Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi Michael! Very nice analysis :-). I hope you also like my kernel patch for it... While testing out a users bug report, I found a terribly obscure difference between the way MS-DOS kernel works and FreeDOS kernel works. It shouldn't matter, but it does to QuickBASIC 4.x applications, at least for some using BRUN40. I don't know the scope of how many QB applications are affected. Here's the situation, running under QB 4.0. The code is found in BRUN40.EXE and duplicated in the application's executable files: [... QuickBASIC frees a block, resizes another block to the max after finding the max size with resize to -1 size, then frees the first block again, which fails on FreeDOS as free invalidates the block ...] I would suggest the following patch for kernel 2036 (stable) -- --- kernel/memmgr.old 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200 +++ kernel/memmgr.c 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200 @@ -66,7 +66,12 @@ /* join both MCBs */ p-m_type = q-m_type; /* possibly the next MCB is the last one */ p-m_size += q-m_size + 1; /* one for q's MCB itself */ +#if 0 /* this disturbs QB 4.x double-free... */ q-m_type = 'K';/* Invalidate the magic number */ +#else +q-m_type = MCB_NORMAL;/* make QB 4.x happy... */ +q-m_psp = FREE_PSP; /* leave MCB as valid but free */ +#endif } return SUCCESS; This patch does make Norberts Lauer P600 SPS (PLC) tool work for me in DOSEMU, and it does not seem to break other things. At least compiling the whole updated 2036 kernel under the updated 2036 kernel itself worked just fine... Well, after I removed the TSR instance of Quarterdeck MFT (now freeware) from RAM, that is, otherwise NASM ran out of memory ;-). You still have to use LOADFIX to run P600, because not only P600 but also the overlays use exepack or similar code, and the a20 exepack workaround does not work for overlays. Not worth a kernel-side extra workaround, if you ask me. You can find updated zips with kernel source and binary on: http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~eric/stuff/soft/by-others/ kernel2036-binary.zip (343k) and kernel2036-source.zip (435k) Happy testing! Eric PS: Talking about tests, I got a report that FreeDOS 1.0 works quite well in VMWare but that you have to use the NOALTBOOT option if you want to use EMM386 there - else you get keyboard confusion. Would it be good to make the NOALTBOOT option automatic? EMM386 already autodetects VMWare to auto-exclude e800-ebff, so... :-) - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote: On 8/17/06, Mark Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Michael: Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot Is that legal? I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site. Nope. -uso. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
Hi! Try www.bootdisk.com. ... Is that legal? Nope. So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software, created using illegal software. I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility (interoperability), even limited reverse engineering would have been allowed in Germany. But that was not even necessary, as only the behaviour, not the code, of MS DOS was checked to find what turned out to be a bug in QuickBASIC 4... Yet I suggest that experiments with MS DOS are best done by those people who already do own MS DOS. Normally we get reports like this works on MS DOS and when I change to FreeDOS it breaks, so the bug reporters are likely to be MS DOS owners :-). But then, those are often no programmers. If you want maximum legality, we could purchase a copy of MS DOS for testing purposes. (Buggy because FreeDOS 1.0 is being rushed out without proper bug-fixing period.) You are free to report bugs at any time. Actually you could have started reporting bugs years ago, so I would not say that FreeDOS 1.0 is released prematurely or is rushed out. Doesn't sound too good... You probably know that MS DOS 1.0 did not even support subdirectories... ;-). While FreeDOS 1.0 is delayed because we keep adding features to our wishlist. Some of which are beyond MS DOS 6.xx! So, please let me (or us) know which aspects of FreeDOS are still broken enough to justify further delays in the FreeDOS 1.0 release. I do think that if we compare to Linux, FreeDOS 1.0 is worth at least the maturity of Linux 2.2 :-). Eric - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
On 8/18/06, Lyrical Nanoha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote: On 8/17/06, Mark Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Michael: Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot Is that legal? I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site. Nope. So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software, created using illegal software. (Buggy because FreeDOS 1.0 is being rushed out without proper bug-fixing period.) Doesn't sound too good... -- Markus Laire - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
