[Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
Hi, some suggestion to comment on the list :-) From marinelluccia1 tiscali.it: Hi at all, please remember to include in distro 1.1 a shell for freedos. i suggest freedos shell from Emanuele Cipolla http://fdshell.sourceforge.net/ because it's more standard doshell clone i've found. Emanuele can be contacted via his site : http://www.emanuelecipolla.net/it/ If someone have another clone of doshell can suggest... Thanks Roberto iw2evk Milan -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Updates to software list
Hi! XMGR. HIMEMX (AFAICT) has no maintainer (and/or we really need to push out that jmp $+2 fix for old 386s, i.e. unofficial version 3.33, In other words, Japheth took over HIMEMX but does not add the patch? www.freedos.org/software/ To be completely honest, please don't take this the wrong way, but some of those I literally never use (or can't remember how!): * append * assign The idea of BASE is to provide at least clones of all commands that MS DOS users had in their standard installation of MS DOS, while of course not limiting ourself to that list. You are right that some tools are less frequently used but almost everything in your list actually is useful for me... Append / assign: Some old software uses it in startup scripts. Comp: You are right, FC replaces it. Choice: Important for batch scripts. Exe2bin: Not all software uses compilers which create COM directly. Fasthelp: Was meant to work like apropos in Linux, see htmlhelp. Graphics: For ESC/P, HP PCL and Postscript printers, but of course many now make PNG screenshots of their DOS window, no hardcopy. Mirror: Can be sort of replaced by functionality in FORMAT. Nlsfunc: Not really clear for me how to use this and CHCP. Also, neither 2039 nor 2040 support NLSFUNC yet, only unstable 2037. Print: Not really useful with modern printers but some like it. Recover / unformat: Partially also in FORMAT? Share: Apparently useful for Windows and similar software? Tree: How else do you check your directory tree? I use LCD. Undelete: In what way buggy for FAT32? It is just horribly non- user-friendly as far as I remember. I mean, if we want to mirror MS-DOS, we should include BWBasic BWBasic, the Shell-based GWBasic clone? That was pretty painful to use but of course it is much smaller than the cool freebasic. Almost forgot, yeah, I would (personally) add sed, specifically cheap sed, which already is GPL and has a DOS 16-bit binary: http://lvogel.free.fr/sed.htm A lot smaller than the DJGPP GNU SED it seems. I do like SED but if we go that way, I would like EGREP, SORT, UNIQ, WC, XXD etc. www.exactcode.de/site/open_source/minised/ Yet more less sed :-D Perhaps we should include Awk (old Mawk 1.2.2? old 16-bit Gawk 3.0.6?) Awk has awkful syntax, but some people like it... www.gknw.net/mirror/awk/ reminds me, MOVE still needs the +R bug fixed. (And a lot of these should be upgraded to support LFNs, for DOSEMU if nothing else.) Poke the maintainer, although I only give +R any priority at all. Eric -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader
On Jul 16, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Rugxulo wrote: Included with this zip file is the a86 assembler used to compile the code, which obviously would need to be removed for the freedos distribution copy, since it's a completely separate application. Just for the record, A86 is shareware, so in theory it's fine including it (though obviously NASM would be better). Of course, I find it funny that you use an ancient copy (3.22 from 1990!) when even latest 4.05 has been stable for 10 years!! ;-)I assume there's no hard dependency on that particular version. Oh well, it doesn't matter right now, I just find it funny. ;-) I own the registered copy of a86, and I know 4.05 is the latest. I didn't write the provox program, merely took it over from it's original author. Apparently, 3.22 is the version used for development. Another reason why I figured it would be better to separate the assembler from the screen reader. As for porting it to nasm, that's not something I've looked at yet, I expect it won't be a straightforward port, but perhaps it will surprise me and work out quickly and easily. :) I'll not be able to check into that for quite some time though, since I'm in the middle of a move, and my hardware is scattered between two different states. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi again Rugxulo, So VMware needs PCNET? VirtualBox needs AMDPD? QEMU needs NE2000? Anybody know BOCHS? (Yes, I'm assuming more re: emulation than real hardware here, isn't that reasonable?) Bochs emulates a bad(?) NE2000 and a nonstandard PCI Pseudo NIC for which an Etherboot driver exists so HPA of Syslinux will know. In general, virtual or not, I am always a fan of RTL8139 drivers even if I cannot use them :-D Afair, Dosemu magically supports a DOS packet driver interface and IPX, maybe no virtual NIC, or at most some NE2000... I never really tried dosemu networking ;-) Some might argue even 10MB or so is already huge when all basic content fits on a bootdisk (fdisk/format/sys/kernel/shell) Basic for me is more like your Ruffidea distro for 1-3 floppies :-) Has really many tools, most of the things that MS DOS users know. Well, what exactly can you do with kernel + shell? Not much! Yes so that is for make a minimal bootdisk and add your stuff. throw a compiler, a text editor, a game, *something useful* Compilers and games are not very basic, but some