RE: DOS vs. Linux Command Line; was Re: annoyances Digest, Vol 2, Issue 17

> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Kwan Lowe" <kwan-H/XkN3sKs40TjC5v63tWQwC/[email protected]>
> Subject: [Annoyances] Re: annoyances Digest, Vol 2, Issue 17
> To: [email protected]
> Message-ID:
> 	<64610.207.87.240.225.1066321088.squirrel-TUFDWnMSEnnonEFTxryOOtvLeJWuRmrY@public.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> > 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.
> 

<<<Snipped>>>

> 
> 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.
>

DOS and ethernet/TCP-IP was a PAIN to get running.  I did this for 2
years and was so glad to get Windows 95 and its (then) easy to install
networking.  

When you have to remember how the OSI network model works in order to
know which part of the drivers to load in what order... that's a bit
much in the complexity department for the average user to handle.

Linux/Unix networking was relatively easy as long as you had a card that
was supported.

Jim

> 
> 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]
> 

*All opinions are my own and not those of anyone else or any other
institution.  No one else would want them*