Eric Auer wrote: Hi! Try www.bootdisk.com. ... Is that legal? Nope. So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software, created using illegal software. I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility (interoperability), even limited reverse engineering would have been allowed in Germany. But that was not even necessary, as only the behaviour, not the code, of MS DOS was checked to find what turned out to be a bug in QuickBASIC 4... Yet I suggest that experiments with MS DOS are best done by those people who already do own MS DOS. Normally we get reports like this works on MS DOS and when I change to FreeDOS it breaks, so the bug reporters are likely to be MS DOS owners :-). But then, those are often no programmers. If you want maximum legality, we could purchase a copy of MS DOS for testing purposes. Eric, here is your signboard :D Please don't feed the trolls. It's not good for them, nor is it for us ;) P.S. I am sure I have a stack of MS-DOS licenses somewhere in the basement. If someone really wants to have one, feel free to apply. Just to close this IMO silly thread ;) Best regards, Andre - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi! --- kernel/memmgr.old 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200 +++ kernel/memmgr.c 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200 @@ -66,7 +66,12 @@ /* join both MCBs */ p-m_type = q-m_type; /* possibly the next MCB is the last one */ p-m_size += q-m_size + 1; /* one for q's MCB itself */ +#if 0 /* this disturbs QB 4.x double-free... */ q-m_type = 'K';/* Invalidate the magic number */ +#else +q-m_type = MCB_NORMAL;/* make QB 4.x happy... */ +q-m_psp = FREE_PSP; /* leave MCB as valid but free */ +#endif } q-m_type = MCB_NORMAL;/* make QB 4.x happy... */ is not a good idea (could also be MCB_LAST). just leave it as it is As it is not linked / in use anymore, it makes no difference... q-m_psp = FREE_PSP; /* leave MCB as valid but free */ is necessary (it's already free) I think you wanted to say is not necessary. And you are right. leaving +#if 0 /* this disturbs QB 4.x double-free... */ q-m_type = 'K';/* Invalidate the magic number */ +#endif as the patch I'd recommend Okay... OTOH, now imagine a program memptr = dos_alloc(100); dos_free(memptr); mem2 = dosalloc(10); dos_resize(memptr,200); /* which will ALSO take ownership of THIS block */ Okay, so you mean RESIZING a block after FREEING it can cause havoc? This is true, but would MS DOS survive this? Basically the updated patch means free MCBs become unlinked when their memory is merged with the memory of adjacent free MCBs, but thear are no longer invalidated. Quite clean... But okay it no longer traps the resize freed block case. How about marking free blocks as unresizable at the moment when joinMCBs splices them out of the chain, leaving an unlinked but double-freeable data structure in RAM? I imagine you could set m_size to -1 to mark a (former / unlinked) MCB as unresizable. Such a MCB would link to itself (seg+1+-1==seg) and can be identified as fake MCB that way. DosMemFree should accept valid but fake MCBs (for QB compatibility) while DosMemChange and the rest must only accept valid nonfake MCBs. Again, I would like to know how MS DOS reacts to resizing freed MCBs. I somehow hope that double-free is as bad as it gets, and that no programs do free-then-resize. so IMHO in general your patch is not a good idea to do. but of course you could have a kernel_config option sys config BRUN40_COMPATIBLE=1 Of course I vote for this to default to 1 ;-). But then, it would really be better to implement a patch which can always stay on. For example the valid but fake, double- freeable but not resizable method described above. Eric - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
Hi! 18-Авг-2006 13:25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot Is that legal? I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site. Nope. ML So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software, created using illegal software. (Some local) laws allows to dig into other programs internals to make own program compatible. Well, this is somewhat obscure (for non-lawyers), but I suggest, _testing_ some program together with commercial one is not the same, as (illegally) using unlicensed copy. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
On 8/18/06, Andre Tertling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility (interoperability), even limited reverse engineering would have been allowed in Germany. But that was not IMHO reverse engineering a legally acquired program is completely different thing than using illegally acquired program. even necessary, as only the behaviour, not the code, of MS DOS was checked to find what turned out to be a bug in QuickBASIC 4... Yet I suggest that experiments with MS DOS are best done by those people who already do own MS DOS. Normally we get reports like this works on MS DOS and when I change to FreeDOS it breaks, so the bug reporters are likely to be MS DOS owners :-). But then, those are often no programmers. If you want maximum legality, we could purchase a copy of MS DOS for testing purposes. Eric, here is your signboard :D Please don't feed the trolls. It's not good for them, nor is it for us ;) P.S. I am sure I have a stack of MS-DOS licenses somewhere in the basement. If someone really wants to have one, feel free to apply. I don't really know if it's legal to use illegally acquired program if you have a license for the program but not the program itself. Just to close this IMO silly thread ;) I find it sad that many Free Software/Open Source developers find it silly or trolling to fully consider legal matters, and I'm not talking just FreeDOS. But if you do not wish to discuss this matter, I can shut up. -- Markus Laire - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
