Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Joe Forster/STA  wrote:
>
>> How about some of our md5 and sha... sum implementations?
>
> I'm working on pdsum, something that started as an expansion of pdSFV
> but I completely rewrote it since. It compiles with Borland C++ 3.1 to 37
> kbytes (without UPX) but it supports flavors of CRC-16/32/64 as well as
> MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512 (! :-) ), BLAKE2S and BLAKEB. It compiles
> for 8086 or 386; it also compiles with Watcom C, DJGPP, MinGW and
> MinGW64. Would you be interested? I need volunteers for testing...

Fascinating.   :-)

Obviously Blair's MD5 tool only supports CRC32, MD5, SHA1. (Well, it
might have buggy support for one or two others, e.g. CRC16.) And most
people these days expect SHA256 or higher (e.g. FreeBSD). I don't
think DJGPP even has sha1sum. And yes, I know that p7zip ("7z h")
supports a lot of these in newer versions, too. Heck, FPC has some
(buggy?) support for CRC32 and MD5.

I don't know what kind of testing you want to do. Just corner cases
like empty files or files (of varying sizes) filled with zeros (or
spaces or ...)? Or do you want to test speed? (Compiler flags are
always a burden to learn and test.)

The main interesting ones (IMHO) for us would be OpenWatcom and DJGPP builds.

>>> * arclds (6 kb)
>>
>> Is that like "file" but only for zip and other archives?
>
> (I'm _very_ proud that it got mentioned at all!) It's not for identifying
> file formats, it rather lists the _contents_ of archives. I've been
> developing it since - but not released it yet -, with the new name
> "arclist", now compiling to 10 kbytes (without UPX) but with support for
> 64-bit file sizes (ZIP64). And a 8086 version and a multi-platform C
> version, too.

Yes, you told us once about the rewrite, but I never bugged you about
it. Heck, I've been using this tool for years. (Back before my MetaDOS
had Unzip, I included it just so you could at least view some
archives. It's still included, even though I "mostly" only list .ZIPs.
Like mentioned already, I miss .gz [GZip] support, which is honestly
fairly easy to add, but I'm too lazy to do it myself.)

> At this very moment, I'm hacking TASM-style features into NASM so that I can
> compile arclist with NASM instead of TASM.

I have already rebuilt ARCLDS (with small patch) using JWasm. I
halfway wanted to convert it to NASM but got too busy. (I did already
convert CRC32 to NASM, which was easy.) IIRC, the main feature you
missed in TASM was "union" (which MASMv6 and JWasm support, I
think??). But NASM has somewhat wimpy (or almost non-existent) support
for structs and unions. Same with FASM (except "maybe" with Win32
macros). I'm sure it can be kludged / worked around but only
tediously. These days, I'd recommend FPC (i8086-msdos) instead, if
starting from scratch. But there's still lots of old legacy TASM code
out there.

> I would be honored to donate both to FreeDOS, with public domain license.

I'll mirror anything that's free/libre to iBiblio.org for you/us, if you want.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>
> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
>> * chksum (6 kb)
>
> How about some of our md5 and sha... sum implementations?

IIRC, Blair's md5sum.exe is 30 kb (UPX'd) while C. Dye's chksum is roughly 6 kb.

Honestly, in a pinch, I always use Joe Forster's tiny crc32 (1 kb),
but C. Dye's chksum has many more features. So that's why I
recommended that here. I think it's important to checksum things
sometimes.

Of course, we already have COMP (2 kb) in "BASE" for simple file comparisons.

>> * arclds (6 kb)
>
> Is that like "file" but only for zip and other archives?

It lists and updates timestamps of various archives. So, even with
"ZIP -o" and "UNZIP -T", it's still very useful. Honestly, I have no
idea how to "touch" a .RAR archive otherwise, without it. I don't know
of any switches in UnRAR at all. Maybe it's supported somehow, but I
don't know where. The only format I really miss is .gz (GZip), but I
have a few kludges / workarounds for that.

> In that case my tiny 2 kB "filetype" tool seems better ;-)

Already have it and use it sometimes, as you know. But that doesn't
list archives. I still miss better .EXE identification, too, but it's
not as easy as it sounds.

>> Possibly other low-level stuff too:
>>
>> * uhex (11 kb)
>
> What is that?

Hex editor. Call me crazy, but I think we need some way to edit binaries.

>> even old NASM 0.98.39 (limited 16-bit build) would be extremely nice
>
> In any case, it is a classic, but is this for the 8086
> compatible distro? Or is it for BASE in general? FASM
> also is nice, I heard, so I agree with your FASM point.

I know no one will agree, but so many things use NASM, especially tiny
tools, that it's almost always useful. And hey, we do want to suggest
people learn to code improvements and fixes themselves, so 
Barring a full C compiler (SmallerC? hey, it uses NASM!), what else
would you recommend instead? Let's not offload everything to "DEVEL".
Let's have some kind of scripting available, if possible. I know
there's no perfect choice, but we can think about it, can't we?

