Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Runtime
Hello Jim, I am a native Hungarian speaker (despite bearing a first name of Slavic origin). If you need help in translating anything to Hungarian, just tell me, I'll gladly help Regards, Vacek Jim Hall via Freedos-devel ezt írta (időpont: 2024. máj. 3., Pén 2:05): > Good "netiquette" is to only discuss one topic per email thread, so I > started a new thread for Runtime: > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:12 PM Eric Auer via Freedos-devel > wrote: > [..] > > *Runtime* > > > > Jim's version is a small C program, 120 lines, using catgets > > for messages which can be translated in different languages. > > The binary is a 22kB EXE (31kB without UPX). There were text > > files with EN, RU, DE, HU and LV translations, I believe? > > > > My version is a small ASM program, made with NASM. It has > > a main file, circa 450 lines, and a language include file, > > circa 150 lines, which at the moment contains EN, DE, NL, > > PT, ES, FR, TR, IT, PL and RU messages :-) To add languages, > > you have to build a new binary. Not very hard, but harder > > than just editing a text file which can be used by CATGETS. > > The binary is a 2kB COM (3kB without UPX). > > > > Note that texts in all 10 language are INCLUDED in the 2kB > > COM file of my tiny version. No separate NLS files there. > > > > As a task left as an exercise for the user, one could port > > the C version to Tom's small KITTEN alternative to CATGETS. > > > > My preferred option would be to add HU and LV translations > > to my small RUNTIME and use that instead of the big one ;-) > > > > > I wrote the Runtime program, so I guess I'll speak to that. > > This is a very old program. I don't remember why I wrote it, but I'm > sure I was doing some debugging on a program and was trying to > fine-tune the performance, and needed a way to test how long it took > to run after making improvements. There are lots of programs out there > to track the run-time of a program on DOS, and I probably gave a quick > look around - but decided it would be just as easy to write my own for > what I needed to do. It was just a quick program that I probably wrote > in ten minutes. > > And I probably released it in case it was useful to someone else. I > don't think I intended it to become part of the distribution, but it > did. > > I just looked at the zip file for Runtime 1.0. It's a very simple > program, just sets a timer, runs a program, then reports how long the > program ran. > > > That's the long version to say: I don't have a particularly strong > opinion to keep the old Runtime in the distribution. We can swap it > out. > > I looked at your Runtime, and the messages are very simple: > > > 1. seconds [as in, 'this ran in 4 seconds] > > 2. passed [as in, '4 seconds have passed'] > > 3. a 1-line "about" message > > 4. a 1-line "usage" message > > 5. a 1-line "information" message > > 6. a "COMSPEC not found" error message > > > So it's just 6 messages, which seems right. It's not a very complicated > program. > > > I'm in favor to swap out the old Runtime with this Runtime. No issues > here. I think it would be great to have those 6 messages translated > into the missing HU and LV translations, but I don't think we need to > "wait" for those messages to get translated. > > What do others think? You can "+1" if you just want to agree to swap > out my old Runtime with Eric's newer Runtime. > > > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Runtime
Good "netiquette" is to only discuss one topic per email thread, so I started a new thread for Runtime: On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:12 PM Eric Auer via Freedos-devel wrote: [..] > *Runtime* > > Jim's version is a small C program, 120 lines, using catgets > for messages which can be translated in different languages. > The binary is a 22kB EXE (31kB without UPX). There were text > files with EN, RU, DE, HU and LV translations, I believe? > > My version is a small ASM program, made with NASM. It has > a main file, circa 450 lines, and a language include file, > circa 150 lines, which at the moment contains EN, DE, NL, > PT, ES, FR, TR, IT, PL and RU messages :-) To add languages, > you have to build a new binary. Not very hard, but harder > than just editing a text file which can be used by CATGETS. > The binary is a 2kB COM (3kB without UPX). > > Note that texts in all 10 language are INCLUDED in the 2kB > COM file of my tiny version. No separate NLS files there. > > As a task left as an exercise for the user, one could port > the C version to Tom's small KITTEN alternative to CATGETS. > > My preferred option would be to add HU and LV translations > to my small RUNTIME and use that instead of the big one ;-) > I wrote the Runtime program, so I guess I'll speak to that. This is a very old program. I don't remember why I wrote it, but I'm sure I was doing some debugging on a program and was trying to fine-tune the performance, and needed a way to test how long it took to run after making improvements. There are lots of programs out there to track the run-time of a program on DOS, and I probably gave a quick look around - but decided it would be just as easy to write my own for what I needed to do. It was just a quick program that I probably wrote in ten minutes. And I probably released it in case it was useful to someone else. I don't think I intended it to become part of the distribution, but it did. I just looked at the zip file for Runtime 1.0. It's a very simple program, just sets a timer, runs a program, then reports