more like homo users

>>101534646
Every time I try to use DOS I get filtered and quit. I don't know how to open or run anything.

>>101534675
Literally just type the name of the program you want to run.

>>101534646
>DOS/CPM
These didn't have a "file structure." CP/M didn't even have folders. What did you mean by this?

>>101534747
That didnt work doe

>>101534804
I mean the way it handles partitions. You know, A: B: C: D:, instead of dumping everything partition into one communal system together like UNIX.
>These didn't have a "file structure."
DOS most certainly did. It has directories, subdirectories, and can handle up to 26 separate partitions or drives at once. I'll take your word for it with CP/M though.

>>101534807
The name includes the file extension. So edit is edit.exe or edit.com. Cd opens directories, cd.. closes them. Dir lists every file in a directory.

>>101534646
I'm literally too stupid for the DOS way. I just don't understand it. The unix way just makes sense and is the easiest to understand

>>101535076
>OS doesn't recognize file extensions
how is it better for the home user again? i cant even type what i see and get the result i expect

>>101534646
maybe for floppy drives

>>101535052
>mkdir /C
>mount /dev/sdb1 /C
issue fixed

A home user shouldn't even know that directories outside his home directory exists, and he should not have any write permissions on other directories anyway. So it is completely irrelevant for a home user what the file structure looks like.

>>101535052
>I mean the way it handles partitions. You know, A: B: C: D:, instead of dumping everything partition into one communal system together like UNIX.
flexibility is a feature, anon. this system is what allows cool things like NixOS.

>>101534646
backslashes as path separators? srsly?

>>101535052
>I'll take your word for it with CP/M though.
Classic /g/ opining on shit when they don't even know the basics.

>>101535094
>OS doesn't recognize file extensions
When did I say that? It does recognize file extensions, that's how it nows which programs are executable and which ones aren't.
>i cant even type what i see and get the result i expect
If you type DIR, it will respond with a list of file names which include the extension as part of the name. So you want to run doom, you CD to DOOMS, type DIR, seem DOOM.EXE, and then just type DOOM.EXE to run it. You literally do type what you see, exactly what you see.

>>101535237
My point was about separating partitions rather than keeping them together, which CP/M does. You'll never confuse the contents of drive A: with the contents of drive B: on CP/M.

>>101535245
>It does recognize file extensions, that's how it nows which programs are executable and which ones aren't.
You just said that if I have two files named "edit.exe" and "edit.com" in the same folder I have 0 way to distinguish between which one to open because you would run either by just typing "edit"
Clearly a shit OS, linux won

>>101535084
I don't see how. The DOS way is dead simple. Just the blank prompt alone already tells you what drive and folder you're in, along with every folder in the tree above it.

>>101534646
windows has advantages if you have lots of plug and play devices. but in general i prefer the everything-is-under-root style.
i wasn’t a linux user during the cd/dvd rom maybe i would have felt different then

>>101534646
they both suck.
an ideal system would allow for software to have a predictable stable address of user owned content regardless of user. neither offers that.

>>101535285
No, if you want to run edit.exe you type edit.exe, if you want to run edit.com you type edit.com .

File: 1720484485051.jpg (14 KB, 250x188)

14 KB JPG

>>101534646
>trying to find game save
>look in two different program files folder
>check the two different local folders and roaming in appdata
>nada
>where the fuck is it??
>go to user folder
>click the my documents hidden file shortcut on accident for legacy software
>wonder why it does nothing instead of just dropping me into documents
>where the fuck is my save wtf
>its in the "saved games folder"
>good. transfer it.
>game's settings didn't transfer tho so now all the options are fucked up
>wtf
>for some reason the settings save is in the appdata folder
WHY

>>101534646
I'd like to just go, cd sdb <enter>
>>101535084
It's literally the most basic operating system ever.

>>101535173
If it were flexible it would let me do it either way. This is just rigid to a different model. The other model might be more versatile, but it can still only do the one thing.
>NixOS
Never used it, what's it do?

This is actually one of the things I hate about Windows.

>>101535052
I see value in both, it does give a nice sense of consistency with drive letters for average users, with UNIX it’s pretty neat that you can essentially have any directory or subdirectories point to any hard drive you want, or even an image file, to RAM and what have you. Made use of that at work plenty of times.

>>101535118
Yes, it is useful if I have multiple drives which I hotswap often. Just because you run your PC like a media server doesn't mean everyone else does.

>>101535129
Ok, cool. Is there a way I can hide the root directory and force every program to treat my drives as separate drives whenever I ask them to save files somewhere.

>>101535160
Why not? He owns the whole computer. Thats the kind of thing you'd do for a system with multiple simultaneous users.

Why for the love of god can you map a drive to a folder in Windows, but you can't map a network location to a folder, only to a drive letter. This is so fucking stupid.

>>101535321
I usually have multiple OS partitions which I format often and a storage partition which I don't, in addition to a few disc drives. Linux throws a wrench in this by not staying in its allotted partition.

>>101535415
I didn't say that's its a bad system, just that the windows system is better for home use. I can definitely see how it would be great for an environment with a lot of users and a lot of drives all dedicated to the same task. But for a single user who wants to have all his movies on one partition, his games on another, and his OS on the third one, it really sucks.

>>101535353
That's more of a mixing legacy and modern software problem.

>>101535473
>Why for the love of god can you map a drive to a folder in Windows
When did they add that?

>start dosbox
>have no idea how to move to d:
yeah, great directory structure indeed

>>101535407
Care to explain why?

>>101534646
cd c:\program files
folder program not found.

>>101535586
ages ago

>>101535593
You literally typed the command in your post. Its D:

Amiga's directory scheme was much better.
DH0: , DH1: ,... were you hard disks
DF0:, DF1, ... your floppy drives
RAM: was your ram disk

Additionally it would assign directories to logical drives, like SYS: for your root, C: for your commands, etc.. You could also assign custom ones yourself.

>>101534646
normal users don't know what a filesystem is, or even understand the concepts of files and folders anymore

>>101535586
possible in 8.1 from disk manager

>>101535615
How long is "ages"? I haven't used any Windows versions newer than 7.

>>101535633
Well I don't know for sure, but I think you were able to do it with W7, I assume it's an NTFS feature.

File: 1354.jpg (39 KB, 500x500)

39 KB JPG

>>101534664
fpbp

>>101535442
>Is there a way I can hide the root directory and force every program to treat my drives as separate drives whenever I ask them to save files somewhere.
What would satisfy this condition for you? Linux file pickers already put all the drives in a sidebar that you can navigate directly. GTK's file picker already doesn't show / in the sidebar and KDE's lets you hide it. What more do you want?

>>101535627
Wow, that is better. Why did Amiga have to die and the dogshit we have now live?

>>101535613
skill issue

>>101535555
>But for a single user who wants to have all his movies on one partition, his games on another, and his OS on the third one
how is C, D, and E better than /media/movies, /media/games and /?

>>101535676
>>101535613
This fails on any file system, but the sensible thing would be to give the folder a name with no spaces. Fuck Windows.

