[Freedos-devel] New software!

Hello, all! Despite this being my first post, I've been following (and using) FreeDOS for quite a while. I have to commend you all on an excellent implementation of the classic DOS environment! I have always loved the muscle of DOS - there's no fluff; just raw power to get the job done. My passio

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Hi Eric! Yes, this shell (as well as my GUI from which I'm porting it) is completely open source. I guess it could fit under either category? When the port is finished, it will be an exact clone of the MS-DOS command.com, only with added features. Users need not concern themselves with said added

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Hi Jim! I've quite literally *just* begun work on this so it's nowhere near ready for prime time. As soon as I fix the 'cd' command it'll be much more useful, so I'll probably release the first version then even though the advanced features won't be quite ready for another release or two. The prob

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

I'm wondering why I never thought of that lol Downloading FreeBASIC now :) Thanks for the tip! -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Can anyone can shed some light on why I'm getting these build errors ? My syntax is exactly as it should be from the demos and examples I've seen, I've even tried a half dozen different ways to express the routine. I have no idea why the compiler is choking her

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Nevermind... figured it out. The IDE set the default language to QB compatibility. Duh. On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > Can anyone can shed some light on why I'm getting these build errors > <http://mercurycoding.com/unnamed.png>? My syntax is exa

Re: [Freedos-devel] Networking

Network drivers in the DOS world aren't quite like other DOS drivers. Normally you only need one .exe to do the job, but with networking you will need a few files: a packet driver for the hardware itself and, depending on what protocol your software expects, maybe a TCP stack as well. The packet dr

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

ing it in C from the ground up will be justified. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > Nevermind... figured it out. The IDE set the default language to QB > > compatibility. Duh.

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

It will provide all the typical features of the base shell, including the following new features: -The new "drives" command displays what drive letters are available in the environment and details on each. -A selection of four separate shells running concurrently which can be switched between usi

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > in a new implemented, most likely buggy way (FreeCOM also had bazillion of bugs which were removed over much time and effort) Hopefully not! :) > can it run batches? As of right now, no, but in its final form, yes. It supports all the env

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Hi, Travis, and thanks for the feedback! > Are you kidding? There's been many many times I wanted a feature that would allow me to do a dos function in the background while I kept doing whatever it was I was already doing in the foreground. A way to switch to a second shell, do something, and swi

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

> > Thanks for that, grabbed it. > As far as I know, powerbasic is the only company that still actively sells > and supports a dos compiler. Their version 3.5 is still available for > purchase. I have their windows version too, though I'm 1 version back > (running pbcc 5.0, and pbwin 8.0), but st

[Freedos-devel] drives.exe

In keeping with Tom's earlier suggestion, I give you *Drives*, the disk info tool - now in standalone form! :) It's still a bit buggy - I have to sort out an issue with repeating drive labels and a couple other odds and ends - but 90% of the program is usable and functional. Just type "drives" and

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > Right now, I'm using my laptop. I do have a RUFUS USB stick lying > around if you want me to test under raw FreeDOS, but I'm not doing > anything unusual with drives. In other words, my testing is limited in > usefulness. But I have been playing

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > "Fast" is subjective (unless you mean compile-time speed, which I'm > assuming here). There are too many diverse x86 machines (with > different speeds) to call anything universally fast anymore. > I was referring to both compile time (PowerBASIC

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

I thought the same as Ralf and was surprised to see the vertical bar being used, and I also wasn't aware you could have more than 26 drives either. But Drives now checks for letters A - Z, the additional symbols and all numbers too. That oughta pretty well cover it lol -

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

I eventually need to put up an actual page for the program telling what it does. But for now, here <http://www.mercurycoding.com/drives/drives.zip>'s a direct link which will allow a basic download. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

I was actually working on a feature like this for my GUI so that it could automatically load drivers, which does a simple scan of the PCI bus and reports the devices it finds. There is already a list of PCI device IDs available at pcidatabase.com, which may be useful to us. I could extract my PCI s

