Re: annoyances Digest, Vol 2, Issue 17

> From: "Daniel C. von Asmuth" <asmuth-8LkvcxCLB6JmR6Xm/[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Annoyances] Fred Linux Annoyance List.
>
> Much problems in computing are due to ignoring Gates's Law:
> 	640 KB is enough for anybody
>
> While MS-DOS is not ideal, nor intended for expensive multi-user systems
> where Unix fares better, it is an Industry Standard OS with more than
> 100,000,000 copies sold. Its greatest strength is its resistance to
> innovation (read 'software bloat'). MS-DOS is easier to install, cofigure,
> and learn its command set. MS-DOS is effectively no more expensive than
> Linux. MS-DOS does not require an expensive 32-bit processor. MS-DOS is
> happy with a megabyte of RAM, and leaves 90 % for use by applications.
> MS-DOS does not have the silly mouse thing. MS-DOS does not have these
> Internet annoyances. MS-DOS has no kernel keeping you from accessing
> your hardware. There are a million application programs that will run
> on MS-DOS.

Oh, I'd agree completely. There are many applications that run perfectly
well on DOS. I'd disagree that a windowing system is one of those apps,
however. My point was that DOS itself is not inherently easier to use than
a typical Linux shell but people have generally learned DOS before Linux
so are more familiar with its commands. The same goes for the Windows UI
itself. I don't think Explorer is more intuitive than the average window
manager but people are used to the Windows metaphor so will tend to find
similar interfaces easier at first.

But to go a little further, I'd disagree that there's much bloat at all
under the average Linux system. There are many, many applications but each
tend to do one thing. Rather than building MORE, COPY, and a host of other
tools into the shell they are part of a standard toolbox. Yet even the
inclusive shells such as Busybox are comparable in size to COMMAND.COM yet
have quite a bit more functionality. In other words, COMMAND.COM would be
the one guilty of bloat in comparison with some Linux tools.

I'd also disagree that DOS itself is easier to install or configure than
Linux. I used DOS quite extensively in the two decades or so since I've
been using computers, and it was rarely simple. Configuring EMM386 and
LOADHIGH commands was something of a black art and I vividly recall doing
things such as shuffling the load order of drivers to help reduce memory
requirements.
To get 90% of 1M available requires some serious work and is not something
that DOS supports out of the box: 640K base, of which about 60K is taken
by DOS itself; 128K video takes a chunk out.

So if you don't need any "modern" OS features such as multi-tasking,
memory protection, and need the ability to fit within 1M, DOS is certainly
a good choice.
-- 
The Digital Hermit      Unix and Linux Solutions
http://www.digitalhermit.com
kwan-H/XkN3sKs40TjC5v63tWQwC/[email protected]