Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
currently, development done on FreeDOS is so close to zero that the direction is irrelevant. feel free to contribute some programming effort, but this discussion is pointless if nobody is going to provide work. Tom am 18. Mai 2015 um 16:27 schrieben Sie: There will always be people who like the old hardware and software.So,if we move FreeDOS into the future,we must let go of old hardware.Perhaps we could have two versions of FreeDOS.One version,we keep the original FreeDOS.In the new version,we make it possible to embed it in modern systems and modern hardware.I,for one,would love to see Samsung's smart window have DOS on it.(Think of it,a holographic window with DOS on it.That would be awesome.).But,at the same time,I wish to preserve the original DOS feel.So,in conclusion,we should make two different projects of FreeDOS. Regards,Jayden On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Antony Gordon cuzint...@gmail.com wrote: I think the original goal of FreeDOS has been met, based upon what I remember from back in 2000 or so when I came across the project. I have seen many posts back and forth about adding support for this and that because Windows sucks and so forth and so on. With that being said, here's what I see. Now I know opinions are like ... and everyone has one... The core FreeDOS aims to maintain compatibility with MS/PC DOS as it pertains to in-memory data structures, like SysVars, Job File Tables, memory control blocks, etc, documented (and undocumented API) based on DOS 6.22 such as the DOS routines (INT 21h), the multiplexer (INT 2FH), Ctrl-Break (INT 23H), Critical Error handler (INT 24H), and although superceded, absolute disk read and write (INT 25H, INT26H respectively). DOS was designed in an extensible manner, so I believe rather than changing the core of the OS, we need to EXTEND the OS. Obviously features such as IPv4/IPv6, GPT, are not relevant to the class of users that are wishing to still relive the glory days of the early x86 processors, i.e., 8086, 8086, 80186, 80286, etc. There is a different class of user, mostly those commenting on this thread, which would like to use DOS with newer machines. One alternative would be to design and build a protected mode kernel that would map all of the real mode calls and virtualize all hardware access. That would put us right where OSes like Linux and Windows are. The other alternative is to develop a platform that sits on top of DOS that runs and switches to protected mode and virtualize all the hardware. That puts us where Windows 95/98 was. To bring DOS into the future requires some parting with older technologies, which isn't particularly a goal of this project. In comparison, the issues that Microsoft has (and had) with Windows was in part due to their attempts to bring along the past into the future. This is why Microsoft let go of DOS in the Windows 9x code base and shifted to the Windows NT code base. Even then, with 32-bit code, it was still possible to run DOS applications (to an extent) but they were isolated to their own VM. Basically, short of forking this project, I don't see a way to incorporate the advanced features and still remain compatible with an OS that is over 20 years old. On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: Excellent. Daily builds was just an example and I agree, daily builds would be overkill. The angle I was coming from is when core changes start to be made. How will this affect the 100 packages when core, resource, and drivers are re-tooled? DOS is heavily classic, solid... but some of the changes will affect the core. I should have been more specific in unit testing and planning as various drivers, kernel, and kernel-deps change. Ah, Zip files -- the beauty of DOS. I love Linux, but sometimes I just don't feel like writing code or compiling things :) Thanks for the reply and will research/download the wifi drivers as soon as possible. --jesse/jkbs -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 7:17 AM To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! Hi Jesse, Centralized documentation makes sense, but why would you put 100 packages in a centralized source code repository if 95 of them have not a single source code change in a whole year? And why do nightly builds of all 100 then? DOS heavily relies on classic software that simply is okay as it is and that no longer changes :-) As mentioned in the thread, there already is a considerable number of text and graphical web browsers. It probably is better to improve one of those instead of writing yet another browser. I agree that it is good to have a wishlist for shareware software that we would like to become free open source. Maybe the list could be done in wiki style? In general
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
There will always be people who like the old hardware and software.So,if we move FreeDOS into the future,we must let go of old hardware.Perhaps we could have two versions of FreeDOS.One version,we keep the original FreeDOS.In the new version,we make it possible to embed it in modern systems and modern hardware.I,for one,would love to see Samsung's smart window have DOS on it.(Think of it,a holographic window with DOS on it.That would be awesome.).But,at the same time,I wish to preserve the original DOS feel.So,in conclusion,we should make two different projects of FreeDOS. Regards,Jayden On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Antony Gordon cuzint...@gmail.com wrote: I think the original goal of FreeDOS has been met, based upon what I remember from back in 2000 or so when I came across the project. I have seen many posts back and forth about adding support for this and that because Windows sucks and so forth and so on. With that being said, here's what I see. Now I know opinions are like ... and everyone has one... The core FreeDOS aims to maintain compatibility with MS/PC DOS as it pertains to in-memory data structures, like SysVars, Job File Tables, memory control blocks, etc, documented (and undocumented API) based on DOS 6.22 such as the DOS routines (INT 21h), the multiplexer (INT 2FH), Ctrl-Break (INT 23H), Critical Error handler (INT 24H), and although superceded, absolute disk read and write (INT 25H, INT26H respectively). DOS was designed in an extensible manner, so I believe rather than changing the core of the OS, we need to EXTEND the OS. Obviously features such as IPv4/IPv6, GPT, are not relevant to the