On 8/18/06, Eric Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You probably know that MS DOS 1.0 did not even support subdirectories... ;-). While FreeDOS 1.0 is delayed because we keep adding features to our wishlist. Some of which are beyond MS DOS 6.xx! I wasn't really thinking MS DOS 1.0, but the attitude that 1.0 version is a bug-free version which doesn't have any known bugs and preferably not even unknown ones. So, please let me (or us) know which aspects of FreeDOS are still broken enough to justify further delays in the FreeDOS 1.0 release. I do think that if we compare to Linux, FreeDOS 1.0 is worth at least the maturity of Linux 2.2 :-). It's just that the general attitude here recently seems to be that FreeDOS 1.0 will be released soon, whether it has known bugs or not. -- Markus Laire - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Eric Auer escreveu: How about marking free blocks as unresizable at the moment when joinMCBs splices them out of the chain, leaving an unlinked but double-freeable data structure in RAM? For what I could understand, only one such double freeable block is needed. And it could be cleaned by something later on. But then, it would really be better to implement a patch which can always stay on. I vote for that too :) Alain - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
Markus Laire wrote: I don't really know if it's legal to use illegally acquired program if you have a license for the program but not the program itself. Do you really want to start a lengthy discussion about whether I am using a legitimately created backup with my original license or not? For heaven's sake, I'll ship the original discs along with the license. I find it sad that many Free Software/Open Source developers find it silly or trolling to fully consider legal matters, and I'm not talking just FreeDOS. Fully considering as in I'll sue you to death like SCO? Of course, it is important not to open the door wide enough for lawyers and the like. But this particular case and, especially, your inappropriately truncated summary why FreeDOS is illegal make you look like a troll. It would help tremendously if you could elaborate a bit on your thoughts - and not just state that you don't like FreeDOS because it is illegal. Apart from that you probably don't even know if anything illegal took place at all - you just imagine it *could* be, and thus it has to. But if you do not wish to discuss this matter, I can shut up. Substantiate your statements better next time and everything will be fine. Best regards, Andre - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
At 01:06 PM 8/18/2006 +0200, Andre Tertlingwrote: P.S. I am sure I have a stack of MS-DOS licenses somewhere in the basement. If someone really wants to have one, feel free to apply. Heck, I still have at least two sets of MS-DOS floppies down in basement somewhere. Don't know if they work, but they're down there. The ZEOS is long gone, though. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
So to end this thread, since Michael already seems to own MS-DOS but just wants an easier way of getting it on his hard drive, it is perfectly legal to use. On 8/18/06, Michael Devore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:06 PM 8/18/2006 +0200, Andre Tertlingwrote: P.S. I am sure I have a stack of MS-DOS licenses somewhere in the basement. If someone really wants to have one, feel free to apply. Heck, I still have at least two sets of MS-DOS floppies down in basement somewhere. Don't know if they work, but they're down there. The ZEOS is long gone, though. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change color and fall from the trees. David Letterman (1947 - ) See ya - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Installing with singlestepping doesn't seem to work.
I just downloaded Updated 1.0 Testing CD from www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.0-Testing/fdbasecd.iso and tried to install it in qemu using singlestepping but it didn't work. Here are some (hopefully relevant) parts of the installing process: Lines starting with # are my comments. [EMAIL PROTECTED] dd if=/dev/zero of=testdisk bs=1M count=10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] qemu -hda testdisk -cdrom FreeDOS-1.0-testing.iso -boot d -m 32 # I selected 1. Boot FreeDOS from CD from boot-menu # In next menu, there are only 2 entries, but I can use arrows to select # options 1,2,3,4,5 - i.e. there's 3 extra options which are not shown # 1. Install to harddisk using FreeDOS SETUP (default) # 2. FreeDOS Safe Mode (skip driver loading) # # I selected 1, with Singlestepping ON ... A:\if not errorlevel 4 getargs temp.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? # I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above A:\call temp.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? A:\temp.