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:23:43 +0200, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>> one last thought: how exactly would make your proposed changes
>> FreeDOS worth a change in naming to 2.0 ?
>>
>> I personally would expect more change then removing APPEND even if
>> APPEND has its roots in CP/M and MSDOS 1.0

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Mateusz Viste  wrote:
> I have to agree with Tom here. I really don't see the point of such move.
> We are talking about a legacy system that has no development any more,
> beside the occasional bug fix.
>
> a "2.0" would make sense if there were some major changes... Say, in-
> kernel USB support, multitasking and such. Doing a repackaging isn't
> really what I would call a major milestone. I assume this is mainly to
> attract clicks, but surely there are other ways to do "buzz".

It wasn't about "buzz" but I assumed the discussion would uncover
ideas that would justify a "2.0" label.

If the changes are incremental, "1.3" makes more sense.


Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

> > (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> > packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> > group, such as:
>
> > APPEND
> > ASSIGN
> > GRAPHICS
> > JOIN
> > SUBST
> > others?

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Tom Ehlert  wrote:
> leaving them where they are doesn´t hurt; what would be the gain. it
> would only add confusion for those (rare) users  that still use SUBST
> etc.

It seems the consensus is to leave the legacy/compatibility programs
where they are.


> > (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
> > in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
> the distributed ISO should be a FreeDOS live disk.
>
> there is literally no good reason that FreeDOS *must* be installed to
> experience the beauty of a C:> prompt.
>
> just put every binary on the CD as it would be installed, so all these
> beautiful games from 1980 can be played right out of the box.
>
> I'd leave the sources in zip archives, though

This is a really good idea. That might also simplify the install process.

Here's an example of how that would be useful:

I just wrote an article for OpenSource.com about how to run DOS
programs under Linux, using the "QEMU" PC emulator. Steps 1-3 are
setting up the VM and installing FreeDOS. Then step 4 is to install
and run your DOS application.


A live ISO means this process is just "Boot the live ISO, then install
and run your DOS application." (QEMU can use a Linux folder as a
virtual FAT drive.)


Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Mateusz Viste]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:23:43 +0200, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> I personally would expect more change then removing APPEND even if
> APPEND has its roots in CP/M and MSDOS 1.0

I have to agree with Tom here. I really don't see the point of such move. 
We are talking about a legacy system that has no development any more, 
beside the occasional bug fix.

a "2.0" would make sense if there were some major changes... Say, in-
kernel USB support, multitasking and such. Doing a repackaging isn't 
really what I would call a major milestone. I assume this is mainly to 
attract clicks, but surely there are other ways to do "buzz".

Mateusz


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Tom Ehlert]

Hallo Herr Jim Hall,


> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> group, such as:

> APPEND
> ASSIGN
> GRAPHICS
> JOIN
> SUBST
> others?

leaving them where they are doesn´t hurt; what would be the gain. it
would only add confusion for those (rare) users  that still use SUBST
etc.


> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

the distributed ISO should be a FreeDOS live disk.

there is literally no good reason that FreeDOS *must* be installed to
experience the beauty of a C:> prompt.

just put every binary on the CD as it would be installed, so all these
beautiful games from 1980 can be played right out of the box.

I'd leave the sources in zip archives, though

one last thought: how exactly would make your proposed changes
FreeDOS worth a change in naming to 2.0 ?

I personally would expect more change then removing APPEND even if
APPEND has its roots in CP/M and MSDOS 1.0

Tom


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Bret Johnson]

> Okay, but I have to ask ... do you use MS-DOS SUBST or (also) FreeDOS? I use 
> both depending on the exact circumstances, but generally prefer FreeDOS 
> SWSUBST.  A lot of MS-DOS utilities have the version issue where they worn't 
> work across different DOS versions whereas the after-market stuff like what 
> comes with FreeDOS is much more universal.  On the other hand, some of the 
> MS-DOS utilities do things that I sometimes need that the generic utilities 
> don't (like disk sector sizes > 512 bytes in the kernel and the various disk 
> utilities, and I/O port virtualization in EMM386). So, I generally mix and 
> match the different utilities depending on what I'm ultimately trying to 
> accomplish. Specifically regarding as SUBST and ASSIGN, it doesn't really 
> matter to me whether they're in BASE or somewhere else, but since MS had them 
> in their "BASE" I think they should probably stay there.  I also agree that 
> they may not be used all that often (or even at all) by most people, but 
> that's kind of irrelevant.  They are very useful things to have in certain 
> situations.  MS obviously thought there was a need or they never would have 
> written them in the first place, and the the ones who "copied" them must have 
> saw a need as well.  You wouldn't take time to write a program that simply 
> copied what somebody else did if you thought it was useless the first time.

