The new FreeDOS 1.3 is now available for download | Hacker News Reader

The new FreeDOS 1.3 is now available for download

sourceforge.net

153 pointsCTOSian84 comments

I've FreeDOS installed on my retro laptops (Toshiba Libretto and Toshiba Satellite, both from 1998) and it works great for my nostalgic needs, although some games like to crash but they would probably crash on a "classic" DOS anyway and it's a matter of fiddling with memory management. One cool thing is that I've configured USB support and because FreeDOS supports FAT32 I can easily transfer files from my regular laptop using an USB flash drive.

I wanted a Libretto so bad when they first hit the market, but it was out of my price range.

I use IDE to CF adapters, and I have USB hub with a CF slot on it attached to my Mac mini. Super easy. I can just drop the executables onto the DOS disk and plug it in.

I am super stoked to try the 8086 version. I have a DX4-100, an AMDK6-2, and an old XT. Love all three, but the XT gets the least use due to having to run MSDOS3 and therefore being somewhat annoying (like going from GNU to BusyBox and having restrictions on what flags are usable, same annoyance level).

The XT did just get an 8bit NIC tho, so time to have some fun with FreeDOS 1.3 8086!

http://svardos.org/

It installs an 8086 slim FreeDOS distro.

I‘m amazed every time anew that there are still projects using Sourceforge instead of GitHub/GitLab.

I second that! Always makes me a little nervous too. Wasn't Sourceforge riddled with malware and other "enhancements" for a while?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings...

it was but someone bought it and turned everything around.

Citation needed. The website is still as horrific to use as in times past. It might not have outright malware anymore, but that doesn't make it less painful.

I don't know the current status of SourceForce, but the problem wasn't one of usability of the website.

The problem is that it had a change of owners, and the new owners started bundling non-free spyware and malware into the installers of otherwise free software. Which is way more serious than simply having a website that is hard to navigate.

SourceForge got a well deserved backlash from the community following their underhanded tactics. Not sure what the situation is now.

SourceForge stopped including spyware and malware installers near the beginning of 2016 when new owners took over.

At no point did I say it didn't have malware, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it.

Yes, but you stressed the (bad) usability of their website, which, while not good, is/was not their biggest sin and pales in comparison.

Here is a post from a couple of years ago by Logan Abbott, the current president of SourceForge:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20750707

At no point did I say it didn't have malware, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. I have no interest in reading the comments of that person -- regardless, they already butt-in unrequited to a twitter thread I was in to do some weird PR bullshit.

You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware and even your "acknowledgment" wasn't even that clear as you wrote "It might not have outright malware" - something is either malware or isn't.

So i gave you an answer from the person who is in the best position to answer it.

> they already butt-in unrequited to a twitter thread I was in to do some weird PR bullshit

How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter.

As for the UX, yes it isn't great, nobody claimed it was. But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page):

http://web.archive.org/web/20161108001911/https://sourceforg...

(now if the new one is an improvement or not i'm not sure, i think the new one has more user-oriented information "above the fold" despite being larger in size but overall the difference isn't that big)

> You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware

Asking for a citation isn't itself denial

> How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter.

The CEO of sourceforge is so desperate to say it doesn't contain malware that they butt into twitter threads to do unrequited PR.

> But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page):

Which is objectively more usable from a UX standpoint than it's current interface.

I too would love for most projects like this to be on GitHub/gitlab.

However, in terms of looking at these things in decades where will git/github/gitlab be in two decades? What will be the new hotness? What evil/shady transgressions will github/gitlab have committed by then?

If history is any guide in a decade people will post the same comment with projects on github/gitlab.

git-the-program/protocol will still be around, as it's in use by Linux and most big projects, and is easy to self host or use in ways not requiring $BIGCORP.

Github could go either way depending on how screwy Microsoft gets, and Gitlab will do their own thing, and could also go either way.

I don't doubt that - the same way CVS, SVN, Bitkeeper, Sourcesafe, etc are still around. Many projects have also migrated from at least CVS -> SVN -> git over the years (and moved all over the place in terms of infra).

Exactly.

FWIW, I expect at least Gitlab, Sourcehut, and Gitea to stick around for a while - It'll require another leap in quality similar to SVN -> git for people to move off of git[0], and being FL/OSS and self-hostable put them in a very strong place imho.

I expect Github to be gone outside of enterprise in about a decade or two though, based on what I've seen looking at history. Microsoft at least will continue using it though.

[0] Not impossible, but I do find it unlikely to happen on a scale of 1 - 2 decades.

Honestly all it would take is for Linus to get pissed at git for some reason - if he were to switch the kernel again likely half the world would follow.

Pretty unlikely considering that if git doesn't do what he wants he probably can get a pr adding the feature accepted ...

I'd be pretty surprised if the creator of git couldn't get a PR to git approved, honestly.

GitHub/GitLab are for developers, SourceForge is for users, notice how one puts code up front and center while the other has a description, screenshots, category information, user reviews, ratings, etc, the most prominent buttons are to download it and get updates about it and at the top the links are about getting the project's releases (Files), reviews, support, mailing list, tickets, news - ie. stuff that are more of interest to end users than developers - and only at the end you have source code access.

Some projects do not even use SourceForge for the code repository but only to host releases, provide mailing lists, forums, etc.

Of course the UX could improve but that is another issue.

I‘m amazed that you still cannot download/upload "bigger" iso's/files from Github.

Oh and the best thing....no twitter toxicity on sourceforge ;)

I'm amazed every time anew that there are still projects using Github instead of SourceHut/self hosting.

I love FreeDOS still exists! I used it ocassionally in past to load a new BIOS.exe to update a Dell Latitude laptop not having any Windows OS installed.

I have done the same for a bunch of Dell Optiplex desktops.

I always get side tracked and play a game of Scorched Earth since it’s on the same thumb drive.

Every now and then I goof around with FreeDOS. Now that 1.3 out it looks I will be doing it again.

Some features are missing on newer hardware due to the lack of driver support (notably, audio). If you want to run it on bare metal, you can install it on a USB drive (using the USB as C) and not mess around with dual booting.

Sidenote, but have we collectively forgiven Sourceforge for bundling crapware installers into binaries?

Sourceforge was sold over 6 years ago and the current ownership never bundled crapware installers into binaries.

Good to know, but I'm afraid the negative publicity generated by the crapware debacle reached a much larger audience compared to the change of ownership, so the public sentiment toward Sourceforge is still largely negative...

Visiting the site today you are greeted by large popups and imitation download buttons (same size, color, style) so it's easy to assume they are still following dark patterns, even if it's not the case.

After garnering such a reputation I'm surprised they didn't do more to make it clear it's not the same company, though I see its Slashdot Media, which doesn't have a great reputation anymore either, if I recall

They are following dark patterns, just not the bundling one.

TBF, when you integrate ads, you also integrate all the dark patterns that the advertisers choose to use (unless the ad provider blocks them, but I wouldn't rely on that)

The UI is a trainwreck and the download redirections are a mess (but at least every download isn't called "master.zip").

That's a cheap jab at GitHub. You only get a file master.zip if you download the latest snapshot of that branch. If you download a proper release, you will get an archive with the release name.

Yes it is. And a valid observation.

It do not believe it a sensible default when the filename doesn't tell you what, or when/version. Even when you pick a branch or tag you only get release.zip, and not the project name.

I am surprised the Freedos project hasn't moved off it.

Would be sweet if they would leave Sourceforge and host it somewhere else. Sourceforge will never be forgiven.

It lingers on mostly to host the MS Web Safe fonts.

https://sourceforge.net/top/

IIRC this is from where the core fonts installer on Debian fetches them. Hence the 2.7B downloads.

Yep. Why not after 6 years?

Sourceforge was a useful tool back in the days, had a brief connection with adware, changed owner and was never caught doing it again.

Compare to certain FAANG companies that still spy and push ads and still have billion dollar valuations they paid an unreasonable large price for comparatively small transgressions.

No, not really. Maybe I hold a grudge longer than others though.

On the very rare occasion I click a link that takes me to SourceForge, I just leave.

