On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:33:01 +0100
Liam Proven wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 23:23, Deposite Pirate
> Fascinating! Thank you very much. I learned something this evening.
> :-)
>
No problem. If you poke around this website you'll also learn that
earlier IBM were also behind a few utilities
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 23:23, Deposite Pirate wrote:
> >
> > If you know differently, please share some evidence, because I'd
> > really like to know.
> >
>
> https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-3-3/
>
> "A much less obvious but no less significant change was that unlike all
> previous versions,
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 19:56:26 +0100
Liam Proven wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 19:45, Deposite Pirate
> wrote:
> >
> > It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the
> > bulk of the work on "MS" DOS for a while after 2.x and they would
> > have to have IBM's permission to even
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 19:45, Deposite Pirate wrote:
>
> It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the bulk of
> the work on "MS" DOS for a while after 2.x and they would have to
> have IBM's permission to even think about releasing it.
With the exception of the versions
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 22:27:26 +0100
Aitor Santamaría wrote:
> I would dare say that even Bill Gates himself must have those sources
> somewhere in one harddrive of his own (for historical purposes). :)
>
> Aitor
It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the bulk of
the work on
> If Microsoft did not do it, imagine how nice it would be that there
> were in FreeDOS an open source version of VMM32 with a good set of
> well written VxDs (and that the very first thing it does after
> loading is NOT to find that KRNL386.EXE and run it). Of course,
> that's an outstanding
On 12/26/21 3:18 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote:
My point here is, NT has indeed quite a bunch of more stable and
better thought features of an operating system that was conceived in
the late 80's rather in the late 70's (a better filesystem, more
suitable to networks, and basically, a brand
Plain right!
A LiLO that loads a small Linux distro which is multi-consoled, text-only,
and whose unique Shell is DOSEMU.
That would make it too, without the pain of writing VxDs, Linux will do the
job :)
Aitor
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 18:58, tom ehlert wrote:
>
> > Well, as said above, this
> Well, as said above, this has precisely been proved to be extracted
> from Windows and used for stand-alone DOS environment. Just because
> it is called VMM32.VXD (and not the original DOS386.EXE name), and
> has been sold just with Windows, and not DOS, does not mean it is an
> un-dettachable
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 14:36, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 22:19, Aitor Santamaría wrote:
> >
>
> > Why DOS386.EXE (later renamed to VMM32.VXD) would run "on top" of DOS
> and not be DOS itself, the natural way DOS adapts to a 386?
> > Just because, for commercial reasons,
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 22:19, Aitor Santamaría wrote:
>
> Why isn't multitasking just another feature that you "add" on top?
It was. There were multiple multitaskers for DOS, of which the best
was generally agreed to be DESQview.
The snag was the 640 kB memory limit. On an 8086 or 80286, all
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 16:28, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 05:06, Jon Brase wrote:
>
> > So if they lost the entire DOS-kernel Windows source tree sometime after
> the release of XP, the reason they're not releasing sources for Win 3.x/9x
> may be that said sources no longer
Hello Tom,
I mostly agree with your arguments. However...
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 01:42, tom ehlert wrote:
> however DesqView, GEM and Windows 3.x are certainly multitasking systems
> running on top of DOS. that doesn't make DOS a multitaskig system.
>
Why isn't multitasking just another
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 06:00, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > I would like to connect to the Internet using FreeDOS, but I haven't found
> > a compatible packet driver.
> > Main purpose in connecting to the Internet from FreeDOS would be to prove
> > it can be done.
> Define "connecting
My problem is that I sit down wanting to write a chapter or two, and the
ideas are in my head, (no, really!) but then I'll accidentally fire up
YouTube or even worse, Kick Off 2 Online. Once that happens, the chances of
getting any work done are reduced to virtually zero!
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021,
Dear John:
I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to
the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing
it,but for me it would be yet another distraction.
