Re: Using Debian to manage a multiple OS machine

On 8/22/24 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 > On 22/08/2024 06:06, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 >> Geez, remember when DOS came on ONE floppy ?
 >>    You could DO STUFF with it, rather COMPLEX
 >>    stuff actually. Not a 'toy' system. Even the
 >>    smallest usable Linux requires a LOT more space.
 >
 > The correct counter to that is to point out that in no wise was DOS an
 > 'operating system' - it was only a program loader.
   Ummm ... no ... more than that - and ENOUGH for a LOT
   of practical applications.
 > In fact you could entirely bypass it to write directly to the hardware
 > and many industrial applications did exactly that, yea even unto running
 > their own multitaskers  and so on.
   You can write directly to the hardware in Linux too, IF
   you can find the instructions. It's "not recommended"
   of course ...
 > concurrent CP/M was about the smallest multiuser multitasker OS that was
 > ever crammed onto an 8086 platform IIRC. Or there might have been a real
 > time one or two  as well.
   I don't remember a RTOS version of CP/M - but someone
   may have given it a shot. Even way back in the day there
   were a few RTOS - OS-9 being perhaps most prominent
   (still being sold) which is "Unix-ish".
   The diffs between CP/M and DOS were relatively few.
   I think it WAS a good idea to bring 'pip' into the
   OS kernel however.
 > Linux by its nature sets out to be an unrestricted UNIX like system,.
 > complete with all the complexity and bells and whistles needed to have
 > multiple users, multiple processes , interprocess communications,
 > daemons to handle single thread hardware like a disk, multi-layered
 > security, and the ability to intersperse drivers in a rigorous manner to
 > access arbitrary hardware.
   I agree that Linux/Unix are generally "better" than DOS/Win.
   However there IS a price.
   > In short it is a complete multitasking multiuser general purpose
 > operating system and you simply cannot compare it with DOS.
 >
 > SCO Unix needed a 386 to run - only Venix IIRC ran off a 286 - badly.
   I remember the 286 - it was considered a big improvement
   at the time - 8-Mhz clock ! The 386 was 'better' yet in
   a larger number of ways.
 > It was extremely successful because it actually worked. At an affordable
 > price
 >
 > I've seen 256 users  via serial cards running on a 386 running SCO.
 > Extreme, but possible, but 64k users was a more normal limit with 32
 > being normal.
   Oh, very capable, no question - esp for the time. DID need
   more CPU/Mem than DOS however. Biz/govt could afford it,
   Joe User, not so much. Wasn't long after that 'terminal'
   users, well, nobody wanted it anymore - they all wanted
   nice GUIs.
 > We ran about 150 over telnet at one point once the TCP/IP worked....:-)
 >
 > This was PDP/VAX territory ...at a price people could afford.
   Yet sales were not enough to keep it alive. This
   wasn't an M$ propaganda thing either, 'natural
   selection' more instead. FEW wanted/needed what
   Unix could do - on PC boxes anyhow. On larger
   corp/govt/ed systems Unix did much better. Made
   some guy named Linus kinda jealous .....
   If you liked the 8088/86 era, there's still 'ELKS'
   embeddable Linux kernel ... that IS very tiny.