Talk:FreeDOS

Unicode?

Does FreeDOS and/or FreeDOS-32 support Unicode? I know the original MS-DOS did not, but was curious if FreeDOS does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.72.111 (talk • contribs) . 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe not. The FreeDOS wiki says nothing on the subject. The only mention of UTF-8 is in a description of a graphical browser for DOS which happens to support it. -- Pingumeister (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

With Win9x

With this diff [1] I am removing a bunch of superfluous information. The point of this tiny paragraph is to state that FreeDOS can not be used as the bootloader for Win9x. It's not a general discussion of the DOS usage of Win9x, which was incorrect anyways. In discussion of a bootloader, it is irrelevant whether DOS was available as a separate product. "will refuse to run on anything but versions of MS-DOS that came with them" is a POV statement, it's not about refusal, it's a basic design issue that DOS is being avoided entirely. This was also a recent edit that prompted my edit. "As a result, FreeDOS can not run Windows 95, 98, or Millennium Edition" Yes, that says the same thing the previous sentence did. We do not need to repeat ourselves. I also cut the list of boot-managers to only mention the one that comes with FreeDOS. We don't need a list, because any number of dozens can manage this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

GUI

The lead section says there is no default GUI, however, one can type "dosshell" and get to a GUI, although adding this to the installation options is required, I think. 161.31.231.60 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Link does not work without www?

Hi.

Matthiaspaul is reporting that www.freedos.org is not working without www for him. Of course, it works for me without www. (Firefox on Windows 7) So, I am a bit concerned. Could anyone else please try reproduce?

To reproduce, one has to manually enter "http://freedos.org" into the title bar.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you click on the link (in old revisions of this page) or did you enter the URL into the title bar? In the later case, the browser may auto-probe a number of common variants (including the link with www. added) after it has failed without it. Typing it into the title bar works for me as well, but clicking on the link without the www. doesn't. There are several possible reasons for this.

In general, it is invalid to assume that www.d.tld and d.tld are the same (although many web servers are configured to treat them this way for convenience) - these could even be different servers. Suppressing parts of the URL can even become a security issue.

I think, if available, we should use the URL as provided in the product documentation - if they use www or whatever, or if they specify a particular protocol, they might have their reasons - at least they will know their server configuration and will know what they documented in their documentation. Also, it is more likely that they will make sure that "documented" URLs will continue to work even when the site changes, whereas variants, which only worked "by chance" of a particular configuration may not. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I tested it in all the ways I could imagine, in several different web browsers.

Maybe it is my DNS server that is being smart.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

$ curl http://freedos.org/
curl: (6) Could not resolve host: freedos.org

In short: your browser is being "smart". — Keφr 08:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried nslookup just now and my DNS returns a non-authoritative redirect leading to www.freedos.org instead. It appears sometimes, one editor alone cannot do all the testing by himself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FreeDOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bensbits.com/2007/08/21/booting_dos_from_a_usb_flash_drive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision History table and citation concern

The Revision History table is linked to citation/note [13] which is an email from 2007. The table which cites this email also includes revisions with dates of 2012 and 2016 (which is yet in the future) that are not and could not be mentioned in 2007. Where is the proof of this future release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC23:7800:ED7A:D368:BB6F:2D67 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)