I think of the Internet as a bag of vulnerabilities! I don't need my
FreeDOS PC
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 06:00, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> I would like to connect to the Internet using FreeDOS, but I haven't found a
> compatible packet driver.
>
> Main purpose in connecting to the Internet from FreeDOS would be to prove it
> can be done.
Define "connecting to the Internet".
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 05:06, Jon Brase wrote:
>
> First, I've heard rumors (possibly true, possibly just people trying to make
> MS look incompetent) that MS actually lost the source code to some
> unspecified legacy version of Windows at some point (has to be legacy because
> if it had been
On 12/25/2021 11:47 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
from John Vella:
I would like to connect to the Internet using FreeDOS, but I haven't
found a compatible packet driver.
Main purpose in connecting to the Internet from FreeDOS would be to prove it
can be done.
Obviously it *can* be done. As
from John Vella:
> I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to
> the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing
> it,but for me it would be yet another distraction. ð
I would like to connect to the Internet using FreeDOS, but I haven't
, Two things here:
First, I've heard rumors (possibly true, possibly just people trying to make MS
look incompetent) that MS actually lost the source code to some unspecified
legacy version of Windows at some point (has to be legacy because if it had
been a then-current main product line it
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 01:42, tom ehlert wrote:
> I have to accept that as true. Though 'multiscreening' is not what
> everybody thinks of when thinknig 'multitasking'.
I can't help what people may think. All I can do is when I see people
spreading incorrect information, I can answer with the
Yes, 6.2, not 5.0 as I mentioned in my previous reply to this thread,
thanks for that correction.
On 12/25/2021 3:03 PM, tom ehlert wrote:
That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft.
Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then
changed its
I did see msdos 5.0 source code online several years ago. I'm fairly
certain MS never released that as any kind of source distribution, but
nonetheless, it's out there.
On 12/25/2021 10:38 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 05:43, Travis Siegel wrote:
That was caldera that
>> while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs
>> as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could.
> Yes, it can. I have tested it with, for example, the MS-DOS Editor
> from Windows 98SE on one screen, WordPerfect 6.2 on another screen and
> MS Word 6 on a
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 19:25, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> Caldera's release of DR-DOS and OpenDOS was definitely NOT under an "open
> source" or "FOSS" license.
Caldera claimed it was. Here is the press announcement:
https://web.archive.org/web/19961018220910/http://caldera.com/news/pr002.html
> The
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 21:21, tom ehlert wrote:
>
> while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs
> as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could.
Yes, it can. I have tested it with, for example, the MS-DOS Editor
from Windows 98SE on one screen, WordPerfect
>> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft.
> Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then
> changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains
> FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS.
> And, for
Caldera's release of DR-DOS and OpenDOS was definitely NOT under an "open
source" or "FOSS" license.
The terms were basically "look but do not touch." You could not make any
derivatives from that source code, and could only refer to it for
"educational" purposes.
On Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:39 AM
Hello Travis,
linux box setup and transferred the domain to that. The nice thing
about using dos for your networking, (which someone else said way more
eloquently than I could, paraphrasing here), is that since dos doesn't
have a native tcp/ip stack, if the app dies, so does the tcp/ip
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 05:43, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft.
Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then
changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains
FOSS and turned into OpenDOS,
Actually, there's a program called ka9q (and some derivatives such as
tnos) that can handle all the internet stuff for you. They use packet
drivers to handle the connections, and I remember I used to use them
with some 3com 509 cards I had. I ran my softcon.com domain off of ka9q
for nearly a
I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to
the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing
it,but for me it would be yet another distraction.
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021, 14:19 Travis Siegel, wrote:
> How very cool. Wasn't aware that had been
How very cool. Wasn't aware that had been done. Thanks for that. Now
I need to find some time to actually look at that, old as it is, I'm
always fascinated by such things.
Would have been nice if they'd released 3.3 though, since that's a lot
closer to being useful. :)
On 12/24/2021
Hello!
