Linux.com

Feature

DR DOS lives

By Joe Barr on March 30, 2004 (9:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

<! READY TO EDIT/DISPLAY WHENEVER - JB> I'm probably not the only one around who thought DR DOS had seen its last headline. But there it was, on Yahoo PR News: DR-DOS 8.0 Ships, Advancing DOS as the Best Embedded OS. The much-storied DR DOS is now part of the DeviceLogics product line. DeviceLogics is a startup firm in Lindon, Utah, which is also home to The SCO Group. The two firms share some history as well as locale.

The tale began in 1991, when Novell purchased what was left of Digital Research, including of course, DR DOS. In 1996, Bryan Sparks, with a little help from Novell's Ray Noorda, founded Caldera, Incorporated. Caldera promptly bought DR DOS from Novell, and then launched an ultimately successful antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Successful in a financial sense, at least, as Microsoft settled the suit two weeks before it was scheduled to go to trial in January of 2000.

In 1998, Caldera, Incorporated split into two separate firms: Caldera Systems and Caldera Thin Clients. In 1999, Caldera Thin Clients changed its name to Lineo and moved into the embedded OS market. Caldera Systems -- using proceeds from the Microsoft DR DOS settlement -- purchased SCO Unix and UnixWare from SCO later in 2000.

Two years later, in recognition of the fact that most of its income was coming from proprietary Unix sales rather than Linux, Caldera Systems changed its name to the SCO Group. Also in 2002, Bryan Sparks co-founded a new firm called DeviceLogics, and promptly bought DR DOS for the second time.

Of course, as good as it was -- and obviously it was good enough to deeply trouble Bill Gates and company -- DR DOS was never as successful in the marketplace as it turned out to be in the courtroom. Perhaps it will find its niche in the embedded space. Bryan Sparks is betting it does. He is quoted in this week's announcement as saying, "DR-DOS is the fastest-to-market, the most reliable -- and with new FAT32 and Linux extensions -- the absolute best operation system for single-task embedded devices."

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on DR DOS lives

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Sue How can it have Linux extentions

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 30, 2004 09:22 PM
Number one how can it have Linux extentions without have sections of the linux kernel embeded.

Linux kernel is GPL licence. And this is plain and simple. Linux is a refence to the Linux Kernel and programs that run on the Linux kernel. Basic they have either nicked code or missused the Linux Trademark.

Either way they should be in it up to there neck.

#

Re:Sue How can it have Linux extentions

Posted by: Daniel Watkins on March 30, 2004 11:32 PM
Well, there are drivers for Windows to access ext2/3 drives, and they are not illegal. Presumably there is a similar arrangement...

#

Problem Ext2/Ext3 Is Not Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2004 03:28 PM
Ext2/Ext3 filesystems are supported by FreeBSD NetBSD.. and Linux(the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. includes some Unixs too)

Basicly Ext2 and Ext3 is not Linux due to it being a part in many other Operating Systems. Basicly there is almost no Filesystem that is Linux own. Basicly some other Operating system will access it. Most windows Ext2 drivers I have seen are either build from scratch or build from the OpenBSD source(Ext2/Ext3 specs are completely Open any company can write a driver to use it).

If it has Ext2 and Ext3 support Say that. Basicly that is what linux has Ext2/Ext3/... Support. A linux system is most commonly Installed on Ext3 but there are many other filesystems that work just fine in it Support List. Note if a better filesystem comes a long and a driver is created for Linux there will be a distro somewhere using it.

Note FreeBSD has elf support allowing it to run linux apps. Note the wording. That Elf format was created by Sun microsystems and Linux just happens to use it. As you will find with most parts in linux that there open standards created by other groups and used because they are the best fit for the job. So by claiming Linux Extentions in a lot of cases you can be cutting out IP credit that the ones who made that standard are due.

#

Not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 30, 2004 09:34 PM
I imagine that it's no different having DR-DOS read a Linux filesystem than it is for Linux to read, say Fat32 or NTFS. I know I would be p****d off if MS demanded royalties every time my Linux partition accessed my Windows partition.

#

Problem Ext2/Ext3 Is Not Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2004 03:19 PM
Ext2/Ext3 filesystems are supported by FreeBSD NetBSD.. and Linux(the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. includes some Unixs too)

Basicly Ext2 and Ext3 is not Linux due to it being a part in many other Operating Systems. Basicly there is almost no Filesystem that is Linux own. Basicly some other Operating system will access it. Most windows Ext2 drivers I have seen are either build from scratch or build from the OpenBSD source.

If it has Ext2 and Ext3 support Say that. Basicly that is what linux has Ext2/Ext3/... Support. A linux system is most commonly Installed on Ext3 but there are many other filesystems that work just fine in it Support List. Note if a better filesystem comes a long and a driver is created for Linux there will be a distro somewhere using it.

#

maybe this one will work

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 30, 2004 11:20 PM
SCO Linux business - didn't work
SCO UNIX business - didn't work
SCO DOS business - who knows ?

Maybe they get lucky this time, so they would not
have to earn their salaries in court.

DG

#

Re:maybe this one will work

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2004 03:31 AM
SCO does not own DR-DOS,DeviceLogics does. BTW you can now buy a license for $20 for a DR-DOS boot/system disk so you don't have to rip off MS to make those DOS boot disks for flashing firmware..etc.

#

Re:maybe this one will work

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2004 06:07 AM
FreeDOS (www.freedos.org) will work for this situation (and many others) most of the time as well - so I didn't have to buy MS-DOS before either.

#

Why DR DOS when FreeDOS is available?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2004 07:17 AM
You can find a free, unencumbered DOS clone at www.freedos.org. It's quite good. Why anyone would license a proprietary DOS kernel when FreeDOS is available is beyond me.

#

Re:Why DR DOS when FreeDOS is available?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2004 09:12 PM
How is the MS-DOS compatibility of FreeDOS these days? Last time I looked (admittedly a while back), it wasn't that great. DR-DOS by contrast has long been an almost perfect clone (good enough to make MS so worried so that they explicitly added code to Windows 3.1 to make it break if it was run on DR-DOS. The famous AARD code). Its development started already back in the 80's by the same guys who had created CP/M - and initially MS-DOS itself was a just a clone of CP/M ported to 8086. So if nothing else, the DR-DOS authors have had a much longer time to get MS-DOS compatibility right.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya