Re: [Freedos-user] Whatever happened to freedos-32?
Wouldn't it have been smarter to request a relicense to LGPL for FreeDOS-32? That would fix his problems On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Christian Masloch c...@bttr-software.dewrote: As far as I can tell, the last commit in the SVN for the project was in 2007, so it's either abandoned, in hiatus, or going so slowly that no commits have been pushed through in the last two years. I contacted Salvo a year or so ago and he said there's still work on a new version which will replace the current one. Here's what he wrote me: Salvo Isaja, 2008-05-27: Now proceeding with very slow pace and restarting since the very beginning, mainly due to licensing issues (i.e. the GPL is unadeguate). [note that the GPL is the license of OSLib, not LGPL] Reading some old mailing list archives I found, I think it's something about the licensing of OSLib. As previously discussed in the BTTR Software forum, DOS-C (The FreeDOS Kernel) possibly violates the GPL by allowing to load non-GPL DOS device drivers. Now in FreeDOS-32's architecture the native drivers and applications are linked into the kernel or something, so the OSLib guy said they all have to be licensed under the GPL too when using OSLib. Regards, Christian -- Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Whatever happened to freedos-32?
As far as I can tell, the last commit in the SVN for the project was in 2007, so it's either abandoned, in hiatus, or going so slowly that no commits have been pushed through in the last two years. Remaking the FreeDOS kernel to be 32-bit might be rather significant, or even to 64-bit, since we are starting to see quite a few 64-bit processors. The only problem with a 64-bit FreeDOS kernel is figuring out how to deal with 16-bit applications. I'd say the best option would be to add a driver/module that would do the exact same thing as user-mode QEMU on Linux: emulate a processor and load it in a hybrid environment. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.comwrote: There was an effort to create a 32 bit version of freedos with memory protection and possibly some other features. What is happening with this project? I'm just curious is all. -- Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] A windows 9x replacement...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Robert Riebisch r...@bttr-software.dewrote: King InuYasha wrote: HX Extender is not a very good Win32 console runner, Why do you think so? Robert Riebisch -- BTTR Software http://www.bttr-software.de/ Because running Win32 console applications are not reliable in HX. I have a few of them on my own FreeDOS machine, and they don't really run very well. QEMU under HX isn't very good either, though the virtualization aspect kinda messes with it anyway. Being able to use HX to use graphical installers for any type of program in DOS would be something I would like to see. HX with the GUI module can barely run the oldest Win32 version of Inno Setup. It can also run NSIS 1.xx somewhat as well. Though they are likely to crash when you select Next button. -- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] A windows 9x replacement...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote: Because running Win32 console applications are not reliable in HX. I have a few of them on my own FreeDOS machine, and they don't really run very well. is that your entry to the ever lasting 'WORST BUG REPORT EVER' competition ? in that case, consider yourself a front runner. and - BTW - FreeDOS does NOT want to be a Windows 9x replacement. Tom Excuse me for not being the best at describing problems that I encountered when I tried HX with FreeDOS six months ago! If I actually had done it yesterday or even last week, I could probably describe it a lot better! Don't get so testy -- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] A windows 9x replacement...
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: Michael Robinson schreef: There are many Windows programs that only work in dos based Windows. There is such a thing as a dos based Windows program, try to run it at the dos prompt ( any version ) and you'll get a this requires Microsoft Windows error. Many of these same programs either don't work or don't work correctly in Windows NT and other NT based versions of Windows. Isn't this exactly what HX Extender is for? to run win32 console programs Right now, one of the goals of the kernel developers is to support Windows 3.x better. Yep, let's see where kernel 2039 brings us sometime :) HX Extender is not a very good Win32 console runner, but it is better than nothing. In the future, this might be used as the basis of such a Win 3.x/9x replacement. Hopefully kernel 2039 does bring us good support for Windows 3.x... -- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] A windows 9x replacement...
