[arachne] Re: DOS only or?

  • From: Jason <jasorn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 06:04:55 -0400

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!


The main difference between Linux and DOS is that snide remarks on DOS
are socially accepted, whereas those on Linux are not, which is without
doubt due to the fact that there are big companies pumping money in
Linux whereas DOS development is only driven by its community. As long
as Microsoft still supported DOS, the situation was quite the reverse.
Udo
I was poking fun because I knew you'd used linux for a while. But in my experience you can do at least as much with linux on a floppy as with dos. I have a 486 here that only has linux on a floppy with no hdd. That machine is a router. There's a 2 floppy distro that will get you x windows gui even.

And I get the feeling when you compare dos to linux you seem to want to use the most bloated versions of linux you can. There are versions of linux that run just fine on 386's.

Just for fun I googled 'linux on floppy'. I was surprised by this list on this page.

http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Floppy/

Now MenutOS!  That's how you work a floppy!!

Maybe it's just me but it seems every time I see comparisons on this board I think, "Err, they're comparing apples to airplanes." The win xp to win2k cli discussion still hasn't cited one cli difference between the 2 unless I missed an email :) Arachne at FreeLists -- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --

Other related posts: