| 288 |
mateuszvis |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
%h*** Why would I want to use SvarDOS instead of FreeDOS? ***
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
The FreeDOS project is a free, open-source operating system that aims to be
|
|
|
5 |
100%% compatible with MS-DOS. And it is awesome. So why would I want to use
|
|
|
6 |
SvarDOS instead?
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
%hLong release cycles
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
The FreeDOS project began 29 June 1994. Version 1.0 came around in 2006.
|
|
|
11 |
Version 1.1 has been released in 2012, and the version 1.2 followed in
|
|
|
12 |
December 2016. This translates roughly to a 5-years release cycle. Granted,
|
|
|
13 |
the DOS scene is not as active as it used to be, but still, many things happen
|
|
|
14 |
during a few years. Such version-centric approach also requires users to
|
|
|
15 |
perform full-system upgrades every now and then.
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
SvarDOS is very different in this regard: there are no versions at all.
|
|
|
18 |
Whenever a new program is included into or updated within the distribution, it
|
|
|
19 |
becomes immediately available through the SvarDOS reposoitory and may be
|
|
|
20 |
pulled either through the SvarDOS website or SvarDOS' pkgnet tool. Already
|
|
|
21 |
installed systems can be easily kept up-to-date using the distribution's
|
|
|
22 |
package manager.
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
24 |
%hConstraints of legal nature
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
26 |
The FreeDOS project mimicks a proprietary operating system, with all its APIs
|
|
|
27 |
and peculiarities. For this reason, the project always had to be extremely
|
|
|
28 |
careful about what can and what cannot be included within the FreeDOS
|
|
|
29 |
distribution. As a result, only "free software" (as in freedom, think GPL,
|
|
|
30 |
BSD, and so on) can make its way into the official distribution. While such
|
|
|
31 |
cautious approach is sane and legally safe, it is far from practical for
|
|
|
32 |
users. Allowing exclusively free software means that a high number of useful
|
|
|
33 |
programs, tools and games are left behind. For example "freeware" tools (as in
|
|
|
34 |
"gratis but no source included") are a no-go. Even open-source programs can be
|
|
|
35 |
rejected, if they do not clearly state that they comply with an OSI-approved
|
|
|
36 |
license.
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
38 |
SvarDOS, on the other hand, is much more liberal about including packages.
|
|
|
39 |
Basically, anything that is objectively useful, of reasonable quality,
|
|
|
40 |
free/gratis and can be legally distributed in the form of a package, can be
|
|
|
41 |
included in SvarDOS. The only exception is for the "core" system (ie. the
|
|
|
42 |
operating system itself), which must be based exclusively on free/libre
|
|
|
43 |
software. Read more about %lpkgrules.ama:SvarDOS package inclusion rules%t.
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
45 |
%hFreeDOS included!
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
47 |
It must be noted, that altough the goals of SvarDOS and FreeDOS may be
|
|
|
48 |
slightly different, SvarDOS wouldn't exist without FreeDOS. Indeed, SvarDOS
|
|
|
49 |
uses the excellent FreeDOS kernel, as well as a few other utilities borrowed
|
|
|
50 |
from the FreeDOS ecosystem.
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
52 |
Read also: %lhistory.ama:SvarDOS history
|