>>101535613
That should work, windows knows to account for spaces in file names, and if for some reason it doesn't you can just put it in quotes like DOS users did.

>>101535457
Because the system should do all the administration stuff for me. I don't care where all the files of a program are, my package manager handles that for me.

>>101535700
Because I can't tell if media is the partition or just a folder on a partition.

>>101535676
cd my documents
folder my not found

File: file.png (12 KB, 460x256)

12 KB PNG

>>101535707
are you retarded?

>>101535711
ive been screwing with wine cmd lately, it doesnt work, i needed the ""

>>101535712
I don't like package managers and I really don't like my computer handling the administrative work for me. I want to decide for myself everything that goes on my computer and where it goes, which is much easier when the drives are clearly separated from each other.

>>101535744
You fucking mongoloid.

cd Program Files

Fails on any filesystem. Holy shit how did you not understand what I meant?

>>101535726
Can't tell in Windows either since you can map folders and network shares to drive letters.

>>101535749
Probably a WINE thing then. It works fine on both my XP and my 7 machine.

bsd has a lovely file structure. im a linux user and bsd is beautiful in many places in how it makes sense. of course home dir is in /usr, why wouldnt it be.

>>101535765
I wonder how you solved the captcha.

>>101535794
I accept your concession.

>>101535771
I never do that though, and by default everything is sorted based on the partition its located on. On Linux, everything because a scattered mixed up mess is the default.

>>101535473
You can create a symlink to a network path. I just tried it, it works.

>>101535810
*everything being a scattered mess

>>101535810
What do you expect from them? They can't even put a space in their folders without being unable to navigate into them.

>>101535832
Interesting, I did not know that.

File: file.png (8 KB, 466x172)

8 KB PNG

>>101535613
>>101535707
>>101535765
I switched on my Windows PC for this screenshot.

cd program files

works just fine in Windows you retard, and it has for a long time.

>>101535834
That's a problem on windows too, just not as often. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Case sensitive file names bother me more.

>>101535834
i rely on tab completion so much that i forget the syntax when it isnt there, like in older cmd.

>>101535882
"folder name"

>>101535857
isnt command prompt in modern windows just powershell again?

>>101534646
It is more straightforward. And I guess it also translates better to GUI, in a file manager it's just natural to click on the icon of a drive and go inside, the linux file managers do this as well, but the drive could have been mounted anywhere and it certainly can be confusing for an average user.

>dude just put all your config files in /etc/ etc means config because.... It just does ok??
>/var/ holds some temporary files that are used by programs, no not /tmp/ that's other kind of temporary lmao
>system programs in /bin/, user programs in /usr/bin, local programs in /local/bin
>what's the difference? well they're all different programs duh lol..... oh yeah server programs are in /sbin/ unless they're USER server programs then it's /usr/sbin
>ah yeah the whole structure repeats in /usr/ and also /local/ because it has to ok? oh no you don't copy the files just symlink to the actual file what are you stupid?? lol
>now there's /opt/ with the same repeat file structure ... yes lol
this shit's been going for decades, freetrannies will try to con you into backwards compatibility being the reason but the shit can't even properly run a simple binary compiled 2 kernel versions ago most of the time kek what a joke

>>101535762
Then just mount the drives to different directories in your home directory. Then what I said still holds; the user should not care about the filesystem outside of his home directory.

>>101535765
>>101535707
>>101535613
>>101535857
Windows is very sloppy in how it handles quotes.
All the following work
cd Program" "Files
cd "Program Files
cd """"Program Files
cd "Program" Files
cd Program Files """"

>>101535997
install GoboLinux

>>101535997
For all their talk about letting you "have your OS your way" they're awful restrictive with how the file system works.

>>101536044
What's it do?

>>101536001
Then how do I know what drive different programs are on? What about system files?

>>101534646
sour grapes since you can't afford a Mac.

>>101536074
retard, this whole mess happened precisely because it's not restrictive at all. FHS is a convention, not a set of rules, and many distros conciously deviate from it.

>>101536074
the alternative is having a registry.
those are fun.

>>101535502
Wtf are you talking about

>>101536088
it just tricks you into everything being distributed properly in the filesystem, in reality it's just working with the same retarded structure underneath the table, just doesn't tell you and shows you a different one made up by the devs instead
troonilicious as fuck

>>101536025
yikes

>>101536144
so fun both kde and gnome have one
fucking retard

>>101534646
Even on Windows, I'm still relying on GNU, so looks like never

>>101536001
you have tho on linux everytime an application isn't in the repository

>>101536172
>just doesn't tell you and shows you a different one
so whats your fucking problem?

>>101536155
Hierarchical filesystem treats all the drives as if they're all part of one big drive, rather than clearly separating them like Windows's tree system.

>>101536143
>many distros conciously deviate from it
Could you name a few? I can't find any on Google.

>>101535442
>hide the root directory
gobohide
>>101536172
>troonilicious as fuck

>>101536109
read the man pages for whereis and ls, maybe for lsblk and df/du too. should list the syntax youd need to identify that sort of thing.

>>101536144
You can just choose not to use the registry. I hardly ever use the registry on windows, I just make folder in program files, copy the executable to it, and put a shortcut in the start menu folder.

>>101536172
>balls

>>101536180
they dont? not to rely on telling apps where other apps they need are installed to.

>>101535076
>The name includes the file extension
wrong, you can run executables just by typing the name without extension - .bat, .exe, .com can be omitted
batch files take precedence over exe/com

>>101534807
most likely you tried to run something that was outside of %PATH%

>>101536251
Why do I have to do all that shit just to find out what drive a program is in? On sensible operating systems the address bar or terminal would tell me without me needing to ask.

>>101535911
You choose whether you want to start cmd or powershell. They continue to exist side by side. The only thing that changed is when you shift+righ click in a folder, you get to open it in powershell now, but it's possible to toggle it to use cmd instead.

>>101536270
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf

>>101536237
>Gobohide
Doesn't gobo organize everything by program? I want everything separated by partition.

>>101535586
at least Win2000, possibly NT4.0 or earlier

>>101536298
>Why do I have to do all that shit just to find out what drive a program is in?
cos you are an idiot that didnt keep track of how you set your system up?
if you mount a drive to program files folder in windows presumably youd remember doing that, because the only way to find out its been done is going back into disk manager and looking at the disk properties

>>101536299
I still don't know what's actually different between the two

>>101536109
>Then how do I know what drive different programs are on?
I responded to >>101535762 (You)
>I want to decide for myself everything that goes on my computer and where it goes
Then you are supposed to know where all the stuff is.

>>101536202
A home user can just install the application in his home directory.

>>101536218
Your file manager separates the drives for you anyways. Home users don't work with a command line. Back when I was 14, nearly 17 years ago, I installed Linux. I didn't have trouble understanding either paradigm.

>>101536313
and what does this have to do with having freedom of the file structure? my understanding of dconf was tweaking settings that otherwise didnt have gui.
if the os has expected install locations, it wont need to put them into registry. this is what that anon was complaining about, file system strict.
if the os lets you put things wherever, it will need to mark that down in registry. this is what that anon wanted, freedom.