Merry Christmas above all.
I wouldn't mind have dos or freedos for a main computer, but i mainly have
more games than programs (not games aren't programs) and the problem with
both DOS is hardware.
I've stated before the main and i wont say "problem" but issue is hardware.
In my main PC i
Yes, Microsoft actually released the source to MS-DOS twice. Once under a
license that was not friendly to open source, and again much later under
the MIT license. The second release is significant because the MIT license
is compatible with the GNU GPL that we use in the FreeDOS kernel and other
This is much more recently than I think you're thinking:
https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS
Dec 24, 2021 22:42:44 Travis Siegel :
> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft.
>
> There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't a
>
That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft.
There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't
a sanctioned release from microsoft.
On 12/24/2021 4:59 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jon Brase wrote:
They're not
I understand what you were saying. But remember that FreeDOS as an open-source
project was created back in the 1990s, and more than 20 years had passed since
then. Similarly, Linux as an open-source project was also created in the 1990s,
and it has been getting mainstream support. There should
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Wengier W via Freedos-user
wrote:
>
> I certainly hope to see more people using DOS/FreeDOS as the only (or
> primary) operating system. However, without things like full support for
> Internet and modern hardware (modern sound card, USB devices, etc) this
>
I certainly hope to see more people using DOS/FreeDOS as the only (or primary)
operating system. However, without things like full support for Internet and
modern hardware (modern sound card, USB devices, etc) this cannot occur,
unfortunately. IMO, DOS/FreeDOS need to support things just like
And beyond industrial systems, it is sometimes common to see DOS (and
FreeDOS especially) used as part of firmware flashing processes for BIOS,
IDE, SCSI, SATA, SAS, HBA, Ethernet and WiFi controllers especially in
enterprise and network hardware.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 11:08 AM Travis Siegel
I'm going to make it my new year project to finish getting the 80486 pc
working, and once I've upgraded the memory, (4 Meg isn't going to be
enough, is it?) I'll be using freedos as the only operating system for my
distraction free writing pc.
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021, 22:00 Jim Hall, wrote:
> On
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 7:50 AM Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
>
> The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion.
> See after 26 minutes.
,<...>
The concern I see is "legacy" code. There are millions of lines of
legacy code in production. They were tested and debugged, and
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jon Brase wrote:
> They're not talking about it in the context of log4j itself, they're
> talking about it in the context of other open source projects, that
> don't have something like the Apache foundation behind them, that
> are critical infrastructure, but have
I should probably add to my previous message that I don't think that the
possibility that someone might expose FreeDOS in a business-critical embedded
system to the network means it shouldn't be maintained, just that such an
opinion isn't completely far-fetched.
They're not talking about it in the context of log4j itself, they're talking
about it in the context of other open source projects, that don't have
something like the Apache foundation behind them, that are critical
infrastructure, but have one or two maintainers working on them as a labor of
On 12/24/2021 11:06 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
Someone really should tell these guys that dos is still widely used in
industrial processes today, wonder what they'd say about that. :)
That's part of the problem, those are university goons, they don't live
in the real world... >:)
Ralf ;-)
Someone really should tell these guys that dos is still widely used in
industrial processes today, wonder what they'd say about that. :)
On 12/24/2021 12:53 PM, Parodper wrote:
O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu:
On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
The comment against
On 12/24/2021 9:53 AM, Parodper wrote:
O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu:
On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this
discussion. See after 26 minutes.
https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM
I really wonder how that would effect DOS,
O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu:
On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion.
See after 26 minutes.
https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM
I really wonder how that would effect DOS, after all there is no web
interface, nor
On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion.
See after 26 minutes.
https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM
I really wonder how that would effect DOS, after all there is no web
interface, nor any Java in (Free)DOS. So (without having
The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion.
See after 26 minutes.
https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM
--
members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
53 matches
Mail list logo
