4 ms·
Strange that they list FreeDOS, DR-DOS and MS-DOS as separate OSes even though they are very similar. They are effectively ABI-compatible, unlike the different
by turol 3y ago
Strange that they list FreeDOS, DR-DOS and MS-DOS as separate OSes even though they are very similar. They are effectively ABI-compatible, unlike the different Unix flavors.
- pjmlp 3y agoAlmost, as everyone knows DR-DOS, MS-DOS and PC-DOS were like 99% compatible, the problem was when one was lucky enough to trip on that 1%, because they reverse engineered MS-DOS (even the IBM's PC-DOS license did not provide access to everything Microsoft was doing on MS-DOS).
- mattl 3y agoThey list OPENSTEP and NeXTSTEP as separate OSes too...
- pjmlp 3y agoAnd they were, NeXTSTEP did not run on Sun workstations. That would be like saying NextSTEP and OS X were the same as well.
- mattl 3y agoNeXTSTEP 3.3 released on SPARC and other non-NeXT 68k platforms.
- pjmlp 3y agoWhile I might stand corrected on that detail, OpenStep, OPENSTEP and NeXTSTEP had enough differences among themselves, with OpenStep also running on Windows, and many of the Sun's experiments with OpenStep own frameworks being on the genesis of Java and JavaEE.
- mattl 3y agoYeah, OPENSTEP for Mach (operating system) vs OpenStep (framework) vs OPENSTEP Enterprise (for Windows)
- coldacid 3y agoConsidering that DR-DOS is a linear descendant of CP/M with MS/PC-DOS ABI compatibility, it's certainly a separate OS. Same for FreeDOS. There's enough difference "under the hood" for each of them, however.