1 Simple Trick Removes Eye Bags & Lip Lines in Seconds
Fit Mom Daily
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/59ea1cd8d3f5c1cd860d1st01vuc--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Joe Forster/STA]

Hi guys,


How about some of our md5 and sha... sum implementations?


I'm working on pdsum, something that started as an expansion of pdSFV 
(http://rescene.wikidot.com/pdsfv ) but I completely rewrote it since. It 
compiles with Borland C++ 3.1 to 37 kbytes (without UPX) but it supports 
flavors of CRC-16/32/64 as well as MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512 (! :-) ), 
BLAKE2S and BLAKEB. It compiles for 8086 or 386; it also compiles with 
Watcom C, DJGPP, MinGW and MinGW64. Would you be interested? I need 
volunteers for testing...



* arclds (6 kb)


Is that like "file" but only for zip and other archives?


(I'm _very_ proud that it got mentioned at all!) It's not for identifying 
file formats, it rather lists the _contents_ of archives. I've been 
developing it since - but not released it yet -, with the new name 
"arclist", now compiling to 10 kbytes (without UPX) but with support for 
64-bit file sizes (ZIP64). And a 8086 version and a multi-platform C 
version, too.


At this very moment, I'm hacking TASM-style features into NASM so that I 
can compile arclist with NASM instead of TASM.


I would be honored to donate both to FreeDOS, with public domain license.

Joe
--
KOVÁCS Balázs aka Joe Forster/STA; s...@c64.rulez.org; http://sta.c64.org
Don't E-mail spam, HTML or uncompressed files! More contacts on homepage--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Steve Nickolas]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Thomas Mueller wrote:


from Steve Nickolas:


QEMU?  MAME?  I use 360K floppy disk images all the time in emulators.


Does the floppy size in an emulator have to match an existing physical 
floppy disk?


It may depend on how strict the emulation is.  MAME's is very strict.  I 
think QEMU is less so, but it can only handle heads=2.


-uso.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Chelson Aitcheson]

Maybe you could implement Morse code instead of tcp

On Oct 18, 2017 2:09 AM, "Jim Hall"  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I don't know if you saw on our Twitter or on Facebook, but since its
> release on December 25 2016, FreeDOS 1.2 passed 500,000 downloads in
> June 2017. And passed 600,000 in August. As of this week, FreeDOS 1.2
> has been downloaded over 671,500 times.
>
> I've lately wondered what should come after FreeDOS 1.2. I think it's
> time to talk about "FreeDOS 2.0." I wanted to start a conversation
> thread for it.
>
>
> My thoughts:
>
>
> FreeDOS is meant to be an open source software replacement for MS-DOS.
> As such, "FreeDOS 2.0" must maintain compatibility with MS-DOS. I am
> not suggesting changing core compatibility. "FreeDOS 2.0" needs to
> remain 16-bit, with a single-user single-tasking command-line
> environment that runs on PCs. Compatibility is key!
>
> However, in looking at what "FreeDOS 2.0" might be, I think we are
> maintaining some legacy softare that doesn't need to be part of "base"
> anymore. So in looking at "FreeDOS 2.0," I am thinking about changing
> what tools and utilities are installed when you choose "Base packages
> only" versus "Full installation."
>
> Let's start a discussion:
>
> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> group, such as:
>
> APPEND
> ASSIGN
> GRAPHICS
> JOIN
> SUBST
> others?
>
> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
> (3) What packages do we include in FreeDOS 1.2 that shouldn't exist in
> "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
>
> When replying to this discussion, I ask that you reply in-line (not
> reply-top or reply-bottom) and to keep your discussion focused and
> on-topic. This discussion is about "FreeDOS 2.0."
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> Other references:
>
> http://www.freedos.org/software/
> http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Eric Auer]

Hi Rugxulo,

 think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

...

> * chksum (6 kb)

How about some of our md5 and sha... sum implementations?

> * arclds (6 kb)

Is that like "file" but only for zip and other archives?

In that case my tiny 2 kB "filetype" tool seems better ;-)

> Possibly other low-level stuff too:
> 
> * uhex (11 kb)

What is that?

> even old NASM 0.98.39 (limited 16-bit build) would be extremely nice

In any case, it is a classic, but is this for the 8086
compatible distro? Or is it for BASE in general? FASM
also is nice, I heard, so I agree with your FASM point.

Cheers, Eric

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Thomas Mueller]

from Steve Nickolas:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Rugxulo wrote:

> > How?? I'm not even aware of any emulators that support such size.
> > (Maybe they do, I haven't checked much.) Even 720 kb might be barely
> > useful, but I don't know how to make/modify it (without physical
> > hardware).

> QEMU?  MAME?  I use 360K floppy disk images all the time in emulators.

> -uso.
 