class of users that are wishing to still relive the glory days of the early x86 processors, i.e., 8086, 8086, 80186, 80286, etc. There is a different class of user, mostly those commenting on this thread, which would like to use DOS with newer machines. One alternative would be to design and build a protected mode kernel that would map all of the real mode calls and virtualize all hardware access. That would put us right where OSes like Linux and Windows are. The other alternative is to develop a platform that sits on top of DOS that runs and switches to protected mode and virtualize all the hardware. That puts us where Windows 95/98 was. To bring DOS into the future requires some parting with older technologies, which isn't particularly a goal of this project. In comparison, the issues that Microsoft has (and had) with Windows was in part due to their attempts to bring along the past into the future. This is why Microsoft let go of DOS in the Windows 9x code base and shifted to the Windows NT code base. Even then, with 32-bit code, it was still possible to run DOS applications (to an extent) but they were isolated to their own VM. Basically, short of forking this project, I don't see a way to incorporate the advanced features and still remain compatible with an OS that is over 20 years old. On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: Excellent. Daily builds was just an example and I agree, daily builds would be overkill. The angle I was coming from is when core changes start to be made. How will this affect the 100 packages when core, resource, and drivers are re-tooled? DOS is heavily classic, solid... but some of the changes will affect the core. I should have been more specific in unit testing and planning as various drivers, kernel, and kernel-deps change. Ah, Zip files -- the beauty of DOS. I love Linux, but sometimes I just don't feel like writing code or compiling things :) Thanks for the reply and will research/download the wifi drivers as soon as possible. --jesse/jkbs -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 7:17 AM To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! Hi Jesse, Centralized documentation makes sense, but why would you put 100 packages in a centralized source code repository if 95 of them have not a single source code change in a whole year? And why do nightly builds of all 100 then? DOS heavily relies on classic software that simply is okay as it is and that no longer changes :-) As mentioned in the thread, there already is a considerable number of text and graphical web browsers. It probably is better to improve one of those instead of writing yet another browser. I agree that it is good to have a wishlist for shareware software that we would like to become free open source. Maybe the list could be done in wiki style? In general, if the hardware common for virtual machines is among the hardware for which there are drivers, there is no need to have separate development for virtualization and installation. We do already have a few VM-specific tools which are available :-) And there could be a download of a pre-installed VM, in case installation from ISO takes
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Just now getting to this as well as Tom’s email. I completely agree with this, from Antony: quote I think the original goal of FreeDOS has been met, based upon what I remember from back in 2000 or so when I came across the project. I have seen many posts back and forth about adding support for this and that because Windows sucks and so forth and so on. /quote Over the years my view of FreeDOS is that “it does what it set out to do AND MORE”. I have 1 dedicated FreeDOS system, 1 FreeDOS system + my own utilities (dedicated to my Father as we both are command-line advocates) that I am writing, and a few USB-bootable FreeDOS installs… ready to go. Basically, I am of the two mindests: [1] Keep FreeDOS for what it is [2] Improve FreeDOS as I want the support of legacy games, etc, but the ability to tie it into production (if you will) Maybe I joined the Development list in the wrong time or with the wrong intent? Every open source project I have contributed to, or attempted to, I end up hitting a brick wall because: [1] I don’t want to rock the boat [2] The ideas which I contribute or the code I update is looked down upon, etc This is not to say I feel this way about this Devel list, but that I agree: actions speak louder than words. I will be putting code that I have, as soon as possible, on GitHub. From some basic (compiled) to C++/Turbo Pascal, etc – and let the masses decide. My focus has been on absorbing resources and things that can benefit the core of FreeDOS *while* preserving its intentions. --jkbs | @xenfomation From: Antony Gordon [mailto:cuzint...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 10:37 PM To: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! I think the original goal of FreeDOS has been met, based upon what I remember from back in 2000 or so when I came across the project. I have seen many posts back and forth about adding support for this and that because Windows sucks and so forth and so on. With that being said, here's what I see. Now I know opinions are like ... and everyone has one... The core FreeDOS aims to maintain compatibility with MS/PC DOS as it pertains to in-memory data structures, like SysVars, Job File Tables, memory control blocks, etc, documented (and undocumented API) based on DOS 6.22 such as the DOS routines (INT 21h), the multiplexer (INT 2FH), Ctrl-Break (INT 23H), Critical Error handler (INT 24H), and although superceded, absolute disk read and write (INT 25H, INT26H respectively). DOS was designed in an extensible manner, so I believe rather than changing the core of the OS, we need to EXTEND the OS. Obviously features such as IPv4/IPv6, GPT, are not relevant to the class of users that are wishing to still relive the glory days of the early x86 processors, i.e., 8086, 8086, 80186, 80286, etc. There is a different class of user, mostly those commenting on this thread, which would like to use DOS with newer machines. One alternative would be to design and build a protected mode kernel that would map all of the real mode calls and virtualize all hardware access. That would put us right where OSes like Linux and Windows are. The other alternative is to develop a platform that sits on top of DOS that runs and switches to protected mode and virtualize all the hardware. That puts us where