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:00 PM, guest plu...@robinson-west.com wrote: First off, would I be asking for a freedos compatible Windows replacement if I could just use ReactOS? I know about ReactOS, ReactOS is garbage right now. It will probably be garbage for 2-3 more years. There is no reason for an MSDOS Windows replacement to be MSDOS compatible. Freedos doesn't need to be munged to do those things that MS-DOS did that don't make sense. As far as Linux and Wine, Warcraft II BNE does not work under wine. If I had the dos version, I could use dosbox or freedos. Wine is not much better than ReactOS at supporting Windows progams. Under Wine, I have never gotten sound for example. On a less than 1 Ghz machine, who wants to run Wine? Need I remind people, you cannot legally run MS-DOS anymore. It's not something you can legally install to a system that never had MS-DOS. MS-DOS is not freeware, that's why Freedos exists after all. I've tried to talk to the ReactOS community to find out when this or that will be fixed or what is currently being worked on, all it does is make people angry. It seems that talking about ReactOS's future makes the leaders rather angry. Maybe they see uncertainty in the project's future? It did have a rocky start. Also, ReactOS is a shambles, full of hacks and little tweaks to try to get the kernel in a workable state. The user-level DLLs are almost entirely inherited from the Wine Project. If someone were to design a Windows GUI replacement, being able to effectively use the Wine DLLs would speed up the process considerably. Compared to Windows NT, which the essential design of ReactOS comes from, Windows 3.11 and Windows 9x are relatively simple at the lower level. Replicating the Windows 3.11 lower level and then plugging in Wine DLLs, and finally adding in the Program Manager, etc. should result in something remotely stable. HX DOS Extender does support VERY basic Win32 applications, but it is somewhat of a hodgepodge. It's basically using the Windows NT form of Win32 as its base. If that could be refitted to work with Wine DLLs then it would make a lot of the work needed go by a lot faster. Then we would just need someone willing to write the user apps included in Windows 3.11. -- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:21 AM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: Instead of asking for it to remove the sources each time a package is installed, why not tally it all up and as the last step, users can select if they want sources or not, and if they do, they can select which ones they want, with an option to select them all. This is a much better user experience than requiring the user to be there throughout the entire install process. I guess I was assuming the install program would ask at the beginning of the install if you wanted to have sources installed too. So it wouldn't be a per-package option (for the distro installer) but a global one. That way, once you have set up your target directory, chosen the disk sets you want to install, and whether/not you want source code, the installer would pretty much run unattended. Of course, the standalone fdpkg program should have a command-line option so if you're installing a single package afterwards, you should always be able to specify if you want to keep source code. -jh That works just as well, probably preferable to doing it at the end. -- Register Now Save for Velocity, the Web Performance Operations Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry leaders in dedicated Performance Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
Instead of asking for it to remove the sources each time a package is installed, why not tally it all up and as the last step, users can select if they want sources or not, and if they do, they can select which ones they want, with an option to select them all. This is a much better user experience than requiring the user to be there throughout the entire install process. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.netwrote: On Monday 20 April 2009 23:28 (CEST), Jim Hall wrote: The -x option in the unzip library will exclude members from being unzipped. So this seems an easy modification to the installer: if the user doesn't want to install sources, then apply -x SOURCE\ when the installer extracts the package to the target disk. Good idea! :-) It should definitely be something handled by the FDPKG program... This way any wrapper will be able to easily install anything without source (FreeDOS installer, FDUPDATE, etc). Of course, FDPKG would also need to support mixed packages natively (ie. be able to install properly a package named, say, lbacache.zip, which contains both sources and binaries)... Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- You'll find my public OpenPGP key at http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/pub_key -- Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton usul.the.mo...@gmail.comwrote: Windows 3x Issues I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives. Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as the book hints at or legitimate concerns it doesn't matter at this point) This probably some of the reason for the problems. Win 3.x will probably never be 100% on FreeDos, nor will a compatible Win 3.x GUI ever be 100%. I have been researching what it would take to make a Win 3.x compatible GUI. I wanted to write a GUI might as well make one that is useful, there are enough new ones out there that are new. I think its possible, and in the long run its probably better. If one runs the Win 3.x /FreeDos then is the GUI/OS that will be unstable. If there is a compatible GUI, then it should be the hopefully rare application that is unstable. Better to have a stable GUI/OS than I think. I think this could be done there is plenty of ports out there to either use or learn from: HX DOS Extender (although there is the lack of license with the source code provided.) Wine Project for Linux Reactos As for the GUI again plenty out there NanoX wxWidgets I think Nano-X is a good thing to choose, but for the widgets UI base, I would instead suggest Qt. Qt is more stable, so less reason to possibly fork it. Plus, it's just a CSS file away from being restyled to look like Windows 3.1x! Plus, Qt is a complete framework, so you could literally implement the entire API as a front end to Qt itself, which would increase portability. I have been looking and asking questions on both of the Wine and ReactOS forums and it looks promising. I think I will buy a copy of windows 3.x on EBay and use that for comparison. I can barely remember what it looked like and what is all there. LOL First: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win311fw ( :P) Second: http://www.weblust.com/winbible/BibleTop.html Third: http://eburl.net/8958b Any thoughts, advice, windows 3.1 programming SDK, documentation would most helpful. usul I do have a copy of the Windows 3.1 programming SDK on a backup disc, which came with a copy of MSVC 1.52c Maybe that would help? Also, a few links to help ya out: One: http://eburl.net/8b1e6f Two: http://eburl.net/275fe Three: http://eburl.net/ce66 Hope these help! -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Is Windows 3.1 worth it and wordprocessing?
