I was thinking something along these lines. There could be a "Classic" install
option which installs only the same components offered by MS-DOS, and a
"Modern" option which has the same content, but with significant components
swapped out for their more modern alternatives - e.g. a newer text
Hello Jerome,
Some random additional thoughts,
I guess some times there was a little confusion with the 1.2 release over a
FULL install.
Maybe a good way would be to call a "FULL minus EXTRA" install by a less
confusing name? E.g. perhaps call it a "RICH" install or something
along those
That subject line is just asking for a lot of traffic!
I am a DOS user in current operations (wordstar, Foxpro, others). My
thought about asking for a survey,etc. is that it should come from the
"mgmt" of the FreeDOS organizaton. That way those of us that are not
involved in the decisions of
This is such an interesting discussion.
Granted my quick check of the survey was a bit of a mess. still I have a
question / comment as someone who uses DOS exclusively, but who has not
installed freedos on a machine due to a couple of factors.
I resonate with the freedos is open source
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Eric Auer wrote:
> > Yes, but for starters the "modest" programming languages could be included:
> > GW BASIC, 2-3 Forth compilers (they're tiny in size), C--, XPL0 etc. If I'm
>
> Nobody programs useful stuff with GW BASIC, C-- or XPL0.
I meant
Hi,
Some random additional thoughts,
I guess some times there was a little confusion with the 1.2 release over a
FULL install.
Some thought it installed absolutely everything on the disc. But, that was not
the case.
There was over 400mb of packages not included by FULL. Those were the
Hi ZB,
> Yes, but for starters the "modest" programming languages could be included:
> GW BASIC, 2-3 Forth compilers (they're tiny in size), C--, XPL0 etc. If I'm
Nobody programs useful stuff with GW BASIC, C-- or XPL0.
Even with Forth, useful stuff is not written on DOS.
If you want modest,
Hi Tom,
> On Dec 4, 2020, at 1:08 PM, tom ehlert wrote:
>
>> Are you happy with what software is included with FreeDOS?
>
> you are mixing up "FreeDOS" with "FreeDOS setup 1.x”
> […]
> insofar your attempt to discuss what should be "FreeDOS" is welcome.
> it just comes a little bit late.
I
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:59:03PM +0100, Eric Auer wrote:
> > Maybe, but 90% of FreeDOS users don't need programming languages
>
> Well it is open source, so it is good to show users
> what coding can mean ;-)
Yes, but for starters the "modest" programming languages could be included:
GW
Hi!
> Maybe, but 90% of FreeDOS users don't need programming languages
Well it is open source, so it is good to show users
what coding can mean ;-) But what you mean is the
BASE install: Indeed that should be similar in size
to old MS DOS distros, only a few megabytes, just
the features of DOS
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:26:46PM +0100, Eric Auer wrote:
> > "FreeDOS installation has to fit standard 650 MB CD"
>
> Even then I disagree. While you could fill entire DVD with
> stuff for DOS, a FreeDOS CD could be a lot smaller
That's why I meant 650 MB CD, not 4 GB DVD.
> Just the 3 most
Freedos is open source. Everyone has the privilege of creating as many
forks as desired.
It ain't a big deal.
Al
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:09 PM tom ehlert wrote:
> > Are you happy with what software is included with FreeDOS?
>
> you are mixing up "FreeDOS" with "FreeDOS setup 1.x"
>
> there
On 12/4/2020 10:42 AM, ZB wrote:
Why petabytes? I believe there could be "sane boundary" established; for
example: "FreeDOS installation has to fit standard 650 MB CD".
This sounds rather insane to me, considering that MS-DOS/PC-DOS fit on 3
or 4 floppy disks. Just saying.
There have been
Hi!
> "FreeDOS installation has to fit standard 650 MB CD"
Even then I disagree. While you could fill entire DVD with
stuff for DOS, a FreeDOS CD could be a lot smaller if you
omit a few, but huge packages. For example DJGPP can be
a reasonable number of megabytes, but you can also fill
the
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:08:03PM +0100, tom ehlert wrote:
> luckily for "FreeDOS", developement has stalled.
> otherwise "FreeDOS" would be PetaBytes to download.
Why petabytes? I believe there could be "sane boundary" established; for
example: "FreeDOS installation has to fit standard 650 MB
> Are you happy with what software is included with FreeDOS?
you are mixing up "FreeDOS" with "FreeDOS setup 1.x"
there was a lot of FreeDOS going on before this (IMO insane)
FreeDOS 1.0 release.
xyzDOS used to be mostly equivalent to be our "BASE" with few
additions.
at some point, someone
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:33:29PM +, Bret Johnson wrote:
> FWIW, I prefer NASM myself also. I started out using A86/A386 a long
> time ago (before NASM and FASM even existed in a useful form) but my
> source code eventually got too big for A86 to handle. A86 doesn't take
> advantage of
- Original Message --
From: "C. Masloch"
To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing
something?
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 11:45:06 +0200
On 2019-05-09 18:02 +0200, ZB wrote:
> BTW: which macroassembler you
On 2019-05-09 18:02 +0200, ZB wrote:
> BTW: which macroassembler you prefer?
I prefer NASM. The reason I initially forked lDebug was actually to keep
its source in the NASM dialect. Also, I adjusted the (default)
disassembly display to mostly match NASM's syntax.
Regards,
ecm
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:53:26PM +0200, C. Masloch wrote:
> I needed something similar in my lDebug symbolic anyway, so I created a
> quick patch to add a Y command in my fork of FreeDOS's DEBUG. You give
> it a filename (LFN or SFN, use double quote marks if to escape blanks)
> and it pushes
Hello,
On at 2019-05-05 18:16 +0200, ZB wrote:
> For testing small snippets of ML code "debug" is quite enough. But the
> disadvantage is that when I try to script it ("debug using files like this example:
>
> a 100
> mov ax,10
> [...some other ML code...]
> [...some other ML code...]
>
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 11:16 PM 7/14/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
On Jul 15, 2012 12:56 AM, Ralf A. Quint
mailto:free...@gmx.netfree...@gmx.net wrote:
See above. It would be really helpful for you if you hit the books
about BASIC (almost any
Hi,
On Jul 15, 2012 12:56 AM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
See above. It would be really helpful for you if you hit the books
about BASIC (almost any one will do) to understand the differences
between the different data types and how to use them.
Or he could use a language like Rexx
At 11:16 PM 7/14/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
On Jul 15, 2012 12:56 AM, Ralf A. Quint
mailto:free...@gmx.netfree...@gmx.net wrote:
See above. It would be really helpful for you if you hit the books
about BASIC (almost any one will do) to understand the differences
between the different data
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Kenny Emond cheeseylem...@gmail.com wrote:
dim ft as single, m as single, answer1 as single, answer2 as single, input1
as string, a as string, b as string
Might the mixture of singles and strings in your dim statement be the issue?
You are defining your
eufdp...@yahoo.com
From: dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com
To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] ? - ?Not sure? - ?
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM
At 08:22 PM 7/14/2012, Kenny Emond wrote:
Hey,
I'm not sure if I can post this here, but I seem to have hit a
small roadblock (but I don't know where it is). My main goal is to
have an easily accessible meter and feet converter. When I use
FBide to compile and run, it comes up with no
27 matches
Mail list logo