Does the floppy size in an emulator have to match an existing physical floppy 
disk?

With grub4dos, I have used floppy images of 40 MB.

I think also syslinux with memdisk can use a floppy image that does not match 
any actual floppy disk.

Tom


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Steve Nickolas]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Rugxulo wrote:


How?? I'm not even aware of any emulators that support such size.
(Maybe they do, I haven't checked much.) Even 720 kb might be barely
useful, but I don't know how to make/modify it (without physical
hardware).


QEMU?  MAME?  I use 360K floppy disk images all the time in emulators.

-uso.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
>> On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
>>> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
>>> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
>>> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
>>> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

Simple userland utils:

* xgrep (3 kb)
* calc (6 kb)
* chksum (6 kb)
* arclds (6 kb)

Hardware statistics:

* cpulevel (2 kb)
* pcisleep (4 kb)

Honestly, I also think some high-level scripting would be extremely useful:

* sed (15 kb)
* awk (74 kb)

* (???) PicoC or EiC (but DJGPP 386+)

Possibly other low-level stuff too:

* uhex (11 kb)

But even old NASM 0.98.39 (limited 16-bit build) would be extremely
nice ("probably" more useful for us overall than AWK):

* nasm16 (72 kb)

FASM lacks OMF/OBJ (and requires 386+) but is still darn good:

* fasm (54 kb)

(N.B. All .EXE sizes are approximate and almost always UPX'd.)

I really think we need some kind of scripting available. Would some
kind of Forth be preferable? (DX? 4tH?) Doubt it, it's small and good
but not widespread enough in DOS circles. Batch isn't enough since it
can't do arithmetic. Maybe XPL0 (XPLIQ)?

I just reject the idea of downloading an external, full compiler suite
just to do simple maintenance and a few binary patches. (I have small
tools for binary patches, but that's limited use. We need something
more flexible but small.)

I know everyone will disagree with me. I'm just throwing out some
ideas. I personally couldn't live without sed. Certainly, NASM was
used a lot for many DOS utilities. I think xgrep is also extremely
useful.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
>
> I posted this topic to the FreeDOS Facebook group, as well. Sharing
> some comments from our Facebook friends, to add to the discussion:
> (edited for clarity/brevity)
>
> - a floppy maintainance kit
> [I think this means a set of disk repair utilities?]

Chkdsk? Dosfsck? Raread? Diskcomp?

> - Internet tools (ftp, web browser, email, etc)

mTCP is quite good. So is Links2.

> - A version of FreeDOS 2.0 that targets older machines, distributed as
> a few 360k floppy images.

How?? I'm not even aware of any emulators that support such size.
(Maybe they do, I haven't checked much.) Even 720 kb might be barely
useful, but I don't know how to make/modify it (without physical
hardware).

MetaDOS is (almost) 720 kb. That could easily be tweaked, if anyone
needed it. (That was the whole point of making it.)

> - "Barebone" setup profile for the minimal installation possible,
> something slightly more functional than "format c: /s"
> [not sure how this differs from installing "Base only"?]

MetaDOS is a single floppy. If there was literally any other (that I
knew of), especially still maintained,  Well, beggars can't be
choosers.

It does have minimal installation tools (fdisk, format, sys, bootmgr).

> - Meta-packages or "package groups", so we can install full sets of
> programs in one shot (such as "Development" to install all of the dev
> tools)

In MetaDOS, everything is downloaded via FTP or WGET. There are simple
.BATs (plain text) to do this. Granted, I don't point to literally
everything, but there's a lot of links to various programming tools.
But, concerning official repos, it only supported FDBASE and FDUTIL
(back before 1.2 changed/added a lot). Everything else was just
whatever I could find and test.

> - Tools to make it easier to roll out / deploy FreeDOS to many
> machines, or at least a scripted / automated setup

I'm not sure what kind of miracle people are expecting here. There's
so many complications (MBR or GPT? UEFI w/ CSM?). I think FDISK can be
automated, but I haven't tried. The absolute bare minimum DOS
installation can be done in less than five minutes (assuming quick
format on reasonably-sized drive).

But VMs are easier and safer to use, so I think most reasonable people
(without retro/old/dedicated hardware) should use that instead.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Kenway, Owain  wrote:
>
> From: Jim Hall 
> Sent: 17 October 2017 16:44
>
>> I've lately wondered what should come after FreeDOS 1.2. I think it's
>> time to talk about "FreeDOS 2.0."
>
>> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
>> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
>
> Personally I'd like (note like, not need!) more of the development tools from 
> Open Watcom and DJGPP
> to be available as packages.  Currently these are (reasonably, due to 
> popularity!) skewed towards C/C++
> but both provide compilers for other languages (Fortran, Ada etc.) which we 
> don't have packages for.
> DJGPP also has an Emacs build which might interest some people.