Windows 95/98 was. To bring DOS into the future requires some parting with older technologies, which isn't particularly a goal of this project. In comparison, the issues that Microsoft has (and had) with Windows was in part due to their attempts to bring along the past into the future. This is why Microsoft let go of DOS in the Windows 9x code base and shifted to the Windows NT code base. Even then, with 32-bit code, it was still possible to run DOS applications (to an extent) but they were isolated to their own VM. Basically, short of forking this project, I don't see a way to incorporate the advanced features and still remain compatible with an OS that is over 20 years old. On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com mailto:xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: Excellent. Daily builds was just an example and I agree, daily builds would be overkill. The angle I was coming from is when core changes start to be made. How will this affect the 100 packages when core, resource, and drivers are re-tooled? DOS is heavily classic, solid... but some of the changes will affect the core. I should have been more specific in unit testing and planning as various drivers, kernel, and kernel-deps change. Ah, Zip files -- the beauty of DOS. I love Linux, but sometimes I just don't feel like writing code or compiling things :) Thanks for the reply and will research/download the wifi drivers as soon as possible. --jesse/jkbs -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
On Sat, 16 May 2015, Louis Santillan wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:44 PM, JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] - Base resources, such as file system options/changes - Connectivity tools * Modernized web browser (I am working on one now - a text based prototype) There's Georg Potthast's Dillo port (in XFDOS [0]), and Arachne (besides links or lynx), both leave a lot to be desired in a JS heavy web. I personally think it could more productive to go after app specific tools for Google [1], Facebook [2], Twitter [3], LinkedIn [4], etc. For example, Facebook is entirely accessible over HTTP [5]. I agree. An all-purpose browser needs code to handle a lot of corner case stuff, but a one-purpose browser only needs to be able to handle the specific case it was designed for. (But it may need to be able to update itself in case an update to the site breaks it.) I have considered writing such tools, but my head exploded at the idea of having to do so much string parsing in C, a language that really can't handle it well. To date the only apps I managed to complete were rdate and airc (both using wattcp), and the source code to the former is now lost. (Keep in mind my target system was a VERY low resource environment, such as the 5160 I still have in my closet.) - LapLink is still purchase-ware * Has a specific protocol via LPT ports, etc * PPP/PPPD in linux is open source... possible use of that? * If not... let's write fdlink :) David Dunfield has LAPTALK, DDLINK RDC [6]. If LAPTALK (source in MC323EXA) isn't sufficient, maybe he'd be willing to open source DDLINK and/or RDC? I almost would want to suggest that a FreeDOS app for this purpose mimic INTERLNK/INTERSVR, since that was such a tool actually included in PC DOS 5.02 and later, and MS-DOS 6.0 and later. (Some old-timers here might know I'm a little too familiar with MS and PC DOS and what each version comes with. :P That's actually why I no longer actively contribute.) As for PPP, you already have LSPPP as a GPL'd option. If it works, and I believe it does implement the Crynwr packet driver interface most TCP apps for DOS require, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. http://ladsoft.tripod.com/lsppp.html -uso. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
I think the original goal of FreeDOS has been met, based upon what I remember from back in 2000 or so when I came across the project. I have seen many posts back and forth about adding support for this and that because Windows sucks and so forth and so on. With that being said, here's what I see. Now I know opinions are like ... and everyone has one... The core FreeDOS aims to maintain compatibility with MS/PC DOS as it pertains to in-memory data structures, like SysVars, Job File Tables, memory control blocks, etc, documented (and undocumented API) based on DOS 6.22 such as the DOS routines (INT 21h), the multiplexer (INT 2FH), Ctrl-Break (INT 23H), Critical Error handler (INT 24H), and although superceded, absolute disk read and write (INT 25H, INT26H respectively). DOS was designed in an extensible manner, so I believe rather than changing the core of the OS, we need to EXTEND the OS. Obviously features such as IPv4/IPv6, GPT, are not relevant to the class of users that are wishing to still relive the glory days of the early x86 processors, i.e., 8086, 8086, 80186, 80286, etc. There is a different class of user, mostly those commenting on this thread, which would like to use DOS with newer machines. One alternative would be to design and build a protected mode kernel that would map all of the real mode calls and virtualize all hardware access. That would put us right where OSes like Linux and Windows are. The other alternative is to develop a platform that sits on top of DOS that runs and switches to protected mode and virtualize all the hardware. That puts us where Windows 95/98 was. To bring DOS into the future requires some parting with older technologies, which isn't particularly a goal of this project. In comparison, the issues that Microsoft has (and had) with Windows was in part due to their attempts to bring along the past into the future. This is why Microsoft let go of DOS in the Windows 9x code base and shifted to the Windows NT code base. Even then, with 32-bit code, it was still possible to run DOS applications (to an extent) but they were isolated to their own VM. Basically, short of forking this project, I don't see a way to incorporate the advanced features and still remain compatible with an OS that is over 20 years old. On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: Excellent. Daily builds was just an example and I agree, daily builds would be overkill. The angle I was coming from is when core changes start to be made. How will this affect the 100 packages when core, resource, and drivers are re-tooled? DOS is heavily classic, solid... but some of the changes will affect the core. I should have been more specific in