Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi Jim, while I agree that more and more software is creeping into the distro if we add all interesting things, this list is still somewhat comparable to full 1.0. Yet already 1.0 had exactly the creep problem that you describe. So first we should indeed get a more basic 1.1 ready before we can start to review, update, add all/more of the full stuff. That said, I particularily like mpxplay, Bret-USB, ctmouse, some recent networking stuff, nasm, HX, UIDE et al, srdisk, lfn stuff and similar. While they can be very useful, some of the things on the list below are huge (compilers, maybe ps/pdf tools) and others sound good, but I cannot comment on (testdisk, photorec, doszip, dn2, 4dos). Any GEM news? Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET Mined GNU Emacs Perl Python OpenGem OpenWatcom + NASM FreeDoom + Eternity Engine HXRT + HXGUI p7zip DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS TestDisk + PhotoRec xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Doszip (or DN/2?) 4DOS (or Bash?) Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of scope creep. Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add... [...so the big addition of packages should wait for a 2.0 distro...] Regards, Eric -- BlackBerryreg; DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts. Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies. Sessions, hands-on labs, demos much more. Register early save! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1 ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi again Rugxulo, So VMware needs PCNET? VirtualBox needs AMDPD? QEMU needs NE2000? Anybody know BOCHS? (Yes, I'm assuming more re: emulation than real hardware here, isn't that reasonable?) Bochs emulates a bad(?) NE2000 and a nonstandard PCI Pseudo NIC for which an Etherboot driver exists so HPA of Syslinux will know. In general, virtual or not, I am always a fan of RTL8139 drivers even if I cannot use them :-D Afair, Dosemu magically supports a DOS packet driver interface and IPX, maybe no virtual NIC, or at most some NE2000... I never really tried dosemu networking ;-) Some might argue even 10MB or so is already huge when all basic content fits on a bootdisk (fdisk/format/sys/kernel/shell) Basic for me is more like your Ruffidea distro for 1-3 floppies :-) Has really many tools, most of the things that MS DOS users know. Well, what exactly can you do with kernel + shell? Not much! Yes so that is for make a minimal bootdisk and add your stuff. throw a compiler, a text editor, a game, *something useful* Compilers and games are not very basic, but some games are tiny. Most attractive to average users (rough guess): Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET I agree on all of those, as long as Arachne configures well. Maybe useful to run that in a ramdisk for performance... Mined GNU Emacs No experience with that in DOS but a big editor like sededit is indeed nice to have around... Perl Python Quite specific to some target audiences. Also real DOS Perl is quite outdated, while DOS/Windows Perl is quite large? OpenGem A GUI only makes sense with a good bunch of apps for it so GEM is a category for itself, in terms of installer packs. OpenWatcom + NASM Depends on how small or how complete you want to go. Surely useful to have at least enough to compile the kernel. UPX! FreeDoom + Eternity Engine :-D HXRT + HXGUI Specific for running Windows apps but indeed cool. p7zip And advanced mame advzip :-) DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) See OpenWatcom topic. Not THAT many FreeDOS apps use this compiler. The set of DJGPP compiled apps is huge if you look at all the ported GNU things available. UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Something like that, yes, sure. Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS If you say Ltools, you should also say smbclient ;-) Note that Ltools make it easy to shoot your own foot so maybe they are not for general users. If you have a simple Linux style distro, just drag files to your DOS drive in the Linux GUI instead of messing up your Linux drive from within DOS with some evil ltools... TestDisk + PhotoRec If those are both freeware enough, sure :-) xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Afair Blair ported both? Doszip (or DN/2?) And filemaven with com/lpt cable file transfers :-) 4DOS (or Bash?) Both! Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. Well, international stuff in any case. At least language files and the kernel built-in functionality and at least MKEYB :-) There's an easy (obvious?) answer to that: include common packet drivers (see above), and let mTCP's FTP grab WGET itself from iBiblio! Bam, problem solved! ;-) Mwah for people with USB4 wireless telepathic networking it is better to download whatever they want from ibiblio from Windows 10 and then use DOS only to install those zips... Eric -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Most attractive to average users (rough guess): Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET Mined GNU Emacs Perl Python OpenGem OpenWatcom + NASM FreeDoom + Eternity Engine HXRT + HXGUI p7zip DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS TestDisk + PhotoRec xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Doszip (or DN/2?) 