Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: DOS/Windows under 386bsd (is there such?)
Message-ID: <1993May20.234750.5815@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1tgme7$n0q@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Thu, 20 May 93 23:47:50 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <1tgme7$n0q@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> kuku@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de writes:
>
>I have heard that Linux is capable of running a DOS emulator and
>even Win3.1 under it. Is it true and what are the chances that 386bsd
>will have this feature, too in the future.
The DOS-UNDER-UNIX phenomenon is predicated on a virtual machine and BIOS
for that virtual machine. From what I got from a cursory overview of the
Linus "DOS emulator" code, it won't run windows (which needs a 286/386/486)
because it's based on doing vm86() calls. There is also the problem of
getting a ROM image to run, presumably by raping an IBM XT owned by you
and dumping its ROMs "only for use when the XT is not turned on" to make
it quasi-legal.
Can someone more intimately familiar with the Linux "DOSEM" sources post
what processor DOS thinks it's running on and where the ROM images come
from? If the answer is "a 386", how does it get around the "page write"
bug and others to ensure that DOS doesn't find out it's being fooled?
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me