unit testing and planning as various drivers, kernel, and kernel-deps change. Ah, Zip files -- the beauty of DOS. I love Linux, but sometimes I just don't feel like writing code or compiling things :) Thanks for the reply and will research/download the wifi drivers as soon as possible. --jesse/jkbs -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 7:17 AM To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! Hi Jesse, Centralized documentation makes sense, but why would you put 100 packages in a centralized source code repository if 95 of them have not a single source code change in a whole year? And why do nightly builds of all 100 then? DOS heavily relies on classic software that simply is okay as it is and that no longer changes :-) As mentioned in the thread, there already is a considerable number of text and graphical web browsers. It probably is better to improve one of those instead of writing yet another browser. I agree that it is good to have a wishlist for shareware software that we would like to become free open source. Maybe the list could be done in wiki style? In general, if the hardware common for virtual machines is among the hardware for which there are drivers, there is no need to have separate development for virtualization and installation. We do already have a few VM-specific tools which are available :-) And there could be a download of a pre-installed VM, in case installation from ISO takes too much effort ;-) IPv6 is widely available already but is rarely required so I agree that DOS is not in a hurry. Regarding GPT, that is something that only needs some reasonably small amount of kernel code to support in passive scenarios. Having FDISK with GPT would be way more code, I guess. Most other tools never look at a partition table, so for them, this is not relevant. FileMaven basically does the LapLink thing, but it is closed source. It would be nice to have something open. On computers with network (LAN), it is better to use existing FTP, SCP, SMB or HTTP tools to copy files around. And there is a tool to copy files between VM and hypervisor. As mentioned elsewhere
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Completely agree as the web today reveals two things: - How heavy it is - How bloated it is --jkbs -Original Message- From: Louis Santillan [mailto:lpsan...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:52 AM To: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:44 PM, JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] - Base resources, such as file system options/changes - Connectivity tools * Modernized web browser (I am working on one now - a text based prototype) There's Georg Potthast's Dillo port (in XFDOS [0]), and Arachne (besides links or lynx), both leave a lot to be desired in a JS heavy web. I personally think it could more productive to go after app specific tools for Google [1], Facebook [2], Twitter [3], LinkedIn [4], etc. For example, Facebook is entirely accessible over HTTP [5]. - LapLink is still purchase-ware * Has a specific protocol via LPT ports, etc * PPP/PPPD in linux is open source... possible use of that? * If not... let's write fdlink :) David Dunfield has LAPTALK, DDLINK RDC [6]. If LAPTALK (source in MC323EXA) isn't sufficient, maybe he'd be willing to open source DDLINK and/or RDC? * e1000 drivers (Gigabit)? 10/100? Tom Ehlert [7] Georg Potthast [8] have gigabit NIC drivers. Dave Dunfield [9] has a nice collections as well. Georg Dave also have nice NIC detection utils. [0] https://code.google.com/p/nanox-microwindows-nxlib-fltk-for-dos/wiki/XFDOS [1] https://youtu.be/yu1w1pPXz3Q [2] https://youtu.be/xrYRH3PYYT0 [3] https://youtu.be/FCvidD5JKBg [4] https://youtu.be/csuHU8B6Gg0 [5] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/overview [6] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/index.htm [7] http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/imakebootdisk.htm [8] http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm [9] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/pktdrv.zip -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Excellent. Daily builds was just an example and I agree, daily builds would be overkill. The angle I was coming from is when core changes start to be made. How will this affect the 100 packages when core, resource, and drivers are re-tooled? DOS is heavily classic, solid... but some of the changes will affect the core. I should have been more specific in unit testing and planning as various drivers, kernel, and kernel-deps change. Ah, Zip files -- the beauty of DOS. I love Linux, but sometimes I just don't feel like writing code or compiling things :) Thanks for the reply and will research/download the wifi drivers as soon as possible. --jesse/jkbs -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 7:17 AM To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! Hi Jesse, Centralized documentation makes sense, but why would you put 100 packages in a centralized source code repository if 95 of them have not a single source code change in a whole year? And why do nightly builds of all 100 then? DOS heavily relies on classic software that simply is okay as it is and that no longer changes :-) As mentioned in the thread, there already is a considerable number of text and graphical web browsers. It probably is better to improve one of those instead of writing yet another browser. I agree that it is good to have a wishlist for shareware software that we would like to become free open source. Maybe the list could be done in wiki style? In general, if the hardware common for virtual machines is among the hardware for which there are drivers, there is no need to have separate development for virtualization and installation. We do already have a few VM-specific tools which are available :-) And there could be a download of a pre-installed VM, in case installation from ISO takes too much effort ;-) IPv6 is widely available already but is rarely required so I agree that DOS is not in a hurry. Regarding GPT, that is something that only needs some reasonably small amount of kernel code to support in passive scenarios. Having FDISK with GPT would be way more code, I guess. Most other tools never look at a partition table, so for them, this is not relevant. FileMaven basically does the LapLink thing, but it is closed source. It would be nice to have something open. On computers with network (LAN), it is better to use existing FTP, SCP, SMB or HTTP tools to copy files around. And there is a tool to copy files between VM and hypervisor. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there already are quite a few network drivers for DOS, but almost none for wireless network. Note that even if you do support the card, security protocols would still need a (often very complex) driver as well. Actually I agree with Mateusz: Better use a cheap portable and versatile access point with LAN between AP and DOS, so all the wireless complexity can be done by a small AP. There already is a FreeDOS repository of pre- packaged pre-compiled software that can be installed, both from file and over the network. Mateusz would be happy if you can help him to update and extend the contents. That repository also contains pre-packaged ZIPs with package sources. Remember that 95 out of 100 DOS tools do NOT get updated, so the sources are static and it works just fine to offer a ZIP with them for download. Cheers, Eric -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Hi Jesse, Centralized documentation makes sense, but why would you put 100 packages in a centralized source code repository if 95 of them have not a single source code change in a whole year? And why do nightly builds of all 100 then? DOS heavily relies on classic software that simply is okay as it is and that no longer changes :-) As mentioned in the thread, there already is a considerable number of text and graphical web browsers. It probably is better to improve one of those instead of writing yet another browser. I agree that it is good to have a wishlist for shareware software that we would like to become free open source. Maybe the list could be done in wiki style? In general, if the hardware common for virtual machines is among the hardware for which there are drivers, there is no need to have separate development for virtualization and installation. We do already have a few VM-specific tools which are available :-) And there could be a download of a pre-installed VM, in case installation from ISO takes too much effort ;-) IPv6 is widely available already but is rarely required so I agree that DOS is not in a hurry. Regarding GPT, that is something that only needs some reasonably small amount of kernel code to support in passive scenarios. Having FDISK with GPT would be way more code, I guess. Most other tools never look at a partition table, so for them, this is not relevant. FileMaven basically does the LapLink thing, but it is closed source. It would be nice to have something open. On computers with network (LAN), it is better to use existing FTP, SCP, SMB or HTTP tools to copy files around. And there is a tool to copy files between VM and hypervisor. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there already are quite a few network drivers for DOS, but almost none for wireless network. Note that even if you do support the card, security protocols would still need a (often very complex) driver as well. Actually I agree with Mateusz: Better use a cheap portable and versatile access point with LAN between AP and DOS, so all the wireless complexity can be done by a small AP. There already is a FreeDOS repository of pre- packaged pre-compiled software that can be installed, both from file and over the network. Mateusz would be happy if you can help him to update and extend the contents. That repository also contains pre-packaged ZIPs with package sources. Remember that 95 out of 100 DOS tools do NOT get updated, so the sources are static and it works just fine to offer a ZIP with them for download. Cheers, Eric -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
There is WIFI drivers available,but they are often made for a specific wireless card.Your best bet is to make a driver that can interpret ethernet signals.Since information is coming from the internet to the ethernet cables,you can get information/data from the internet using a parallel port driver.This may help. -Jayden On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Steve Nickolas usots...@buric.co wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2015, Louis Santillan wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:44 PM, JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] - Base resources, such as file system options/changes - Connectivity tools * Modernized web browser (I am working on one now - a text based prototype) There's Georg Potthast's Dillo port (in XFDOS [0]), and Arachne (besides links or lynx), both leave a lot to be desired in a JS heavy web. I personally think it could more productive to go after app specific tools for Google [1], Facebook [2], Twitter [3], LinkedIn [4], etc. For example, Facebook is entirely accessible over HTTP [5]. I agree. An all-purpose browser needs code to handle a lot of corner case stuff, but a one-purpose browser only needs to be able to handle the specific case it was designed for. (But it may need to be able to update itself in case an update to the site breaks it.) I have considered writing such tools, but my head exploded at the idea of having to do so much string parsing in C, a language that really can't handle it well. To date the only apps I managed to complete were rdate and airc (both using wattcp), and the source code to the former is now lost. (Keep in mind my target system was a VERY low resource environment, such as the 5160 I still have in my closet.) - LapLink is still purchase-ware * Has a specific protocol via LPT ports, etc * PPP/PPPD in linux is open source... possible use of that? * If not... let's write fdlink :) David Dunfield has LAPTALK, DDLINK RDC [6]. If LAPTALK (source in MC323EXA) isn't sufficient, maybe he'd be willing to open source DDLINK and/or RDC? I almost would want to suggest that a FreeDOS app for this purpose mimic INTERLNK/INTERSVR, since that was such a tool actually included in PC DOS 5.02 and later, and MS-DOS 6.0 and later. (Some old-timers here might know I'm a little too familiar with MS and PC DOS and what each version comes with. :P That's actually why I no longer actively contribute.) As for PPP, you already have LSPPP as a GPL'd option. If it works, and I believe it does implement the Crynwr packet driver interface most TCP apps for DOS require, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. http://ladsoft.tripod.com/lsppp.html -uso. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