Too quickly outdated, too bloated (even moreso with full sources!),
too few users.

Just grab them from DJGPP FTP mirror. It's not that hard.

I know FreeDOS has some old GCC "packages" (e.g. 4.7.1 for 2.03p2),
but I don't personally see the point. And nobody ever updated them to
2.05 either (which is almost two years old by now).

> Similarly there are a couple of nice DOS Open Source languages we could add - 
> UCBLogo and Gambit
> Scheme (I've not found a good Open Source Common LISP for DOS but I am 
> looking!).  Both work well
> on FreeDOS 1.2, it'd just be nice to have packages for them!

All such things that I've found in years past were quite outdated and
unmaintained. Of course the license would also have to be FOSS/OSI
friendly. For whatever reason, most developers gave up on DJGPP
(probably because of buggy NTVDM and/or AMD64 before VT-X). So even
stuff that used to work and be supported is almost impossible to find.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Bret Johnson  wrote:
>
> > On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
> >> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> >> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> >> group, such as:
> >>
> >> APPEND
> >> ASSIGN
> >> GRAPHICS
> >> JOIN
> >> SUBST
> >> others?
>
> I actually use SUBST a lot and sometimes also use ASSIGN, but not the
others you have listed.
> They are actually necessary for the way I do things on my modern systems
-- they allow me to
> keep my drive letters consistent no matter where I run DOS from (booting
to real DOS, running
> DOS in a VM, and even running it on different machines).  DOS programs
tend to be pretty picky
> about drive letters, and keeping them consistent allows me to just copy
things back and forth as
> I need with very few problems and much less confusion.

Okay, but I have to ask ... do you use MS-DOS SUBST or (also) FreeDOS?

And here lies the rub. Nobody maintains or tests some of these old utils.
Some of them have obscure bugs or maybe don't work well at all. I'm not
really complaining about anyone, free time is always scarce, just that the
situation itself is less than ideal. (And we still have TurboC-only utils,
which is annoying. Everything really needs to migrate to OpenWatcom.)

No matter what we remove, it will still be available "somewhere",
preferably on iBiblio. So that's an easy fetch via FTP (or HTTP). It's not
hard, by any stretch, for potential end users to find these things, if they
direly need them in the future. "BASE" is really unwieldy and too big right
now. You truly don't need much to run a minimal DOS installation.

But indeed, there is little advantage to including obscure things like
EXE2BIN (which nobody uses by itself, AFAIK, and it just comes from
OpenWatcom anyways).

I could continue to argue about bloat or rarely-used functionality until
the cows come home, but I won't.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Bret Johnson]

> On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
[..]
>> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
>> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
>> group, such as:
>>
>> APPEND
>> ASSIGN
>> GRAPHICS
>> JOIN
>> SUBST
>> others?

> I'll admit that I'm the fence on the "Compat" thing, so I'm looking
> for others' opinions here.
>
> On one hand, I'd bet these utils aren't really used anymore on
> *modern* systems, or in Virtual Machines / PC Emulators. So moving
> these to "Compat" makes sense for modern users. I actually use SUBST a lot 
> and sometimes also use ASSIGN, but not the others you have listed.  They are 
> actually necessary for the way I do things on my modern systems -- they allow 
> me to keep my drive letters consistent no matter where I run DOS from 
> (booting to real DOS, running DOS in a VM, and even running it on different 
> machines).  DOS programs tend to be pretty picky about drive letters, and 
> keeping them consistent allows me to just copy things back and forth as I 
> need with very few problems and much less confusion.

We Say Good Bye To Joanna And Chip
trecommanews.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/59e804d91c0624d94c9dst02vuc--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Jim Hall  wrote:
[..]
>> I've lately wondered what should come after FreeDOS 1.2. I think it's
>> time to talk about "FreeDOS 2.0." I wanted to start a conversation
>> thread for it.
[..]
>> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
>> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Jerome Shidel  wrote:
> More (good) Open source games. (If we can find them).
>

I wasn't a big fan of including games in the FreeDOS distribution -
until we released FreeDOS 1.2. By then, others had convinced me that
if most people were using FreeDOS to play classic DOS games, we should
provide some free software / open source software games with FreeDOS.

BTW: I don't think the list of games to include is "static." We should
be able to change the list of games very easily. Games aren't utility
programs that add new functionality to FreeDOS - they are games. So if
there's a game that we want to add, or a game we want to remove, I'm
happy to do that. My only requirement is that these games should be
free software / open source software, and that we avoid dupes (people
don't want to choose from a million Tetris clones).



Are you new to FreeDOS, and looking for a way to contribute? Create
some fun games for FreeDOS!



Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

I posted this topic to the FreeDOS Facebook group, as well. Sharing
some comments from our Facebook friends, to add to the discussion:
(edited for clarity/brevity)

- a floppy maintainance kit
[I think this means a set of disk repair utilities?]