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

Another thing we could do, in the same vein as the suggestions by Matej, would be to make an "app store" of sorts which would function as a package manager. When run, this program would search the user's hard drive to see what components are installed, determine their version and see if there is an

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

> Dunfield & Potthast already have PCI bus/NIC sniffers [0][1] and a > collections of NIC packet drivers as well Georg has some useful stuff there, but the bus scanner isn't (currently, at least) open source software and couldn't be included in FreeDOS. ---

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

I have nothing against the project at all (it would be awesome to have a DOS with 32 bit speed) but I have to say I agree with Mike - the two projects should keep separate names. FreeDOS should remain an enhanced clone of MS-DOS since anything which takes it into the 32 bit realm would, in my mind,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

So far as a tutorial, I'm afraid nothing jumps to mind. However, in my tests I found that the DOS4GW extender which ships with Watcom is the fastest. -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

Viste wrote: > On 12/31/2014 08:02 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > Another thing we could do, in the same vein as the suggestions by Matej, > > would be to make an "app store" of sorts which would function as a > > package manager. When run, this program would sea

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2

Jim, will your installer still need the .LSM files?If so, do you need them for each .EXE or just for each package? -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I too would love to see a fully modern DOS. My thoughts for features added in FreeDOS 2.0: The processor is shifted into (and stays in, at least as much as possible) protected mode, providing 32-bit addressing. Memory therefore would become a flat 4GB RAM address space, allowing for advanced featu

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, Aitor :) Just touching on some of your ideas: 1 - I like the idea of being able to run apps for multiple other OSes, but I think that ability should fall to a program running atop FreeDOS, not to the FreeDOS kernel itself. That would be a very cool feature, but the amount of code needed to ad

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and I'm sure Microsoft would've no doubt done the same thing by now had they not gone

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Another thing to consider is the choice of extender we use, if we need one at all. Optimally, the kernel is able to run in protected mode on it's own without using an extender. Can GCC generate pure 32-bit code which runs in this way? If we do end up using an extender (which may be a good way to b

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I see where everyone is coming from in saying that FreeDOS should remain 16-bit. For a long time I was a *firm* believer in the superiority of 16-bit code. Heck, I insisted on making my GUI project 16-bit when *every* single other one out there was done in 32. But, as time wore on and I had time to

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

I didn't see any mention of that, but it would be a great place to start... -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is yo

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

Jim, I think I broke the link you posted in the News section of FreeDOS.org. Per your suggestion the archive is now called *drives11.zip*. -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored b

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

I think that would almost have to be emulator-related. It seems your copy of DOSemu isn't simulating the disks fully enough for Drives to detect them. I'd be interested to learn the extent to which it *does* simulate them, so I could extend my program to work anyway, though. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 a

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos 1.2

Hi Roberto, So far as point number 2, that may be doable since Bret has posted the source for all his USB drivers on his website . I'll have to see if he would allow us to officially package them as part of FreeDOS 1.2. On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 12:49 PM,

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

I know, right? The IDE is Windows-based but yes, it surprisingly defaulted to QB compatibility rather than FB. Yeah, the lack of a 16-bit target made me pretty much write it off for this project. The project is having string space corruption issues right now anyway, so a C rewrite (or just forgett

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Well, I wasn't advocating that we leave behind our "16-bit roots" altogether, because it is possible to still run 16- as well as 32-bit code on a 32-bit OS.Then again, if we go to a 32-bit kernel and still run 16-bit code... exactly what have we gained? Like I said before, I can see both sides of t

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

d public domain program I found years ago. I'll get it working eventually. :) On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > Yeah, the lack of a 16-bit target made me pretty much write it off f

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

It wouldn't be only the speed increase, but the fact that we'd be modernizing FreeDOS as a whole. I think of it this way: What would Microsoft have done had they not gone exclusively to Windows? I am doubtless they would've migrated MS-DOS to a 32-bit platform years ago. If we were to do such a mo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > Thank you Rugxulo! > +1 :) -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Vote noted! :) On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 1/1/2015 2:43 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a > > minimum hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we > > exclude the

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

> > I doubt that you will even see one (1) 32-bit version of FreeDOS. Whoever > is seriously claiming on working on that just doesn't know what they will > get themselves into. MS/PC/DR-/FreeDOS is at its very core 16bit/x86. You > get yourself in one development hell if you try to change that. And

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

As far as I have seen, DOS allocates one Program Segment Prefix and runs an app in that segment. When you exit the program, it clears that app out then loads the next one you run in the same segment. I don't think it would be that hard to make it allocate an additional PSP every time a new app is l

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

; > On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > > I too would love to see a fully modern DOS. > > As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be > perfect for a 32-bit dos. I believe it can be done, and the whole give > each program it

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: > > I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat > that if a 32-bit dos could be built that still maintained the backward > compatibility for those programs that needed it, it would *not* be a bad > thing, in fact,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > We in this discussion aren't the first people to question how to > successfully meld the worlds of 32- and 16-bit code while having speed, > flexibility and compatibility. This became an issue way back in the days of

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

, I've been registered on Freelancer for awhile now. I'll take the $2500 and do it myself if they're that serious about it! lol :P On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > Hello, > > 2015-01-03 19:14 GMT+01:00 Travis Siegel : > >> >> O

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

Thank you! lol I'll have to give that all a look over. :) On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > This might be longer than necessary, but I figured I may as well dump > it all on ya, just to be complete! > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Me

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, Florian! I totally agree, but the only problem is that Japheth seems to be gone. :( On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Florian Xaver wrote: > Hi all! > > I want to add my thoughts to Tom’s e-mail: I think that the first step to > a 32-bit version of FreeDOS has already be done! > > It’s calle

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

+1 +1 +1 :) However... I just wanted to point out that - if my grasp on technology is adequate - going 32-bit need not break either hardware or software compatibility, since the kernel could detect which CPU on which it is running and either shift into protected mode or stay in real mode accordin

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

Thanks for that! I wasn't aware :) By the way.. how does one pronounce your name? I'm imagining something like "Rug-zoo-low"? On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Expounding a bit on all the options and variations which have been presented in this 32- vs. 16-bit debate: 1 - Two separate kernels (one 16-bit and one 32-bit) with a mechanism which auto-detects what CPU it's running on and launches the appropriate kernel automatically. Maintains 100% hardware a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few > years even after somebody actively starts working on them. > Correct. I never said this was something which could be thrown together overnight. I know the existing Free

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Sounds good to me. :) I have to say, I love the idea of a 64-bit DPMI. That's an area in which we would have total creative freedom because (unless I've missed the news) *nobody* has made such a thing yet. The only problem is that I haven't been able to find a whole lot of info on 64-bit long mode

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

Interesting! I guess that's my one thing I've learned today lol *Mercury* isn't my birth name either ;-) On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > Thanks for that! I wasn&#

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

tem Programming > < > http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/24593_APM_v21.pdf > > > Documentation. Actually I liked it much better then the Intel one. > > Br, Tibi > > 2015-01-06 17:50 keltezéssel, Mercury Thirteen írta: > > The only problem

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > You are really providing links to me about how protected mode works? I am > somewhat amused. > > Your new OS has to be able to arbitrate between conflicts caused by the > multiple running VDMs. If two programs running at the same time cho

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

Updated version 1.2! Drives now checks floppy drives to see if they're empty and no longer prints the launch banner to make it integrate into the OS much more smoothly. There's more I want to do with this program, but I'm about to enter a busy str

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos 1.2

I've emailed Bret to seek his permission to include his drivers in FreeDOS 1.2 and am still awaiting a reply. Granted, the source is public anyway, but it would be nice to make him aware of our intentions. On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > Hi Roberto, > &g

Re: [Freedos-devel] The new freedos

There is a FreeDOS-32 project, but they have yet to make a release. Including a 32-bit option for users of FreeDOS has been discussed, but there are currently no plans to do so. If this were ever to happen, I agree with you on using two separate modes of operation. On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:28 AM,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2 - iso sizes and diskimage mounts

So, the installer will automatically extract BASE from the .ZIP of packages to a RAM disk when booting live? Will this affect how I structure things on the .ISO? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > Let's keep this discussion on the mailing list. > > Elsewhere in the discussion, I t

Re: [Freedos-devel] Working on FreeDOS 1.2 - iso sizes and diskimage mounts

nding updates have to be made? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > More specifically, the "live" part would be pre-loaded with the packages > from BASE. It wouldn't unzip the packages at boot-time. > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Mercury Thirteen &

Re: [Freedos-devel] Multi user system

No worries, I still use QBASIC to this day when I have a little algorithm which needs testing or some little utility program which needs made. QBASIC *can* change interrupt vectors, but it requires you to load the interrupt library (QB.QLB I believe?) first. To actually change the interrupt vector

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

LSICQ qualifies for removal as the source is not available. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > ... > > - I've taken an interest over the last year to go through the software > list and the ibiblio archive, and prune out any non-free s

Re: [Freedos-devel] secure drive mount tool algorithm suggestions

Thanks for that! You always have helpful info to share :) On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi security fans, > > here are some results from wikipedia-ing around a bit: > > As follow-up to my previous mail, now about the topic > of a tool to help several users to share one DO

Re: [Freedos-devel] Japheth. Was: Re: FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Posted that to the wrong place. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > What does everyone think of including DOSVNC > <https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/nino/dosvnc.html> in FreeDOS 1.2? > ---

Re: [Freedos-devel] Japheth. Was: Re: FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

What does everyone think of including DOSVNC in FreeDOS 1.2? -- BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with t

[Freedos-devel] Potential include

What does everyone think of including DOSVNC in FreeDOS 1.2? -- BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with t

Re: [Freedos-devel] Potential include

That looks like the same thing to me. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > What does everyone think of including DOSVNC in FreeDOS 1.2? > > Is that the same thing as this? &g

[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 2.0

Although it is freeware, source code for NDN appears to be unavailable. Given this project's push towards 100% open software, I am inclined to exclude it from the FreeDOS 2.0 image. Any thoughts? -- ___

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Agreed, that was my exact line of thinking. However, the folks here seem to have come to the conclusion that FreeDOS will not evolve into the 32-bit realm. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > I was re-reading some emails and I think I have an idea of how this would > work. >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 2.0

r > applications needed. > > On May 28, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > Although it is freeware, source code for NDN appears to be unavailable. > Given this project's push towards 100% open software

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Chelson Aitcheson < chelson.aitche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Haha I got laughed at and criticized for these ideas. > +1 Just make it don't worry about the community. > +10 -- _

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS install

I experienced similar issues on my laptop which also lacks a CD-ROM drive. The current FreeDOS installer seems hard coded to install from a CD-ROM, as the only way I was able to get it to work was using an external drive via USB. Hope this helps. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:16 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU

[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Everyone take a look at this ZIP and let me know your feedback. Anything which shouldn't be included? Anything which should but wasn't? There's a few non-open source programs I didn't catch for removal. Let me know your input.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > > Input? Well, do you really think that people download 281MB ZIP file, > one that also alerts most anti-virus software due to some of it's contents, > without knowing what this is about? > > How's that for "input"? > > Ralf > That input is a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Developer Studio

So far as the RBIL, an offline version of this may suffice. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Louis Santillan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > Hi, > [SNIP] > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > >> I think

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Developer Studio

What does everyone think about adding this to the Dev package in the official 1.2 distro? On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Georg Potthast wrote: > I ported a graphical IDE to DOS last year: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/fldev/ > > Please click on the screenshots to enlarge them. It was dev

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Developer Studio

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Eric Auer wrote: > ... > > FLDEV, at least judging from the screenshots, seems nice. And graphical. > > ... > +1 -- ___ Freedos-devel mailing l

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

*. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Chelson Aitcheson < > chelson.aitche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Haha I got laughed at and criticized for these ideas. >> > +1 > > Just mak

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

move doscore and aura gui > into its own system as freedos is no longer viable as it lacks 32 bit > kernels. > On 06/06/2015 6:50 am, "Mercury Thirteen" wrote: > >> I am considering starting a test project to determine the feasibility of >> implementing a 32-bit F

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

I think there's been sufficient time for everyone who is interested to reply. Beginning Monday, talks will begin on a 32-bit DOS kernel. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > Hi, > > I'd suggest using 0xC3 0x00 as a magic number for any non-8086 executable. > Or, for preference

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Indeed, the package compilation has been available for two weeks now. You can find it here . I posted it to get everyone's feedback, so take a look and see if you find anything which should be removed or added. I'm fairly certain I didn't yet catch

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 (Was: Re: 32-bit FreeDOS

has been in progress > for 6 months now. My impression was that it was not going to be radically > different than 1.1, so I would not expect it to take as long as the update > from 1.0 to 1.1 took. > > And yes, I realize that good things take time ... ; - 0 > > Mike >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > Just wondering, is this packaged archive that much different of what we > have already under FDNPKG repositories? > > > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/ > No, it's not all that different, just

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On 18/06/2015 15:02, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > No, it's not all that different, just fleshed out and more complete. > > What do you mean by 'fleshed out'? And more complete how? > Fleshed out and mor

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

That list doesn't contain version information; doing so will require more time. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > >> On 18/06/2015 15:02, Mercury Thirteen wrote: >> > No, it's not a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

I'm already on it, that was just my quick in-the-middle-of-work way of saying I'll have to post that later on. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi Mercury, > > > That list doesn't contain version information; doing so will require more > > time. > > Please invest that time:

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

I'm removing the Pegasus mail app due to it being closed source. -- ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

I'm still reviewing the packages to ensure they're all open source compliant. What are we considering acceptable in this regard? Are we going only with software which has been made available under one of the GNU licenses exclusively? Obviously programs which are free but have no source available s

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

be - e.g. I would hate to see our markets or user base narrowed over one single choice. Jim, what is your input on this? On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > > I'm still reviewing the packages to en

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

g with GPL-only programs doesn't put us in too big of a hurt. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > I'm still reviewing the packages to ensure they're all open source >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

ter on. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > > I guess I didn't scroll up enough to read your reply! Sorry about that, > and > > thanks for the input. :) > > > > So, you're saying we sh

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Okay, that's the way I will proceed. Also, I am removing Necromancer's DOS Navigator due to being closed-source. -- Monitor 25 network devices or servers for free with OpManager! OpManager is web-based network management s

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

ughts/comments? On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > Okay, that's the way I will proceed. > > Also, I am removing Necromancer's DOS Navigator due to being closed-source. > -- Mo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Yes, I had found that but I was looking specifically for code to version 2.09c. I suppose this may do, though, thank you. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: > > > > Also, also (lol) I a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Ah, ok. Maybe I was expecting to see "copyleft" lol On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 6/24/2015 11:07 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > Also, also (lol) I am not finding any source for SRDisk. FreeDOS.org > > lists it as GPL, its own documentatio

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Perhaps this should be an added update to the 1.2 CD. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Ralf Quint wrote: > >> On 6/24/2015 11:07 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: >> > Also, also (lol) I am not finding any source for SRDisk. FreeDOS.org >> > lists it as GPL,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Attached is the list of everything in the new distro. Package NameVersion [Base] Append 5.0-0.6 Apropos (Part of FastHelp suite)1.1 Assign

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > ... > > * CuteMouse needs fixing to avoid closed-source COM2EXE (already done > locally, but no response from maintainer) > * Jemm386 needs to remove JLOAD and similar closed-source pieces (no > maintainer) > * UIDE and XMGR from 2011? eh?? if we'

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: > ... > > Is WATT-32 not included in the upcoming FreeDOS 1.2? Or is some part of > WATT-32 (watt-32.net) not open-source? > > ... > Wow, I forgot all about WATT-32. Actually, since it was the official FreeDOS.org software list that I was w

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

Since it's not directly executable and the rest of the platform is 16-bit, I suppose there's no need for it to be included as well. -- Monitor 25 network devices or servers for free with OpManager! OpManager is web-based ne

  1   2   3   >