4DOS (or Bash?) Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of scope creep. Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add to the distro. I'd prefer not to expand the list of packages fro FreeDOS 1.1 at this late stage. We've done some cleanup on the software list and moved a few packages between package groups on the 1.1-test distro already. If we started building a list of all the cool programs that FreeDOS 1.1 should also include, we will never get there. I think we should have a discussion about what FreeDOS 2.0 should include, and I think 2.0 is the right time to completely redefine what DOS should look like. What would DOS systems look like today if they remained the dominant platform? What should a modern DOS look like in 2011 or 2012? After 1.1 is out, I'd like to see a good, strong discussion thread on the mailing list with lots of comments about what 2.0 should include, what packages belong in and out, what package groups we should have. But please, let's keep that until *after* we get FreeDOS 1.1 out. I'd like 1.1 to basically be an update to 1.0: a *few* new packages features, more up-to-date packages, a new installer. Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. So far not many have bothered. It's tedious, that's probably why. The only thing worse than that is annoying bugs or stuff that constantly gets updated (which means upgrading ad nauseum). Perfectionism doesn't help either (not that anything is every perfect). :-/ Yup, I've been very open to anyone making their own FreeDOS distro. And there have been a few, GNU/DOS was one example. This is basically the same concept as people making their own Linux distro: you get lots of experiments, and the very strong distros become popular. At first, you only had MCC Linux, TAMU Linux, and SLS Linux - but then you had Slackware, Debian, RedHat ... Fedora, Ubuntu, etc - and lots of other distros along the way. I'm totally okay with someone taking the FreeDOS Kernel and utilities, and trying their own spin on FreeDOS to do something really interesting or cool. I'd just ask that they avoid using the label FreeDOS, and name it something unique. Again, GNU/DOS was a good example. -jh -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi, On 7/17/11, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote: Most attractive to average users (rough guess): While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of scope creep. This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add to the distro. I'd prefer not to expand the list of packages fro FreeDOS 1.1 at this late stage. We've done some cleanup on the software list and moved a few packages between package groups on the 1.1-test distro already. If we started building a list of all the cool programs that FreeDOS 1.1 should also include, we will never get there. I don't think any of it should be worried about for 1.1. Perhaps only BASE + NET + UTIL should be there, dunno. It's not my call, obviously, esp. since I'm not the one doing the work (hi, Bernd!). Or am I wrong in assuming Bernd's test .ISO is the basis for 1.1? I think we should have a discussion about what FreeDOS 2.0 should include, and I think 2.0 is the right time to completely redefine what DOS should look like. What would DOS systems look like today if they remained the dominant platform? What should a modern DOS look like in 2011 or 2012? After 1.1 is out, I'd like to see a good, strong discussion thread on the mailing list with lots of comments about what 2.0 should include, what packages belong in and out, what package groups we should have. Discussion is great, but we need to actually step up and make a deadline type system, timeline, plan, something! I know some of that has been roughly outlined, I'm just saying, it's tough to get things done when nobody can agree. :-( Bah, it's just too much work for us few volunteers. But please, let's keep that until *after* we get FreeDOS 1.1 out. I'd like 1.1 to basically be an update to 1.0: a *few* new packages features, more up-to-date packages, a new installer. Well, some things in 1.0 were horribly broken, some others are horribly outdated. Otherwise it's more or less fine. Surely we can tweak ad nauseum and would never get anything done. But again, none of this was meant to reflect on 1.1 specifically. Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. Yup, I've been very open to anyone making their own FreeDOS distro. And there have been a few, GNU/DOS was one example. This is basically the same concept as people making their own Linux distro: you get lots of experiments, and the very strong distros become popular. Unfortunately, it's almost like we have to make a Linux-based (DOS) emulation-oriented distro just to stay relevant! :-(Even then, I can hear the jeers (shudder). I'm totally okay with someone taking the FreeDOS Kernel and utilities, and trying their own spin on FreeDOS to do something really interesting or cool. I'd just ask that they avoid using the label FreeDOS, and name it something unique. Again, GNU/DOS was a good example. Except the GNU project had nothing (directly) to do with it, I presume. Actually, now I can't remember, was that the same as uDOS or something different? Yeah yeah, I know, check iBiblio (Perhaps GNU/DOS was a more limited attempt than the latter. Well, no FreeDOS spins were satisfactory to me in my attempts.) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Op 17-7-2011 23:23, Rugxulo schreef: This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) For a full CD it's very much worthwile mentioning these. Adding packages is easy, integrating them and testing are a bit more difficult though. I'm abusing Jim's installer simply to allow people to do a 2nd install process from any random directory (X:\FREEDOS\CUSTOM\) to whichever directory you want to install those (be it same location as FreeDOS, or a separate \UTILS , \PROGRAMS , \PROGS , \BIGPROGS or whatever). Discussion is great, but we need to actually step up and make a deadline type system, timeline, plan, something! I know some of that has been roughly outlined, I'm just saying, it's tough to get things done when nobody can agree. :-( Bah, it's just too much work for us few volunteers. I'm aiming for end of August. People have their vacation, have a little bit more time for spending on FreeDOS if they wish so, etc. Lots and lots of rewriting is needed while some programs also still require updates. DEVLOAD was just fixed for example, KEYB/KERNEL/FreeCOM could do with some updates, etc. All in due time, and meanwhile if people are able to somehow update their own systems from the work-in-progress ISO files, good for them :) What I should be working on rather soon though is adding sources simply to not violate the distribution rules of a lot of opensource licenses. Anyone know if there's a DOS SVN client? or a win32 console one running under HXRT? Assuming LFNs pretty much become a requirement as well in that case. Otherwise I'm doomed to a ReactOS or WindowsXP virtual machine. Ah well. Bernd -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi, On 7/17/11, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: Op 17-7-2011 23:23, Rugxulo schreef: This was merely an exercise at naming popular, i.e. heavily-desired, apps that most common users might probably want. It is not intended to reflect my own goofy needs. And besides, most of these already were in FD 1.0, so nyah. ;-) For a full CD it's very much worthwile mentioning these. Adding packages is easy, integrating them and testing are a bit more difficult though. Surely I didn't mean you should add them to your recent .ISO, just saying, in a perfect world, these are (some) things most people apparently want. What I should be working on rather soon though is adding sources simply to not violate the distribution rules of a lot of opensource licenses. Anyone know if there's a DOS SVN client? or a win32 console one running under HXRT? Assuming LFNs pretty much become a requirement as well in that case.t Otherwise I'm doomed to a ReactOS or WindowsXP virtual machine. Ah well. Doubt there is a SVN client like what you're wanting, but I don't know, maybe Japheth can chime in here. But if there's anything in particular you need help finding or grabbing sources for, let me (or us) know. I'm fairly useless overall, but I can try, dang it! -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
On 7/15/2011 11:33 AM, Bernd Blaauw wrote: Op 15-7-2011 5:08, Michael B. Brutman schreef: - How do I use the new installer that Jim has been working on? It's in the new ISO that I plan to upload by Sunday evening. Still need to work out some things to make it a smoother experience. The initial menu showing which CD drives were found for example (which I also should add plain directories to, but that's more difficult). Good - I await the next revision. I'm trying to do my part here by testing it .. - Are all of the binaries always put into the one bin dir? I expected the optional packages to be separated into subdirectories, not lumped in with the critical OS commands. All is together. Nothing is preventing an additional directory called EXTRA, putting subdirectory PACKAGES below it and a BASE directory below that, and then install from that location, allowing a 2nd directory. The following is just a matter of personal preference and/or opinion .. On all of my machines (DOS, Windows and Unix) I try to keep the optional packages separate from the core OS functions. So DOS will live in /DOS and nothing else will be in that directory. Smaller utilities wind up in something like /utils/text, /utils/disk, /utils/zip, etc. If something has a lot of files that deserves it's own directory. mTCP usually lives in /mtcp or /packet/mtcp depending on what other networking code I have installed. I can see where DHCP, FTP, PING, SNTP, and TELNET could be considered core OS functions so I'm not entirely opposed. It's just different than what I'm used to seeing, not just on DOS. - I noticed the PCNet packet driver, which was a happy coincidence because I was installing under VMWare. Has their been any thought to including other common packet drivers? FreeDOS 1.0 has lots of packet drivers, I didn't include them so far to keep the CD minimalistic. Rebuilding for every change on batchfiles can be a pain :) Does this mean that they will be put on the CD later, or that the user has to find a different way to get them on the machine? I think that every packet driver known to man probably fits within 1MB of space. :-) (Ok, maybe 2 ...) Is the intent of the CD to provide a minimal install? - Did I miss the option to install the WATTCP based programs? See above, minimising things. WATTCP programs are usually compiled as DJGPP programs, having kind of huge disk footprint compared to your drivers for example. Same question as above - the capacity of a CD is quite large, and 12MB for an OS install image is tiny. As an end user I would much prefer that what I need is on the CD already even if it means a larger download size. (Or give me a choice of ISO images to use.) I'm new to this, so if this is already addressed in some way then forgive me and just point me on my way ... - Do I have time to do a minimal mTCP configuration program that can be used to walk users through setting up the configuration file? Ofcourse, knock yourself out :) I noticed the problem with the improper CR/LF in the mTCP configuration file that you reported a week or two ago, and I assume that we can just fix the original file. Depending on your time table I can either fix DHCP to be more tolerant of improper new lines in files or I can try to do something more comprehensive that looks like an installer. In a perfect world the installer would just prompt for a few things like the IRC user name, FTP buffer sizes, MTU size, etc. If that doesn't happen in time having those fields in the mTCP config file (but commented out as I do in the sample) would be a reasonable substitute. BTW, I'm happy/honored to be part of the group. I just want to ensure that the mTCP code looks/behaves more like the OS so that it doesn't cause usability problems or stick out too much. It's not a full networking stack, but the idea of a coherent set of networking utilities available at install time with the OS is very appealing. Mike -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Op 16-7-2011 16:30, Michael B. Brutman schreef: Good - I await the next revision. I'm trying to do my part here by testing it .. great, thanks. On all of my machines (DOS, Windows and Unix) I try to keep the optional packages separate from the core OS functions. So DOS will live in /DOS and nothing else will be in that directory. That's fine. Rather than adding loads of programs in a single directory, I'll probably add an option to the setup batchfiles to provide a directory from which you can add EXTRA files through the FreeDOS installer (requiring PACKAGES\BASE subdirectory). Perhaps call it EXTRA or CUSTOM. So: \ \FREEDOS \FREEDOS\PACKAGES \FREEDOS\PACKAGES\BASE\*.ZIP but also \FREEDOS\EXTRA\PACKAGES\BASE Does this mean that they will be put on the CD later, or that the user has to find a different way to get them on the machine? I think that every packet driver known to man probably fits within 1MB of space. :-) (Ok, maybe 2 ...) I'll add packet drivers again, and VMware is my test platform (besides real hardware at times). The more difficult part is understanding the network-related scripts Jeremy wrote (PCISLEEP/PCISCAN) and extracting the correct packet driver and options to be added to autoexec.bat (plus setting up configuration files mtcp.cfg/wattcp.cfg). A very simple bootdisk with all packet drivers and your MTCP programs would be cool. You've got a networked 8088..which capacities/sizes do your floppies have, how much available harddiskspace? As no XMS, no Ramdisk for storing downloads, thus will have to use harddisk space temporarily. Just a demo bootdisk + tiny ISO. Is the intent of the CD to provide a minimal install? My current intent is to get a decent base working, then adding everything else. I've got nothing automated, so minimizing things at first. FreeDOS 1.0 has several sized versions available at: ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.0/ Some might argue even 10MB or so is already huge when all basic content fits on a bootdisk (fdisk/format/sys/kernel/shell) Same question as above - the capacity of a CD is quite large, and 12MB for an OS install image is tiny. As an end user I would much prefer that what I need is on the CD already even if it means a larger download size. (Or give me a choice of ISO images to use.) You'll get that choice. See above