To make DOS use all of a computers resources (taking full advantage of your CPU,RAM,ETC.),you need to be able to program is ASM (assembly language).This allows you COMPLETE control over the program.It allows you to program in specific hardware calls,ETC.However,we are all used to more friendly languages,such as BASIC (I am a fan of this) and C++.FreeDOS can be used as a vintage portal,and also as a tech terminal.When it comes to processing data,your best bet is linux.Windows uses a lot of memory to keep itself going. On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: Hi! Thanks for the interesting FreeDOS wish list, Mateusz! - Extend one of the existing network stacks with full IPv6 support Really? But then how about GPT partition support first? :-) ... box and another PC) - maybe a NFS browser, or even just a free equivalent of the old LapLink tool. Is there LapLink for Linux or Windows? If it is only for connecting DOS to DOS: FileMaven? :-) Or that VM client drive connectivity thing that somebody made for DOS? :-) Cheers, Eric -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
On 16/05/2015 13:01, Eric Auer wrote: Thanks for the interesting FreeDOS wish list, Mateusz! Actually, I think it would be good to put such list somewhere on our Wiki, I will see to edit something. If anyone can think of some reasonable needs found in real-world situations, please chip in, I will collect the need to compile a proper, public wishlist. Really? But then how about GPT partition support first? :-) Could be nice to have a GPT-aware kernel indeed - sooner or later BIOSes won't allow to boot from legacy MBR anymore, somehow that's called evolution these days. Is there LapLink for Linux or Windows? If it is only for connecting DOS to DOS: FileMaven? :-) Or that VM client drive connectivity thing that somebody made for DOS? :-) FileMaven is not free (not as in GPL at least). My typical need is that I often need to copy a bunch of files from my Linux PC to one of my DOS machines - the one that is networked is easy, I use scp or gopher, but my second machine is only connected with a serial cable. But, well, that's maybe not a very common need anyway. Mateusz -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Indeed, I like the list and the challenges! In my humble opinion, given what everyone has shared so far, my own view of things (by priority) are... Priority 1: Centralized Documentation ~~ - Single-source for links to mailing list, project goals, components, completion, owners, priority, etc - Dynamic, automated, etc: fed by code check-ins, mailing lists, etc - Visible Bugs/Latest Tests - Automated build stats/devel tests (pass/fail) - Current packages - Floating packages/code that needs testing, packaging - We Want This software - Nightly/Build-base compressed file (or ISO) of all packages, source, and floating programs/dependencies Priority 2: Core FreeDOS - Base resources, such as file system options/changes - Connectivity tools * Modernized web browser (I am working on one now - a text based prototype) * File Copy - Itemizing software needed, not repeated * Shareware authors? * Write our own Priority 3: Modernization - Coding towards Virtualization or Installation? * Virtualization would need PV drivers * Installation will need dynamic, abstract drivers that can get the job done and generalize ABEND/ERRORS - IPv6 ... I can see a need for it, but as I am a Sr. Eng. w/ Citrix (XenServer, Virtualization, etc), if IPv4 and current tools are unstable/not robust enough, should this wait? Plus, IPv6 isn't widely used IMHO (YET) - GPT ... layer of complexity, but also understood/respected. LVM ;) - LapLink is still purchase-ware * Has a specific protocol via LPT ports, etc * PPP/PPPD in linux is open source... possible use of that? * If not... let's write fdlink :) - Network and Modems * So, who has spare hardware? * I can write modem utilities, but I need the modems... trashed all mine 2-3 years ago and only have a Roboticks 14.4 * e1000 drivers (Gigabit)? 10/100? Okay - pardon the rant, just looking at things in a priority order. I have old dialer software I wrote in the 90s, but no machine to test with. Last question: Any thoughts to a FreeDOS repo? One that can be downloaded entirely OR via the FreeDOS command-line? Would be kinda cool! I know wget is already there, but having a util to pull from source w/ manifesto would help speed up and track/keep a database of things to be installed, tested, uninstalled, etc. --jesse/jkbs | @xenfomation -Original Message- From: Eric Auer [mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:01 AM To: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! Hi! Thanks for the interesting FreeDOS wish list, Mateusz! - Extend one of the existing network stacks with full IPv6 support Really? But then how about GPT partition support first? :-) ... box and another PC) - maybe a NFS browser, or even just a free equivalent of the old LapLink tool. Is there LapLink for Linux or Windows? If it is only for connecting DOS to DOS: FileMaven? :-) Or that VM client drive connectivity thing that somebody made for DOS? :-) Cheers, Eric -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
I completely agree and have been reading over all the information provided [thanks, everyone]! ASM… oh, it has been a long time, but it is absolutely necessary – especially for and program, like lspci, etc which would be needed to test FreeDOS builds and ability for the core/kernel to detect new hardware, such as [theoretical]: Dev:::We added support for the latest Acme CO network card! Test:::Really? Lspci isn’t seeing mine and I just install today’s build of FreeDOS! If I seem too happy it may be that I am. Windows is wasteful, disgusting. FreeDOS is technologically there… bridging a gap… filling a void. So, I look forward to such discussions and different thoughts because…. Everyone has a DOS story, everyone had a use/purpose for their DOS system. I hope my kids will experience the same, thanks to FreeDOS. --jkbs | @xenfomation From: JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU [mailto:jcharbonnea...