3 ms·

> Why didn't they push this instead of the very limited MS-DOS? Hardware requirements. For a (quite long) while the plan was to keep DOS for microcomputers an

> Why didn't they push this instead of the very limited MS-DOS? Hardware requirements. For a (quite long) while the plan was to keep DOS for microcomputers and Xenix for the serious stuff. DOS gained some extensions that made it very Xenix/UNIX-like (like subdirectories, pipes, "-" as command line switch char, device files in "\dev" instead of a global namespace, etc.).

progmetaldev 2y ago
I think for the time period, hobbyists can't be written off either. My dad got into Commodore and Atari in the late 70's/early 80's, and sparked my interest in software. Computing already wasn't cheap, but if the home consumer needed to pay for extra licensing fees, I could easily see adoption being far more limited to business. I think a lot of developers, myself included, got their start as hobbyists and never would have caught the "itch" to develop if for not this early exposure at home.
hjdiiokjs 2y ago
While MSDOS had subdirectories, pipes were not supported at the kernel level. It was simply a convenience of COMMAND.COM that simulated pipes by running each command sequentially. The command switch character was the slash (/) until the end, with the exception of a few non-standard third-party softwares insisting on the dash. Device names were always global namespace and \dev never existed in any form. Did you copy-paste an hallucinating LLM?
- lproven 2y ago
  No, it looks fair. MS-DOS 1.x did not have subdirectories. That came in with MS-DOS 2.x which is when the very rudimentary level of Xenix compatibility came in: device names such as `LPT1:` or `COM2:` could be prefixed as `/dev/lpt1` or `/dev/com2`. Pipes simulated in COMMAND.COM. I don't recall DOS ever accepting command switches prefixed with `-` instead of `\` as standard, though.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  The features were never turned on by default, so they are not popular knowledge (I used DOS since 2.x and never knew). https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/comment/171783/#Comment_171783 https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/comment/171783/#Comm... (devices in \dev, "-" as switch char, etc.). > While MSDOS had subdirectories, pipes were not supported at the kernel level. It was simply a convenience of COMMAND.COM that simulated pipes by running each command sequentially. You are confusing the lack of concurrency with lack of pipes -- the mere fact that COMMAND can do what you describe requires UNIX-like pipes and channels (e.g. stdin/out/err), and programs avoiding direct console I/O (way common for DOS programs...). Comm software such as Kermit did the same thing to simulate remote login (I used this one in the day, at least).
adamomada 2y ago
Hmm I remember switches always had to begin with “/“ in DOS

progmetaldev 2y ago

I think for the time period, hobbyists can't be written off either. My dad got into Commodore and Atari in the late 70's/early 80's, and sparked my interest in software. Computing already wasn't cheap, but if the home consumer needed to pay for extra licensing fees, I could easily see adoption being far more limited to business. I think a lot of developers, myself included, got their start as hobbyists and never would have caught the "itch" to develop if for not this early exposure at home.

hjdiiokjs 2y ago

While MSDOS had subdirectories, pipes were not supported at the kernel level. It was simply a convenience of COMMAND.COM that simulated pipes by running each command sequentially. The command switch character was the slash (/) until the end, with the exception of a few non-standard third-party softwares insisting on the dash. Device names were always global namespace and \dev never existed in any form. Did you copy-paste an hallucinating LLM?

lproven 2y ago
No, it looks fair. MS-DOS 1.x did not have subdirectories. That came in with MS-DOS 2.x which is when the very rudimentary level of Xenix compatibility came in: device names such as `LPT1:` or `COM2:` could be prefixed as `/dev/lpt1` or `/dev/com2`. Pipes simulated in COMMAND.COM. I don't recall DOS ever accepting command switches prefixed with `-` instead of `\` as standard, though.
AshamedCaptain 2y ago
The features were never turned on by default, so they are not popular knowledge (I used DOS since 2.x and never knew). https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/comment/171783/#Comment_171783 https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/comment/171783/#Comm... (devices in \dev, "-" as switch char, etc.). > While MSDOS had subdirectories, pipes were not supported at the kernel level. It was simply a convenience of COMMAND.COM that simulated pipes by running each command sequentially. You are confusing the lack of concurrency with lack of pipes -- the mere fact that COMMAND can do what you describe requires UNIX-like pipes and channels (e.g. stdin/out/err), and programs avoiding direct console I/O (way common for DOS programs...). Comm software such as Kermit did the same thing to simulate remote login (I used this one in the day, at least).

adamomada 2y ago

Hmm I remember switches always had to begin with “/“ in DOS