Hell no. (MS-)DOS was awful in every aspect, but CP/M was worse. It's quite amazing how age seems to make people paint the distant past rosy.
In 1980 CP/M would have been the obvious choice though for a micro computer, due to market dominance (there were penty of commercial software application available for CP/M, including, later, WordPerfect and Multiplan) and limitation of the hardware at that time. Glad that we moved on.
I used CP/M back in the day, on some of the last-ever CP/M computers, the Amstrad PCW series.
I still have one: they ran CP/M 3.0, AKA CP/M Plus, the final and richest version.
I don't think it was nicer or better. It was simpler, and so arguably cleaner. A CP/M machine generally had at most 64kB of RAM and floppy drives: machines with a hard disk, or with more RAM, were rare.
So that meant CP/M could be a lot more minimal than MS-DOS.
CP/M grew up into CP/M-86, which turned into Concurrent CP/M, a full multitasking OS. That grew into Concurrent DOS, a full multitasking MS-DOS compatible multiuser OS.
And CDOS developed into two things:
* DR FlexOS, a real-time multiutasking multiuser OS with a GUI, which is still around today in the form of IBM 4680 and 4690 OS.
Concurrent DOS (CDOS) did not develop in to FlexOS.
That confusion comes from the original naming it had, CDOS 286.
FlexOS was a new development mainly in C, vs the assembly based Concurrent DOS. This is all obvious from reading the programmer APIs and header files for FlexOS.
Wikipedia is what it is, I managed to get some of the FlexOS page updated based on pointing them to better info, but they're still not correct.
When FlexOS was first created (as a thing written from scratch in C), it was aimed to be released under the name "Concurrent DOS 286" (aka CDOS-286), as a general DOS for 286 based PCs.
This is apparent from the various descriptions of the effort at the time, including the BYTE article. It seems obvious that this use of 'Concurrent' was for marketing purposes, as the code base has no relationship to the earlier products using the 'Concurrent' name.
In that development time frame, the port to the 68k was done, specifically to a Motorola VME/10 device; however some of the media reports on the port are themselves confused, as they reference the old Concurrent not the new C based thing.
That overall effort to create a general 286 DOS was eventually abandoned, when issues with how real mode emulation on the final 286 chips performed, and that the 286 scheme had become a dead end with the 386 being available. Hence how it got retargeted to embedded systems, and renamed to FlexOS.
I worked for a company developing a product based on FlexOS between 1990 and 1997, I had access to the APT and SBK (the former being the application API and libraries, the latter the equivalent for device drivers). The header files have a confusing mix of names in them as the product was renamed.
I once performed a dig of media sources for FlexOS, and found a bunch of obviously confused stuff in terms of PRs, etc. So a random editor on wikipedia trying to make sense of it is not in the best position.
As to the Multiuser_DOS page on WP, and it referring to CDOS-68K as a successor to CP/M-68K that sounds like confused speculation. FlexOS has/had the ability to offer multiple 'Front Ends' (FEs).
It had its own native APIs (which the APT above provided), the intended general DOS (CDOS-286) had a parallel DOS API (Int 21) Front End. The CDOS-68K version had the native FE, and a parallel CP/M-68K FE. The programs in the 68K distribution zip files are mainly written to the native FE, but the compiler (possibly also linker, librarian) are written to the CP/M-68K FE. The version of FlexOS I worked with only had a native FE in FlexOS-286, but FlexOS-386 also had a somewhat improved version of the original DOS (Int 21) FE. Good enough to run Turbo-C at the time.
Frankly, IMO, all of the Concurrent DOS 286 and CDOS-68K stuff on the Multiuser DOS page should be on the FlexOS page, with only a small piece of text on the MU-DOS page to the effect that the use of 'Concurrent' regarding the early form of the FlexOS products was a marketing name, and they had no relation to the other 'Concurrent' products.
Theoretically, at one time maybe. Now - with their rules, it just ain't worth jumping through the hoops.
I know some statements are rubbish, but I can't use my personal knowledge to correct things; and the various 'secondary sources' which one is obliged to reference are themselves often flawed misinterpretations.
I'm not going to bother to create an account, just to get in to an edit fight with someone riding a hobby horse.
WP is basically a bulletin board, from which one has to launch off to find the truth.
Sadly, I do know what you mean and I at least half agree.
I have been attacked for WP edits and had entire articles deleted, and now all I do is occasionally fix typos.
The deletionists are in control and they have their own weird little social network of pseudonymous semi-trolls, giving each other strange little awards. I don't like it at all, but that is much of the C21 internet for you.
CP/M seemed much nicer.