PD-DOS project *manifest*
JAMES HALL
(ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF MS-DOS)
MANIFEST
ed. 26 June, 1994
James Hall
James....@uwrf.edu
INTENTION:
I would like to form a group that will, eventually, create another
implementation of MS-DOS. DOS appears to be a popular system, and
there is plenty of hardware already available that is ready to support
it. Microsoft will not develop DOS forever, and one cannot count on
"other" commercial programming firms such as IBM or Digital to
continue enhancing DOS. I feel it is then up to those on the Internet
to develop their own "Public Domain DOS" (hereafter, PD-DOS) and I
feel there is a lot of support for this from people on the "net."
PD-DOS should, optimally, run on all levels of machines. It should
operate on processors as low as the 8088 with as little memory as
640k. Hopefully, the compressed installation should fit under 1.44M.
PD-DOS should not be targetted towards certain users.
I do not think there would be a problem to distribute "optimized"
versions of PD-DOS for the 80386 and above.
PROJECT PLAN:
I imagine the PD-DOS project would be best handled by dividing efforts
into three subgroups:
1. UTILITIES GROUP. Main objective is to write new, clean versions of
the standard DOS utilities. These should all be able to run on any
current version of DOS, as low as MS-DOS 3.3.
2. DRIVER GROUP. Goals include re-writing the device drivers for DOS,
including a new ANSI.SYS and COUNTRY.SYS. These should be
overlay-able on any version of DOS, as low as MS-DOS 3.3.
3. KERNEL GROUP. Main objective is to write a new DOS kernel, one
that is capable of running at least most of the current DOS software.
The ultimate test is to be able to run MS-WINDOWS. Secondary goals
include working in some kind of multitasking support, even if limited.
If I can get this PD-DOS project off the ground, I'd appreciate
someone taking over each of the three subgroups, so there'd be a
Utilities Leader, Driver Leader, and Kernel Leader. This person would
be in charge of maintaining code readability and for ensuring the
group's goals are being met. For example, the Utilities Leader would
also make sure that each utility includes at least the MS-DOS command
line arguments. The Leader should also make decisions concerning what
extensions will be permitted.
Much of the DOS utilities already exist as freeware, and a good
portion of that has been written by the Free Software Foundation (for
example, LESS could be renamed "MORE"). In any case, I'd expect that
the Utilities Group would be the first one to accomplish all its
goals. The Drivers Group would probably finish next, and the kernel
last due to its relative complexity. At each stage of completion, I'd
expect a major release to the public, probably available via ftp
sites.
One final note: I'd appreciate all the utilities to be written in
either C or the DOS batch language, to facilitate maintenance.
LEGAL STUFF:
Any effort that goes into writing a PD-DOS would, of course, be
released under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, which says in part from
its Preamble:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
PS -- Email me for a task list! Work has already begun!