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Larry doc...@yahoo.com wrote: pcwrite was a pretty complete shareware word processor that we used successfully in a workplace to write reports. It may still be around either as share or abandoned. --- On Sun, 4/12/09, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: From: Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Is Windows 3.1 worth it and wordprocessing? To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 12:39 PM [..] These days, openoffice is my word processor of choice. On a freedos system, that isn't an option. I wish freedos had a free word processor that is comparable to WordPerfect 6.0 for dos. I don't expect freedos 1.1 to have a free word processor, but it would be nice if there was some action to include one eventually. [..] If you can find a copy of the old shareware Galaxy Write for MS-DOS, this was a good word processor for me. When I was at university, I used Galaxy Write to write my term papers. Not too dissimilar from WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS (granted, not as powerful.) I tried to find a download, but it doesn't seem to be at simtel anymore. Actually, simtel no longer seems to have any MS-DOS downloads these days. Maybe Eric or another webmaster can take simtel off the Links page. If you want to see what Galaxy looked like, I used to have screenshots on my web page. Some kind person has mirrored them for me: http://freedos.gds.tuwien.ac.at/jhall/photos/galaxy/ -jh -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Word 5.5 for DOS is available for free download from Microsoft... http://download.microsoft.com/download/word97win/Wd55_be/97/WIN98/EN-US/Wd55_ben.exe -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What is the trick to get Windows 3.1 to run on freedos???
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: Hi :-) Realistically, someone should make a clone of Windows 3.1. This makes more sense than making freedos unstable. Unstable is only needed for 386 enh mode or wfworkgroups. Windows 3.1 isn't that heavy Depends... On the other hand, reactos and hxgui are strong. I do not think reactos is years away, in any case re-win3 from scratch would be even further away ;-). Not sure how heavy either will be - which hardware do you have in mind? 3) There are many date problems and possibly other bugs. You could get a y2k fix download from microsoft a while ago. 4) Freedos seems to become unstable when Windows 3.x is run on top of it. In what way? I guess using dos apps and dos boxes inside freedos could indeed cause stability problems. Eric If you put it that way Then it seems like it would be easier to mobilize the entire FreeDOS user list to get Microsoft to open source Windows for Workgroups 3.11. I don't think anyone can really accomplish that though. Even so, a good portion of Windows 3.11 would not have to be rewritten. For example, by using Nano-X with Wine/ReactOS code along with HX DOS Extender, you effectively replaced the WIN.COM loader, the shell initialization, and implemented a good portion of Win32 and if we could bring in more Wine code, also Win16, which is implemented in Wine, but not ReactOS. Although, using Nano-X and HX DOS Extender effectively kills using old Windows 3.x drivers right away. Later on it could be implemented, but I don't think it could be done right from the start. On second thought, why not mobilize the people? The only obstacle would be that Microsoft wouldn't listen, but I don't think they have any real reason to keep that old code closed source anyway, so they might -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What is the trick to get Windows 3.1 to run on freedos???
