From: cr88192@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/19/2024 6:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
   > BGB-Alt  writes:   
   >> On 7/19/2024 11:18 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
   >>> "Paul Edwards"  writes:   
   >>>> Sure - but why not make it available anyway?   
   >>>   
   >>> MS-DOS is, was, and always will be a toy.  It's not even   
   >>> a real operating system.   
   >>>   
   >>> No mainframe user would ever be interested in something   
   >>> so simplisticly useless.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It has a FAT filesystem   
   >   
   >    Poor performance, silly filename length limitations.   
   >   
      
   True enough.   
      
   But, I guess everyone thought 8.3 filenames were fine in the 80s and   
   early 90s (or, for some of us, might bring back memories of childhood   
   nostalgia or similar, a memory of the times before most everything went   
   over to free-form long filenames).   
      
      
   Personally, I suspect a limit of 32 or 64 characters would probably be   
   fine for most uses, though most modern systems have settled on a 256   
   character name limit.   
      
   However, given a lot of systems have settled on a 260 character   
   "maxpath" or similar, the practical use of a 256 character name limit is   
   debatable (one can only really use a full length filename in the root   
   directory, which is less useful).   
      
   If it were just me, I would assume a 32-character filename limit, and a   
   512 character maxpath.   
      
      
   Granted, a 32 character limit might seem imposing for people who prefer   
   to use the "Hey check it out, my filename is a whole sentence or   
   paragraph.txt" naming convention...   
      
      
      
   >> , MZ loader,   
   >   
   >   whatever that might be.   
   >   
      
   The MS-DOS ".EXE" format...   
      
   It was useful on MS-DOS, granted, not so much at this point.   
      
      
   On more modern systems, this role is typically served by ELF or PE/COFF.   
      
   Where, PE/COFF was generally a COFF binary glued onto an MZ stub (which   
   traditionally displayed "This program can not be run in MS-DOS mode."   
   and exits).   
      
      
   In my own uses, I dropped the MZ EXE stub, beginning the file at the   
   'PE' marker. This isn't quite back to being COFF, as this typically   
   started at the machine-type ID. But, having a magic FOURCC here is   
   useful (typically 'PEL4' or similar in my current use).   
      
   >   
   >> and basic console printing and   
   >> memory allocation... These cover the main bases for what one needs for   
   >> an operating system.   
   >   
      
   Forgot to mention, it also had:   
      keyboard input handling;   
      Optional support for ANSI escape codes;   
      ...   
      
   Well, and a variety of built-in programs, like "edit", "fdisk", and   
   "format".   
      
      
   > Not on a millon dollar mainframe.   
   >   
      
   Probably not...   
      
      
   I was more asserting that MS-DOS can be used as an operating system (and   
   was used as such, at one point, on PCs), not really defending that it   
   would make sense to run it on a mainframe.   
      
   So, yeah, how porting an MS-DOS variant to a mainframe would make any   
   sense, I don't know.   
      
      
   I guess technically, the MS-DOS source has been released, but given much   
   of it is 8086 assembler, how much use it is to try to port it, is   
   debatable...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)