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? A:\A:\getargs [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - A:\. A:\echo off [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? ... A:\if exists FDCD0001 devload /h /qq crdcache.sys FDCD0001 CDRCACH1 1024 NUL [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? # I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above ... # I selected language 1 - English ... # I selected Prepare the harddisk for FreeDOS 1.0 Final by running XFdisk ... # I used XFdisk to create one 10MB primary partition # After restarting I got about the same error-messages as earlier ... X:\if exist C:\NUL echo C:Z:\drvlist.txt [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? # I think I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above ... X:\set oldlang=EN [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\if not exist X:\FreeDOS\Setup\NLS\drvch.EN set lang=en [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? # I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above ... # In Please select the drive you wish to install FreeDOS on. I got these options: # ### # # X:\echo C: [Yes=ENTER, No=Esc] ? # # # C: # # ### # I selected the 2nd one C: ... X:\del z:\drvlist.txt [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC]? x:\rem shsurdrv /qq /uNUL [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\if !C: [Yes=E==! set destdrv=C: [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\rem Check if partition needs to be created [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\CDD C: [Yes=E\ [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Syntax error. X:\if not !X:\==!C: [Yes=E\ goto fdiskmenu [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\[Yes=E\ goto fdiskmenu [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. X:\goto skipfdisk [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\pbatch X:\FreeDOS\Setup\NLS\backgrou.men -fh0 -ft7 -x1 -y1 -r0 -s0 [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? ... X:\[Yes=E\ goto format [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. ... # Select Yes for Format-question ... X:\[Yes=E\test.tmp pause Could not format your hard disk [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. X:\if not exist C: [Yes=E\test.tmp goto format [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\[Yes=E\test.tmp goto format [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. X:\del C: [Yes=E\test.tmp [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? All files in '*.*' will be deleted ! Are you sure (Y/N)? Y # I answered Y to the question above File not found. - 'C:\*.*' File not found. - 'X:\[YES' File not found. - 'X:\E\TEST.TMP' ... # I selected 1. Configure FreeDOS installating settings from menu ... # I won't report those Bad command or filename - [Yes. errors anymore. # or Syntax error. errors for commands like CDD C: [Yes=E\ ... # I selected 1. Start installation of FreeDOS 1.0 Final from menu ... Warning: error 1 occured! Press a key to continue X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLgoto end [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLif ==QUIT goto optmenu2 [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLrem Do not CALL this, but let it be the end-option. [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLrem But what about the INSTALLER not being run? how to solve that? [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLif exist postinst.bat postinst.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALLgoto end [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALL # Installer ended and I was dropper to FreeDOS. X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALL dir c: Volume in drive C is FREEDOS Volume Serial Number is 0B54-1906 File nor found. # There are no files on C: - so it seems that install wasn't succesfull. X:\FREEDOS\SETUP\INSTALL -- Markus Laire - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
At 10:54 AM 8/18/2006 -0700, Blair Campbell wrote: So to end this thread, since Michael already seems to own MS-DOS but just wants an easier way of getting it on his hard drive, it is perfectly legal to use. Well, who doesn't have legal MS-DOS, if they ever had a machine back when. It was included on about everything. I probably have recycled a dozen legally MS-DOS licensed machines. I know I've thrown away a lot of the old floppies with DOS. And on a diminishing level with later versions of operating systems ever since. I've even recycled a legal Win 2000 and a Win XP licensed machine into oblivion, for which I personally bought the licenses. Cost of doing business. If someone wanted to create a ruckus, they could point out that every time someone allowed a commercial program for testing and debugging be sent to anyone else, they technically violated copyright. And that's been accepted practice for years, to the point that professional trouble-shooter is, or was, a career. It's rumored that even the big software houses would use them on occasion. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS image
I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand, that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0 software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But marking a 1.0 release means you can start to work on stuff after 1.0. For example: I really want to extend what capabilities you have available in DOS. -jh Blair Campbell wrote: Much 1.0 software is released with known bugs. We never said that FreeDOS 1.0 would be bug free. On 8/18/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/18/06, Eric Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You probably know that MS DOS 1.0 did not even support subdirectories... ;-). While FreeDOS 1.0 is delayed because we keep adding features to our wishlist. Some of which are beyond MS DOS 6.xx! I wasn't really thinking MS DOS 1.0, but the attitude that 1.0 version is a bug-free version which doesn't have any known bugs and preferably not even unknown ones. -- This email message has been encrypted using the ROT-26 cipher. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Installing with singlestepping doesn't seem to work.
A:\if not errorlevel 4 getargs temp.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? # I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above Yes, because the echo-ed command itself is also sent to temp.bat... Redirection combined with single-stepping has a bug. A:\A:\getargs [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - A:\. See above. ... X:\[Yes=E\test.tmp pause Could not format your hard disk [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. Strange. X:\if not exist C: [Yes=E\test.tmp goto format [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Oops. X:\[Yes=E\test.tmp goto format [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? Bad command or filename - [Yes. Oops. X:\del C: [Yes=E\test.tmp [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? All files in '*.*' will be deleted ! Are you sure (Y/N)? Y # I answered Y to the question above Probably a bad idea. # There are no files on C: - so it seems that install wasn't succesfull. I suggest that the command [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? string itself should NOT be subjected to possible redirection. Will solve most of the problems that you mention to force that text to go to stderr. Possibly even ignoring CTTY, but at least ignoring redirection. This can be less trivial than it sounds, so as soon as somebody has a patch to implement it, I would like to see the patch before it gets used... Eric - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote: I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand, that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0 software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But marking a 1.0 release means you can start to work on stuff after 1.0. For example: I really want to extend what capabilities you have available in DOS. I've rethought my own idea on this a little bit. Take it for what it's worth. The 1.0 release announcement motivated a lot of people to test things at lot harder, or maybe just a lot more people tested it at all, or a combination of the two. The net result is the same; I personally have more support/feature requests and bug reports than I've had in aggregate for the past couple of years. All of them squashed together in the last month. I don't think I'm alone in that, the kernel looks to be under heavy update for one. And new install issues continue to be posted by new members. To be honest, I didn't anticipate the level of increase relative to the 1.0 announcement. Even the list subscriber counts appear to be up. But now we're running up against the deadline. I don't have time to stick everything in HIMEM/EMM386 that people want (apparently with pathological consequences), and I have to carefully weigh all changes against the possibility that they'll break something for someone somewhere. Surely I'm not alone in that situation. Maybe the release deadline needs little extra flexibility. Not like it was before. Oh, please, pretty please, not that. Just something like it's coming out, but right now we're clearing the flood of new reports from the initial 1.0 release announcement to ensure a quality experience. And as soon as bug reports die down -- not to the SAME level, but to a SANE level -- then a bit more testing of the final image and we're good to go. Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original announcement of a month should have worked fine where FreeDOS was when you made it, but the act of the announcing changed all that. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
Michael Devore wrote: At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote: I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand, that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0 software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But marking a 1.0 release means you can start to work on stuff after 1.0. For example: I really want to extend what capabilities you have available in DOS. I've rethought my own idea on this a little bit. Take it for what it's worth. The 1.0 release announcement motivated a lot of people to test things at lot harder, or maybe just a lot more people tested it at all, or a combination of the two. The net result is the same; I personally have more support/feature requests and bug reports than I've had in aggregate for the past couple of years. All of them squashed together in the last month. [...] Maybe the release deadline needs little extra flexibility. Not like it was before. Oh, please, pretty please, not that. Just something like it's coming out, but right now we're clearing the flood of new reports from the initial 1.0 release announcement to ensure a quality experience. And as soon as bug reports die down -- not to the SAME level, but to a SANE level -- then a bit more testing of the final image and we're good to go. Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original announcement of a month should have worked fine where FreeDOS was when you made it, but the act of the announcing changed all that. Okay. What do we think we're looking at here for us to be ready for our 1.0 debug? Another month? Two months? Or is it more like weeks? -jh -- This email message has been encrypted using the ROT-26 cipher. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi! 17-Авг-2006 21:20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: MD 1. QuickBASIC (I assume) frees a block of memory via INT 21h function 49h MD 2. QuickBASIC resizes a second block of memory via function 4ah with value MD 3. QuickBASIC resizes the second block of memory via function 4ah with the MD 4. QuickBASIC tries to re-free the first block of memory via function MD 49h. Tsk, tsk. Naughty, but not too naughty under normal MD conditions. Here MS-DOS and FreeDOS differ: while both will allow MD re-freeing the same block without error under some circumstances (which I MD don't know what they are since I'm not a kernel guy), See memmgr.c:DosMemFree() (which called from inthndlr.c:case 0x49): DosMemFree() returns error DE_INVLDMCB (9) when passed segment address not points to valid MCB, else it marks it as free. MD the intervening MD resizes of the second block apparently flush out FreeDOS's memory of the MD first block, ? memmgr.c:DosMemChange() doesn't joins previous block with current, only following free blocks. May you specify, what you mean? Or you wish to say, that first block comes after second block? MD so it returns an error code. If you mean, that first block B comes after second block A and that resizing A makes second free for B report error - true. This is because joinMCBs() (called from DosMemChange()) invalidates header of joined block. MD MS-DOS still remembers that the MD block was recently valid and does not return an error code on the second MD free. This mean, MS-DOS doesn't invalidates joined block header. Interesting, what happen, if there will be performed resize (0x4A) on already joined block (which have header, but not exist)? [...] MD those keeping count, is QB mistake #3. As a consequence, you have MD no-feedback lockup of the application using FreeDOS, but not using MS-DOS. MD Unfortunately, if we want to be compatible with some (all?) of QB 4.0 MD applications which use BRUN40, FreeDOS has to act like MS-DOS and allow the MD re-freeing of a memory block to occur without an error, Issue is, that there are no more valid memory block! MD even though MD intervening INT 21h actions have occurred. I'd guess the problem isn't in MD QB 4.5 or we have heard earlier, but frankly I do not know if it does or MD does not. MD I don't know if it's feasible to change FreeDOS kernel at this point to MD make it work, but this is a compatibility issue that ought to be addressed MD in some fashion. Even if it's a QB4 is too stupid to live announcement. 1. I think, this change may be delayed (for post-1.0). 2. I think, change not very hard and contains two steps: 2.1. joinMCBs() should now not invalidate header of joined block (remove q-m_type = 'K'; and insert comment, which says, that header of joined block not invalidated for compatibility with MS-DOS and QB4). 2.2. DosMemChange() (and, probably, some other functions - but not DosMemFree()) should use instead mcbValid() macro some function, which will check _also_, that segment points to block header inside current chain - this should protect against trying to resize block, which is not in chain (ie., it part of other blocks). - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi! 18-Авг-2006 11:26 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: EA I hope you also like my kernel patch for it... EA [... QuickBASIC frees a block, resizes another block to the max after EA finding the max size with resize to -1 size, then frees the first EA block again, which fails on FreeDOS as free invalidates the block ...] EA I would suggest the following patch for kernel 2036 (stable) -- EA +#if 0 /* this disturbs QB 4.x double-free... */ EA q-m_type = 'K';/* Invalidate the magic number */ EA +#else EA +q-m_type = MCB_NORMAL;/* make QB 4.x happy... */ EA +q-m_psp = FREE_PSP; /* leave MCB as valid but free */ EA +#endif First, not need to re-add header. Second, there should be added check, that segment points to block in chain, in DosMemChange(), to make fool-prof. EA At least compiling the whole updated 2036 kernel under the EA updated 2036 kernel itself worked just fine... Well, after I EA removed the TSR instance of Quarterdeck MFT (now freeware) EA from RAM, that is, otherwise NASM ran out of memory ;-) . ? You wish to say, that with your patch there now not enough memory for NASM after unloading MFT? - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
At 02:01 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, Jim Hall wrote: Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original announcement of a month should have worked fine where FreeDOS was when you made it, but the act of the announcing changed all that. Okay. What do we think we're looking at here for us to be ready for our 1.0 debug? Another month? Two months? Or is it more like weeks? Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door today, and frankly I'd like more time than that. Then, maybe a couple weeks of full FreeDOS 1.0 test? I don't know, what do other open source people usually leave golden release candidates at as a test window? Others involved in major open source projects would have a much better idea and more education on the topic than me. Your question could use input from the developer roster of folks here, because I don't know their status, other than what I see about the kernel and installation. Anybody else out there in a development/support time crunch? If it's just me, then maybe a short week will do it if no major complications. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi! 18-Авг-2006 13:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: EA Basically the updated patch means free MCBs become unlinked EA when their memory is merged with the memory of adjacent free EA MCBs, but thear are no longer invalidated. Quite clean... ...except, that this (this code comment out for compatibility with MS-DOS and buggy QB/BRUN40 library) not explained in comment somewhere in code. (As usually, true programmers don't like to comment, :( what they do.) EA How about marking free blocks as unresizable at the moment EA when joinMCBs splices them out of the chain, leaving an EA unlinked but double-freeable data structure in RAM? Interesting idea! There may be _added_ return DE_INVLDMCB if MCB is free. EA I imagine you could set m_size to -1 to mark a (former / EA unlinked) MCB as unresizable. Such a MCB would link to EA itself (seg+1+-1==seg) and can be identified as fake EA MCB that way. DosMemFree should accept valid but fake EA MCBs (for QB compatibility) while DosMemChange and the EA rest must only accept valid nonfake MCBs. There exist more bullet-prof check for non-fake MCB - just check that it in current MCB chain. But don't forget about UMBs (which may be unlinked from conventional memory chain). EA Again, I would like to know how MS DOS reacts to resizing EA freed MCBs. This is unimportant - FreeDOS anyway shouldn't hang in this case. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
Hi! 18-Авг-2006 14:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: MD make it work, but this is a compatibility issue that ought to be addressed MD in some fashion. Even if it's a QB4 is too stupid to live announcement. 1. I think, this change may be delayed (for post-1.0). MD Normally, I would be in 100% sympathy and agreement with that idea. 1.0 MD shouldn't wait on a single application (unless it's one of the top ten DOS MD applications) . But this isn't a single application. This is in a MD language compiler, and thus the problem is potentially is in an entire MD _class_ of applications. Plus, it's a popular compiler. Let me doubt in last statement - up to now, I not seen (much) reports about similar problems, caused by usage of QB-compiled programs. So, even all class of these applications isn't on top ten DOS applications. MD There could be a MD serious amount of failures out there due to this. Well, I wholeheartedly agreed, that this should be fixed. But, unfortunately, there currently are not one kernel tree (there much of them) and there are no currently (active) maintainer, which will commit changes in CVS. This is main reason, why I think, that this change should be delayed after 1.0, when we calmly may normalize situation with a lot of forks and add this patch. MD guesses based on available evidence, and my guess is that not adjusting for MD a popular compiler might be trouble. Let me again disagree with word popular. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] dpmi and dosfsck
Hi! 18-Авг-2006 12:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Imre Leber) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: IL I've just been reading up on DPMI, seems that there are some functions that IL prohibit a dpmi host from writing to a swap file. IL Maybe such method should be in dosfsck? If your program is protected mode application - to this may be useful. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Kernel incompatibility between FD and MS-DOS makes QB4 cry
At 11:39 PM 8/18/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: MD a popular compiler might be trouble. Let me again disagree with word popular. QB 4.5 must have sold into the hundreds of thousands. I owned a copy myself and there was a huge community around it. It was _very_ popular, more so than the C compilers of the day. There were a massive number of QB 4.5 applications in commercial and private use, including a small number of my own. For QB 4.0, I'm purely guessing it had decent but modest sales numbers, far below QB 4.5. However, as you know, compilers often propagate their internal problems, as QB 4.0 does, which is why they disproportionately affect environments beyond their own sales and install numbers. You might not have encountered many QB applications because a lot of them went straight into vertical market, niche, and personal uses. Anyway, I don't know if QB 4.5 has the same problem. But if it does, the bug unquestionably needs to be fixed ASAP because of the huge installed based of QB 4.5 applications. If only in 4.0, we're left deciding whether it was popular enough or not. If it's questionable, it's probably better to be safe. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Test HIMEM version for feedback
Hi! 17-Авг-2006 12:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: Unless found precise reason, there are no assurance, that your patch fixes (not masks) anything and not damages anything else. MD It wouldn't damage anything else, but it might mask it. However, permanent MD masking is the best we can do without the physical BIOS to test and MD research. tom have such BIOS. He may even make dump of BIOS area, which you may study. :) MD There are other workarounds that have been made for other buggy MD BIOS chips. How would you actually fix a BIOS chip on a user's MD machine? You can't force them to re-flash it, even if it were possible and MD available. I not say about fixing BIOS, I say, that we should know the reasons, what we fix. BIOS damages flags is only suggestion. Could just be hitting one word on the stack, i.e. [sp] at INT entry. That And? Why return address isn't damaged? Let me ask again: MD The most obvious case would be if a single bit were being tripped and the MD bit still matched existing return address or changed it to a benign one MD (which could happen if the bit was low). Less obvious case would be if a MD particular value or bit pattern at the location triggered or avoids the MD overwrite. I could speculate on other potentialities for a long time. - MD The reason that the stack overwrite doesn't cause failure on the return MD address in the first patch, is that it isn't the return address living MD there. It's the original AX value stored on the stack with a PUSH AX you MD don't see. See the POP AX that follows? Yes, sorry, I miss it. And yes, I see - there is bad trick (bad - because it may and should be simplified) to save/restore AX below return address, whereas this is absolutely useless (old AX value ayway isn't used later). MD So the BIOS routine probably is MD trashing AX, but that's the register most likely to be noncritical across MD INT calls, It not used later. MD so changing it would seldom cause problems. When the flags were MD there at [sp], then the garbage value could easily have fatal consequences. Interesting, which precise flags changes may cause such problems? MD Okay, that explanation works much better for me, and makes a lot more MD sense. I was a bit worried about the return address getting munged myself, MD but the fact of AX modification is a good reason for why the BIOS bug MD didn't keep biting, and the first patched worked. _In any case_, even if trouble as you explain (trashed AX value), this should be explicitly commented in source!!! Or, later, when someone else again updates source (for example, eliminates superfluous push/pop ax around disable_enable_a20_* calls), it again may start work wrong on such buggt BIOSes. - MD But it is a weird thing. That's why I would prefer the SUB SP change which MD avoids having anything critical at the [sp] location. If reason in this, then I also vote for explicit push ax/pop ax around discussed INT 15h call. MD Plus, I just found out that there exist old compressed DOS programs which MD avoid the automatic A20 handling of the kernel, Which packer (and/or programs, which packed by this/these packers)? MD Very old QuickBASIC program. I actually don't know if it's packed or MD exactly what it's doing in its little pinhead, but it does use segment MD wrapping. Shortly after startup the debugger showed it MD normalized/underflowed a 0F73:0 segment value to an FF74:FFF0 address MD pointing in HMA with poor results. Someone mentions overlays. May be, this is reason? MD Ran the program in an environment where a known problematic EXEPACKed MD program worked (8ACROSS), it still failed. Ran it under LOADFIX, it MD worked. The evidence is compelling. Well, I think, kernel can't be infinite amount of only patches for 3rd party bugs, especially, if these bugs are rare. After all, there already exist LOADFIX for this 8ACROSS. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Test HIMEM version for feedback
Hi! 17-Авг-2006 21:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Michael Devore freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: te I don't know why pushf/cli/popf got even in there, as for any te selfrespecting BIOS, this should have *exactly* no effect (interrupts te are disabled by INT 15, and restored by iret) You miss, that only recent releases of EMM386 do now respect original flags value on the stack - previous releases just directly manipulate IF flag and do retf 2. te So I assume that pushf/cli/popf got there in the first place because te some buggy real world bios was detected to teint15handler: te . te sti te stc (or whatever flags should be returned) te retf 2 te and to fix this bug. This was EMM386. :) - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Test HIMEM version for feedback
At 01:43 AM 8/19/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: e are disabled by INT 15, and restored by iret) You miss, that only recent releases of EMM386 do now respect original flags value on the stack - previous releases just directly manipulate IF flag and do retf 2. te So I assume that pushf/cli/popf got there in the first place because te some buggy real world bios was detected to teint15handler: te . te sti te stc (or whatever flags should be returned) te retf 2 te and to fix this bug. This was EMM386. No, predates it. We were looking at BIOS results without EMM386 in the way. Whatever EMM386 may or may not have done, and whatever effect that may or may not have had, a BIOS did before it. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
Michael Devore escreveu: Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door today, and frankly I'd like more time than that. Then, maybe a couple weeks of full FreeDOS 1.0 test? May I offer a suggestion: we can have FreeDOS 1.0 alfa FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1 FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2 That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test... Alain - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
Alain M. wrote: Michael Devore escreveu: Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door today, and frankly I'd like more time than that. Then, maybe a couple weeks of full FreeDOS 1.0 test? May I offer a suggestion: we can have FreeDOS 1.0 alfa FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1 FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2 That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test... Alain Boy, it seems like 1.0 is a perfection that no one can achieve around here. We have 1.0pre-1, 1.0pre-2, etc. It seems like it's more like 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0., etc., getting closer to 1 without actually achieving it. Gregory - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 relase, was MS-DOS image
At 09:00 PM 8/18/2006 -0400, Gregory Pietsch wrote: Alain M. wrote: May I offer a suggestion: we can have FreeDOS 1.0 alfa FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1 FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2 That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test... Boy, it seems like 1.0 is a perfection that no one can achieve around here. We have 1.0pre-1, 1.0pre-2, etc. It seems like it's more like 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0., etc., getting closer to 1 without actually achieving it. Yeah, but if you release what is perceived by more than a few percentage of users as a failed install or operation, FreeDOS could require significant damage control. And give more credibility to a few vultures who will over-hype FD problems for their own purposes, though that's probably a given at this point regardless of what's done. The negatives may be muted with a bit more time to test and to allow the 1.0-announce influx of bug reports to clear. But I don't like the idea of a hyperbolic approach to 1.0 either. There must be a middle path, and I think it can be done without going through the full-blown transitional alpha-1, beta-1, beta-2, RC-1, RC-2, etc. business. End of the month must look awful tempting to get official 1.0 release declared a done deal and in distribution. I'm just saying maybe that's not such a great idea depending on what transpires over the next couple of weeks, though I'm not personally averse to the idea if next candidate release goes well on all fronts. An official 1.0 full release before Aug 31st sounds ideal -- I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just that it shouldn't be required to happen. For my part, I'm going to try and get a HIMEM with the buggy BIOS workaround per Tom's feedback, and minor miscellany on HIMEM and EMM836, out by Sunday. - 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 http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
