Then its your problem if ur installing it with msdos. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Auer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:10 PM Subject: [Freedos-devel] re: Don't you think its better to use Msdos file names
> > Hi, I disagree. At least if there already IS a c:\dos directory, > FreeDOS should stay separate in its own c:\fdos or c:\freedos > directory. Otherwise, c:\dos is possible, but it would have to > contain the "bin" subdirectory of FreeDOS only. You would still > need a separate FreeDOS directory for the rest, which people might > forget to look at! That way, they will miss extra features which > FreeDOS has but MS DOS does not have :-(. > > Similar for some tools which are by design too different from MS DOS > tools to use the same syntax. If you rename FDAPM to POWER, for > example, you would first be tempted to load it as DEVICE (both not > needed and not possible for FDAPM) and then be tempted to use MS POWER > syntax (which reaches only a few of the many FDAPM features). > > I think people will have no problems with FreeDOS because typing DIR > and COPY results in the same effect for MS DOS and FreeDOS, even though > c:\freedos\FreeCOM.com provides them instead of c:\msdos\command.com or > anything... > > My personal policy is: If it is interactive, it should be easy to use > but does NOT have to look like MS. If it is only used in autoexec / > config, it is acceptable to have different syntax (e.g. because of other > features or other internal workings - like with FDAPM and even more so > with LBAcache / CDRcache). People will only have to edit their config > files ONCE, and we support separate config files for dual-boot install > (fdconfig and fdauto) so different syntax does not really hurt. ONLY if > it is not interactive but command line controlled, THEN syntax should > be like MS DOS syntax where possible (impossible for the caches, and > impossible where protected names like SMARTDRV / MSCDEX cannot be used). > > This reminds me of SWSUBST: It has more features than SUBST, so you should > use the new syntax. But is the SUBST syntax compatibility mode working okay > by now? At least FDAPM syntax compatibility mode works okay for me (note > that adv:min/adv:max/adv:reg are all the same internally for FDAPM yet). > Bugs in the working (e.g. FDISK failing to recognize drives) are more > important than bugs in the syntax (e.g. PRINT and PRINTQ being 2 files, not > one). For GRAPHICS, you can select yourself: Use my binaries directly or > use the supplied batch file which parses MS compatible syntax :-). > > Please provide a list of programs where syntax differs from MS, with > comments on how much it hurts in each case and how good chances are to > fix it. For the MEM case, I think the /C FUNCTION should be added, but the > LONG syntax variant (e.g. /DEBUG) is less important (note that /D > means "drivers" in FreeDOS MEM, but the resulting output is similar to > MS MEM /D(ebug) output...). > > Eric. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. > Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with > a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
