I am thinking of just getting an os/2 licence and just run a bbs off that. Im too lazy to run linux.


--- WWIV 5.9.03748[Windows]
* Origin: inland utopia * california * iutopia.duckdns.org:2023 (21:4/108)

I am thinking of just getting an os/2 licence and just run a bbs off that. too lazy to run linux.

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

... No battle plan survives contact with the enemy

--- Renegade v1.35/DOS
* Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info (21:1/144)

Exodus wrote to Utopian Galt <=-

I am thinking of just getting an os/2 licence and just run a bbs off that. too lazy to run linux.

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not
some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

OS/2 is "real DOS"?



... Excuse my driving ... I'm trying to reload.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

OS/2 is "real DOS"?

More so than anything we have today without installing DOS itself.

... Exxon - greasing the coastline for smoother boating!

--- Renegade v1.35/DOS
* Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info (21:1/144)

Exodus wrote to Gamgee <=-

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

OS/2 is "real DOS"?

More so than anything we have today without installing DOS itself.

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2
would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?




... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

Re: Re: windows 10/32bit
By: Exodus to Utopian Galt on Sat Oct 18 2025 02:14 pm

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

Is this a trolling attempt?

DOS application emulation on most popular operating systems is quite good at this point.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2
would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he? :P

|03--|11[|05esc|13!|05dEMONIC|11]|03--|07

--- DayDream BBS/UNIX (Linux) 2.15a
* Origin: [>mONTEREYbBS.COM>] (21:3/203)

Gamgee wrote to Exodus <=-

Good for you. Atleast that has "real DOS" to run the BBS in and not
some bullshit emulated crap of linux.

OS/2 is "real DOS"?

Yes, and more. You could run OS/2's DOS in a window, or run VDMs with
multiple versions of DOS or multiple configurations.

I ran LANTastic in a DOS virtual machine, loading MS-DOS 6 and the
LANTastic DOS drivers. That window could talk to my c: drive and talk to
the BBS running DOS.

The beauty of OS/2 was a gateway to OS/2 native binaries. I was running Maximus, BinkleyTerm and Squish, with TimEdit and a bunch of other
utilities under DOS. Moved it all to an OS/2 window, then replaced the
binaries with OS/2 binaries and the BBS chugged along in its window,
barely making a dent in my system resources. This was back when a 486/66
with 16 MB of RAM was decent.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

Gamgee wrote to Exodus <=-

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2 would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

Depends, see my previous post. You could run any DOS you want in a
virtual machine, or run OS/2s DOS. They even marketed it as "A Better
DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows".



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

esc wrote to Gamgee <=-

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2
would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he? :P

Someone leaked my code for BEC-DOS, apparently.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

More so than anything we have today without installing DOS itself.

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2
would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

No, because IBM and MS worked together on OS/2 and there is real mode DOS there.

... If the enemy is within range, so are you.

--- Renegade v1.35/DOS
* Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info (21:1/144)

Is this a trolling attempt?

Nope, just my distaste for linux.

... At last, the Eludium Q36 explosive space modulator

--- Renegade v1.35/DOS
* Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info (21:1/144)

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2 would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

Depends, see my previous post. You could run any DOS you want in a
virtual machine, or run OS/2s DOS. They even marketed it as "A Better
DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows".

That DOS was pretty good. I ran a BBS under Warp 4 for a long time but
finally wanted some OS features that it could no longer provide.

So the DOS BBS now runs under "emulated crap" while the main BBS is linux native. ;)


* SLMR 2.1a * Remember when safe sex was not getting caught in the act?
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (21:1/175)

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2 would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

No, because IBM and MS worked together on OS/2 and there is real mode DOS there.

True. However, at some point during the evolution of Windows, didn't the
DOS terminal go from being "real" to emulated once the underpinnings switch from 9x to NT?


* SLMR 2.1a * Basic Flying Rule #1: Keep the pointy end forward.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (21:1/175)

On 20 Oct 2025, Dumas Walker said the following...

Well, OK... So it would be safe to say that running a DOS BBS in OS/2 would *also* be using "some bullshit emulated crap", right?

No, because IBM and MS worked together on OS/2 and there is real mode DO there.

True. However, at some point during the evolution of Windows, didn't the DOS terminal go from being "real" to emulated once the underpinnings switch from 9x to NT?

we've talked about this before.. it's been 'emulated' since the Windows 3 days. by the cpu and by windows. "fake" memory, "fake" computer "fake" DOS.. even in NT (2000 XP 7..) 32bit tho. no, you were not safe from this evil
emulation in DesqView either. so much for this "muh pure DOS" concept.

this was a pretty important advancement in computing heh

the main difference between windows 3, 9x, etc and NT is that the older ones were allowed access to the hardware directly for *un-emulated* calls. to apply modern terminology to windows 95, your copy of Monkey Island would be running
in a VM, with hardware pass-through to your Sound Blaster 16.

OS/2 took it a step further and can emulate any version of DOS. you can slap
a boot disk in the drive and double click an icon and a window will pop up with a copy of MS-DOS 6.22 inside of it. i've used this before (to rebuild the Borland Pascal 7 RTL with an inbuilt runtime error 200 fix) because it wouldn't progress past a certain point in the regular OS/2 DOS window.

dosemu[2] works in the same way if there's a 32-bit cpu in your machine, and is no less "authentic" than running it on windows 3..

so yeah pretty much anyone who has run a multi-node bbs on a single machine has been running some emulated DOS junk that they should be ashamed of. or some elitist drivel i don't know..

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)

Re: Re: windows 10/32bit
By: Dumas Walker to EXODUS on Mon Oct 20 2025 10:11 am

True. However, at some point during the evolution of Windows, didn't the DO terminal go from being "real" to emulated once the underpinnings switch from 9x to NT?

Yes, but those were interesting times. Windows 2000 finally got timeslicing under control, we got faster PCs, and we stumbled upon the fact that Windows 2K could run OS/2 console apps just fine!

Which was good, because the emulated terminal wasn't quite there. Qedit for DOS would run choppily, and I could out-type it. Qedit for OS/2 ran fine in a DOS window and was much smoother.
--- SBBSecho 3.30-Win32
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)