I don't think Linux works in stock builds of DOSBox.
It needs some WP bit if I recall correctly.
A write protect bit. This leads me to a fundamental question about DOSBox's development philosophy. I understand that DOSBox doesn't emulate a bunch of hardware that games don't need in order to speed up the emulation, so emulating things like IDE and PCI are out. More complete CPU emulation, on the other hand, doesn't seem like it would impact performance very much. If emulating the WP bit (or some other part of the CPU or the x86 ISA) would benefit users who want to run other operating systems in DOSBox, and would have negligible impact on performance, would that code be accepted into the development tree, even if no DOS game benefited from it?
I've had somewhat reasonable luck with Puppy Linux on old pentiums
SliTaz is also a tiny one to try, at 20mb (!!!!!). and its spider logo looks freaking cute.
And forget about Bochs-based stuff, it takes a modern system to emulate the cycles of a 486 50. seriously. and putting anything bochsy through Java would just mean..... lost causey.
QEMU is a bit better in the speed department
Puppy Linux requires 128 MB RAM, so that's out. I'm aware of SliTaz but haven't tried it yet. Tiny SliTaz only requires 8 MB RAM, but I haven't found a download for it yet.
I was able to get HAL91 (no GUI) and BasicLinux (X GUI) running in Bochs yesterday. I figure that JPC and Bochs are similar, and the point of this is to get Linux in a browser.
BasicLinux performance was quite good, but the clock was going up several minutes per minute. Performance was still acceptable when I used realtime synchronization under Clock & CMOS, but it felt like the Start Menu was less responsive. Anyway, BasicLinux is able to run Slackware packages, so I downloaded a copy of Wine 1.1.29 (the last version with an i486 TGZ package) for Slackware to see if I could get simple Win16 games running (or should I stick with the stable 1.0 release?). I ran out of time, and I'm going away for the weekend, so this will have to wait.
The list of Linux candidates is growing. Distro must install into RAM or FAT16.HAL91Requires:
386, 8 MB RAMGUI:
9 February 2002Compatibility:
Crashes during init in DOSBox, works fine in Bochs.Cons:
No GUI, but is a GUI necessary? Super old.BasicLinuxRequires:
386, 3 MB of RAM and DOS and 20 MB disk space for HDD version, 12 MB RAM for 2 1.44 MB FD versionGUI:
Basic X GUILast updated:
31 May 2007Compatibility:
Crashes during init in DOSBox, works fine in Bochs.TinyCore LinuxRequires:
10 MB disk space for TinyCore (6 MB disk space for MicroCore), 48 MB RAMGUI:
FLWM, no GUI in MicroCore LinuxLast updated:
9 March 2011Compatibility:
ISO won't mount in DOSBox, goes into kernel panic in Bochs (maybe I forgot to emulate enough RAM?).Pros:
Uses latest Linux kernel. MicroCore Linux is even smaller. Is a GUI necessary for Wine?Cons:
Requires more RAM than DOS can even see. Will DOSBox allocate more than 32 MB of RAM?