Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

Hi All,

Update on that SBEMU that I mentioned at the start of this thread.

 Skip if you don’t care about the test machine 
So, I have this old 17-inch Toshiba Satellite P25-S5092 battleship sized 
notebook. It has just about 
every possible port, slot and other option for that could be found on any 
computer of that time period. 
Things, like PCMCIA, SD-CARD, IR, USB, FIREWIRE, VGA and SVIDEO, and on and on. 
It will even 
boot from the internal CD/DVD or USB Floppies.

This modest 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 runs FreeDOS 1.3 like a champ. With three 
exceptions. 

1) The onboard LAN requires a packet driver not supplied with the release. No 
problem, I have it.
2) No idea on getting WiFi to work. Oh well. Don’t really need it.
3) AC97 based sound card. 

The laptop automatically supports PC-SPEAKER out the main audio speakers. So, 
for those types of 
DOS games it works fine and the volume can even be adjusted.
 

So, I decided to see about that SBEMU program.

It requires loading the HDPMI32I.EXE driver for protected mode support. 
(supplied)
It requires loading QEMM for real mode support. (not supplied)

I cannot find my QuarterDeck serial number. It did not recognize JEMM. Don’t 
know about 386MAX. So, only protected mode got enabled.

Tried running FreeDoom Phase 1, it just exits back to the command line.
Tried running FreeDoom Phase 2, it just exits back to the command line.
Tried BOOM, sound worked great.
Tried SAYSWHO, (real mode) no audio, game using ADLIB sound instead of PC 
SPEAKER, might work if SBEMU’s real mode enabled.
Tried QTETRIS, sound worked great.

I feel those results are promising and worth further investigation.  

I still have know idea of the project’s license.

Jerome



___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:53 AM  wrote:
>
> So….
>
> There is only an old version with sources. Or, a newer version without 
> sources.

We only have 1.1 of P5 mirrored (so far).

I've built 1.4 (pcom.exe, pint.exe) locally but haven't run the test
suite yet. (He changed it so my old GNUmakefile isn't good enough
anymore.) Mostly it's just extra error checking, no added features.
(In particular, he didn't want to extend P5 beyond ISO 7185 level 0.)

> What about the zips on ibiblio from 2020 for r67 and r76? No binaries?

That's p5c (ISO 7185 level 1), based upon p5, but it's written in C
and targets (modern GNU/Clang) C, e.g. GCC 12.2 (DJGPP).

r67 is an older version and should be moved to "old/". The latest
seems to still be r76.

* https://sourceforge.net/projects/pascal-p5c/

> Maybe I can coax you into creating a fresh build. ;-)
>
> Then hopefully, the community could agree to include it on the BonusCD.
>
> :-)

I do also have p5c.exe locally (built with DJGPP), but it's not hard
to build (his readme tells how). Most of the rest of the .ZIP is
documentation or extensive examples and tests.

I don't demand a package for any of this. Just saying that I found it
interesting to fiddle with over the years. (But as Ralf said, some
people dislike classic Pascal. So it may not be a popular opinion.)


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

> On Feb 21, 2023, at 7:41 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:22 AM  > wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2023, at 3:19 AM, jer...@shidel.net wrote:
>> [..]
>> I’ve not looked into P5 Pascal. It would be nice to have a alternative to 
>> FPC for DOS.
>> 
>> 
>> I just took a quick look at P5 at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pascalp5/
>> 
>> I did not see any binaries for DOS. Can it target DOS? Since it is able to 
>> compile itself, it might be capable of creating those binaries.
>> 
>> Or, maybe they can be convinced to make next version P6 available to DOS.
> 
> P5 is a full "ISO 7185" (classic Pascal, Wirth's original) version of
> the P4 "public domain" bytecode compiler (and interpreter) subset from
> ETH Zurich.
> 
> The binaries (pcom.exe, pint.exe) were only compiled and tested (by
> me) with GNU Pascal (e.g. GPC / DJGPP).
> 
> * http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/pascal/p5/ 
> 
> 
> Specifically, Scott (on SourceForge) only targeted Windows and Linux
> with separate .sh and (DOS-unfriendly) .BATs. So I wrote a GNUmakefile
> and built and tested 1.1 for DOS, Linux, and Windows. (Latest is 1.4,
> but I still haven't fully bothered yet. It's minor changes.)
> 
> He kinda just does his own thing, so he never mirrored any of those
> builds. So I mirrored the DOS build for us.
> 
> p5pas11.zip == (full sources and docs and tests, built with DJGPP
> 2.03p2 in 2013)
> p5-dj205.7z == (binaries only, built with DJGPP 2.05 in 2017)
> 
> P6 will be 64-bit only because Scott doesn't seem interested in
> supporting 32-bit, sadly. So DJGPP it out.