- Internet tools (ftp, web browser, email, etc)

- A version of FreeDOS 2.0 that targets older machines, distributed as
a few 360k floppy images.

- "Barebone" setup profile for the minimal installation possible,
something slightly more functional than "format c: /s"
[not sure how this differs from installing "Base only"?]

- Meta-packages or "package groups", so we can install full sets of
programs in one shot (such as "Development" to install all of the dev
tools)

- Tools to make it easier to roll out / deploy FreeDOS to many
machines, or at least a scripted / automated setup


Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

> On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
[..]
>> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
>> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
>> group, such as:
>>
>> APPEND
>> ASSIGN
>> GRAPHICS
>> JOIN
>> SUBST
>> others?
>>
>> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
>> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
>> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
>> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ralf Quint  wrote:
> For me, any  "Base" would mean that it contains everything that is
> contained in a default MS-DOS 5.0 (or 6.22) set of floppy disk. That
> would include those utilities that you marked for removal above.
> Excluding them would IMHO violate your previously "Compatibility is
> key!" mantra. One should be able to just replace a MS-DOS 5.0/6.22 set
> of disks with a "base" FreeDOS disk set and have identical functionality...


I'll admit that I'm the fence on the "Compat" thing, so I'm looking
for others' opinions here.

On one hand, I'd bet these utils aren't really used anymore on
*modern* systems, or in Virtual Machines / PC Emulators. So moving
these to "Compat" makes sense for modern users.

But on the other hand, Ralf (and Eric) makes a good point that "Base"
has always represented programs that provide the functionality of
MS-DOS. This may be important for those who run on legacy hardware or
need that legacy compatibility for some other reason. And the packages
are small, so won't take up too much extra room on a VM or modern hard
drive.

I'm curious to see what others say.

I'm more focused on what packages we should *add* to "Base" and to the
distribution as a whole. For "Base" it sounds like people are
suggesting drivers that help FreeDOS work better on modern systems.
That makes sense to me. Any specific suggestions?


Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Kenway, Owain]

(sorry if the formatting is messed up, OWA is a horror)

From: Jim Hall 
Sent: 17 October 2017 16:44
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

> Hi all

> I don't know if you saw on our Twitter or on Facebook, but since its
> release on December 25 2016, FreeDOS 1.2 passed 500,000 downloads in
> June 2017. And passed 600,000 in August. As of this week, FreeDOS 1.2
> has been downloaded over 671,500 times.

> I've lately wondered what should come after FreeDOS 1.2. I think it's
> time to talk about "FreeDOS 2.0." I wanted to start a conversation
> thread for it.


> My thoughts:


> FreeDOS is meant to be an open source software replacement for MS-DOS.
> As such, "FreeDOS 2.0" must maintain compatibility with MS-DOS. I am
> not suggesting changing core compatibility. "FreeDOS 2.0" needs to 
> remain 16-bit, with a single-user single-tasking command-line
> environment that runs on PCs. Compatibility is key!

> However, in looking at what "FreeDOS 2.0" might be, I think we are
> maintaining some legacy softare that doesn't need to be part of "base"
> anymore. So in looking at "FreeDOS 2.0," I am thinking about changing
> what tools and utilities are installed when you choose "Base packages
> only" versus "Full installation."

> Let's start a discussion:

> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> group, such as:

> APPEND
> ASSIGN
> GRAPHICS
> JOIN
> SUBST
> others?

Sounds good to me!

> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

> (3) What packages do we include in FreeDOS 1.2 that shouldn't exist in
> "FreeDOS 2.0"?

> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

Personally I'd like (note like, not need!) more of the development tools from 
Open Watcom and DJGPP to be available as packages.  Currently these are 
(reasonably, due to popularity!) skewed towards C/C++ but both provide 
compilers for other languages (Fortran, Ada etc.) which we don't have packages 
for.  DJGPP also has an Emacs build which might interest some people.

Similarly there are a couple of nice DOS Open Source languages we could add - 
UCBLogo and Gambit Scheme (I've not found a good Open Source Common LISP for 
DOS but I am looking!).  Both work well on FreeDOS 1.2, it'd just be nice to 
have packages for them!

The only other thing I'm missing a bit more generally is better USB support for 
things like serial <-> USB (increasingly a problem for modern hardware :( ) but 
there doesn't appear to be anything that could be added off the shelf for that 
so it's a bit of work.

Perhaps some applications for OpenGEM?

> When replying to this discussion, I ask that you reply in-line (not
> reply-top or reply-bottom) and to keep your discussion focused and
> on-topic. This discussion is about "FreeDOS 2.0."