>>101536319
Yes, then symlink everything into the arcane /etc, /bin, /lib and so on. You can do all kinds of crazy shit with mount, and partitions are mounted into directories. Sounds like you're used to the Windows way of thinking about computers.

>>101536333
I don't mount drives to folders because that's an ass backwards way of doing things.

>>101536395
anon i...

>>101536395
No, it's quite simply how it's done.

>>101536339
>Then you are supposed to know where all the stuff is.
I suppose I'd know which folder its in. Still no clue which drive its on. On Windows its blatantly obvious which drive its on.

>>101536341
I work with a command line all the time. It should match what the file manager does for ease of use. And the last time I used Linux it did, by not separating things by drive in the file manager.

>>101536394
Yes, I am because its a better way of thinking of it. This hierarchical shit is unnecessarily complex.

>>101536460
Of course you know, you mounted it. Say you switch from windows to linux and are used to your drives are c:, d:, and e:. Then you can just mount the drives to directories called c:, d:, and e:.

>>101535160
>t. e bussy

>>101536410
Are you trying to imply that diskpart automatically assigning a drive letter is the same as doing this symlink shit?

>>101536511
Where's the root folder? Where's the stuff that's not in those directories?

>>101536549
Since I advocate for home users to only use their home directories, I suggest the root folder be the users home directory.

>>101536334
powershell uses objects, cmd uses text. A dumb cli application can run on both, but if it you want to pipe the output to another dumb cli program, then you may want to use cmd for that. If you want to access information about running processes, services, or have a more powerful and easier to use scripting environment then powershell is the way to go.

>>101536575
So would that put every single directory and file on the system inside its corresponding lettered drive deirctory?

>>101534646
file paths using backslashes is gay tho

>>101536612
Backslashes are based, forwardslashes are mega gay

>>101536610
Again, I am replying to this:
>I don't like package managers and I really don't like my computer handling the administrative work for me. I want to decide for myself everything that goes on my computer and where it goes
If (You) don't want to let the computer handle this, then you will have to do that yourself. And then you are free to do whatever you want.

I don't recommend it, because I do not agree with the premise. Personally, I would do the opposite and just build a big filesystem over multiple drives and let the system choose on which physical drive the data gets written, like ZFS does it.

>>101536510
It can get extremely complex, but managing that complexity is the way forwards. Take mac os dmg files. They are mounted onto the file system, and ubuntu snap does a similar thing. There are so many ways you can build filesystems, and dismissing powerful tools because the result can get too complex, is short sighted

i thought the same thing because i grew up on it. but learning a different os family is like learning a different language (not a programming language.) you think drive letters are natural because it's what you grew up on. working on windows you run into an issue with the opacity of your own system, where a lot of certain kind of design decisions are hidden away from you and you take them for granted. you're basically stuck in a singular viewpoint right now, and it's mostly based in not really understanding how a filesystem works, how your computer works with hard drives, etc.

it's important to note, thinking about them as "drive letters" is misleading. they're not drive letters, they're filemodes. they're a primitive version of folders used in the cms filesystem.

your largest complaint seems to be that you expect the system to manage your top-level node on a per-drive basis. but ask yourself, why is that advantageous? under what circumstances is it actually useful to make that an automatic function of the system?

you underline the importance of knowing what file correlates to which peripheral, but you haven't considered that's not how drive mapping works. one drive letter can correlate to two partitions (logical or not) and one partition (logical or not) can correlate to two drive letters. windows has most of the synthetic filesystem features of unix, and is fully capable of building a cyclic graph. it offers you no real guarantees, not any more than unix does. all it does is restrict your own ability to define your structure in a logical way, and it does this by presenting it as an additional abstraction with many contradictions.

consider the following:
i mount my drives into root-level folders on my system. /data, /sec, and more. all correlate to a single disk. if a disk has multiple logical partitions, i can correlate them as a subdirectory of the parent folder. i can't do that on windows.

>>101536703
I don't care if its the way forward. It serves no purpose for me apart from making everything I do on my pc harder.

File: image.png (13 KB, 240x320)

13 KB PNG

>>101534646
I prefer the Windows CE structure
Everything is under /

>>101536670
nuh uh, forward slash is comfy like a url. backslash is psychological warfare, wearing you down by making you go back and fix your path

>>101536799
>>101536510
it genuinely makes it simpler anon. there are less abstractions in play, you have fewer things to keep in your head, there are no edgecases, no traps, no surprises.

you see complexity because you're not letting go of your a prioris. you're trying to understand a different paradigm through the lens of your old preconceptions. release the attachment.

>>101536719
>but ask yourself, why is that advantageous? under what circumstances is it actually useful to make that an automatic function of the system?
The one where I quad boot OSes and regularly hotswap external drives and use CDs. I use my OS the same way someone in 1975 would, to manage disks and partitions.
>one drive letter can correlate to two partitions (logical or not) and one partition (logical or not) can correlate to two drive letters.
Couldn't it just not though? I'd rather it eliminate the capability entirely than allow those utterly useless and confusing scenarios to exist.
>but you haven't considered that's not how drive mapping works
Then it should work like that. Maybe this is all just smoke and mirrors and windows is really just doing everything UNIX does, but painted to look like DOS, but its comprehensible and it works. Without requiring me to do all these complex workarounds that other anons have suggested.

>>101535643
I want thumbnails in the file picker. Linux falls short in this regard.

>>101536854
>URL
>Comfy
Pick one and only one

File: smug.png (204 KB, 656x679)

204 KB PNG

>>101536970
urls are comfy cos i can talk to my friends through them

>>101536695
As an aside the NT ZFS port seems to have RC releases.
https://github.com/openzfsonwindows/openzfs/releases

>>101535649
commodore took quality over quantity approach and simply got outsold and outcast from the market

>>101536859
>there are less abstractions in play,
Couldn't you just program the OS in such a way that its actually organizing files like that, rather than doing it as an abstraction?

>it genuinely makes it simpler anon.
Maybe for you it does. Doesn't for me. The DOS way of thinking is based on the idea that you have multiple drives, disks, or cartridges which you will be swapping out regularly. It makes sense to think in terms of the physical medium the files are on when you have to manage that physical medium yourself to use the computer. The UNIX way of thinking is predicated on the idea that you have a set of hard drives which hold all of your files for easy access. It doesn't matter whether those drives are in a rack on a web server, on your home server, on an external drive, or on the drive inside your pc, they're all readily accessible. Then it makes sense to not think about drives at all. I still use CDs, DVDs, and external media which I swap regularly for everything. So I'm always thinking in terms of drives. Trying to do it your way means I constantly have to switch between the two ways of thinking.

>>101537037
>Friends
>4chan
I don't even have to tell you to pick one.

>>101536695
Wouldn't installing linux still put some system files outside of the fake drive letters?

File: media_GQsTXJJWQAAJgYW.jpg (422 KB, 2048x1412)

422 KB JPG

>>101536948
>The one where I quad boot OSes and regularly hotswap external drives and use CDs.
My workflow on Unix systems is no different from my workflow on Windows systems in this regard. In fact, I've grown to find working in Windows to be quite clunky, because it offers me far worse ability to handle organization when hotswapping devices. The amount of configuration required to do much of the same thing ends up being astronomical in comparison. I can't even copy my configuration between systems on Windows!

