cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/zip-drive article.sgml

Kevin Oberman oberman at
Tue Aug 24 12:33:09 PDT 2004

> From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah at>
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:03:54 -0700
> Sender: owner-cvs-all at
> --=-/X/f2KeLUF0cVqZhgu7r
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:41, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> > As I see it, DOS means all variants (including MS-DOS, DR-DOS, IBM-DOS
> > and so on) where MS-DOS refers specifically to MS-DOS.  In the context
> > of FreeBSD documentation I think in most cases when referring to
> > MS-DOS, it would apply to other DOS variants as well.
> Although this is almost totally irrelevent in this context, DOS can
> refer to operating systems other than MS-DOS workalikes...the first
> example that comes to my mind is the Disk Operating System that ran on
> Apple IIs long before Microsoft cared about PCs. [1]
> Bruce.
> [1] It's not *totally* irrelevant in that if someone were to write some
> Handbook text about running Apple II emulators such as kegs under
> FreeBSD, they'd probably be talking about DOS in a non-PC context.  [2]
> [2] I'm feeling silly...must be time for lunch.

Almost all computers "of a certain age" have had an operating system
called DOS. In the early '70s I ran DOS on our PDP-11/40.

DOS simply is a disk based OS. (As opposed to earlier paper tape and
magnetic tape based systems. Of course, most of the folks who read this
have probably never seen a paper tape reader and could not conceive of
an OS that actually ran on it.)
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at			Phone: +1 510 486-8634

More information about the cvs-doc mailing list