@cpsge.org] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:03 AM To: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello! To make DOS use all of a computers resources (taking full advantage of your CPU,RAM,ETC.),you need to be able to program is ASM (assembly language).This allows you COMPLETE control over the program.It allows you to program in specific hardware calls,ETC.However,we are all used to more friendly languages,such as BASIC (I am a fan of this) and C++.FreeDOS can be used as a vintage portal,and also as a tech terminal.When it comes to processing data,your best bet is linux.Windows uses a lot of memory to keep itself going. On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de mailto:e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: Hi! Thanks for the interesting FreeDOS wish list, Mateusz! - Extend one of the existing network stacks with full IPv6 support Really? But then how about GPT partition support first? :-) ... box and another PC) - maybe a NFS browser, or even just a free equivalent of the old LapLink tool. Is there LapLink for Linux or Windows? If it is only for connecting DOS to DOS: FileMaven? :-) Or that VM client drive connectivity thing that somebody made for DOS? :-) Cheers, Eric -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net mailto:Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:44 PM, JK Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] - Base resources, such as file system options/changes - Connectivity tools * Modernized web browser (I am working on one now - a text based prototype) There's Georg Potthast's Dillo port (in XFDOS [0]), and Arachne (besides links or lynx), both leave a lot to be desired in a JS heavy web. I personally think it could more productive to go after app specific tools for Google [1], Facebook [2], Twitter [3], LinkedIn [4], etc. For example, Facebook is entirely accessible over HTTP [5]. - LapLink is still purchase-ware * Has a specific protocol via LPT ports, etc * PPP/PPPD in linux is open source... possible use of that? * If not... let's write fdlink :) David Dunfield has LAPTALK, DDLINK RDC [6]. If LAPTALK (source in MC323EXA) isn't sufficient, maybe he'd be willing to open source DDLINK and/or RDC? * e1000 drivers (Gigabit)? 10/100? Tom Ehlert [7] Georg Potthast [8] have gigabit NIC drivers. Dave Dunfield [9] has a nice collections as well. Georg Dave also have nice NIC detection utils. [0] https://code.google.com/p/nanox-microwindows-nxlib-fltk-for-dos/wiki/XFDOS [1] https://youtu.be/yu1w1pPXz3Q [2] https://youtu.be/xrYRH3PYYT0 [3] https://youtu.be/FCvidD5JKBg [4] https://youtu.be/csuHU8B6Gg0 [5] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/overview [6] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/index.htm [7] http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/imakebootdisk.htm [8] http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm [9] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/pktdrv.zip -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:47 PM, J.K. Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] #1. Has anyone assembled a doc on creating the preferred developer's sandbox? I use many languages and want to ensure any software I offer meets Read here [0][1][2][3]. Short answer, reference C compiler is OpenWatcom C, and the reference Assembler is NASM. #2. From a previous email and since I am stuck in a Linux/FreeDOS world, had there been any consideration into a multitasking kernel + scheduler to promote advancements in power whille keeping DOS compatibility? Read here [4][5]. Short answer not currently on the FD Road Map as a goal, especially if it breaks compatibility. Additionally, there are/were several competing standards for DOS multitasking [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. --- [0] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Manifesto [1] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Coding [2] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Spec#Programming_languages [3] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Spec#Programming_tools [4] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map [5] http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/Kickstarter-project-for-FreeDOS-2-0-tt21515.html [6] http://www.drdos.net/documentation/multtask/01mtch1.htm [7] http://www.drdos.net/documentation/multtask/ [8] http://www.drdos.net/faq/#p3_8 [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview [10] http://www.freedos.org/technotes/newsitem/122.html [11] http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=ertos [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS_4.0_(multitasking) [13] http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/system/tridos.txt [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiuser_DOS [15] http://www.on-time.com/rtkernel-dos.htm -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello!
Forgot to mention (Open/Free)GEM [0] and Windows 3.1x, 95, 98 [1]. [0] http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=opengem [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:47 PM, J.K. Benedict xenfomat...@outlook.com wrote: [SNIP] #1. Has anyone assembled a doc on creating the preferred developer's sandbox? I use many languages and want to ensure any software I offer meets Read here [0][1][2][3]. Short answer, reference C compiler is OpenWatcom C, and the reference Assembler is NASM. #2. From a previous email and since I am stuck in a Linux/FreeDOS world, had there been any consideration into a multitasking kernel + scheduler to promote advancements in power whille keeping DOS compatibility? Read here [4][5]. Short answer not currently on the FD Road Map as a goal, especially if it breaks compatibility. Additionally, there are/were several competing standards for DOS multitasking [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. --- [0] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Manifesto [1] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Coding [2] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Spec#Programming_languages [3] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Spec#Programming_tools [4] http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map [5] http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/Kickstarter-project-for-FreeDOS-2-0-tt21515.html [6] http://www.drdos.net/documentation/multtask/01mtch1.htm [7] http://www.drdos.net/documentation/multtask/ [8] http://www.drdos.net/faq/#p3_8 [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview [10] http://www.freedos.org/technotes/newsitem/122.html [11] http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=ertos [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS_4.0_(multitasking) [13] http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/system/tridos.txt [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiuser_DOS [15] http://www.on-time.com/rtkernel-dos.htm -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Hello!
After years of using FreeDOS, I have found it apropos to contribute. I am still reviewing road maps, current utilities, and preferred languages.I have two specific questions that are, albeit, noobish. #1. Has anyone assembled a doc on creating the preferred "developer's sandbox"? I use many languages and want to ensure any software I offer meets criteria, or such as my version of "cat + more + search options" for viewing files is written in Asic, Qb 7, and soon Turbo C. Any feedback or examples of preferred languages, compilers, etc and if there are coding practices... I appreciate this info!#2. From a previous email and since I am stuck in a Linux/FreeDOS world, had there been any consideration into a "multitasking" kernel + scheduler to promote advancements in "power" whille keeping DOS compatibility?I hope this finds each of you in kind and that, who knows? Maybe we all can keep something amazing up-to-date... if not :more: amazing!!-jesse @xenfomation Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello EMM386/HIMEM 2.26, Good-bye Michael
Michael Devore schreef: Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files emmx226.zip, EMM386 2.26 and HIMEM version 3.26 memory manager, mostly executable files; and emms226.zip, source code files. The FTP-challenged may find the files at http://www.devoresoftware.com/emm386 . If you're ever inclined to read some FreeDOS messages online through the archives: THANK YOU for the time and effort spent on writing/improving/extending/debugging a complicated memory driver beyond the specifications that were sufficient for the main author. goodbye and best of luck, Michael. Bernd -- Efficiency is intelligent lazyness - 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] Hello EMM386/HIMEM 2.26, Good-bye Michael
Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files emmx226.zip, EMM386 2.26 and HIMEM version 3.26 memory manager, mostly executable files; and emms226.zip, source code files. The FTP-challenged may find the files at http://www.devoresoftware.com/emm386 . EMM386 2.26 is really more like version 2.25.1, but we have enough decimals already. Nothing major, 2.26 modifies the way the default NOALTBOOT option works to improve compatibility with some types of rebooting the computer, particularly with FDAPM. There is also minor improvement in behavior when attempting to run HIMEM and EMM386 on sub-80386 machines. Final comments follow: As far as changes, the NOALTBOOT change was already discussed on freedos-devel. FDAPM should be happier for the WARMBOOT or COLDBOOT options on some machines, and, if we're lucky, Ctrl-Alt-Del may work more universally in complex environments. HIMEM and EMM386 now both state that 80386+ CPUs are required on the help screen and they are UPX-compressed with the --8086 option, also as previously discussed on freedos-devel. I am permanently off-list immediately following this post, unless I am e-mailed notice of a major HIMEM/EMM386 emergency or goof before FreeDOS 1.0 release which requires my expeditious attention. This is not a reflection on FreeDOS, but rather a simple statement of retirement from the job: I'm tired of working on HIMEM and EMM386, I'm done with my work, and it's time for me to move on to other projects. If you will indulge me for two paragraphs, I have a few closing suggestions. They carry no greater weight than anyone else's opinion here. Perhaps less. HIMEM and EMM386 could certainly stand a significant clean-up and rewrite at some point. That said, major feature additions and changes should not be in the EMM386 2.x line, which, I think, should be declared a mature version. Whether that means there will be an EMM386 3.x or another memory manager name/revision as next in line is really immaterial. However, small updates, fixes, enhancements, and changes -- such as several of Arkady's changes, like the build DIF -- should easily fit into EMM386 2.x development and revision and are appropriate to incorporate. I strongly recommend against making optimizations in 2.x which have operational side-effects and which depend upon applications always following a specification. A number of the quirks and revisions in EMM386 and HIMEM have accumulated due to misbehaved programs tested over the years. In theory those revisions shouldn't be necessary, but in actuality they are quite necessary for the programs to work. For those interested in being involved in further development, Tom Ehlert is the HIMEM and EMM386 maintainer and holds copyright on the current code. It is incontestably correct to ask him about his preferences and desired degree of involvement in future development on the memory managers before leaping in and changing stuff around. I am confident that the talented people here can quickly reach peaceful accord on how future HIMEM and EMM386 work and releases should proceed. For anyone who needs personal help or has questions concerning the current HIMEM and EMM386, or related FreeDOS and programming topics, they can contact me at my FreeDOS e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, please do not abuse the invitation. I am not interested in the latest FreeDOS gossip or debate, even if it directly or indirectly involves me. *Especially* if it directly or indirectly involves me. Allow me my blissful ignorance. Good luck and good work, everybody. Ciao. - 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] Hello again
Hello everyone. Just subscribed to the mailing lists again. I haven't followed development for some time now, and I must say that the progress made since I've been gone is quite impressive. All the folks here should be proud. As for me, I'm going to just be lurking for a while. I have a project in mind which may be based on FreeDOS, but haven't come to any decisions yet. Again, just stopped by to say hi. Pat --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721alloc_id=10040op=click ___ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Hello again
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:04:01 -0400, you wrote: Hi Pat, Hello everyone. Just subscribed to the mailing lists again. Glad to see you back! As for me, I'm going to just be lurking for a while. I have a project in mind which may be based on FreeDOS, but haven't come to any decisions yet. Again, just stopped by to say hi. Join our discussion if you have time, we need your valuable comment. Rgds, Johnson. --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721alloc_id=10040op=click ___ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