> Jim


> Other references:

> http://www.freedos.org/software/
> http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map


Cheers,
Owain

--
/UCL/ISD/RITS/RC Applications & Support Team Leader/Owain Kenway
Twitter: @owainkenway   || E-mail: o.ken...@ucl.ac.uk
Internal: 59834 || External: 02031089834
First Floor, The Podium, 1 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jerome Shidel]

> On Oct 17, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Jim Hall  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I don't know if you saw on our Twitter or on Facebook, but since its
> release on December 25 2016, FreeDOS 1.2 passed 500,000 downloads in
> June 2017. And passed 600,000 in August. As of this week, FreeDOS 1.2
> has been downloaded over 671,500 times.
> 
> I've lately wondered what should come after FreeDOS 1.2. I think it's
> time to talk about "FreeDOS 2.0." I wanted to start a conversation
> thread for it.
> 
> 
> My thoughts:
> 
> 
> FreeDOS is meant to be an open source software replacement for MS-DOS.
> As such, "FreeDOS 2.0" must maintain compatibility with MS-DOS. I am
> not suggesting changing core compatibility. "FreeDOS 2.0" needs to
> remain 16-bit, with a single-user single-tasking command-line
> environment that runs on PCs. Compatibility is key!
> 
> However, in looking at what "FreeDOS 2.0" might be, I think we are
> maintaining some legacy softare that doesn't need to be part of "base"
> anymore. So in looking at "FreeDOS 2.0," I am thinking about changing
> what tools and utilities are installed when you choose "Base packages
> only" versus "Full installation."
> 
> Let's start a discussion:
> 
> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> group, such as:
> 
> APPEND
> ASSIGN
> GRAPHICS
> JOIN
> SUBST
> others?

Based on previous discussions on the most popular uses of FreeDOS, many of the 
legacy compatibility programs are probably seldom used. Moving them to a 
“compat” group sounds good. Sometimes, less is better.

> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
> 
> (3) What packages do we include in FreeDOS 1.2 that shouldn't exist in
> "FreeDOS 2.0"?
> 
> (4) Is there anything missing in FreeDOS 1.2 that should be included
> in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

More (good) Open source games. (If we can find them).

> When replying to this discussion, I ask that you reply in-line (not
> reply-top or reply-bottom) and to keep your discussion focused and
> on-topic. This discussion is about "FreeDOS 2.0."
> 

I’ve also had some thoughts about the next version of FreeDOS. Mostly, they are 
as follows.

1) A flexible startup boot configuration system. Similar to having a single 
Linux init runlevel. This can be done without breaking backwards compatibility. 
But, it would provide the flexibility for packages that are added or removed to 
manage their own configurations. For example, install DOSLFN and it will start 
automatically on boot. Remove the package and it cleans up itself. 

2) A simple menu program for new users to easily find and run installed 
programs. 

I did create a VM install that more or less demonstrates what I mean by those 
ideas. The dynamic configuration stuff is interesting. But, it would need much 
testing to ensure it is reliable and stable. 

Just some thoughts.

Jerome


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Jim Hall]

> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Eric Auer wrote:
>[..]
>> In general, I would include a variety of drivers for modern
>> hardware. As mentioned on BTTR, somebody recently tried a
>> few DOS games on VERY new hardware: First with MS DOS plus
>> Win9x FDISK (fails to boot from harddisk, so he installed
>> to harddisk and used a boot diskette) and then with FreeDOS
>> (boots from harddisk, supports USB drives). He then tries
>> some sound options, but fails to get JEMMEX / JEMMEX happy
>> and obviously has no pre-PCI slots on that (Ryzen based?)
>> computer either, so no SB Live etc. And no PC speaker, as
>> none was included with the case - mainboard still has the
>> header... In short, drivers help with modern computers :-)

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Steve Nickolas  wrote:
> Would that be Lazy Game Reviews?  I think I saw a video to that extent on
> his YouTube channel.


Yes, it was LGR. We had a discussion about it on the FreeDOS Facebook
page. Very interesting to see him try to run MS-DOS on a new computer,
but fail - so he ran FreeDOS. And FreeDOS worked! :-)

Jim

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Steve Nickolas]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Eric Auer wrote:


In general, I would include a variety of drivers for modern
hardware. As mentioned on BTTR, somebody recently tried a
few DOS games on VERY new hardware: First with MS DOS plus
Win9x FDISK (fails to boot from harddisk, so he installed
to harddisk and used a boot diskette) and then with FreeDOS
(boots from harddisk, supports USB drives). He then tries
some sound options, but fails to get JEMMEX / JEMMEX happy
and obviously has no pre-PCI slots on that (Ryzen based?)
computer either, so no SB Live etc. And no PC speaker, as
none was included with the case - mainboard still has the
header... In short, drivers help with modern computers :-)


Would that be Lazy Game Reviews?  I think I saw a video to that extent on 
his YouTube channel.