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM, usul usul.the.mo...@gmail.com wrote: Realistically, someone should make a clone of Windows 3..0/3.11. Call it Janus or Snowball after the code names for Windows 3..0/3.11 :) I have been doing research on this and I am considering doing this. Since I wanted to make a GUI for FreeDos. :) Need a break from package building on the new release, either I am doing it wrong or it is a slow process. I think I have a lot of good things to start Wine Project/Reactos (they had a Win 16 Compatibility Library) HX DOS Extender http://www.japheth.de/HX.html wxMGL http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/wxuniv.htm NanoX http://www.microwindows.org/ I still need to buy a copy of MSDOS 6.22 Window's 3.11 for comparison. Technical documentation on programing for and the design of Windows 3.11 would be helpful. The goal shouldn't be to support the most recent programs, it should be to implement a Windows 3.x compatible gui for freedos that can run old Windows programs. I was thinking goal 1 would be to run old windows program but I see no need not to include newer functionality as well. For example older browsers probably would not run load websites very well, networking. WinFile at it was could not view compressed drives, or see NTFS etc. Any help/advice on this would also be greatly appreciated. I have a VM with MS DOS 6.22, Windows 3.11, and Win32s available in a QEMU VM. If you need comparative testing, let me know. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What is the trick to get Windows 3.1 to run on freedos???
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:03 AM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM, usul usul.the.mo...@gmail.com wrote: Realistically, someone should make a clone of Windows 3..0/3.11. Call it Janus or Snowball after the code names for Windows 3..0/3.11 :) I have been doing research on this and I am considering doing this. Since I wanted to make a GUI for FreeDos. :) Need a break from package building on the new release, either I am doing it wrong or it is a slow process. I think I have a lot of good things to start Wine Project/Reactos (they had a Win 16 Compatibility Library) HX DOS Extender http://www.japheth.de/HX.html wxMGL http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/wxuniv.htm NanoX http://www.microwindows.org/ I still need to buy a copy of MSDOS 6.22 Window's 3.11 for comparison. Technical documentation on programing for and the design of Windows 3.11 would be helpful. The goal shouldn't be to support the most recent programs, it should be to implement a Windows 3.x compatible gui for freedos that can run old Windows programs. I was thinking goal 1 would be to run old windows program but I see no need not to include newer functionality as well. For example older browsers probably would not run load websites very well, networking. WinFile at it was could not view compressed drives, or see NTFS etc. Any help/advice on this would also be greatly appreciated. I have a VM with MS DOS 6.22, Windows 3.11, and Win32s available in a QEMU VM. If you need comparative testing, let me know. Also, some other info... * Calmira for GUI or someone could write a Program Manager for GUI like Windows 3.x. Personally, I like the style of Windows 3.x over the Windows 95 style of GUI. Because DOS HX Extender supports OpenGL, it is possible to use WineD3D to translate DirectX to OpenGL, so DirectX apps may not get left out anyway. Currently, this is how ReactOS emulates Direct3D. With the Nano-X server for DOS adapted to be up to date on Win16/Win32 APIs from the Wine/ReactOS Projects, and the X11 API from Xorg, then that would make it extremely flexible. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What is the trick to get Windows 3.1 to run on freedos???
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Adam Norton usul.the.mo...@gmail.comwrote: * Calmira for GUI or someone could write a Program Manager for GUI like Windows 3.x. Personally, I like the style of Windows 3.x over the Windows 95 style of GUI. I can't remember if Win 3.1 had context menus or not and I kind of like a start menu/taskbar but thats not 3.11. If I do this right Calmira should work. :) Because DOS HX Extender supports OpenGL, it is possible to use WineD3D to translate DirectX to OpenGL, so DirectX apps may not get left out anyway. Currently, this is how ReactOS emulates Direct3D. I expect that with all the things that I am looking at will make this both win16\win32 compatible, simply be cause of where I will be looking for code. Depends on what happens, we may want to have two version 16 only for older PC and a Win16\32 for the PCs that can handle it. This could end up being what would have happened had someone at M$ not conceived of Win95 LOL. With the Nano-X server for DOS adapted to be up to date on Win16/Win32 APIs from the Wine/ReactOS Projects, and the X11 API from Xorg, then that would make it extremely flexible. I am thinking, looking at Nano-X will give me a couple of options, xwindows integration with the win libs (easier app porting etc) or at the very least a good place to learn. I am not 100% sure but I am nearly confident that Window's window managers follow a different model than xwindows. Windows 3.1 compliance is the most important thing anything else is will be a bi product of what I use. usul You are correct that Windows does use a different model. It isn't horribly different though. Windows' window management is connected to GDI/GDI32 and USER/USER32. These two DLLs serve exactly the same purpose as Xlib. Through this and some other assorted DLLs, the Windows GUI is implemented through shell.dll and shell32.dll from what I understand. shell/shell32 are what control the window management I believe, so the X11 Window Manager equivalent is shell32. Now, because of this, Windows is fairly restricted in theming until about Windows XP, when uxtheme.dll was added in to separate the theming code from the window management code. Explorer (or Program Manager) has hooks that activate the shell mode, similar to Metacity's hooks with GNOME panel when GNOME is the selected desktop. Technically, computers from i386 and higher can run 32-bit Windows. However, it is recommended that only i486 and higher run 32-bit Windows, since the protected mode is quite a bit more advanced in the i486 over i386. Since HX DOS Extender works fine in i386 afaik, there really shouldn't be too many issues implementing as one version. If you plan to support Windows 3.0 Real Mode (which is basically pointless), then you need to split the versions because the real mode version can only be 16-bit. Not 32-bit. Context menus ARE possible in Windows for Workgroups, but I don't think many apps of the era used right clicking. A single click activates the menus. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status???