So…. 

There is only an old version with sources. Or, a newer version without sources.

What about the zips on ibiblio from 2020 for r67 and r76? No binaries?

Maybe I can coax you into creating a fresh build. ;-)

Then hopefully, the community could agree to include it on the BonusCD. 

:-)

Jerome

> 
> ___
> 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] More on Packages

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:22 AM  wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2023, at 3:19 AM, jer...@shidel.net wrote:
> [..]
> I’ve not looked into P5 Pascal. It would be nice to have a alternative to FPC 
> for DOS.
>
>
> I just took a quick look at P5 at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pascalp5/
>
> I did not see any binaries for DOS. Can it target DOS? Since it is able to 
> compile itself, it might be capable of creating those binaries.
>
> Or, maybe they can be convinced to make next version P6 available to DOS.

P5 is a full "ISO 7185" (classic Pascal, Wirth's original) version of
the P4 "public domain" bytecode compiler (and interpreter) subset from
ETH Zurich.

The binaries (pcom.exe, pint.exe) were only compiled and tested (by
me) with GNU Pascal (e.g. GPC / DJGPP).

* http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/pascal/p5/

Specifically, Scott (on SourceForge) only targeted Windows and Linux
with separate .sh and (DOS-unfriendly) .BATs. So I wrote a GNUmakefile
and built and tested 1.1 for DOS, Linux, and Windows. (Latest is 1.4,
but I still haven't fully bothered yet. It's minor changes.)

He kinda just does his own thing, so he never mirrored any of those
builds. So I mirrored the DOS build for us.

p5pas11.zip == (full sources and docs and tests, built with DJGPP
2.03p2 in 2013)
p5-dj205.7z == (binaries only, built with DJGPP 2.05 in 2017)

P6 will be 64-bit only because Scott doesn't seem interested in
supporting 32-bit, sadly. So DJGPP it out.


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

Hi Rugxulo,

> On Feb 21, 2023, at 3:19 AM, jer...@shidel.net wrote:
> [..]
> I’ve not looked into P5 Pascal. It would be nice to have a alternative to FPC 
> for DOS.

I just took a quick look at P5 at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pascalp5/

I did not see any binaries for DOS. Can it target DOS? Since it is able to 
compile itself, it might be capable of creating those binaries.

Or, maybe they can be convinced to make next version P6 available to DOS.

:-)


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[Louis Santillan]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:37 AM  wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2023, at 4:17 PM, Louis Santillan  wrote:
>
> [..]
> GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
> https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC
>
>
> tkchia has a better branch that should be easier to compile and will
> be more complete.
> https://github.com/tkchia/GW-BASIC
>
>
> I’m confused, how can it be a more complete version of GW-BASIC than the 
> actual GW-BASIC? Did Microsoft release an old version like with MS-DOS 2.0?

So the code MS released had no Makefile or documentation on how to
build.  tkchia and others fixed that, replaced some OEM routines, as
well as fixed a few bugs that are evident if you do not have MS's
original DOS 2.x/3.x development tools or you are trying to use more
modern MASM tools.  See https://github.com/tkchia/GW-BASIC#assembling

>
> [..]
>
> One other command that might be interesting to add to FreeDOS is the
> fast compressor/decompressor LZ4.
>
>
> License? URL?