I wonder why anyone still uses SourceForge. How is it better than GitHub or GitLab? This is a serious question, so if you do, can you explain why?

Big downloads...like iso's

> improved install process, especially with the MBR

Do they mean it's a DOS for which MBR is not the only option, i.e. it supports GPT&UEFI?

They mean the installation process was improved, particularly with regards to the MBR.

GPT and UEFI is not supported.

GPT: http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/(Free)DOS_development...

UEFI: http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/UEFI

This is expected, given how hard it would be to DOS in a UEFI-based environment. Is anyone aware of a BIOS emulation layer (or an actual BIOS...) that can be loaded into UEFI to start BIOS-aware OS/programs?

Do you mean CSM?

Something like that, but rather on the form of a .EFI executable (for example), to load it on UEFI firmwares that don't provide a CSM: there are many of them...

Yes, what would be needed would be a "reversed Clover", but, though there is some work in this space, I don't think that there is anything actually working (besides the much simpler int10h provider for EFI, needed for Windows 7 and 2008 on motherboards without CSM), here a few projects are listed:

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=22488

but, even if something will come out, it will likely need to be adapted/targeted to specific hardware, unless somehow it is possible to translate transparently UEFI functions to and from BIOS interrupts.

I believe that bare-metal DOS is going to become extinct and be relegated inside emulators or virtual machines.

In itself it would not be that bad if we had actually working/useful native EFI programs/shells, or grub (or grub4dos, now also in a grub4efi version) related ones but AFAIK - and for whatever reasons - these are very rare.

As far as I know it would be hard to do it outside of the boot firmware's own compatibility options (which most systems currently have AFAIK, but is probably on the way out). Whilst the old BIOS starts external code in Real Mode, with UEFI it sets the CPU into the operating mode. This means with most systems you'll be in 64 bit / Long Mode, and you can't leave that once entered.

You could have fun with hypervisors etc., but I guess we're thinking bare metal here?

You can absolutely leave long mode once entered; it's just annoying and silly. In fact one of the plausible options for running a DOS on UEFI would be downgrading the mode to 'unreal' mode. But you'd still have to put BIOS replacement code in memory to manage that part.

However the better option IMO is to allow the DOS kernel to just virtualize the applications using the virtualization extensions on almost all modern CPUs. Then you could do something like adding an emu.ini file next to the exe/com that sets things like memory and emulated hardware settings.

Furthermore virtual machine BIOS code already exists for things like qemu etc. so there is a place to start on that too.

> Then you could do something like adding an emu.ini file next to the exe/com that sets things like memory and emulated hardware settings.

The standard DOS-extender feature for setting these modes is a Program Information File (.PIF extension).

Honestly I was thinking similar but not exactly the same. More something with a VT-d memory map/port map so that the DOS application could potentially directly interface with legacy hardware without interfering or making the PIF incompatible. This has applications particularly in factories where they still use ISA interface cards with tooling etc. At the same time it would allow setting things like EGA/CGA compatibility requirements. Could you do it in the PIF? Probably, but I'd rather not risk breaking compatibility if possible. It's an idea only and would require research anyway assuming I actually had the time and energy to implement.

Just boot BiEFIrcate from UEFI and chainload FreeDOS from there.

https://github.com/tkchia/biefircate

Nice didn't know this existed!

Looks like very early stage, but this is wonderful news if it works or will eventually work!

You cannot have an MSDOS/PCDOS compatible DOS with GPT/UEFI. DOS relies on the PC BIOS explicitly, and beyond the BIOS calls required not being compatible with UEFI, the MBR is called by BIOS directly as well. On some machines, CSM is enough to emulate the BIOS and get DOS running, but this is not universal at all. More importantly, if you want sound and proper video support you will require an ISA machine or a full PC emulator. If you get into games that are clock speed sensitive, even that won't always be enough.

Too bad the ArcaOS guys are not going to share. I read recently that they are adding UEFI support by booting first into a BIOS emulation layer and then starting the still BIOS dependent OS/2 kernel from there.

That would work for DOS as well I imagine.