how long the program ran. That's the long version to say: I don't have a particularly strong opinion to keep the old Runtime in the distribution. We can swap it out. I looked at your Runtime, and the messages are very simple: 1. seconds [as in, 'this ran in 4 seconds] 2. passed [as in, '4 seconds have passed'] 3. a 1-line "about" message 4. a 1-line "usage" message 5. a 1-line "information" message 6. a "COMSPEC not found" error message So it's just 6 messages, which seems right. It's not a very complicated program. I'm in favor to swap out the old Runtime with this Runtime. No issues here. I think it would be great to have those 6 messages translated into the missing HU and LV translations, but I don't think we need to "wait" for those messages to get translated. What do others think? You can "+1" if you just want to agree to swap out my old Runtime with Eric's newer Runtime. ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Terminal
Good "netiquette" is to only discuss one topic per email thread, so I started a new thread for Terminal: On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:12 PM Eric Auer via Freedos-devel wrote: > Willi has asked Jerome and me whether RUNTIME and TERMINAL > in the auersoft.eu versions were real updates or just tests. > > Jerome asked him to ask on the LIST, so I answer HERE ;-) [..] Yes, and please avoid sending off-list emails. We have the email list so we can talk about things in the open. > *Terminal* > > Regarding TERMINAL, the distro contains version 3.2a 2015-05-16. > The files in the ZIP have timestamps between 2001 and 2005 for > source code and 2021-2022 for translations. > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/repositories/unstable/pkg-html/terminal.html > > The version mentioned by Willi, terminal-2007jun20, contains > 2007 changes to terminal.asm, term-irq.asm and term-data.asm, > with the following minimalist changelog: > > "update in V3.3 6/2007: added a forgotten in al,dx term-irq.asm:217" > > The change in terminal.asm are just adding the above as a comment. > The change in term-irq.asm is just adding that "in al,dx". > The change in term-data.asm is just changing version and date in > the msg_hello string. Note that the sources have LONG FILE NAMES > which somehow got lost in the download available on Ibiblio! > > The version on ibiblio comes with more metadata in APPINFO: The > LSM file and small TERMINAL.xyz files in different languages xyz, > for example the French APPINFO/TERMINAL.FR file says: > > Begin3 > Language:FR, 850 > Title: terminal > Description: Un petit terminal vt100/ansi pour tous les PC > Keywords:terminal, rs-232, vt100 > End > > I guess it would be nice if the ibiblio version got updated with > my 2007 version, but preserving the nice added ibiblio metadata. > Please take care to preserve source LFN and timestamps, though. I see the 2007 Terminal in the Ibiblio archive, so it looks like we made a copy at some point. It is here: https://ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/user/terminal/ The 2007 version has these file dates/times: $ ls -l total 224 -rw-r- 1 freedos users 6014 Nov 16 2001 README -rw-r--r-- 1 freedos users 46662 Nov 18 2001 terminal-2001nov18.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 freedos users 48049 Nov 6 2002 terminal-2002nov06.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 freedos users 44538 Apr 23 2005 terminal-2005apr23.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 freedos users 44520 Jun 20 2007 terminal-2007jun20.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 freedos users 13608 Apr 23 2005 terminal-rom.tar.gz And: $ unzip -l terminal-2007jun20.zip Archive: terminal-2007jun20.zip Length DateTimeName - -- - 0 06-20-2007 11:17 terminal/ 4175 10-20-2001 01:37 terminal/term-comm.asm 6613 06-20-2007 11:17 terminal/term-data.asm 1823 10-18-2001 14:55 terminal/term-def.asm 635 10-19-2001 17:39 terminal/eecho.asm 6333 04-23-2005 14:16 terminal/term-tty.asm 3867 06-20-2007 11:17 terminal/terminal.com 123 10-19-2001 17:40 terminal/eecho.com 11944 06-20-2007 11:17 terminal/terminal.asm 197 11-16-2001 13:05 terminal/prn-term.inf 7962 06-20-2007 11:16 terminal/term-irq.asm 2516 11-16-2001 11:27 terminal/term-menu.asm 17061 10-20-2001 15:15 terminal/term-ansi.asm 8359 10-19-2001 15:32 terminal/term-disp.asm 3175 04-23-2005 14:14 terminal/term-set.asm 6014 11-16-2001 13:04 terminal/terminal.txt 18349 03-01-2002 08:29 terminal/copying.txt 3975 11-06-2002 14:04 terminal/term.bat - --- 103121 18 files ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] freedos runtime and terminal updates and alternatives
Hi! Willi has asked Jerome and me whether RUNTIME and TERMINAL in the auersoft.eu versions were real updates or just tests. Jerome asked him to ask on the LIST, so I answer HERE ;-) *Runtime* Jim's version is a small C program, 120 lines, using catgets for messages which can be translated in different languages. The binary is a 22kB EXE (31kB without UPX). There were text files with EN, RU, DE, HU and LV translations, I believe? My version is a small ASM program, made with NASM. It has a main file, circa 450 lines, and a language include file, circa 150 lines, which at the moment contains EN, DE, NL, PT, ES, FR, TR, IT, PL and RU messages :-) To add languages, you have to build a new binary. Not very hard, but harder than just editing a text file which can be used by CATGETS. The binary is a 2kB COM (3kB without UPX). Note that texts in all 10 language are INCLUDED in the 2kB COM file of my tiny version. No separate NLS files there. As a task left as an exercise for the user, one could port the C version to Tom's small KITTEN alternative to CATGETS. My preferred option would be to add HU and LV translations to my small RUNTIME and use that instead of the big one ;-) *Terminal* Regarding TERMINAL, the distro contains version 3.2a 2015-05-16. The files in the ZIP have timestamps between 2001 and 2005 for source code and 2021-2022 for translations. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/repositories/unstable/pkg-html/terminal.html The version mentioned by Willi, terminal-2007jun20, contains 2007 changes to terminal.asm, term-irq.asm and term-data.asm, with the following minimalist changelog: "update in V3.3 6/2007: added a forgotten in al,dx term-irq.asm:217" The change in terminal.asm are just adding the above as a comment. The change in term-irq.asm is just adding that "in al,dx". The change in term-data.asm is just changing version and date in the msg_hello string. Note that the sources have LONG FILE NAMES which somehow got lost in the download available on Ibiblio! The version on ibiblio comes with more metadata in APPINFO: The LSM file and small TERMINAL.xyz files in different languages xyz, for example the French APPINFO/TERMINAL.FR file says: Begin3 Language:FR, 850 Title: terminal Description: Un petit terminal vt100/ansi pour tous les PC Keywords:terminal, rs-232, vt100 End I guess it would be nice if the ibiblio version got updated with my 2007 version, but preserving the nice added ibiblio metadata. Please take care to preserve source LFN and timestamps, though. Thank you :-) Cheers, Eric [...] https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/user/runtime/ there is a version from Eric Auer from 03sep2012 FDT2404 uses ver. 2.1 from Jim Hall, 2002 Is it an update? You should bring it up on the mailing list or ask Eric if it should be updated. terminal https://www.auersoft.eu/soft/ terminal-2007jun20 (3.3) FDT2404 uses 3.2a Like RUNTIME, these versions predate me performing package updates. So, I don't know if those are updates, experiments or just different. You should ask Eric. [...] ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS 4.0 source released as open source under MIT license
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Liam Proven via Freedos-devel wrote: On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 08:25, Steve Nickolas via Freedos-devel wrote: Everything but himem, dosshell, gwbasic, and parts of xmaem/xma2ems, apparently. I got most of it compiled using the tools in the archive. That being the case, is it possible to get it working with 386MAX instead, as that's now FOSS as well? https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX I've never seen it rolled, so I can't say if the current code will work on DOS 4, but 8.03 does. -uso. ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS 4.0 source released as open source under MIT license
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 08:25, Steve Nickolas via Freedos-devel wrote: > Everything but himem, dosshell, gwbasic, and parts of xmaem/xma2ems, > apparently. I got most of it compiled using the tools in the archive. That being the case, is it possible to get it working with 386MAX instead, as that's now FOSS as well? https://github.com/sudleyplace/386MAX -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS 4.0 source released as open source under MIT license
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-devel wrote: Hi! I have no life - I can devote the time and energy to it, just don't have the brainpower I'd like to think I have. I hope that will get better :-o Eric Well, I certainly know more about C, 8088 ASM, and MS-DOS than I did going into this thing about 25 years ago... holy hell, I was a n00b then :P -uso. ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MS-DOS 4.0 source released as open source under MIT license
Hi! I have no life - I can devote the time and energy to it, just don't have the brainpower I'd like to think I have. I hope that will get better :-o Eric ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] MBR boot failure + diagnosis on a PhoenixBIOS 4.0 Release 6.0 machine
Hi Bernd, /LOADMBR restores the whole sector. Does anyone think this is a major issue? In that case, I think loadmbr should never be used except when there was a previous corresponding savembr. Because using loadmbr in another way results in deleting the whole partition table and/or installing a new partition scheme which will probably not fit to the size of the target disk. Similarily, cleanmbr should never be used without plenty of warning to the user and giving the user at least two chances to select a less destructive option. If the context is letting the installer work on a virtual computer with a fresh disk image, where you expect nothing of value could get lost, then I suggest creating a tool to detect whether the MBR and partition table already WERE empty in that disk image instead of automatically emptying them. Or just offering a pre-installed disk image download. Greetings, Eric The documented commands are as follows (via FDISK /?): MBR (Master Boot Record) management: /CLEARMBR Deletes all partitions and boot code /LOADMBR Loads part. table and code from "boot.mbr" into MBR /SAVEMBR Saves partition table and code into file "boot.mbr" MBR code modifications leaving partitions intact: /IPL Installs the standard boot code into MBR ...same as /MBR and /CMBR for compatibility /LOADIPL Writes 440 code bytes from "boot.mbr" into MBR Greetings, Bernd ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