GPL2 for binaries.  BSD for libs.

https://github.com/lz4/lz4/tree/dev/contrib/djgpp
https://github.com/lz4/lz4/


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

Hi, 

> On Feb 20, 2023, at 4:17 PM, Louis Santillan  wrote:
>> [..]
>> GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
>> https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC
> 
> tkchia has a better branch that should be easier to compile and will
> be more complete.
> https://github.com/tkchia/GW-BASIC

I’m confused, how can it be a more complete version of GW-BASIC than the actual 
GW-BASIC? Did Microsoft release an old version like with MS-DOS 2.0?

Although I know I used GW-BASIC at least a little before moving to QuickBasic, 
I have zero memory of  GW-BASIC itself. 

I guess if the community decides to include GW-BASIC, it will need to pick one. 
That will probably come down to either it is being included for strictly 
nostalgic reasons or for continued development and improvement. 

Choosing one over the other is not relevant me personally, I know I won’t be 
doing any programming in Basic ever again.

> [..]
> One other command that might be interesting to add to FreeDOS is the
> fast compressor/decompressor LZ4.

License? URL?

I think it is always good idea to include different compression/archivers when 
possible to extract things like the occasional RAR, LZH or 7z file. As an 
example, just yesterday, I wanted to check out 'Aura GUI for FreeDOS’ (1) which 
is distributed in a RAR. Well, my semi-modern computer choked on the archive. I 
had to fire up a VM with FreeDOS and extract it there. After extracting, I ran 
it’s setup program and chose Live Mode. I experienced numerous minor GUI issues 
and exited (which hung VirtualBox). Perhaps it would work better if installed 
or a newer version somewhere else. I did not try or look.

Jerome

(1) https://sourceforge.net/projects/auraguifreedos/ 


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

Hi,

> On Feb 20, 2023, at 9:17 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:37 PM  wrote:
>> 
>> Other possible new packages to consider for inclusion (or at least watch):
>> 
>> 386SWAT - GPLv3, Debugger (may require someone to compile)
>> https://github.com/sudleyplace/386SWAT
> 
> You mean the old compile isn't sufficient? (IIRC, it was on his website.)

For 386MAX, they are buried in a subdirectory amongst the source files. I’m was 
fairly sure the required binaries for 386SWAT are in a zip file in the root of 
the project. However, I’ve never used the program. Looking at it again now, the 
386swap.zip contains them.

Back in the day, I used Quarterdeck. I’ve never used 386MAX either. Test 
running some of the 386MAX executables, I saw they all still display the old 
license information. That should be updated to reflect it has been released as 
GPLv3 and re-compiled. The same is most likely the case with 386SWAT. But, I 
have not verified that.

> 
>> GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
>> https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC
> 
> Personally, I would rather have a package for P5 Pascal. (Although
> both is fine, too.)
> (But my .ZIP was old 1.1, and I never got around to testing or
> building 1.4 for us. No huge differences, just better error-checking,
> supposedly.)

I suggest possibly including GW-BASIC for all the nostalgic users. 

I’ve not looked into P5 Pascal. It would be nice to have a alternative to FPC 
for DOS.

> 
>> DIFPAT, GPLv2, DIFF and PATCH Utilities
>> https://github.com/deverac/difpat
> 
> Haven't tried these. Usually I just use the 32-bit DJGPP builds of the
> GNU ones. If these are really 16-bit, that'd be cool. (There are other
> tools in the wild, too, especially for non-text binaries.)
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] More on Packages

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:37 PM  wrote:
>
> Other possible new packages to consider for inclusion (or at least watch):
>
> 386SWAT - GPLv3, Debugger (may require someone to compile)
> https://github.com/sudleyplace/386SWAT

You mean the old compile isn't sufficient? (IIRC, it was on his website.)

> GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
> https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC

Personally, I would rather have a package for P5 Pascal. (Although
both is fine, too.)
(But my .ZIP was old 1.1, and I never got around to testing or
building 1.4 for us. No huge differences, just better error-checking,
supposedly.)

> DIFPAT, GPLv2, DIFF and PATCH Utilities
> https://github.com/deverac/difpat

Haven't tried these. Usually I just use the 32-bit DJGPP builds of the
GNU ones. If these are really 16-bit, that'd be cool. (There are other
tools in the wild, too, especially for non-text binaries.)


