Blair Campbell wrote: 

> Those are more likely ISOLinux issues, and most users will probably
> not be using PART (which seems to interpret ISOLinux somehow as a
> virus, which would somewhat seem like a PART bug to me at least).

   I figured that ISOLinux might be the culprit since PART was detecting
that something was different while the BIOS's detection code wasn't.  And 
you may be right about it being a PART bug. 

   I don't even know how widely used PART was; it may be rare.  The
reason that I included it in my report is that it seemed like a good
example of the kind of messy interactions (with other pgms) that FreeDOS is 
likely to encounter once 1.0 is released.  Who knows what kind of software
is out there that FreeDOS will conflict with - bad BIOSs, anti-virus 
scanners, boot managers, compression schemes, etc.? 

   I'm hoping to *help* eliminate some potential problems by providing
examples of some of the risks of asking FreeDOS to do things which the
BIOS can do for itself (e.g. reboot, detect hdds, etc.).  Maybe by reducing
some of the risky tasks FreeDOS does, we can reduce the number of times that 
FreeDOS will be blamed for things which are not its fault.


Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to