games are tiny. Most attractive to average users (rough guess): Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET I agree on all of those, as long as Arachne configures well. Maybe useful to run that in a ramdisk for performance... Mined GNU Emacs No experience with that in DOS but a big editor like sededit is indeed nice to have around... Perl Python Quite specific to some target audiences. Also real DOS Perl is quite outdated, while DOS/Windows Perl is quite large? OpenGem A GUI only makes sense with a good bunch of apps for it so GEM is a category for itself, in terms of installer packs. OpenWatcom + NASM Depends on how small or how complete you want to go. Surely useful to have at least enough to compile the kernel. UPX! FreeDoom + Eternity Engine :-D HXRT + HXGUI Specific for running Windows apps but indeed cool. p7zip And advanced mame advzip :-) DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) See OpenWatcom topic. Not THAT many FreeDOS apps use this compiler. The set of DJGPP compiled apps is huge if you look at all the ported GNU things available. UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Something like that, yes, sure. Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS If you say Ltools, you should also say smbclient ;-) Note that Ltools make it easy to shoot your own foot so maybe they are not for general users. If you have a simple Linux style distro, just drag files to your DOS drive in the Linux GUI instead of messing up your Linux drive from within DOS with some evil ltools... TestDisk + PhotoRec If those are both freeware enough, sure :-) xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Afair Blair ported both? Doszip (or DN/2?) And filemaven with com/lpt cable file transfers :-) 4DOS (or Bash?) Both! Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. Well, international stuff in any case. At least language files and the kernel built-in functionality and at least MKEYB :-) There's an easy (obvious?) answer to that: include common packet drivers (see above), and let mTCP's FTP grab WGET itself from iBiblio! Bam, problem solved! ;-) Mwah for people with USB4 wireless telepathic networking it is better to download whatever they want from ibiblio from Windows 10 and then use DOS only to install those zips... Eric -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Most attractive to average users (rough guess): Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET Mined GNU Emacs Perl Python OpenGem OpenWatcom + NASM FreeDoom + Eternity Engine HXRT + HXGUI p7zip DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS TestDisk + PhotoRec xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Doszip (or DN/2?) 4DOS (or Bash?) Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of scope creep. Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add to the distro. I'd prefer not to expand the list of packages fro FreeDOS 1.1 at this late stage. We've done some cleanup on the software list and moved a few packages between package groups on the 1.1-test distro already. If we started building a list of all the cool programs that FreeDOS 1.1 should also include, we will never get there. I think we should have a discussion about what FreeDOS 2.0 should include, and I think 2.0 is the right time to completely redefine what DOS should look like. What would DOS systems look like today if they remained the dominant platform? What should a modern DOS look like in 2011 or 2012? After 1.1 is out, I'd like to see a good, strong discussion thread on the mailing list with lots of comments about what 2.0 should include, what packages belong in and out, what package groups we should have. But please, let's keep that until *after* we get FreeDOS 1.1 out. I'd like 1.1 to basically be an update to 1.0: a *few* new packages features, more up-to-date packages, a new installer. Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. So far not many have bothered. It's tedious, that's probably why. The only thing worse than that is annoying bugs or stuff that constantly gets updated (which means upgrading ad nauseum). Perfectionism doesn't help either (not that anything is every perfect). :-/ Yup, I've been very open to anyone making their own FreeDOS distro. And there have been a few, GNU/DOS was one example. This is basically the same concept as people making their own Linux distro: you get lots of experiments, and the very strong distros become popular. At first, you only had MCC Linux, TAMU Linux, and SLS Linux - but then you had Slackware, Debian, RedHat ... Fedora, Ubuntu, etc - and lots of other distros along the way. I'm totally okay with someone taking the FreeDOS Kernel and utilities, and trying their own spin on FreeDOS to do something really interesting or cool. I'd just ask that they avoid using the label FreeDOS, and name it something unique. Again, GNU/DOS was a good example. -jh -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Updates to software list
Hi, On 7/17/11, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: XMGR. HIMEMX (AFAICT) has no maintainer (and/or we really need to push out that jmp $+2 fix for old 386s, i.e. unofficial version 3.33, In other words, Japheth took over HIMEMX but does not add the patch? No. In fact, he has explicitly said he is *not* maintainer, hence nobody else ever bothered adding the patch. :-( Yeah, I guess I should've done it, but even I never got around to it (round tuit?). www.freedos.org/software/ To be completely honest, please don't take this the wrong way, but some of those I literally never use (or can't remember how!): * append * assign The idea of BASE is to provide at least clones of all commands that MS DOS users had in their standard installation of MS DOS, while of course not limiting ourself to that list. You are right that some tools are less frequently used but almost everything in your list actually is useful for me... It's fine if you have reasons to use them. I'm not disagreeing with the idea, just saying in practice I never, ever, ever use them. I guess that just proves that everybody's tastes, usage, and skills differ. Please don't take it as a command that you must never use them and remove them, that's not my goal. Just saying ... perhaps some things we don't need anymore. Comp: You are right, FC replaces it. Well, yes, I know all (most?) DOSes have both, but FC can do ASCII (default) or binary (/b), so I don't ever use COMP. Choice: Important for batch scripts. Exe2bin: Not all software uses compilers which create COM directly. But, IIRC, this was verbatim the version from OpenWatcom. My point was that people who are developers already have it (or similar). If we're going to include it, we should also include link (like MS-DOS used to). Also, there's no DOSSHELL or BASIC there either, and nobody complained. So some of these things should really be removed. I do really think exe2bin is useless here. Fasthelp: Was meant to work like apropos in Linux, see htmlhelp. But does it work at all?? I can't remember, maybe I'm thinking of DR-DOS (where it's a no-op). Graphics: For ESC/P, HP PCL and Postscript printers, but of course many now make PNG screenshots of their DOS window, no hardcopy. You (should) know I meant no offense by this. And certainly I appreciate all your hard work. But it's still frustrating when hardware just doesn't work. I guess that's a lost battle, there's just too much incompatible stuff out there. :-( Mirror: Can be sort of replaced by functionality in FORMAT. Fine, good, useful in theory, but rare in practice. Nlsfunc: Not really clear for me how to use this and CHCP. Also, neither 2039 nor 2040 support NLSFUNC yet, only unstable 2037. I (very very briefly) booted my i18n floppy yesterday, and I didn't see any obvious errors. int 21h, 6522h apparently still worked (my silly UPPER.COM), NLSFUNC quietly loaded with no problems, and yes I already upgraded to 2040. So who knows. But I of course didn't use CHCP at all. The country data (time, date, currency) seemed to be correctly changed to Greek, so who knows (but perhaps the CONFIG.SYS setting did that, not NLSFUNC.EXE itself, dunno). Oh well, Casino says it ain't urgent, so whatever. Still, I just hope it doesn't affect anybody negatively. Print: Not really useful with modern printers but some like it. If it works, keep it. Unfortunately, I think it doesn't for most people. Hardware-specific things like this that only work for %0.01 of the world should probably not be in BASE. Just MHO, sorry. :-( Recover / unformat: Partially also in FORMAT? Ugh, I'm not sure I've ever used any version of this, but it sounds useless (IIRC). Recover is like 0.1, and it pretty much destroys everything (on floppy??) except raw text data. So I would be very VERY surprised if anyone used this. I'd rather have a real tool like WDE in BASE instead. Share: Apparently useful for Windows and similar software? Yes, which is good and fine, but still rare for most people. Seriously, how many of us use Win3x? I'm not discounting it, just saying, by itself Share is fairly useless (right??). Keep in mind that you can't get Win3x at all anymore except via eBay or perhaps (??) MSDN. Good luck getting it to work on modern hardware!! (I consider bare DOS better than Win3x, but of course it had some advantages, e.g. multitasking.) If Win3x were freeware, I'd agree, but since it's not and never will be Tree: How else do you check your directory tree? I use LCD. Check it for what? I don't use it. If I need to find a file, I use an appropriate tool (or even dir /s). Actually, a real file manager would be more useful here (e.g. Doszip, but that's 386+). Undelete: In what way buggy for FAT32? It is just horribly non- user-friendly as far as I remember. I just meant that you hacked it to (sorta) work but not perfectly. I never heard of anyone heavily using it or testing it. I'd almost prefer if we
Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader
The provox screen reader for dos which I would like to have added to the freedos ftp site is currently located at: http://www.thesiegelsnest.us/provox/provox7.zip [...] Included with this zip file is the a86 assembler used to compile the code, which obviously would need to be removed for the freedos distribution copy, since it's a completely separate application. Just for the record, A86 is shareware, so in theory it's fine including it (though obviously NASM would be better). Of course, I find it funny that you use an ancient copy (3.22 from 1990!) when even latest 4.05 has been stable for 10 years!! ;-) I assume there's no hard dependency on that particular version. Oh well, it doesn't matter right now, I just find it funny. ;-) Actually, we include only a very few non-Free programs in the FreeDOS distribution. Shareware is not Free because you cannot modify it and you cannot distribute it freely to others. Most shareware programs require that you not break up their package and include it with something else, and/or that you may only distribute the program in the unmodified/original