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[Louis Santillan]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:37 AM  wrote:
[SNIP]
> Other possible new packages to consider for inclusion (or at least watch):
[SNIP]
>
> GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
> https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC

tkchia has a better branch that should be easier to compile and will
be more complete.
https://github.com/tkchia/GW-BASIC

>
> DOSLINUX - GPLv3, DOS Subsystem for Linux
> Run real linux programs under DOS.
> Why? IDK. (requires someone to compile)
> https://github.com/haileys/doslinux

I also have some notes on how to build.  I integrated those steps into
the repo below.
https://sites.google.com/view/lpsantil/home/dos-subsystem-for-linux-on-a-hp-t5745

The repo below should make it easier to build a package.
https://github.com/lpsantil/doslinux

In terms of purpose, DOSLINUX is a lot like the VFAT Linuxes from 20
years ago BasicLinux (https://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/) and Dragon
Linux (https://web.archive.org/web/20010401131118/http://dragonlinux.org/)
and phatlinux 
(https://web.archive.org/web/20040901031901/http://phatlinux.com/).
An easy way to install and boot Linux without having to understand the
nuances of Linux installation. DOSLINUX does substitute LILO for it's
own dsl Linux loader, and, can be used with a modern version of
busybox instead of ancient versions of GNU tools.  Unlike other
distros, it's intended to return to DOS once a command is complete.
However, if you pass dsl an interactive command, like /bin/sh, it will
continue to run.  I can see potential uses for making an improved,
single-reboot DOS installer (format, partition, install on first
boot!), gaining access to useful hardware or software for which DOS
has no software (I'm looking at you USB 3.0).

One other command that might be interesting to add to FreeDOS is the
fast compressor/decompressor LZ4.


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

[Freedos-devel] More on Packages

[jerome]

Hi All,

It is interesting no one has mentioned this very simple Public Domain command 
line player that is similar to the CDP program.

https://github.com/Baron-von-Riedesel/PlayCD 


I’ve created a packages for SJGPlay, PLAYCD and 386Max in the GitLab Archive. 
https://gitlab.com/FreeDOS/sound/sjgplay 
 (Public Domain)
https://gitlab.com/FreeDOS/sound/playcd 
 (Public Domain)
https://gitlab.com/FreeDOS/drivers/386max 
 (GPLv3)

386Max has not been fully converted to package format for simple installation. 
You must install the package sources. There you will find a DISK\TMPOUT 
subdirectory which contains the pre-compiled binaries originally released with 
the project. These binaries still display the old license. Someone may  wish to 
figure out how to compile the sources and update those messages to display the 
new license. 

All we will need to decide is wether or not to include these in the upcoming 
T2303 Interim Build.

I propose that since PLAYCD is the most similar to CDP, to include PLAYCD 
instead of CDP. 
(That would be with FULL and on the BonusCD.)
As for SJGPlay and 386Max, to just include those on the BonusCD.

Does that sound good?

Other possible new packages to consider for inclusion (or at least watch):

AHCICDU - CD/DVD optical disk driver (unsure of license)
https://github.com/Baron-von-Riedesel/AHCICDU 


SBEMU - Sound Blaster Emulation with OPL3 for AC97 (state and license unknown)
https://github.com/crazii/SBEMU 

XDMA - Revived UDMA Driver to be used in Qemu, 86Box, PCem, … (GPLv2+)
https://github.com/Baron-von-Riedesel/XDMA 


386SWAT - GPLv3, Debugger (may require someone to compile)
https://github.com/sudleyplace/386SWAT 

GW-BASIC - MIT License, Microsoft’s original 1983 version
https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC 

DOSLINUX - GPLv3, DOS Subsystem for Linux
Run real linux programs under DOS. 
Why? IDK. (requires someone to compile)
https://github.com/haileys/doslinux 

DIFPAT, GPLv2, DIFF and PATCH Utilities
https://github.com/deverac/difpat 

DOStodon, Multiple Licenses
(Requires next version of DOjS)
https://github.com/SuperIlu/DOStodon 

Any thoughts?

:-)

Jerome


___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel