On 10/30/06, Udo Kuhnt <048321887-0001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
Hi Jason,
> Who said "Real DOS users don't use mice" ?
> I missed that post too.
> The post that went something like, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Oh I don't use a > mouse. I don't even ever load a mouse driver(implied I'm a REAL dos user)". And > the reply, "Oh, yeah, well I bet you aren't a REAL dos user. In fact, I bet you > even use windows and IE to surf the net." > Nope those aren't the exact quotes. But that's how I read it. > Who said "Real DOS users don't browse with a gui > browser that supports other modern HTML thingees" ?
> I also missed that post.
> Same as above.
I think I recognize some of my own text in the above statements, so I think an explanation is in order:
I use both the keyboard and the mouse very often in DOS, alternating between those input types as I see fit.
I think the ability to use the mouse is an important part of DOS and DOS programs, so maybe I am a bit overreacting when somebody disparages the use of the mouse in DOS. That is probably because some DOS haters often derogatorily call it a command line OS or a TUI OS, which is not true.
IMO, somebody who accepts that the mouse is necessary to perform some tasks in Windows should also accept that it is equally necessary in DOS.
> "who think arachne and dos are objectively the best browser and OS > respectively."
> Perhaps I'm wrong and dos really is the best OS and arachne the best browser.
Well, I never said that DOS is the best OS, but I often say that it is the best OS for the PC. That is because it can run DOS software without needing an emulation of any kind, and that is most important for me when I choose an OS. And there are definetely more powerful browsers than Arachne, though Arachne is arguably the best (graphical) browser for DOS.
Of course, one can always resort to using an emulator if one needs to run software for other platforms. I have already successfully run Windows software in DOS, and even emulated a whole Linux box running in an emulator for Windows that I ran in DOS using a Windows emulator for DOS. ;-)
> But try as I might, I can never get it to do a fraction of what I typically do > routinely on linux or windows. I'm still trying so maybe I'll figure it out. > I will note however, that nobody I've asked has been able to tell me how either.
> It only takes me a few seconds to rattle off many things that can't be done in > dos. So far nobody's ever been able to tell me one thing that dos can do that > linux can't.
> When I can rattle off a list of things an OS can't do that another can and > nobody can give me one thing the other way around and still the 2nd OS is > claimed to be objectively better... well, that gets me a little crazy.
Well, that is kind of funny. Once, a WindowsNT user tried to convert me to his favourite OS. He was mad at me using DOS, which he regarded as an inferior OS, so I asked him to name a few features that he thought DOS would be missing. He started with things like networking, multitasking, memory protection, a GUI, and soon he had exhausted his list without having found anything that I did not have at my disposal in DOS. So he gave in, and probably was no longer as rash to belittle DOS thereafter. :-)
Well, he wasn't a DOS user :) The same can be said for the C64 and TRS-80. It's amazing what you can do with them.
But the frustration came from a discussion with a group of friends on objectively speaking which is the best OS. Basically, that led to us starting a doc that compared several OSs. It's not done or I'd link to it. I would like the DOS portion of this document to be as complete as possible so I think I'll ask for input here when it's more complete.
majority of the applications, so DOS is always at least one step behind, but that is also true for Linux, and DOS also profits from the work done for Linux.
BTW, if you are looking for things that DOS has but Linux doesn't, there is the separate working directories for each drive, for example. I always wondered why in Unix OSes, every partition has to become part of a single logical drive. I also in wonder why one has to create a mount point for these drives, whereas in DOS, mounting of drives is automatic and does not require a certain directory on a so-called root partition to be present.
Mounting can be automated if you like.
You've mentioned the fact that mounting happens in the root directory before and I never did understand why that bothers you. That is a difference but I don't know it counts much in this context. Actually, the only thing I can see it mattering in copy type operations. And there are methods that are different but not difficult to handle this.
directories like /etc, /usr, /bin, /sbin, /lib, /root, /var, etc. In DOS, I can call any directory what I like best.
I'm by no means an expert on the *nix file structure, but for many things you can. But the system type directories are kinda like autoexec.bat. You can't name that anything you want in DOS. Or can you? I suspect there might ways to rename many of those system dirs in *nix if you REALLY wanted.
It's kinda like if you install a program in dos and it's not in the path. If you want it to start from anywhere when you type it's name, you have to modify the path or some other change. As far as I know most OSs including DOS have defined locations or names for certain system entities. It's a matter of degree.
also has its advantages over Linux.
I think everybody chooses the OS that is best for his purposes, and I found DOS to do its job better on my machines than any alternative OS. If I would assemble a computer solely for the purpose of running Linux software, I would probably find that Linux is the best OS for that task.
Regards,
Udo
-- The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project - http://www.drdosprojects.de
-- This mail was written by a user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ Arachne at FreeLists -- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
