> > 1) Why DOS? Hasn't it already seen it's big day? We started the FreeDOS Project in 1994 because Microsoft had announced that they would stop supporting MS-DOS in a little while (i.e. they were getting ready to release Windows 95.) But a lot of us at the time still used DOS on our systems, and we didn't see any reason to abandon DOS in favor of a GUI that we didn't want to use. Around that time, I saw a lot of messages on DOS newsgroups on USENET that asked the question "is there a free version of DOS?" If Microsoft was going to stop supporting MS-DOS, we decided, then we needed our own. In 1994 you had a lot of people who were still using DOS in critical applications. I know companies that _still_ use DOS to run their financial software, or to run data entry applications. At the time, I was a student at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, and all my work was being done on a '386 running DOS. Even though I was a physics student without much exposure to computer programming (we had to write data analysis programs, and that was about it) I used my knowledge of C to re-create some simple MS-DOS commands. I realized that it was not all that hard, and that if a bunch of us got together we could probably re-write the entire MS-DOS command set, and maybe even a kernel. I posted my programs along with an article to some DOS newsgroups, announcing that I was going to start a project to create a free version of DOS. At the time, I called it "PD-DOS" because I thought "public domain" software would be the way to go. Once I learned a little more about free software, and found things like the [excellent] GNU GPL, I decided that the term "Free DOS" would be more appropriate. The response was immediate. People wanted to know where they could find more "Free DOS" programs, and many offered their help in writing other programs. Soon, we had a respectable collection of DOS software. So I guess the reason for having FreeDOS is because people still needed DOS, and they were willing to contribute their time and energy into making it work. > 2) How many people are working on the FreeDOS project and what seems > to be the main motivation? There are many people working on the FreeDOS Project. Too many to name here. However, there are several names that come up from time to time, and it would be a shame for me not to mention at least a few: * John Price has taken the maintainer role for the FreeDOS Kernel. Without John, I really don't think the kernel would be where it is today. He really has been a big help. * ror4 - we don't really know this person's name, and that little fact sometimes surprises people who interview me. No, we don't necessarily know everyone else on the group, and you don't have to be well-known in order to make significant contributions to FreeDOS. ror4 has made some terrific patches to the kernel. * Morgan "Hannibal" Toal helps me manage the freedos.org site. Morgan was one of the first people on the Internet who really took a shine to FreeDOS. * Bill Weinman currently maintains the server that runs the freedos.org site. * Steffen Kaiser has written some great code that you'll find in a lot of FreeDOS programs. A well of knowledge about DOS, there. When I plow my way through the 100+ email messages that stack up in my Inbox, I usually stop to read what Steffen has written. Steffen has also been with FreeDOS for a long time. People contribute to the FreeDOS Project for their own reasons, but I think a lot of it has to do with hack value. It's a good feeling to create this operating system that suddenly breathes life into the husk of an older computer. XT's and AT's are now in use again, if the email that I receive is a valid indicator. Linux is a great operating system, but you won't be running it on a '286 with 640k memory! The only thing that will run under that limit is FreeDOS! > 3) Who are you and why is this so important to you? Well, in "real life" I am the Production Support manager for the Web Team at the University of Minnesota. My career has been spent working in and with computer systems, mostly PC's and UNIX systems. In the FreeDOS Project, I guess you could say that I'm the "head" of the project. But that's a fuzzy word when you're talking about a project that's based on the Internet. People do what they want to do. :) For FreeDOS, wear many hats: I manage the http://www.freedos.org web site, and I coordinate the releases of FreeDOS. Right now, we're in the "Beta 3" release, although that's pretty darn stable. (Only a few issues that people need to worry about, such as mixing operating systems on the same disk, and using large hard drives.) I am also the keeper of the FreeDOS Documentation Project, which has the goal of creating recipe guides called "HOWTOs" that describe in great detail how to do this or that with FreeDOS. I also maintain the FreeDOS Install program, as well as several core utilities. Those utilities of mine really haven't changed since I wrote them over five years ago (except I did a major code cleanup at one point.) FreeDOS is important to me because I see so many ways in which DOS is the most appropriate solution to a problem. Take, for example, an embedded application. Why do you need something as resource-intensive as Windows in such a thing? DOS would seem to be the best solution, unless you want to develop your own embedded environment. It saddened me when I went out to dinner one night, and saw that the cash register was running Windows NT. Why