Discussion
The Official DR DOS Website
Tomte: > DR DOS® 9.0 is a faithful clean-room reimplementation
WalterGR: If this company now owns DR DOS, why do they need to do a clean-room reimplementation?The About page mentions some form of ownership but doesn’t address that.> …DRI continuing to publish updates until their sale to Novell in 1991. … DR DOS would change hands from Novell to Caldera in 1996, and again from Caldera to DeviceLogics in 2002.> In 2022, Whitehorn Ltd. Co. acquired DR DOS and began the process of clean-room re-implementing this historically significant operating system.
Tomte: I think they only acquired the trademark, not the source code. But I‘m not sure.
WalterGR: It turns out the Documentation page addresses some of this, though not in detail. Scroll down to the FAQ section.https://www.dr-dos.com/documentation.htmlThe Wikipedia page describes some past legal troubles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS
jmclnx: I was a DR-DOS 6.0 user and it was great, 7.0 seemed to be worse. But by then I had moved to Coherent then Linux when MW closed down.I will need to give DR-DOS a try.
erelong: And then there's PDOS (public domain operating system): https://www.pdos.org/
schoen: I remember a couple of friends using DR DOS in the 1980s. There seemed to be a disagreement about whether to pronounce it as /di ɑɹ/ or "doctor". (I realize it was named after a company and not after a doctor, so the former is more etymologically faithful.) Was there a standard among the creators or the user community?
mrlonglong: Digital Research DOS. That's what I called it.