One thing I always think about when I read about DOS-era small laptops is how complicated would it be to stuff a raspberry-pi-like board inside it, connect both boards using the serial port and use the bigger machine as a terminal for the smaller one.

I wonder if anybody has done it.

I remember an old thinkpad I think it was that had swappable bays for battery, cdrom, floppy. I bet with some work you could make one bay take a smaller pi.

It isn't trivial to do networking or serial Comms over an IDE or Sata connector...

You'd need pretty custom hacked up software on both ends of the link.

I can’t recall if a modem attachment was an option but I’m pretty sure pcmcia was - maybe that has serial somewhere inside it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkPad_UltraBay - I bet one of those could work somehow.

But then the laptop would need to boot minimal OS that can load a telnet client that automatically connects through the serial port to the Pi, and GUIs might be hard, but I guess an X server (display, running on the laptop) could be configured to be listening for connections on the laptop - but the laptop need to be a bit more powerful.

> But then the laptop would need to boot minimal OS

Yes. Like FreeDOS.

DOS can handle being a serial terminal just fine. It's also capable of being an X11 client (see DESQview/X), though I don't know how well that works with modern versions of Xorg or modern X11 applications.

highly likely on Reddit /r/cyberdeck

A couple of years ago FreeDOS was needed to do BIOS upgrades if you had Linux machines with no Windows (e.g. on Dell). Now I haven't seen any BIOS upgrade for a while that cannot be installed without Windows. Either they are UEFI executables or a format that the BIOS can handle or even supported by fwupdate on Linux.

Is there still any reason to run a FreeDOS except for fun and nostalgic reasons?

Legacy. There are tons of industrial machines whose control software runs on DOS. The machines are still good, and it's not like you can just pick up a new 20 ton press or 5 meter long lathe...

Fun and nostalgia are reasons, entire multibillion businesses are made out of those :-P.

For a more serious reason there is still DOS-based software in use that can't be replaced (or the replacement would be more costly) and FreeDOS is more compatible with modern hardware than MS-DOS in case replacements/fixes are needed.

Just this weekend I needed to run both a FreeDOS and Linux ISO in order to reflash the Dell PERC in an R520 to support IT mode to use it with ZFS. I wondered the same thing - why can't it all be done from Linux - and found this recent issue where the maintainer says it just doesn't seem to be possible: https://github.com/Fohdeesha/lab-docu/issues/18

I have multiple machines with FreeDOS 1.2, and I am wondering what the upgrade process is.

sys c:

As far as I am aware, doing that only updates the kernel.

[1] Copy your CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files somewhere safe.

[2] Reinstall over the top.

[3] Make backups of the new CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT

[4] Put your old ones back.

[5] Adjust them to fit.

Renaming old FDOS to FOLD or something of the sort, backing up everything else and installing over... is a method that'd work.

But I sure hope is not the official upgrade method.

Can this be a base for Windows 3.1, 95 or 98?

AIUI: 3.x yes, 9x no.

I'm a bit confused on 3.x personally. What happened with the patches from last summer[1] -were they integrated into this release or are they some weird off-to-the-side thing that requires a special kernel to run?

[1]https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2021/09/13/as-reported-a-...

That's a fair question, but to be honest, I've not looked at that angle at all.

I will see if I can in my copious free time </ironic> but at present I'm trying to work out how to run it under DOSemu...

Nice! I've used FreeDOS in the past to edit SMBIOS entries for workstations such as asset tags.

> requires about half as many diskettes

Can a USB floppy disk drive be used with FreeDOS?

For install? Probably. I used a USB floppy to transfer files, but it did have to be connected at boot. Obviously, not a problem for installation.

This is not a canonical answer, because this question isn't amenable to a simple yes/no answer.

If you booted from the hard disk: no, but there are USB drivers for DOS you could load.

Some BIOSes support USB floppy drives and can fake them being DOS ones. So, on some machines, yes.

If you booted from a USB device: some (many?) BIOSes enable USB emulation via BIOS calls for all USB devices connected when the PC was booted from a DOS device. So in that case, yes.

Best answer I can give: maybe -- try it.

For install purposes, I'd recommend using memdisk to boot and then relying on etherdfs to access the install hdd image.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com