implement such a resource-hungry and unstable operating system as Windows NT to do the job of an "enhanced" adding machine? (Yes, I realize there is more to a cash register than adding up, but you get the point.) > 4) What are your thoughts on the commerical versions of DOS? Commercial versions of DOS are fine. It's the proprietary aspect that I take issue with. "Commercial" and "proprietary" do not mean the same thing. Each distributor's version of DOS has its own strengths, I suppose. The great thing about FreeDOS is that it is the _ONLY_ free version of DOS. All the rest are non-free to varying degrees, or just plain proprietary and that's that. Oh, there's Caldera's DR-DOS. But that's not really free. When Caldera first offered this DOS, they called it "Open DOS", trying to take advantage of the growing Free Software and open-source movement. But their DOS was never really free. Sure, they distributed the kernel source, but it was "look, don't touch" source code. You couldn't do anything with it, other than read through the lines of code and say that it looked pretty. Caldera tried to make a show at having a free version of DOS, but they never really got there. Caldera seems way too interested in making everything they have a proprietary product. And that's not a Good Thing. > 5) What future do you see for: > > a) DOS I see DOS being used in three different ways: 1. As a standalone operating system, probably on AT's in areas where a '286 is about what you're going to get for a computer. I get a lot of email from people who have been able to deploy AT's running FreeDOS for schools, etc. in various countries because the latest Pentium hardware just wasn't available or way too expensive for them. 2. As your DOS for various DOS-like environments, such as Linux DOSEmu. Did you know that DOSEmu uses FreeDOS as its default DOS hard disk image? 3. In an embedded application. > b) FreeDOS, what's next We're still making the kernel as stable as it can be. People sometimes look at us and say "sheesh, they still haven't reached full MS-DOS 6.x compatibility." But remember that DOS never printed anything that said "okay, here's how to re-write our kernel". Everything that we do is based on "Undocumented DOS" kinds of materials, and of course the hyper-informative Brown's interrupt list. Other than that, I am trying to make the FreeDOS install program easier to use. It's already pretty simple, but I want to add things like package management and other things that would be helpful in managing your DOS software. I know that some people are very interested in adding a GUI to FreeDOS. I'm not as excited about that - DOS has always been a command-line thing, and I've never envisioned FreeDOS as being all that graphical. But a GUI file manager might be nice. And as long as we're doing that, a set of GUI API that people can use to create embedded applications that run on top of FreeDOS. > c) The desktop PC I don't have any big dreams for the desktop PC. After all, my main interest is with FreeDOS, which will run on virtually any PC, including the XT and AT. So adding more memory and a faster CPU just means your DOS applications run better. If you're looking for my outlook on PC's in general, I'd say that we'll see the desktop PC diminish in importance. It will be replaced by portable or wearable computers, which you hook up to a server environment via the network or Internet to exchange files. My dream portable computer would be something like the Apple Newton or the PalmPC. Most of the components that I have in mind are already available: Imagine a PC on a single chip - you can already buy these. It has a '486 or better CPU, 4MB or 8MB+ memory, keyboard controller, drive controller, display adapter, 10/100 network interface, etc. IBM also has available a micro hard disk, with a platter about the size of a US quarter. I think it stores something like 150MB. With batteries and plug jacks, you can fit all that in a hand-held device the size of a Sony Walkman weighing only a few pounds. Now add to that a sheet of "electronic paper", a little bigger than a legal pad. With e-paper, you can write on it (input) and it can display images (output). Run FreeDOS, with some hacks to do i/o through e-paper and to do character recognition. Add some applications (web browser, calendar, word processor, spreadsheet, etc.) and you now have all the pieces needed to create a portable computer. Just unroll the e-paper, plug it into the hand-held computer, and boot it up. Write directly on the e-paper ala the Newton (only with better handwriting recognition!) to enter your data, and the output is shown on the same work surface. Files are stored locally, and you can transfer your finished work to a server on the Internet or to your home PC. When you're done, just unplug the e-paper, roll it up and stuff it in your bookbag along with the hand-held device. E-paper is the only component above that isn't off-the-shelf. But I can't wait for something like this to hit the market. I'd love to see this in action. > 6) Is there anything that you would like to say to our readers ( all > of them are new) about your group and DOS in general? I guess I'd like to extend a warm welcome to anyone who has an interest in working on Free Software to come join the FreeDOS Project. We have lots of things to do, for programmers and non-programmers alike. If you want to contribute something please do! Innovation comes from you, the programmer or the inventive user.