Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:24:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Using Debian to manage a multiple OS machine
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <v9sgrr$2bgqj$1@dont-email.me> <sIG2Bu.5wtB@yahoo.com>
 <v9uohk$ukqt$1@news1.tnib.de>
 <LCednVkbDs6t9lj7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <5KpxO.636885$a6n5.494140@fx15.iad>
 <LTudnXM5IYHVWlv7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <va6t8p$c7dr$3@dont-email.me>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: vector apex
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:24:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <va6t8p$c7dr$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <jnOdnSYL0_-HtlX7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 82
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-q86TdG74b+xDNAHaLlt8CPb/SGKkLlwOUiyGDk4V9hObEuufOjILa0TPG3fDxT87IrJAyWrTh6KpxUr!ugN78IrJAtNrxFFSFP/TdIlmqPprl7C2i2f6dFz3d8pvQ/Sga9qXE5VcameR3bO9kfmzLO2TvilR!OhPXabZzbb2CVeg/DToc
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4774

On 8/22/24 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 > On 22/08/2024 06:06, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 >> Geez, remember when DOS came on ONE floppy ?
 >>    You could DO STUFF with it, rather COMPLEX
 >>    stuff actually. Not a 'toy' system. Even the
 >>    smallest usable Linux requires a LOT more space.
 >
 > The correct counter to that is to point out that in no wise was DOS an
 > 'operating system' - it was only a program loader.


   Ummm ... no ... more than that - and ENOUGH for a LOT
   of practical applications.


 > In fact you could entirely bypass it to write directly to the hardware
 > and many industrial applications did exactly that, yea even unto running
 > their own multitaskers  and so on.


   You can write directly to the hardware in Linux too, IF
   you can find the instructions. It's "not recommended"
   of course ...


 > concurrent CP/M was about the smallest multiuser multitasker OS that was
 > ever crammed onto an 8086 platform IIRC. Or there might have been a real
 > time one or two  as well.

   I don't remember a RTOS version of CP/M - but someone
   may have given it a shot. Even way back in the day there
   were a few RTOS - OS-9 being perhaps most prominent
   (still being sold) which is "Unix-ish".

   The diffs between CP/M and DOS were relatively few.
   I think it WAS a good idea to bring 'pip' into the
   OS kernel however.

 > Linux by its nature sets out to be an unrestricted UNIX like system,.
 > complete with all the complexity and bells and whistles needed to have
 > multiple users, multiple processes , interprocess communications,
 > daemons to handle single thread hardware like a disk, multi-layered
 > security, and the ability to intersperse drivers in a rigorous manner to
 > access arbitrary hardware.

   I agree that Linux/Unix are generally "better" than DOS/Win.
   However there IS a price.

   > In short it is a complete multitasking multiuser general purpose
 > operating system and you simply cannot compare it with DOS.
 >
 > SCO Unix needed a 386 to run - only Venix IIRC ran off a 286 - badly.

   I remember the 286 - it was considered a big improvement
   at the time - 8-Mhz clock ! The 386 was 'better' yet in
   a larger number of ways.

 > It was extremely successful because it actually worked. At an affordable
 > price
 >
 > I've seen 256 users  via serial cards running on a 386 running SCO.
 > Extreme, but possible, but 64k users was a more normal limit with 32
 > being normal.

   Oh, very capable, no question - esp for the time. DID need
   more CPU/Mem than DOS however. Biz/govt could afford it,
   Joe User, not so much. Wasn't long after that 'terminal'
   users, well, nobody wanted it anymore - they all wanted
   nice GUIs.

 > We ran about 150 over telnet at one point once the TCP/IP worked....:-)
 >
 > This was PDP/VAX territory ...at a price people could afford.
   Yet sales were not enough to keep it alive. This
   wasn't an M$ propaganda thing either, 'natural
   selection' more instead. FEW wanted/needed what
   Unix could do - on PC boxes anyhow. On larger
   corp/govt/ed systems Unix did much better. Made
   some guy named Linus kinda jealous .....

   If you liked the 8088/86 era, there's still 'ELKS'
   embeddable Linux kernel ... that IS very tiny.