From owner-freebsd-emulation Thu Jan 30 13:21:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA02178 for emulation-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [199.184.181.250]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02169 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:21:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from right.PCS (right.pcs. [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA12136 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:33:34 -0600 (CST) Received: (jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id VAA28991; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:24:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:24:10 -0600 From: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) To: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: doscmd vs ??? X-Mailer: Mutt 0.56e Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-emulation@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I've wanted to get into the kernel source, and figured that the vm86 emulation was as good of a place to start as any. So after a crash course on Intel architecture, and some mucking with the vm86 patches, I have doscmd running on a -current system. Running in this case being that I can run all the executables in testbin, as well as booting Dos 5.0, and running the instbsdi.exe binary, etc). I have no other Dos programs to run, simply because I don't own any DOS programs other than Dos5.0 and whatever install/support programs that came with the various hardware I've bought. I was looking at fixing the vm86 exit point from the kernel, as well as possibly adding in VME/VIF/VIP support, if I can figure out how. My question is what advantage does doscmd have over linux's dosemu? IE: why not just use dosemu, with the appropriate BSD kernel support? (And yes, I'm completely ignorant of intel architecture up until about a week ago.) -- Jonathan