-uso.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Steve Nickolas]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Ralf Quint wrote:


On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:


However, in looking at what "FreeDOS 2.0" might be, I think we are
maintaining some legacy softare that doesn't need to be part of "base"
anymore. So in looking at "FreeDOS 2.0," I am thinking about changing
what tools and utilities are installed when you choose "Base packages
only" versus "Full installation."

Let's start a discussion:

(1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
group, such as:

APPEND
ASSIGN
GRAPHICS
JOIN
SUBST
others?

(2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?

For me, any  "Base" would mean that it contains everything that is
contained in a default MS-DOS 5.0 (or 6.22) set of floppy disk. That
would include those utilities that you marked for removal above.
Excluding them would IMHO violate your previously "Compatibility is
key!" mantra. One should be able to just replace a MS-DOS 5.0/6.22 set
of disks with a "base" FreeDOS disk set and have identical functionality...

Ralf


I may point that in MS-DOS 6 and PC DOS 6/7, several utilities previously 
part of the system were relegated to "supplemental" status or outright 
removed - and I think among them were the more dangerous tools like 
APPEND.


-uso.--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jim, glad to hear that FreeDOS is so often downloaded :-)

Regarding compatibility, I think about EMS / XMS drivers
and how crashes with their default config might make first
time users give up attempts to try "FreeDOS for fun" and
return to DOSBOX for gaming... I also think about how an
improved version of VSB or similar SoundBlaster emulators
(based on protected mode traps, so not all games will be
compatible) can make FreeDOS more entertaining on real
hardware :-)

I would not move away any classic components which mimick
MS DOS 3, 4, 5 or 6 functionality: Remember how Windows
now contains zillions of files but it still works. As Ralf
wrote, making APPEND and similar tools 2nd class citizens
would hurt compatibility without having real advantages.

In general, I would include a variety of drivers for modern
hardware. As mentioned on BTTR, somebody recently tried a
few DOS games on VERY new hardware: First with MS DOS plus
Win9x FDISK (fails to boot from harddisk, so he installed
to harddisk and used a boot diskette) and then with FreeDOS
(boots from harddisk, supports USB drives). He then tries
some sound options, but fails to get JEMMEX / JEMMEX happy
and obviously has no pre-PCI slots on that (Ryzen based?)
computer either, so no SB Live etc. And no PC speaker, as
none was included with the case - mainboard still has the
header... In short, drivers help with modern computers :-)

I would not go as far as including Wireless network drivers,
obviously. Too complex etc. - see the newest bug in WPA2.
External bridge solutions via wired network are available.

You could add stuff like SETEDIT to BASE if you want fancy
features more than exact MS DOS style. But this is rather
optional for me: All MS DOS features fit on very few disks
and almost everybody downloads FreeDOS as ISO or USB boot
image anyway, so they can always install many bonus apps.

If you give me some URL with a list of all FreeDOS 1.2
packages in one page, it might be easier to think about
what should be excluded from 2.0, but I think this will
be mostly "exclude X with mediocre license because Y is
available as replacement". I would rarely exclude things
only because they are for example unmaintained. Well...
I guess the SSH and ICQ related packages are candidates
for the latter, because their age broke compatibility
with current servers. But apart from such cases, I would
keep most of 1.2 in 2.0 :-)

Regards, Eric


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

[Ralf Quint]

On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
> My thoughts:
>
>
> FreeDOS is meant to be an open source software replacement for MS-DOS.
> As such, "FreeDOS 2.0" must maintain compatibility with MS-DOS. I am
> not suggesting changing core compatibility. "FreeDOS 2.0" needs to
> remain 16-bit, with a single-user single-tasking command-line
> environment that runs on PCs. Compatibility is key!
+1000 (and then some)
>
> However, in looking at what "FreeDOS 2.0" might be, I think we are
> maintaining some legacy softare that doesn't need to be part of "base"
> anymore. So in looking at "FreeDOS 2.0," I am thinking about changing
> what tools and utilities are installed when you choose "Base packages
> only" versus "Full installation."
>
> Let's start a discussion:
>
> (1) What does "Base" mean in 2017 or 2018? I think there are some
> packages we might take out of "Base" and move into a "Compat" package
> group, such as:
>
> APPEND
> ASSIGN
> GRAPHICS
> JOIN
> SUBST
> others?
>
> (2) Are there other packages we should install "Base" by default? I
> don't want to make this a free-for-all, but perhaps there are some
> utilities that should be "promoted" to "Base." What utilities do you
> think should be moved to "Base" in "FreeDOS 2.0"?
For me, any  "Base" would mean that it contains everything that is
contained in a default MS-DOS 5.0 (or 6.22) set of floppy disk. That
would include those utilities that you marked for removal above.
Excluding them would IMHO violate your previously "Compatibility is
key!" mantra. One should be able to just replace a MS-DOS 5.0/6.22 set
of disks with a "base" FreeDOS disk set and have identical functionality...

Ralf


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel