Eric,
First, speaking personally I can confirm your statement about memory. I
currently
have almost a gig of memory is this MS. dos only computer, only needing
to patch a software program once to insure it ran smoothly.
As for your frankly disturbing stereotypes and generalizations about
adaptive technology and the individuals using it, well, I would hope you
would not tell someone to do themselves physical harm to satisfy your
stereotypes, something you just did to me.
I stated that there is no Linux distribution that I can use...and you
suggest I use something that I already know could result in my
hospitalization..why exactly?
I believe I know more about my adaptive needs then yourself.
Adaptive technology often serves as substitutions for, or extensions of
bodily activity. hands, eyes, ears, brains, and combinations of the
above.
Screen readers are used by many populations, for
learning disabilities for example, with less than 10% of the
sight loss population reading braille..at all.
You are no medical professional, and until you have personally made use
of adaptive technology daily, for at least 30 years please do not risk
physical danger to another person as you have done here...in fact even
then you would only be expert where your own body's accommodation
requirements are concerned.
Use Linux indeed, and have a Cesar?
Linux is out, because the software speech synthesis stimulates my
brain's dizzy centres at best, causing epileptic like reactions at minimum
and risking unconsciousness with prolong exposure. In fact that
applies to most software speech for me...which is what Linux graphical
uses.
Command line Linux, where hardware speech is possible for some, but
not me since what I use has no Linux driver, still has the same
browser limitations outlined, browsers that have not been compiled to
work with proprietary forms of JavaScript.
Links for DOS, for what it is, opens some doors, but not all, something I
would happily pay to see corrected.
Still, if Linux is such a grand solution, why cannot a graphical
installation be configured so it can communicate with physical
speech hardware?
It is already using soundcards, though be it with what many consider
dreadful results.
If you actually lived this experience rather than suggesting risky behavior
you might be aware of how poor even for those who lack physical issues,
the quality of Linux software speech is, for individuals that need access
for learning reasons, as well as for those experiencing blindness.
Kindly do not pretend to be expert in an area involving accommodations
before your ignorance hurts someone. I know enough to discount your
stance, but someone else might make the mistake of taking your word, only
to suffer afterwards.
If freedos is never going to provide a proper browser, how can it claim to
be a fully functional operating system where networking is concerned?
Browsing is a part of networking in many cases.
Karen
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Eric Auer wrote:
Hi Liam,
There is no modern browser for DOS -- but more to the point, there
never will be.
There is for example Dillo, which is not bad, but graphical:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fltk-dos/
A DOS app can be a maximum of about 620-630k of memory.
This is not true for apps which use DOS extenders. Those
can use several gigabytes of memory. There even are some
proof of concept extenders which let you use more than
4 GB of RAM.
You can use text oriented browsers such as LYNX, LINKS,
W3M, ELINKS and similar. The problem often is that they
do not support javascript or modern HTTPS protocols.
There is no wireless LAN support for DOS that I know of.
Only some ancient PCMCIA WiFi cards have DOS drivers,
but you can use an external bridge box to connect to
your WiFi by LAN cable.
You could of course also use Linux, which also has some
screen reader and Braille friendly distros, but as the
question is about DOS, the real question is which text
oriented DOS web browser supports tunein.com As expected,
it relies heavily on javascript, but you could probably
write a parser to extract the actual stream locations.
I believe such things have been done as Arachne plugins
for youtube, but they are chronically outdated, which
probably makes them non-functioning on current youtube?
Arachne is a graphical web browser for DOS.
https://tunein.com/radio/home/
According to https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/ about
tunein.com, the site does not support SSL 2 or 3 any
more (which is good, those are old and insecure) but
it supports TLS 1.0 to 1.2, although sites SHOULD not
support TLS 1.0 or 1.1 (also too old) and SHOULD have
support for TLS 1.3 already.
Supported modern ciphers???: ECDHE RSA with AES256 or
AES128 GCM, ECDHE + CHACHA20 POLY1305, all with
either SHA256 or SHA384.
Supported outdated cipher components: AES128 or
AES256 CBC, RSA without ECDHE.
The site would use TLS 1.0 on the following old
software: Android 2.3 to 4.3, Baidu 2015, (MSIE 7
to 10 on old Windows: Firefox or Chrome on Windows
XP would already use TLS 1.2), Java 6 or 7, any
OPENSSL 0.9 based software, Safari 5 and some 6.
So a browser for DOS which wants to be able to
use the site at all via HTTPS will have to use
OPENSSL 1.0 or newer or another SSL/TLS library
which supports at least TLS 1.0 but preferably
TLS 1.2 or even TLS 1.3 to be future-proof.
Can some DOS browser users here tell me how modern
the HTTPS compatibility of their preferred DOS web
browsers is at the moment?
Note that "Retrozilla" can give you TLS 1.2 HTTPS
and HTML5 even on ancient Windows 98, 95 and NT (!)
based on a fork of SeaMonkey 1.1.19, but even that
is not modern enough in terms of multimedia codecs
and javascript compatibility to view Youtube clips.
Regards, Eric
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