I believe Info-ZIP has a suitable replacement for PKware's DOS pkzip and pkunzip (ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/msdos/). On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.netwrote: On Friday 03 April 2009 06:12, Blair Campbell wrote: arj is open-source (http://arj.sourceforge.net/) and pkzip afaik can be redistributed (but not the source). Hi! I think Alain is right. I didn't bothered checking before (I naively assumed that such old tools would be at least freeware by now), but it appears that PKware is still selling their PKzip for DOS product: http://www.pkware.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=43Itemid=90 As for ARJ (I am not talking about the OpenSource one, which is another program), it is freeware. May be downloaded without restrictions from ARJ's website, as far as we use it for a home usage. http://www.arjsoftware.com/files.htm I will remove PKzip from my repository ASAP, and replace ARJ by the OpenSource ARJ program. Thank you all for your interest. Best regards, Mateusz -- You'll find my public OpenPGP key at http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/pub_key -- ___ 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status...
Is fdupdate compiled with SSE or MMX or any other special instruction sets that are unavailable in 486? If so, just recompile with those disabled. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.comwrote: I'm still stumped as to why fdupdate works on my Pentium 4, but it doesn't work on my 486. When I run memtest 2.1.1 for dos, it doesn't find any errors. When I run ssh2dos, it works. When I run fdupdate, it crashes with a 2 near fnodes error. I wish I knew exactly what is causing the crash. For example, it could be the crynwr ne2000 driver. Is there another driver for a Dlink DE220PT isa nic? I suppose I can pull the DE220PT and try a UM9008 isa nic. Aside from this problem, I'm wondering if anyone is working on the new installer for Freedos 1.1? If not, I might have some time and might be able to help if someone can point me out to instructions on what to use and how to use it. I could benefit from learning how to use dos curses for example as another project I'm working on to port drivewire to dos requires that I work with curses. I'm actually stopped cold on the porting project right now. -- ___ 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status???
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Alain M. ala...@pobox.com wrote: King InuYasha escreveu: I believe Info-ZIP has a suitable replacement for PKware's DOS pkzip and pkunzip (ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/msdos/). Yes, it is compatible, just has a different command line (more unix like). I made the switch many years ago :) Definnetly ZIP and UNZIP should be included with FreeDOS, in the 16bit versions. The 16bit UNZIP can handle any size zip file, so it is perfectly ok, only ZIP needs to be 32 bit for very big archives. What could be interesting is to distribute a copy od UNARJ and UNRAR with FreeDOS. Both are 100% free. Alain -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Someone could rewrite the options and make them more DOS-like instead, but isn't worth it. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status???
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.com wrote: What is the status of Freedos 1.1? It has been a while since the you can help link has been updated. I believe the core issues haven't changed: 1. The new FDUPDATE is done. 2. The FreeDOS 1.1 packages haven't been updated yet. 3. The updated Installer is not done. I'd say that #2 is the most important - the current Installer is ok, and could be used as a 1.1 Installer if a new version isn't available. The extra/optional items have had updates, of course. But the most important item (new 1.1 packages) needs to be done before FreeDOS can release a 1.1 distribution. -jh What are the 1.1 packages? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote: LFN for FAT and for NTFS are working stable in Linux. Could a FreeDOS developer grab this free knowledge from Linux and improve DOSLFN this way? very unlikely. Linux drivers are too different from DOS kernel or DOS TSR to be useful Tom -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user What about bringing the FUSE interface to DOS? Would it be possible to port libfuse and then write a system driver to support FUSE drivers? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
