PC-MOS/386 v5.01 released under GPL v3.0!

Sources over on github!

https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501

I’ve only just received notification of this, and had to post it forward.  All I know is that you’ll need Borland C++ 3.1 along with Borland Brief to re-build the system.  I haven’t tried it just yet, but I most certainly will!

For those unaware, PC-MOS is a multi-user multi-tasking MS-DOS like Operating System.  I looked at this some years ago.. More so interested in seeing if and how various MS-DOS like OS’s could run under modern emulation.

It may be interesting to pit FreeDOS vs PC-MOS/386.

On a personal note, it’s great to see that PC-MOS won’t just end up a minor footnote in wikipedia until it gets pushed off, instead it can live on

This entry was posted in 80386, PC-MOS/386 by neozeed. Bookmark the permalink.
avatar

About neozeed

What is there to tell? I’ve loved UNIX like things since I was first exposed to QNX in highschool (we had the Unisys ICONS!), and spent the better time of my teenage years trying to get my own UNIX… I should have bought Coherent in retrospect.. Anyways latched onto Linux in 1992, and then got some old BSD admin books and have been hooked on the VAX BSD & other big/ancient things since…!

7 thoughts on “PC-MOS/386 v5.01 released under GPL v3.0!

  1. “On a personal note, it’s great to see that PC-MOS won’t just end up a minor footnote in wikipedia until it gets pushed off, instead it can live on”

    True! A little off topic but it’s kind of strange to read that in the same day that Orcacle finally killed Solaris. I highly doubt that Solaris will be lucky enough to have the same fate as PC-MOS. End of an era. Fuck you, Oracle. Sorry for spamming you blog with this, but I had to get this out.

    Cheers,

    Florian

    • Yes the demise of SUN was so obvious, but so many didn’t listen that Oracle had ONLY bought SUN with the intention of suing Google.

      Oracle’s strength had always been in being portable, and not being tied to any hardware. Oracle never has had any care about hardware, and after losing the Java lawsuit twice, Oracle has no need for SUN. And to be honest SUN was a dying company, there is no way they would just sell Java, just in as part of the Oracle strategy would be that they have a vested interest in Java being tied to SUN, and their future.

      Having been audited by Oracle, I can tell you that it ruined any hope or respect for their brand. Oracle may have been faster than MSSQL, but I’ve never been sued by Microsoft, and even with all the enterprise features at some $6,000 per processor by MS made them a fraction of the cost of Oracle.

      In my writing I had come across the personal versions of Oracle, and wanted to do a lot of comparisons, and tests of Personal Oracle97 vs MSDE 1.0, however even I’ve been poisoned to just not caring enough.

      I’ll have to write something about this for sure, although I haven’t seen anything super official. I guess its the American holiday going on that has drown it out.

  2. “On a personal note, it’s great to see that PC-MOS won’t just end up a minor footnote in wikipedia [..]”
    Sorry, to hear. 🙁 I was the one who created the original PC-MOS/386 entry. At the time, it was intended as a stub only,
    with a small screenshot even. My intention was to make people aware of it, so they would remember this neat OS.
    Unfortunately, as time went by, Wikipedia rules became more strict and hobbiests like me were left behind.
    I still have the original PC-MOS/386 manual. 🙂

    Kind regards,
    Joshua

    • I was speaking metaphorically, I didn’t realize I was actually accurate too. Oh well, sure is the nature of the internet, information can ebb and flow

  3. Cool, a new toy to play with! Thanks!

    Why on earth does it need Brief, the editor, to build? I guess Brief probably had some project files that only it understood, but I also see makefiles and .BAT files scattered around.

    In trying to answer that question I looked at a few makefiles and saw references to MASM and Turbo Pascal! I wonder what versions of those one needs, if they are needed at all.

    Is there any more information available anywhere, e.g. a forum thread?

    I probably won’t get to play with it any time soon, but I have been looking for an excuse to “need” Borland C++ 3.1 for a long time 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.