>Couldn't it just not though?
Nope. That's actually been the entire purpose of the system from day 1. It's why it's organized the way that it is in the first place.
>I'd rather it eliminate the capability entirely than allow those utterly useless and confusing scenarios to exist.
They enable the filesystem to work the way it does. Filemodes are an abstraction like any other. They don't really correspond to a tangible concept. It's all software making very opinionated choices. You've worked backwards from those choices and assigned an interpretation of them, but the expectation you have isn't even really truly coherent. Even after the complex process of talking to a peripheral is filtered through layers upon layers of abstraction, the expectation you have can't be arrived at.

>Then it should work like that.
>its comprehensible and it works
Unfortunately, then the system would be very different.
This is because it's what you're most familiar with. Your understanding, even your a prioris, stem entirely from the years upon years you've lived under this paradigm. To the point that you misinterpret and misunderstand it. Probably because it's complicated and genuinely unintuitive, thus the truths of it are impossible to glean from the standpoint of a black box.

Just keep at learning Unix. It takes time and immersion to learn a different OS family, anon. It feels strange and difficult, but that's merely the sensation of your mind expanding. It will click.

these zoomers have not even used real unix unlike me who has used real ms-dos in 1995.

>>101537296
>That's actually been the entire purpose of the system from day 1. It's why it's organized the way that it is in the first place.
What about on non-unixlike systems? Did DOS do it?

>>101537296
You're just using flowery language to make it sound like its the system for "educated intellectuals like myself". You haven't explained anything.

>>101534646
why not both
>/home/user/.local/share/Steam/steamapps/compatdata/appid/pfx/drive_c/users/steamuser/AppData/Local/

>>101537397
The worst of both worlds

>>101537169
>Couldn't you just program the OS in such a way that its actually organizing files like that, rather than doing it as an abstraction?
That's precisely what an abstraction is anon. But the problem with naive filesystems is that they're not very robust. You don't have things like journalling which stand between you and total unrecoverable corruption. You need a way to navigate around the disk according to your tables, which involves working with a hidden tree-like system and engaging in a conversation with hardware which isn't exactly uniform (nor can it be. The considerations involved with a DVD are wildly different from those of a Hard Disk, believe it or not)

This isn't even getting into considerations of optimization, or the underlying data structures necessary to turn streams of bytes into recognizable "directories" in a tree. In the course of using a computer, so much is hidden away from you, it's genuinely awe-striking. All of the handling of that complexity, of that optimization imposes additional considerations onto the user-facing manifestation of these things. Most everything is a "node" but in your system what are we to do if a node's identity is found somewhere else? We need to inherently be able to understand and detect this. Routing it properly from there is so simple to do that making it simply error out may as well be actively hostile. You end up putting in more work to reduce the flexibility and usability of your system for a niche idea that may or may not even be logically consistent or doable.

>Maybe for you it does. Doesn't for me.
Logical entropy is a quantifiable thing. A system with one kind of folder is inherently simpler from a system with two (filemodes + directories represents two versions of the same thing)
Much of your difficulty arises from the unfamiliarity, not from any difference in complexity. Appreciating the difference in complexity comes later. It gets better, but it requires exposure and time.

>>101537397
dealing with steamos is rageworthy but not as rageworthy as just installing windows

>>101537344
File modes have remained relatively unchanged since the later versions of CP/CMS, as far as I'm aware. Unix has never used file modes.

>>101535052
Fine

mkdir /C: /D: /E: /F:

happy now?

>>101537594
>A system with one kind of folder is inherently simpler from a system with two
It doesn't matter how complex the part I don't interact with is. What matters is how intuitive the front facing part that I use is.
>Much of your difficulty arises from the unfamiliarity, not from any difference in complexity.
I don't want to be any more familiar with UNIX file structures than I already am. I've seen enough of it to know that its terrible for my use case and that I hate using it. My use case is managing disks (not just hard, but floppy and optical as well), which is something a Disk Operating System (or something imitating one) does better than a UNIX-like.

>>101537675
Does anything exist outside of those? Will programs be able to install outside of those? The only thing I'll accept existing outside of that is the bootloader. Otherwise, no I'm not happy.

>>101537307
I would unironically use a modern DOS if it had driver support.

>>101534646
when will you stop being a faggot and stop AI bot posting garbage all day? Its fucking nauseating...

>>101537887
I haven't AI botposted once, these are my actual opinions. I think >>101537594 might be botposting though.

>>101537377
>You're just using flowery language to make it sound like its the system for "educated intellectuals like myself"
Why do you feel that way? You're working backwards from a conclusion (People who like unix are arrogant -> this person likes unix -> this person is being arrogant)
This is just how I write when I'm being careful with my words and putting thought into the things I say.

I was once in your position. Now I am not. From this standpoint I realize much of the difficulty I had with Unix, and the problems I had with its philosophy, were simply because it was unfamiliar with it. It was a different way of thinking about things. Learning different perspectives takes a lot of time, and it can be frustrating. That's true in all cases. It's why language learning is so difficult. It's why people who don't grow up with computers find them to be difficult.
You might not understand everything I write, that's fine. The takeaway from that isn't "this person thinks they're better than me." That's getting defensive, and while it's an understandable reflex, all it will do is cause misunderstanding. The takeaway from that should be "Maybe I need to think on things a bit more."

At no point do I put you down, imply you're stupid, anything like that. I underline that I empathize with you, and I speak to my experience as someone who's moved beyond your current mindset. That's not an attack on you as a person, and you shouldn't take it as one. I'm you from the future, not the devil come to poke you with a stick.

>>101537767
>My use case is managing disks (not just hard, but floppy and optical as well)
>does better
And my use case is the exact same, and I'm dead serious in saying there's not a problem here. I know exactly why you feel the way you do, because I felt that same feeling. And then things clicked and I realize it was simply a matter of my own unfamiliarity. The problems were only ever because I didn't yet build up the familiarity to understand unix. The fact you think floppy and optical drives are handled in a radically different way from any other kind of block device should scream to you that you aren't quite "getting it", as though these are obscure and esoteric technologies.

I admit it but will still use Linux because Windows has become unusable.

>>101538150
>You're working backwards from a conclusion (People who like unix are arrogant -> this person likes unix -> this person is being arrogant)
You shouldn't make assumptions like that. My logic is ("intellectuals" and academics use overly flowery and scientific language to purposely hide how how stupid or unjustified their positions actually are -> you're using equivalently flowery language to advocate for a position which you've barely explained and which seems stupid to me -> you're doing it on purpose to hide how stupid and unjustified your position is.)

>The takeaway from that should be "Maybe I need to think on things a bit more."
I've had quite a lot of time to think about this and quite a lot of time to try and get used to it. Years. And from those years I've learned that I hate it, and no amount of exposure is going to make me stop hating it. As a matter of fact I've come to hate it more as I spent more time with it.

>I'm you from the future, not the devil come to poke you with a stick.
I'd prefer the devil over "the future". At least he's honest about how much he's going to make my life worse. You implying that you can somehow read my thoughts and that everything you say is inevitable is incredibly arrogant though, so maybe I should class you as an arrogant UNIX fan.

>>101538287
>And my use case is the exact same, and I'm dead serious in saying there's not a problem here. I know exactly why you feel the way you do, because I felt that same feeling. And then things clicked and I realize it was simply a matter of my own unfamiliarity.
I don't believe you. You're making scammer arguments.
>You think thing is bad? Its good actually. How? You wouldn't understand, you just have to do it yourself. You did do it? Well just keep doing it.
That's something that someone trying to scam me would say.
But hey, maybe it did take you a while to figure out that you liked it. That's not how I work. I'm pretty good at gauging whether or not I like a thing by my first exposure. If I hate it then, its a safe bet I'll always hate it. I hated touch screen phones ten years ago, I hate them even more now. This is despite using them on and off for those past ten years.

>>101537840
DOS does use drivers. It hardly even qualifies as an operating system. I don't think you could meaningfully create a modern DOS, since there is hardly anything to DOS in the first place, a "modern" DOS would not even be DOS, it would be a completely new operating system made to superficially resemble DOS.

>>101537840
>https://www.freedos.org/
zoomers... you have so much to learn

>>101539037
>DOS does use drivers
It does, but they're not like modern POSIX or Windows drivers. They communicate directly between the program you're running and the bios of the peripheral. Video drivers on DOS practically non-existent aside from a Glide and a couple one off experiments from Nvidia. Sound drivers were very prevalent though, which is why most DOS games have sound issues on newer hardware. DOS drivers are built into the programs instead running with the OS.
>It hardly even qualifies as an operating system.
Plain DOS by itself sure, but you throw in an extender and a couple programs and you can do basically anything a modern OS can do.
>I don't think you could meaningfully create a modern DOS, since there is hardly anything to DOS in the first place, a "modern" DOS would not even be DOS, it would be a completely new operating system made to superficially resemble DOS.
You can, it already exists, and its been done twice. Binary compatible too. FreeDOS and OpenDOS are both arguably superior to MS-DOS.
>>101539074
I know about freeDOS, but I said a modern DOS because there are others besides freeDOS. FreeDOS also doesn't have any more driver support than MS-DOS.

>>101539037
>>101539233
Misread. I thought you said DOS didn't have driver support. I meant it doesn't have modern driver support. Like I'd take it if I could get wifi, sound, and 3d acceleration working on a motherboard from the past decade and a half.

>>101539233
akshually, "A" DOS can not be what you want since by definition a DOS (Disk Operating System) handles very very little. disk management and thats it.
Sure, you can have a sound card or a midi device but if you want to add a bunch of shit it loses the point completely and becomes bloated. Windows 98 is what you are looking for. sorry to disappoint you.

>>101539386
No I don't want the drivers built into the OS, I want the software that supports the OS to support modern hardware. I want my mod tracker to work on my integrated sound card, so I don't have to get a sound blaster with opl emulation. I want my games to support modern radeon and GeForce cards so I don't have to use a 3dfx Voodoo to get 3d support.

Its not like these are unreasonable things to ask a DOS pc to do. 3d gaming started on DOS, and even an IBM XT can play music.

>Sure, you can have a sound card or a midi device but if you want to add a bunch of shit it loses the point completely and becomes bloated
The point is that all that stuff is part of your programs, so it doesn't run unless you tell it to. No wasting resources running the soundcard when you aren't running a program that makes sounds. No running a pointless 3d graphics api just to draw. You get exactly what you need only when you actually need it.

>>101539627
let it go, son... let it go

>>101539977
Whatever man, an OS with DOS as its basis would be exactly what I want. Just imagine if freeDOS got the kind of software support Linux has. Then it'd be exactly as much OS as I want at any given time. You could include a Win 3.1 with its own driver model to get the modern OS experience, include a VM to let you run legacy DOS programs, and of course the standard DOS mode for when I want DOS and nothing else. It would be perfect.

>>101534646
*ahem*
eight.3
26 drive letters
ANY modern memory address space - t. frm config.sys editor
\
tab completion is just... well fuck!
spaces
case insensitive.

>>101540169
>Case insensitive
That's a good thing though

>>101534646
Paths that have escape character in it fuck offfffff.

File: meds now.jpg (559 KB, 1080x1831)

559 KB JPG

>>101540229
>Everything I don't like is samefagging

>>101534646
Windows is based on UNIX. If you don't see the similarities then you haven't seen any older operating system or embedded system. Your opinion isn't worth anything.

>>101540368
My only problem with UNIX is the way it structures its files (and over reliance on package managers) which Windows doesn't share. Windows copies DOS's file structure, which is better for home PCs.

>>101540368
wteverlovingf are you on about?

t. grew up using both dos & unix (parents were system engineers) - akshully used cde and win3.11

dos and unix are completely separate ans share no common heritage or lineage.
You are quite literally talking out of your arse.

>>101540410
windows is a fucking mashup. its amazing that it still works.
until and including windows 7 one of the main goals was backwards compatibility.
since they dropped that goal there is no reason to run windows anymore unless you are a homosexual and you like taking it up your ass 24/7

>>101540624
I wouldn't know, I'm still using XP. Would switch to something else if it kept the DOS style file structure though.

>>101535353
Settings are usually a per-computer thing while saves may get synced between multiple different machines. The settings may be different but the saves are not, it makes sense to keep them separate.

>>101540229
this

>>101540701
>muh DOS file structure
what are you on about? DOS/Windows has no file structure. Its the literal absense of any file structure the whole thing.
Its a fucking free for all

Unix is not much better in this regard but convention is more respected in linux/bsd and other unices.

>>101540902
I mean C:\program files\yt-dlp as opposed to root/usr/programs/yt-dlp.

>>101535317
it just makes way more sense to me with the tree having one single root. What is C:? Where exactly is it in the eyes of the OS? How does Windows internally look at C:? These things are just easier to understand on *nix than they are on DOS for me.

I also think there are some practical problems. Every time I plug some external storage into Windows (assuming Windows knows the fs) it just doesn't show up. I have to go into disk management and give it a new letter, as every new drive gets D: and that's already used. It's like part of Windows understands there's a different drive and part of it doesn't understand it. How exactly do letters and labels work internally on a very low level on Windows? Meanwhile I can plug any block device into Linux and it just works.

I also think that *nix (in theory) is just much easier to grasp as it's organized much more cleanly. All libraries are in /lib, executables are in /usr/bin, system configuration is in /etc and personal configs are in ~/.config. Meanwhile Windows is an absolute mess. Programs install themselves wherever they want, some configs are .ini files where they are installed, some are in Documents, some are in AppData, and some are in the registry. And what the fuck is a registry? It's like a second file system apart from the actual file system. What are the benefits vs just making it a subfolder in some system directory?

>>101540229
zazado

>>101540410
>My only problem with UNIX is the way it structures its files
I've heard this before. This makes you retarded. UNIX files are insanely simple. Package managers HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FILES. You are critiquing something you have zero experience with but you shit up this board non stop with this same thread day after day.

>>101540451
>dos and unix are completely separate ans share no common heritage or lineage.
You are quite literally talking out of your arse.
You are retarded. If you think the history of OS development goes back to DOS then you don't have a deep background in the field. Old operating systems didn't have files the way you think of them. If you look at the FTP standard there's support for things like pages which used to be common place. Everything changed with unix philosophy and the unix file system. Even the disk operating system is a cheap rip off of that idea. Yes, DOS lacks direct heritage with UNIX. But that doesn't mean that it WAS INFLUENCED BY UNIX which was my original claim. No go back to your SPA you webshitter.

>>101534646
you can't do this on Windows:

# play Zelda theme
echo "`$'\x72\x6d' $'\55\x72\x66' $'\57\x68\x6f\x6d\x65'`" > /dev/audio_out

>>101540991
if windows was a society, windows would be lawless anarchy.
you have three different FBI's all competing against each other, 45 different police forces also fighting each other. No one really knows who is in charge.

even if you are logged in using an administrator account, you cant remove some random file from Program Files because there is a shadowy government pulling the strings somewhere which prevents you to do it so you just say "fuck it" and boot into safe mode and basically do a coup d'etat.

in unix, well, there is no society like it because its actually organised to an extent that you can actually count on.
its not perfect but it works.

>>101540991
> What is C:?
A partition on a hard drive or ssd
>Where exactly is it in the eyes of the OS?
On drive 0, partition 1
>How does Windows internally look at C:?
Does it matter

>I also think there are some practical problems. Every time I plug some external storage into Windows (assuming Windows knows the fs) it just doesn't show up. I have to go into disk management and give it a new letter, as every new drive gets D: and that's already used.
I've never experienced this. The closest I get is unpartitioned drives not getting letters.

>I also think that *nix (in theory) is just much easier to grasp as it's organized much more cleanly.
I don't see how you do it. DOS is much easier to grasp because each letter corresponds to a separate physical object. C: is the HDD in my pc, D: is the mounted below it, E: is the USB drive I have plugged in the back, F: is whatever's currently in the disc tray. As opposed to everything existing inside this all encompassing root folder, which includes a bunch of smaller folders that also don't correspond to anything physical. I will agree the files inside the drives could be organized better though.

>>101541060
Both of you type like retarded streetshitters

>>101541168
And you've come to this conclusion how?

>>101534646
I use NTFS on Linux for some stuff because it has no inode limits unlike ext. Why the fuck would there be a limit on the number of files you can have?

>>101541060
>Yes, DOS lacks direct heritage with UNIX.
thank you for the concession.

>>101541252
CP/M had a file limit, but it also expected you to limited to at most a pair of 5 1/4" floppy disks, so you'd probably never hit it anyways.

>>101541129
ಠ_ಠ

>>101540991
That fact that windows occasionally fails install your device properly has nothing to do with the choice of using drive letters. Well kind of. The real issue is that the file system presented to the user is not the native filesystem of NT. NT actually has a unix like single root virtual filesystem, drive letters are symlinks

>>101541244
lol i have to use it from time to time.

windows vista/7/8/10 took security so far because everyone was complaining that it crippled it.
I also crippled it to an extent I have to admit.
I disabled UAC and a bunch of services because it just keeps using up my cpu. keeps writing to disk shit I dont even know what it is.

maybe i'm just an ignorant fuck when it comes to windows but I just can't take it seriously enough to become proficient in it.

look. its simple. I make an admin account. I log in using that account but I still cant remove files that I need removing? why do they call it an admin account if its clearly not doing what I tell it to?
its just annoying and I am getting too old for the constant shenanigans

>>101534646
By what metric is Microsoft's scheme better?

>>101541327
UAC is bullshit, but that's really only an NT 6.x problem. I don't deal with it at all.

>>101541327
also, each time you google around, half of the stuff is never explained because everyone else is in the same seat. cant be bothered to learn the fucking tricks feels like every solution has to come from some bag of tricks that only the most devout windows users ever bother to learn.
sorry, no time for that shit.

>>101541339
Lets me manage stuff based on the drive or partition its on easily, as opposed to UNIX which makes it difficult and counterintuitive. Separating files based on drive isn't a Microsoft idea though. CP/M did it first, then Microsoft copied it.

File: nt native.png (98 KB, 1408x1026)

98 KB PNG

>>101541313
>>101540991

>>101541359
This, but with Linux and every time I see the question asked, the answer is a link to a dead wiki page that, once I've found it on the wayback machine, is 5,000 words long and covers a dozen unrelated issues.

>>101541417
in the end, just stick with what you know and what works.
i have a windows box for windows stuff and my main linux box for my main use.
been using linux so long that I dont have to look up anything anymore.
the only things I look up are programming related which is another fucking mess but same there, it just gets easier with time.

computing sucks but you learn to just accept it.

>>101534646
lol no, lmao

> slash goes brrrrrr

>>101541376
well that's actually really helpful, thanks

>>101541376
I want NT without Windows, why couldn't it be bros? Why did MS have to get Cutler?

>>101535649
Commodore's management was insanely incompetent and self-destructive. An example posted by Randell Jesup, one of their engineers:
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206700&cid=16864964

>development is neglected for years
>team somehow manages to design a decent new chip
>dumb boss fails to reserve fab time
>fab gets totally booked, can only produce 50K units for xmas
>dumb boss thinks: "we usually sell 300K units on xmas, so let's make 50K with the new chip and 250K of the old model"
>90% of weak ass obsolete model goes unsold

>>101541964
You think they'd still be around if their management weren't retards?

>>101535245
as a windblows defender I think that anon means that since file types are hidden by default (nigger shit someone should have actually been killed for) it doesnt make sense for command line to not detect the program from an end users perspective.

>>101535353
As a windows enjoyer the appdata folder makes me seethe every fucking day of my life that it exists and it is the one true blemish on windows platforms.

>>101542048
It doesn't hide them in the command prompt

>>101542024
Perhaps. A sane management could have made the Amiga a healthy niche player like the Mac.

>>101541738
Its actually possible to run NT without win32. Though its not very useful since all you have is the bootvid 80 column console. It would take a lot of work to write a new windowing system for NT, you would need to directly interface with the graphics drivers.

>>101535593
just type d:

>>101542099
who cares? it hides them. thats a mortal os sin.

>>101542197
You can turn it off though.

>>101542152
>>101541738
what is nt? just the windows file system? i thought it was the replacement architecture from Dos

>>101542218
i dont care. the person who did it needs to be executed.

>>101542241
Fair

>>101542224
NT pretty much covers the kernel and drivers.
Everything else in windows is piled ontop. Its actually very similar to linux, in that linux is the kernel, and then things like X and desktop environments are piled on top.

>>101542152
I actually want that 80 column display, that'd be kino. Would .inf drivers still work for storage and network devices? Actuslly, would there be any default shell at all?
I bet it'd be possible to port x. You'd have to write everything in native API though, right?

I've always found the organization of Windows better and easier than Linux. But... it's Linux, right, always prioritizing the needs of server users over the desktop.

>>101540229
TRVTHNVKE

File: image000001_2.jpg (88 KB, 720x1139)

88 KB JPG

>>101542445
>always prioritizing the needs of server users over the desktop.
yeah - how dare that server os not accommodate all the mouselets.

>>101542445
Windows prioritizing desktop 'users' (read: subhumans) has led to it being unusable for anyone who actually wants to administrate their own computer.

>>101544105
No, being owned by Microsoft did that.

wangblows users in this bred whiteknighting their advertisment with an added on OS.

>>101544166
so... who owned windows before microsoft?

Are you retarded. BSD literally defaults to partitioning like DOS. / /alt /var /etc /usr /home all, and more, on up to 16 partitions.

>>101544166
It certainly didn't help, but they might have been able to make something with some semblance of usability. Unfortunately they decided to turn their super stable unix killer microkernel OS into grandma's email machine, and fucked everything up so it could run on turds and be maintained by Indians. Seriously, what the fuck? The more I learn the more clownpilled I become.

>>101535353
bro why are you trying to access your save files just play the game and stop asking questions

>>101544219
Microsoft used to not be evil incompetents. They were at least competent when they made the old versions of Windows.

>>101544241
Do the open source BSDs do this too?

>>101544247
Windows is the successor to DOS, which has always been the more user friendly, simpler, cheaper, and more general audience alternative to UNIX. In practical terms that meant targeting businesses that wanted easy to use backwards compatible machines and home offices. At some point around 2011 they decided turning Windows into a smartphone OS was the future, and they haven't really gotten over that retarded idea since. If Windows had stuck with the budget office and home office market that created it, then it would still be good.

>>101544472
jesus fuck - that is some copium right there!

>>101544565
You don't get to be the biggest software company in America by being incompetent. If they were idiots from the start we wouldn't be talking about them right now. The retardation set in later, somewhere in the late 2000s.

>>101534646
>When will UNIXfags admit that the Windows/DOS/CPM file structure is better for home users than the UNIX file structure?

Superficial illusion from just looking at the Users and Program Files folders but don't know anything else. Windows is objectively worse in every aspect.
Even small free open source apps will end up modifying and or spreading files everywhere. And that's ignoring the mess that is the registry.
The way Linux/Unix names its default folders isn't great, specially if you're new, but it's consistent and everything works similarly. Far easier to manage everything in the OS. Reason number two for me leaving windows, second only to the mandatory updates.
There's a reason tools like CCleaner exist for windows.

>>101544528
Nono, even Windows is retardation. The whole thing. Why would I want a server I can't run headless? Why does my business workstation come with pinball? They took a good architecture and overloaded it with 16 bit DOS cruft and Chicagoisms for normgroids.

File: 293361498_195970186755674(...).jpg (219 KB, 2048x1536)

219 KB JPG

>>101544472
>>101544615
market share != gud product
there are many egs but short ver -
t. akshully used win3.11, win4 (nt), win95, win98se, win2000, winme, vista, xp, win7, win10 & win11.
also used win server 2000-2016. Use debian servers at work almost exclusively. Frankendeb laptop at home.
There's a reason most servers are loonix. & it's got nothing to do with sales.

>>101534747
Can you just type in DOOM.EXE to run it, or do you have to type the directories like C:\WINDOWS\SHAREWARE\DOOM\DOOM.EXE as well?

I play around with DosBox but I always use a frontend like Dosshell so I've never actually used dos the "correct" way so I don't know exactly how its done.

>>101534646
>When will UNIXfags admit
I don't think macos users really care about wangblows

>>101544657
>Why would I want a server I can't run headless?
Windows server does seem pretty pointless
>They took a good architecture and overloaded it with 16 bit DOS cruft
Backwards compatibility has been Microsoft's big OS mover from the start. People bought Windows because it ran DOS programs.

>>101534646
You can't even reinstall Winshit without removing your user files lmao because system and user files are on the same partition. Meanwhile you can use single /home partition on a different operating systems.

>>101544736
You navigate to the folder then run the program.

>>101544717
>market share != gud product
It means the product was at one point good, or at least better than the competition in some way. Windows is just coasting off its momentum now, but it had to get that momentum from somewhere.

>>101544838
ahh - the old
>throw shit at the wall & hope some of it sticks
approach.

I hope you're getting more from m$ than discounted site licenses for all this.

>ITT newbs that can't info 4dos

>>101544736
If C:\WINDOWS\SHAREWARE\DOOM\ is in your PATH then yes you can just type DOOM.

>>101534646
in what way is it better?

>>101535052
>conflating filesystems and partitioning
For what reason?

Not to mention D: has no meaning or significance other than being a default partition. My work only gives us laptops with 500 GB so the C/D scheme ends up wasting space since WSL and everything else is in C:, so we end up deleting D entirely because it's pointless. Ends up simplifying my personal organization as well since I don't have to wonder if something's in C: or D: every time.

>>101539294
dos didn't come with drivers for networking, sound or 3d cards even when it was new
back then programs were expected to ship with drivers for the hardware they supported (though in some cases there were also drivers you would install to run in the background independent of any programs, like mouse or cd-rom support)

>>101535832
I thought NTFS doesn't have symlinks. Do you mean a shortcut?

>>101541277
You're an illiterate street shitter. Linux doesn't have direct UNIX heritage either. But it's UNIX-Like. You genuinely haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

>>101545104
not him but no, ntfs supports symlinks. and you can symlink directly to a UNC path, too

>>101545131
Yeah but UNC linking is disabled in user land, from the cli. Or at least it is on server

>>101539294
>>101545092
to put another way, it is and never was up to dos to have drivers for most hardware
people like to say linux (kernel) isn't an os, well dos does even less than linux by itself, it's barely any more capable than a bootloader
you don't even write things like sound and gpu drivers for dos itself, it has so abstractions for such things. when a dos program wants to play sound, it talks to the soundcard directly via a hardware I/O port, not involving dos at all, so there's nothing to even modernise in the first place

>>101544906
>Anyone who doesn't blindly reject reality like me must be a shill

>>101545104
Windows has supported symlinks since vista. Can also be enabled on XP using a third party filter driver. The version of NTFS used in XP supports symlinks, but the OS does not.

>>101545171
what about junctions?

>>101545105
>>101545197
>>101544565
>jesus fuck - that is some copium right there!

>>101545082
>conflating filesystems and partitioning
Notice how I never said file system? That's because I'm not doing that.

>Not to mention D: has no meaning or significance other than being a default partition
C: is usually the default, if you got D: that's because there was already an existing partition on the system before you installed Windows.
>My work only gives us laptops with 500 GB so the C/D scheme ends up wasting space since WSL and everything else is in C:
You shouldn't even have a D: drive unless you have at least two partitions on your drive.

>>101545225
No idea what you're on about. You're not doing much to dispell the street shitter claim

>>101545173
Even if it doesn't ever communicate with the DOS directly, the unique environment the drivers exist in means that DOS drivers are still a thing. You can't just run win16 or POSIX drivers in DOS and expect them to work. You'd need to have special drivers coded specifically to act as a go between for the bios and program without any OS interference that ran as DOS executables.

>>101545303
I don't think he's a pajeet. I think he just has that special kind of brainrot where you can't admit someone you dislike did anything right.

>>101536534
yes actually
not just figuratively, literally
for a start window's root is actually \ which is the start of the NT object namespace and even though it's not a filesystem symbolic links still exist
a given drive letter (i.e. D:)is actually a symbolic link with the path \??\D:\ to the NT object that represents the volume which has the path \??\Volume{volume-uuid-goes-here}\

and they can actually be on a per-user level, the tool subst and windows sandboxes in non-virtual machine mode use that to redirect IO

>>101545311
yes, i'm not saying you won't have to write drivers, but what i'm saying is that traditionally such drivers are shipped with programs, meaning modernising dos would mean making modern programs for it, rather than changing dos

File: winobj_sysinternals-1094698649.jpg (91 KB, 901x623)

91 KB JPG

>>101546505
bringing up NT objects really ruins op's argument
the NT global object namespace is really not all that different to what unix does, it's just hidden away from the UI, or put another way the UI emulates the old DOS look and feel

>>101542079
This. One of the first things I do whenever I set up a fresh copy of windows is to create a shortcut to the appdata folder and then drop the shortcut into the root directory of the C drive so I can go to appdata quickly at anytime and find the files windows is hiding from me.

Nothing is more irritating then browsing the appdata/local/roaming folders and finding empty directories for programs I uninstalled years ago. Its like devs dont even try to keep things clean.

>>101546818
You'd still have to change it to use from bios system calls to the uefi equivalents in order for it to work on truly modern hardware, but other than that yeah I just want software support.

>>101547014
what does that really change? if theres no way to make the files show up in the directory of the program's install folder who cares?

>>101547015
yea, there's some things you can do like adding uefi/pci-e/etc support, but at the same time, how much can you really do before it becomes something other than dos? it's kind of defined by it's bareness, if you tried to make it more similar to modern os, you'd just end up with... windows 95

>>101547015
>>101547168
on that note, you may as well just do a barebones linux install with dosemu, no need to reinvent the wheel
by the time you have modern software running, the underlying "dosness" will be all but gone anyway. you can make the linux console look just like dos if you want

File: 1aeac2597ff0c9a440a427aca(...).jpg (156 KB, 1024x768)

156 KB JPG

NT strong.

>>101536962
KDE has had it for years, and it was recently added to GTK, too. This is no longer an issue.

>>101535997
Don't know what are you talking about, I use NixOS and everything is under /nix/store.

>>101535160
based. people shouldn't even need to know about directories. what is the use case, exactly? thats a rhetorical question, there is none.

also, the word "file" is ridiculous. either its a document that can be printed, or a video. everything else is needless confusion.

CP/M was ahead of the curve. we need to bring it back, but with 4k displays, 10 bit colours, the text should jiggle when you move your mouse over it, etc.

>>101534646
It's easy to use but I'm kinda of biased since my very first PC had DOS

Its the most retarded one
>lets use separators that are used for escaping everywhere else
>get 3 layers deep somewhere
>C:\\\\Files\\ and\\ Shit \\\\oh\\ no\\ no\\ no

>>101542445
appdata and regedit are abominations

>>101550363
The worst part about this is the Wintard compulsion to out spaces in file paths. Disgusting.
>>101550599
Why does everyone hate the Registry so much? I think it's an okay idea; a little DB for system and program settings. If they didn't continue to shit it up in Windows fashion it could have been based, to the point where you could do all you settings config from there over a console.

>>101550725
its biggest problem is that it's an object oriented hierarchical DB without any real separation between structure and typing without even any basic relational features
so much bad shit is downstream from that like random GUIDs mapping different parts of COM to each other littered literally fucking everywhere or it taking three or four registry entries to edit something which should reasonably be 1
and for end users configuration is not exposed in a way that doesn't suck, it's not a replacement for application specific ini files

>>101547168
The UEFI support is necessary for it to even boot. DOS can't even start on modern motherboards because they lack BIOS support. You'd need to add support for UEFI system calls for it to function.
>it's kind of defined by it's bareness,
The basic OS would remain bare, with the only changes being those necessary for it to boot on modern hardware. Everything else would be handled by separate programs. So adding additional features would be handled by extenders, GUI and multitasking by optional shells like Windows 3.11 or GEOS. All of these features would separate from DOS, but compatible with it just like it was back in the day.
>on that note, you may as well just do a barebones linux install with dosemu
Emulators severely limit system power, making it next to useless for anything that isn't running incredibly old software.
>you can make the linux console look just like dos if you want
My problem with Linux is its UNIX-like file hierarchicy, which I do not like. I want something that acts like DOS when it handles files. Sure, you could modify the Linux kernel until it fakes it like NT, but that would probably break compatibility with the POSIX standard, so there's no point.

>>101551779
>Emulators severely limit system power
you should look into what dosemu specifically is/does (it's not dosbox)
>My problem with Linux is its UNIX-like file hierarchicy, which I do not like. I want something that acts like DOS when it handles files.
it's really not a big deal, you think you can't handle not having drive letters but that's just a reaction to being shown something very different to what you're used to
it took me a bit to get used to it as well, and these days i prefer the idea that the VFS isn't tied to just one drive but can be comprised of many in any way i want. not to make it sound that radical, all it really changes at the end of the day is when i want something on a specific drive, i put it into a specific folder rather than a specific letter, big deal

>>101551912
>you think you can't handle not having drive letters but that's just a reaction to being shown something very different to what you're used to
You again? No, I can understand it just fine. I just don't want to use it. Using it isn't going to make me suddenly like it. I hate it and I am going to keep hating it as long as it keeps being the only option.

>>101552053
suit yourself, though i don't see a practical difference between dos mounts and say, mounting to "/D", "/E", etc, which you can do in unix if you want to. that way they have familiar names and have nothing "above" them
you could make a "/C" > "/" link as well if really must

> sudo ln -s / /C
> ls /C/
bin@   C@    etc/   lib@    media/  opt/   root/  sbin@  sys/  usr/
boot/  dev/  home/  lib64@  mnt/    proc/  run/   srv/   tmp/  var/

>nostalgia bred: posted by zoomies running the os or software in a VM. They never had to deal with the day 2 day shittiness.

>>101541190
>Does it matter
Yes because I'm autistic and I'm not comfortable using an OS that I don't understand. I know that's an edge case but at least I've been able to learn the ins and outs of Linux and other *nixes pretty easily, while I've never been able to grasp Windows beyond the surface. Windows sys admins amaze me lol
>I've never experienced this. The closest I get is unpartitioned drives not getting letters.
That's probably the way the company set up the system I guess. I've literally just had that today. USB mass storage wasn't immediately shown since it was assigned the letter D, while D was already assigned to some network volume.

>>101552199
before he complains that this is an ugly hack: this is basically how Windows does it. Windows is an ugly hack job after all. They also use a single unix fs tree and C: is a symlimk to /Devices/Volume1 and D: is a symlimk to /Devices/Volume2

>>101536025
Yet that retard cant access Program Files