Op 22-5-2012 6:21, Rugxulo schreef:

> Is anybody working on FD 1.2? I haven't heard anything (and don't
> think we need it just yet anyways). Switching things around is, I
> guess, that person's ultimate decision (Bernd??).

I'm indeed working on a FreeDOS 1.2 as 1.0 and 1.1 didn't meet up to my 
own expectations ( 1.0, despite Blair and Jeremy's awesome work, lacks 
some features I'd like, and 1.1 lacks lots of things present in the full 
1.0 ISO).

> I hate to open up a can of worms (so tedious ...), but did Bernd or
> Jeremy ever publish any scripts to build the .ISOs? Meh, just the
> "idea" sounds difficult. Bah. But we can still dream, can't we?   ;-)

I'm doing stuff manually mostly, in Windows. No source code management 
system, no compilers, build environments, packing scripts and building 
scripts. Jeremy's "FDOS" (FreeDOS Distribution Of Sorts) has more 
automation behind it, and I guess Blair had lots of automation as well. 
It already shows the difference between structured approach by 
programmers versus my own ad-hoc approach.

>> PPS: Heat-wise (VirtualBox Chapter 7) I suggest to add FDAPM to
>> one of the default driver sets in FreeDOS 1.1 config / autoexec.
> VBox lets you choose how much % of processor to use, so it doesn't
> have to use 100% all the time. I just wonder whether their bugs are
> due to their tweaked BIOS or some hidden instruction incompatibility
> or what.   :-/

I've seen some slower performance when FDAPM is active so I'm a bit 
cautious at installation time. At runtime it's great though.

I'm not ready to disclose anything about 1.2 yet as there's still lots 
of structural stuff to integrate and rewrite.


Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to