Why would you want to install software built for modern operating systems in DOSBox? This doesn't make any sense.

Under the Mac O/S, it is possible to create a virtual Win X machine. I have friends who do that. This requires a "honking machine".

You say, My current version is FC2, running on 64-bit Ubuntu Linux.. For the DIY crowd, I would think that a Raspberry Pi 3 is one idea. Port the code so that it runs on the Pi's Debian O/S and on your Ubuntu Linux.
DOS emulation is a "dead duck".

I have one DOS program that I want to run on my current Win 10 machine. This is a huge mess to deal with because of emulation of the sound card device drivers. When I had a Win XP machine, I would just re-boot from a floppy disk and run it. I can't do that now and need DOSbox.

Anyway, running Perl under DOS is an insane idea.

Could you (or someone else) please rephrase while concentrating on the essential?

update

For what it's worth: Padre depends on wxwidgets, not sure if you can make this work under dos.

Thank you

I am well aware of all of the points you made, and do agree that implementing Perl under DOS is insane. Unfortunately, my friend wants this DOS upgrade, and I am exploring if there is any way I can accommodate him, so he can satisfy his viral promotion from his website, which we need to stoke crowdfunding for FortranCalculus2 open-source distribution.

I would love to integrate my Perl FC2 IDE scaffold with Padre, and I have a Glade2 and Glade3 Perl wrapper (EverGlade); developed for a similar purpose to wxGlade, like the development of GEANY using Glade2. I built EverGlade in Perl for that purpose.

It uses the same "assembly-line archive digestion" approach as my Metacompiler IDE, also written in Perl, to semi-automate "round-trip-engineering" to reverse code-to-grammar or code-to-widgets "surgery" instead of using function calls in action rules. This IDE was designed to build Compiler/Spiritext-Publisher combos for higher-order application modeling languages which generate FC2 as an intermediate language. Examples are end-user modeling dialects based on Perl or Python syntax and having FC2 compiled native-code blended with interpretive pseudocode.

Hello Again,

If I could manage it, what I would really like to do is wrap DOSbox in my elaborate Perl/FC2 CLI-Menu IDE (MIDUS) which operates in a rolling terminal (i.e. Konsole). MIDUS uses menus to execute downstream system-called CLI getops scripts feeding GNU make with various Fortran compilers for testing and automated regression validation, including G95, G77, Gfortran, and Intel compilers (at various times). It also automates the navigation and setup of various gang editors like kate, jedit, emacs, meld, et al, called by similar CLI scripts.

The downstream getops scripts have secondary menus with a line for each option, triggered by a single alphanumeric character (chosen for getops-standard). These menus are read and interpreted by the upstream menus and pre-selected before the downstream scripts are called. Full-page and multipage rolling help screens are invoked by the option letter preceded by the backtick character.

Thus, MIDUS has all the flexibility of a GUI, but without event-driven tedium for quick and dirty addition and prototyping of new functionality. It uses sticky options and parameters to create local defaults to minimize redundant typing. All functionality thus uses single keystrokes, except when invoking help screens.

If I can figure a way to implement DOSbox under MIDUS, and transfer files to it; I can compile and statically link FC2 programs with MIDUS and then pass them to DOSbox for execution. I'm sure that will satisfy Philbru, so we can continue his website promotion.

Any thoughts?

Beartham