form. A86 specifically states this in their documentation: (A01.DOC) This package is provided to you under the following conditions: 1. You may copy the A86Vxxx.ZIP and D86Vxxx.ZIP files, and give them to anyone who accepts these terms. The copies you distribute must be complete and unmodified. You do not have to be registered to distribute this package. So unless Provox has permission somewhere (and I didn't see a file indicating as much, but maybe I missed it) then this is already in violation of A86, because A86 is not distributed as the original ZIP files. Also note this from A01.DOC: 5. Only permanent registered users can sell or distribute any programs that you have written or modified using this assembler. If you do sell or distribute such programs, you must insure that your registered name (company or individual) will always be distributed with the program, so that I can verify your registration. Any individual or company found to be violating these terms will be liable for triple registration fees for every machine they own capable of running my assembler (plus any legal and court costs). That seems very clear. While the documentation appears to indicate that a private individual may use the unregistered A86 to compile Provox, that same unregistered individual cannot distribute it to others. Only someone who has registered the A86 program may share their A86-built programs with others. Reading this closely, programs like Provox that are built using the A86 assember may only be distributed by people who have registered A86. (IANAL) Else, there's a monetary penalty clause. This makes it impossible for us to include this version of Provox (which is built using A86) with the FreeDOS distribution. So Provox would need to be assemble-able using a different, free assember such as NASM before we could include it with FreeDOS. Sorry. -jh -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader
Hi, On 7/17/11, Travis Siegel tsie...@softcon.com wrote: I own the registered copy of a86, and I know 4.05 is the latest. I didn't write the provox program, merely took it over from it's original author. Apparently, 3.22 is the version used for development. Another reason why I figured it would be better to separate the assembler from the screen reader. Well, have you ever tried building it with 4.05? Hopefully there are no issues there. As for porting it to nasm, that's not something I've looked at yet, I expect it won't be a straightforward port, but perhaps it will surprise me and work out quickly and easily. :) I'll not be able to check into that for quite some time though, since I'm in the middle of a move, and my hardware is scattered between two different states. I really didn't expect you to actually do this, just saying that I know most people don't (won't) use A86. I've used A86 in the past, but I prefer other tools nowadays. Please don't waste time on that conversion right now. ;-) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Updates to software list
To be completely honest, please don't take this the wrong way, but some of those I literally never use (or can't remember how!): * append * assign [...] The idea of BASE is to provide at least clones of all commands that MS DOS users had in their standard installation of MS DOS, while of course not limiting ourself to that list. You are right that some tools are less frequently used but almost everything in your list actually is useful for me... The important part is that BASE is supposed to replicate the behavior of MSDOS. FreeDOS is a free DOS-compatible operating system for IBM-PC compatible systems. So while you may not use some of the programs in BASE, they are included for a reason: for DOS legacy. We have dropped only a few truly relic commands that were deemed to have no value. For example: Backup/Restore was a moving target in MSDOS anyway, so was not part of FreeDOS. Similarly, Recover dropped was because there are a variety of free disk recovery programs already available. Also, we have allowed some of the command names in BASE to change from their original MSDOS counterparts, but the functionality of the original MSDOS command is still there (often expanded in FreeDOS.) As I've written elsewhere, we need to avoid making dramatic sweeping changes to FreeDOS 1.1. I'm in favor of completely opening up FreeDOS 2.0 for major change - and I think we *should* redefine what a modern DOS should look like in 2.0. But FreeDOS 1.1 needs to be essentially an update of 1.0, using the software list as a guide. -jh -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Updates to software list
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote: Hi, On 7/17/11, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: Comp: You are right, FC replaces it. Well, yes, I know all (most?) DOSes have both, but FC can do ASCII (default) or binary (/b), so I don't ever use COMP. In DOS 2-4, PC DOS had COMP (which it had since 1.x) and MS-DOS had FC. I think COMP first appears in MS-DOS 3.3; FC doesn't appear in IBM's version until 5. Choice: Important for batch scripts. Exe2bin: Not all software uses compilers which create COM directly. PC DOS 2000 doesn't even *have* exe2bin. But, IIRC, this was verbatim the version from OpenWatcom. My point was that people who are developers already have it (or similar). If we're going to include it, we should also include link (like MS-DOS used to). Also, there's no DOSSHELL or BASIC there either, and nobody complained. So some of these things should really be removed. I do really think exe2bin is useless here. DR DOS never had BASIC, and PC DOS 7 drops it (I *think* 6.x still had basic.com/basica.com on the IBM side, after dropping qbasic). And FreeDOS *does* have a GEM package, right? That covers DOSSHELL - it's more or less an enhanced version of DR DOS's counterpart of it (i.e., ViewMax). -uso. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
I don't know that I've used this DOSSHELL before. I just tried it now, and once I got used to the key commands, it seemed easy to use, and very nice. The source requires Microsoft BASIC Compiler to build. Is there a free version of Microsoft BASIC Compiler (DOS) out there? I haven't found it on Microsoft's site. Or perhaps a compatible BASIC compiler that will build this DOSSHELL? To keep FreeDOS free we need to use free software tools wherever possible. That's why we encourage NASM and OpenWatcom, and other free tools. We have a few programs still that use Borland's TurboC compiler, but I believe this is still available for free download via their Museum site, or the programs can be compiled using another compiler anyway. So I'm looking for a Museum free download area on Microsoft's web site for the BASIC Compiler, or a compatible BASIC compiler. -jh On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: Hi, some suggestion to comment on the list :-) From marinelluccia1 tiscali.it: Hi at all, please remember to include in distro 1.1 a shell for freedos. i suggest freedos shell from Emanuele Cipolla http://fdshell.sourceforge.net/ because it's more standard doshell clone i've found. Emanuele can be contacted via his site : http://www.emanuelecipolla.net/it/ If someone have another clone of doshell can suggest... Thanks Roberto iw2evk -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Updates to software list
But, IIRC, this was verbatim the version from OpenWatcom. My point was that people who are developers already have it (or similar). If we're going to include it, we should also include link (like MS-DOS used to). Also, there's no DOSSHELL or BASIC there either, and nobody complained. So some of these things should really be removed. I do really think exe2bin is useless here. DR DOS never had BASIC, and PC DOS 7 drops it (I *think* 6.x still had basic.com/basica.com on the IBM side, after dropping qbasic). And FreeDOS *does* have a GEM package, right? That covers DOSSHELL - it's more or less an enhanced version of DR DOS's counterpart of it (i.e., ViewMax). We have several implementations of BASIC in the Devel package set (formerly Lang): Basec, BwBasic, FreeBasic, SmallBasic. That seems like plenty. I even wrote a few simple BwBasic programs long ago, I think for one of the FreeDOS Beta releases, just so there'd be some BASIC programs you could experiment with. And yes, OpenGEM is the only graphical package included in the GUI package set. This is basically the same as DRDOS ViewMax, which was a competitor/analogy to MSDOS DOSSHELL. Over the years, we've included other GUI's in FreeDOS, but eventually the developers stopped working on them. OpenGEM is at least stable and works very well. I've emailed Shane many times to talk about his future plans for OpenGEM. I don't know if he is still working on it in 2011. The OpenGEM web site hints that something exciting is coming, but it's been a very long time since he put that message up. -jh -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi, On 7/17/11, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: Most attractive to average users (rough guess): While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of scope creep. This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add to the distro. I'd prefer not to expand the list of packages fro FreeDOS 1.1 at this late stage. We've done some cleanup on the software list and moved a few packages between package groups on the 1.1-test distro already. If we started building a list of all the cool programs that FreeDOS 1.1 should also include, we will never get there. I don't think any of it should be worried about for 1.1. Perhaps only BASE + NET + UTIL should be there, dunno. It's not my call, obviously, esp. since I'm not the one doing the work (hi, Bernd!). Or am I wrong in assuming Bernd's test .ISO is the basis for 1.1? I think we should have a discussion about what FreeDOS 2.0 should include, and I think 2.0 is the right time to completely redefine what DOS should look like. What would DOS systems look like today if they remained the dominant platform? What should a modern DOS look like in 2011 or 2012? After 1.1 is out, I'd like to see a good, strong discussion thread on the mailing list with lots of comments about what 2.0 should include, what packages belong in and out, what package groups we should have. Discussion is great, but we need to actually step up and make a deadline type system, timeline, plan, something! I know some of that has been roughly outlined, I'm just saying, it's tough to get things done when nobody can agree. :-( Bah, it's just too much work for us few volunteers. But please, let's keep that until *after* we get FreeDOS 1.1 out. I'd like 1.1 to basically be an update to 1.0: a *few* new packages features, more up-to-date packages, a new installer. Well, some things in 1.0 were horribly broken, some others are horribly outdated. Otherwise it's more or less fine. Surely we can tweak ad nauseum and would never get anything done. But again, none of this was meant to reflect on 1.1 specifically. Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. Yup, I've been very open to anyone making their own FreeDOS distro. And there have been a few, GNU/DOS was one example. This is basically the same concept as people making their own Linux distro: you get lots of experiments, and the very strong distros become popular. Unfortunately, it's almost like we have to make a Linux-based (DOS) emulation-oriented distro just to stay relevant! :-(Even then, I can hear the jeers (shudder). I'm totally okay with someone taking the FreeDOS Kernel and utilities, and trying their own spin on FreeDOS to do something really interesting or cool. I'd just ask that they avoid using the label FreeDOS, and name it something unique. Again, GNU/DOS was a good example. Except the GNU project had nothing (directly) to do with it, I presume. Actually, now I can't remember, was that the same as uDOS or something different? Yeah yeah, I know, check iBiblio (Perhaps GNU/DOS was a more limited attempt than the latter. Well, no FreeDOS spins were satisfactory to me in my attempts.) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
Hi, On 7/17/11, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: I don't know that I've used this DOSSHELL before. I just tried it now, and once I got used to the key commands, it seemed easy to use, and very nice. It looks okay, but it's fairly minimal. I'd heavily prefer Doszip, honestly. The source requires Microsoft BASIC Compiler to build. Is there a free version of Microsoft BASIC Compiler (DOS) out there? I haven't found it on Microsoft's site. Or perhaps a compatible BASIC compiler that will build this DOSSHELL? VBDOS is what it used. I think? FreeBASIC has some compatibility, but probably not enough, esp. the TUI stuff. I'm sure it could be ported, but it's probably a fairly big rewrite to do that. But no, I don't know of any other suitable freeware projects that would substitute, not by MS either. To keep FreeDOS free we need to use free software tools wherever possible. That's why we encourage NASM and OpenWatcom, and other free tools. We have a few programs still that use Borland's TurboC compiler, but I believe this is still available for free download via their Museum site, or the programs can be compiled using another compiler anyway. So I'm looking for a Museum free download area on Microsoft's web site for the BASIC Compiler, or a compatible BASIC compiler. Doszip at least can build with OpenWatcom and JWasm, so that's good. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader
Hi, On 7/17/11, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: The provox screen reader for dos which I would like to have added to the freedos ftp site is currently located at: [...] Included with this zip file is the a86 assembler used to compile Just for the record, A86 is shareware, so in theory it's fine including it (though obviously NASM would be better). Actually, we include only a very few non-Free programs in the FreeDOS distribution. Shareware is not Free because you cannot modify it and you cannot distribute it freely to others. Most shareware programs require that you not break up their package and include it with something else, and/or that you may only distribute the program in the unmodified/original form. A86 specifically states this in their documentation: (A01.DOC) My point wasn't that you would actually prefer to redistribute it, rather that since it's shareware, it's most definitely legal to do so. Yes, I know FreeDOS prefers free/libre! This package is provided to you under the following conditions: 1. You may copy the A86Vxxx.ZIP and D86Vxxx.ZIP files, and give them to anyone who accepts these terms. The copies you distribute must be complete and unmodified. You do not have to be registered to distribute this package. I would blindly assume he meant don't hack the binaries more than splitting up the .ZIPs. So unless Provox has permission somewhere (and I didn't see a file indicating as much, but maybe I missed it) then this is already in violation of A86, because A86 is not distributed as the original ZIP files. It's got a few other A86 files in there. It *could* be complete, but I didn't bother checking. Well, we'd have to find stock 3.22 first! http://www.atari-portfolio.co.uk/library/language/a86v322.zip http://www.eji.com/a86/index.htm(latest 4.05 from 2000) Well, it's mostly there, perhaps forgot D.EXE (debugger), but otherwise mostly seems there. Also note this from A01.DOC: 5. Only permanent registered users can sell or distribute any programs that you have written or modified using this assembler. If you do sell or distribute such programs, you must insure that your registered name (company or individual) will always be distributed with the program, so that I can verify your registration. Any individual or company found to be violating these terms will be liable for triple registration fees for every machine they own capable of running my assembler (plus any legal and court costs). Note that I too find this pretty restrictive, but indeed he is trying to make a living. Still seems a bit harsh. But I contacted him a few years ago, and he indicated that he had never gone after anybody yet (and I presume he wouldn't dream of it for non-commercial use like Provox). That seems very clear. While the documentation appears to indicate that a private individual may use the unregistered A86 to compile Provox, that same unregistered individual cannot distribute it to others. Only someone who has registered the A86 program may share their A86-built programs with others. Reading this closely, programs like Provox that are built using the A86 assember may only be distributed by people who have registered A86. (IANAL) Else, there's a monetary penalty clause. This makes it impossible for us to include this version of Provox (which is built using A86) with the FreeDOS distribution. Don't worry, Travis' previous email already says he's a registered user. So Provox would need to be assemble-able using a different, free assember such as NASM before we could include it with FreeDOS. Sorry. I have some limited experience translating between assemblers, so even this isn't unfeasible. It's far from impossible here, but I don't think it's necessary (see above). However, DTC.LIB doesn't seem to have sources, but I'm not sure what exactly that does or if it's needed or what the deal is, so we'll have to wait for Travis to explain that. (Perhaps that is the optional hardware synthesizer part??) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Op 17-7-2011 23:23, Rugxulo schreef: This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) For a full CD it's very much worthwile mentioning these. Adding packages is easy, integrating them and testing are a bit more difficult though. I'm abusing Jim's installer simply to allow people to do a 2nd install process from any random directory (X:\FREEDOS\CUSTOM\) to whichever directory you want to install those (be it same location as FreeDOS, or a separate \UTILS , \PROGRAMS , \PROGS , \BIGPROGS or whatever). Discussion is great, but we need to actually step up and make a deadline type system, timeline, plan, something! I know some of that has been roughly outlined, I'm just saying, it's tough to get things done when nobody can agree. :-( Bah, it's just too much work for us few volunteers. I'm aiming for end of August. People have their vacation, have a little bit more time for spending on FreeDOS if they wish so, etc. Lots and lots of rewriting is needed while some programs also still require updates. DEVLOAD was just fixed for example, KEYB/KERNEL/FreeCOM could do with some updates, etc. All in due time, and meanwhile if people are able to somehow update their own systems from the work-in-progress ISO files, good for them :) What I should be working on rather soon though is adding sources simply to not violate the distribution rules of a lot of opensource licenses. Anyone know if there's a DOS SVN client? or a win32 console one running under HXRT? Assuming LFNs pretty much become a requirement as well in that case. Otherwise I'm doomed to a ReactOS or WindowsXP virtual machine. Ah well. Bernd -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote: Hi, On 7/17/11, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: I don't know that I've used this DOSSHELL before. I just tried it now, and once I got used to the key commands, it seemed easy to use, and very nice. It looks okay, but it's fairly minimal. I'd heavily prefer Doszip, honestly. The source requires Microsoft BASIC Compiler to build. Is there a free version of Microsoft BASIC Compiler (DOS) out there? I haven't found it on Microsoft's site. Or perhaps a compatible BASIC compiler that will build this DOSSHELL? VBDOS is what it used. I think? FreeBASIC has some compatibility, but probably not enough, esp. the TUI stuff. I'm sure it could be ported, but it's probably a fairly big rewrite to do that. But no, I don't know of any other suitable freeware projects that would substitute, not by MS either. Yeah, no. :/ To keep FreeDOS free we need to use free software tools wherever possible. That's why we encourage NASM and OpenWatcom, and other free tools. We have a few programs still that use Borland's TurboC compiler, but I believe this is still available for free download via their Museum site, or the programs can be compiled using another compiler anyway. So I'm looking for a Museum free download area on Microsoft's web site for the BASIC Compiler, or a compatible BASIC compiler. Doszip at least can build with OpenWatcom and JWasm, so that's good. Can the 16-bit version of DOS Navigator be made to build on OpenWatcom? That's a pretty good shell (Norton Commander clone) using what looks like a TurboVision interface. -uso. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
Op 17-7-2011 23:01, Jim Hall schreef: To keep FreeDOS free we need to use free software tools wherever possible. That's why we encourage NASM and OpenWatcom, and other free tools. We have a few programs still that use Borland's TurboC compiler, but I believe this is still available for free download via their Museum site, or the programs can be compiled using another compiler anyway. So I'm looking for a Museum free download area on Microsoft's web site for the BASIC Compiler, or a compatible BASIC compiler. I'm adhering to the 'freely usable and distributable' terms at least, which usually excludes shareware and in quite a few cases also freeware, trialware and 'free for personal and/or non-commercial' stuff. The preference is indeed software that's opensource or some kind of likewise-spirited set of conditions, and with legally usable compilers. However there's been plenty of software that wasn't refused simply because of only TASM, MASM, TurboC etc could compile it (instead of NASM and Openwatcom). I've had a short look at FDSHELL, looks usable. Also looked at Access/XX, usable but too large for a base distribution. Same for the AURA desktop (apparently formerly DOSCORE or OZONEGUI I think) of which a self-booting ISO can be found at: http://finncomputers.com/aura/download (not sure if it stays running on DOS or not, who knows..) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader
On Jul 17, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Rugxulo wrote: However, DTC.LIB doesn't seem to have sources, but I'm not sure what exactly that does or if it's needed or what the deal is, so we'll have to wait for Travis to explain that. (Perhaps that is the optional hardware synthesizer part??) Hmm, good point. The dtc.lib is the library required to talk to dectalk synthesizers. Source is not available, but I've seen it included in other products as well, so apparently it's not against the license to distribute it in and of itself, as long as it's part of another package. I did manage to talk to the dectalk folks some years ago, and although the topic of the libs came up, I didn't specifically ask if it was ok to distribute it as part of another package, though it would almost have to be, unless their license specifically states it should be compiled into the executable and not distributed separately. That would kind of defeat the purpose of the lib in that case I'd think, but if anyone else knows better, I'm of course willing to take reports to the contrary. I'm fairly certain (though not positive) that obtaining the initial copy of the dectalk libs did require a fee of some tipe, as far as I know, there's no restriction against distributing the lib itself (since it's necessary for program usage) and since none of the other files are included, it should be ok, but again, the keyword is should. I know dec had sold dectalk somewhere along the line, though who owns rights to it now is a huge question, (and was at the time I had been talking to the original dectalk folks) but since I personally haven't heard a peep out of anyone relating to the lib, and as far as I know, nobody else has either, it may be a moot point, but that's only gpl/ freeware talking, not commercial distribution plans as is needed with some of the other windows/dos screen readers, so there may or may not be something lurking there, but I tend to doubt it. However, it's easy enough to remove the lib if it becomes absolutely necessary, which would disable support for dectalk synths, though I'm relatively sure (though not positive) that other external synths will still operate. I can do some testing after I get all my hardware in a single location. Again, I stress that this archive as currently posted is as I received it, and not with the modified docs/license file I worked on afterwords. I'm of course willing to make whatever changes are necessary to get this into freedos archives, since it really is the best place for it, so that folks who need it will have a much easier time finding it. As for a86, it may be possible that the author will be silling to relase shareware terms on a copy that could be included in freedos as well, even if it is w/o source, just for such cases as this. I only talked with him once, but he sure seemed like the reasonable sort at the time. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi, On 7/17/11, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: Op 17-7-2011 23:23, Rugxulo schreef: This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) For a full CD it's very much worthwile mentioning these. Adding packages is easy, integrating them and testing are a bit more difficult though. Surely I didn't mean you should add them to your recent .ISO, just saying, in a perfect world, these are (some) things most people apparently want. What I should be working on rather soon though is adding sources simply to not violate the distribution rules of a lot of opensource licenses. Anyone know if there's a DOS SVN client? or a win32 console one running under HXRT? Assuming LFNs pretty much become a requirement as well in that case.t Otherwise I'm doomed to a ReactOS or WindowsXP virtual machine. Ah well. Doubt there is a SVN client like what you're wanting, but I don't know, maybe Japheth can chime in here. But if there's anything in particular you need help finding or grabbing sources for, let me (or us) know. I'm fairly useless overall, but I can try, dang it! -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] suggestion - add fdshell to freedos 1.1
Hi, On 7/17/11, Steve Nickolas lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote: Doszip at least can build with OpenWatcom and JWasm, so that's good. Can the 16-bit version of DOS Navigator be made to build on OpenWatcom? That's a pretty good shell (Norton Commander clone) using what looks like a TurboVision interface. Doubt it, esp. since all DN clones use some form of Pascal (due to original's sources). The original DN151 and perhaps old DNOSP 6.4.0 were both real mode (16-bit), but neither is able to be compiled (last I checked!) with FPC or similar (GPC?) open toolset. NDN (closed) and DN/2 (open) both used VP (closed). Honestly, I don't even remember whether DN151 is truly free/libre. Oh well. Long story short: Doszip is pretty perfect unless you need 8086 support. http://sf.net/projects/doszip (Anyways, a decent file manager isn't essential by any means, and surely there are dozens of other file managers, I'm probably forgetting a few. Maybe they're open source, who knows, I can't remember them all ! You can check the mirrors of Short.Stop pages, perhaps, to find a good one.) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
