family, it will naturally be closely related to OS/2. It seems that there are also open-source organizations of OS/2. if FreeDOS can absorb the essence of OS/2, using some technologies in OS/2 to improve its kernel and X-Window (if any) will undoubtedly greatly promote the development of FreeDOS.

In the desktop field, the inherent affinity of FreeDOS is much better than that of Linux. Quite a few PC users were loyal DOS users. The Windows 9x system is built on the big DOS system, which makes FreeDOS superior to Windows system compatibility. Currently, the core of FreeDOS is 32 bits, and the file system is also FAT32. the compatibility of Windows applications is also quite good. These are the secrets of FreeDOS in the desktop field against Windows (and Linux. If X-Window can be successfully transplanted to the FreeDOS system, modify the code of X-Window, in this case, simulating Windows programs on FreeDOS is much less difficult than simulating Windows programs on Linux with Wine. Finally, if the FreeDOS core can be absorbed into some advanced management modes of the Linux core, and you can improve yourself, you can easily get started with Windows in the desktop field.

Let's take a look. if FreeDOS is like this:

FreeDOS core (taking advantage of Linux core)

+

Command line Shell (Bash Shell)

+

Graphical shell (X-Window, with Gnome, KDE)

Coupled with the compatibility with Windows systems for the rest of your life, the prospect of FreeDOS is really impressive. However, at that time, FreeDOS looks more like a Linux release. can it be called DOS? The above are some of my personal ideas of Xiaosheng. please advise me.