link though it uses the 1.0 distro. With unlimited time, no download limits, enough free diskspace etc a huge FreeDOS distro is fine, if intended to burn to optical disk anyway. However the minimal base-only CD should be as small as possible for fast downloads and limited harddisk space. I'm new to this, so if this is already addressed in some way then forgive me and just point me on my way ... All discussion is welcomed, I'd better speed up releasing more though to prevent arguing over the same topics/issues over and over :) I noticed the problem with the improper CR/LF in the mTCP configuration file that you reported a week or two ago, and I assume that we can just fix the original file. Depending on your time table I can either fix DHCP to be more tolerant of improper new lines in files or I can try to do something more comprehensive that looks like an installer. In a perfect world the installer would just prompt for a few things like the IRC user name, FTP buffer sizes, MTU size, etc. If that doesn't happen in time having those fields in the mTCP config file (but commented out as I do in the sample) would be a reasonable substitute. I'll need to look into your sample to see what the syntax for commented out stuff is, be it ; (config.sys), # , # (syslinux), or anything else (like ignoring anything not recognised). BTW, I'm happy/honored to be part of the group. I just want to ensure that the mTCP code looks/behaves more like the OS so that it doesn't cause usability problems or stick out too much. It's not a full networking stack, but the idea of a coherent set of networking utilities available at install time with the OS is very appealing. I think FDUPDATE is fully depending on WGET and/or CURL, both with their respective (and or generic URL) syntax. Your download program currently depends on real FTP-script-syntax instead of URLs. In due time there might be a MTCP WGET, who knows. Just as a remark: Making something opensource is good but unfortunately can't always expect more people to help improve things. Many FreeDOS programs are experiencing this issue. If we integrate MTCP properly in FD1.1 your software might inspire people to write more networking programs based on your stack. Something to be proud of, hehe :) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi, On 7/16/11, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: Op 16-7-2011 16:30, Michael B. Brutman schreef: Does this mean that they will be put on the CD later, or that the user has to find a different way to get them on the machine? I think that every packet driver known to man probably fits within 1MB of space. :-) (Ok, maybe 2 ...) I'll add packet drivers again, and VMware is my test platform (besides real hardware at times). So VMware needs PCNET? VirtualBox needs AMDPD? QEMU needs NE2000? Anybody know BOCHS? (Yes, I'm assuming more re: emulation than real hardware here, isn't that reasonable?) Some might argue even 10MB or so is already huge when all basic content fits on a bootdisk (fdisk/format/sys/kernel/shell) Well, what exactly can you do with kernel + shell? Not much! At least throw a compiler, a text editor, a game, *something useful*, in there! ;-) Most attractive to average users (rough guess): Mpxplay Bret's USB CuteMouse mTCP + common packet drivers Arachne WGET Mined GNU Emacs Perl Python OpenGem OpenWatcom + NASM FreeDoom + Eternity Engine HXRT + HXGUI p7zip DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E DOSLFN Odi's LFNtools LTOOLS TestDisk + PhotoRec xpdf (or Ghostscript?) Doszip (or DN/2?) 4DOS (or Bash?) Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc. Unsurprisingly, most of this was already included in 1.0 (older versions, natch). Of course, a CD has tons of space, so to speak, so you can afford to waste, heh, unlike floppies *sniff*. You'll get that choice. See above link though it uses the 1.0 distro. With unlimited time, no download limits, enough free diskspace etc a huge FreeDOS distro is fine, if intended to burn to optical disk anyway. However the minimal base-only CD should be as small as possible for fast downloads and limited harddisk space. Yes, minimal is (sometimes) good, but full with everything and the kitchen sink wouldn't fit on a CD anyways. And we'd argue to death over what to cram anyways. Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. So far not many have bothered. It's tedious, that's probably why. The only thing worse than that is annoying bugs or stuff that constantly gets updated (which means upgrading ad nauseum). Perfectionism doesn't help either (not that anything is every perfect). :-/ I think FDUPDATE is fully depending on WGET and/or CURL, both with their respective (and or generic URL) syntax. Your download program currently depends on real FTP-script-syntax instead of URLs. In due time there might be a MTCP WGET, who knows. There's an easy (obvious?) answer to that: include common packet drivers (see above), and let mTCP's FTP grab WGET itself from iBiblio! Bam, problem solved! ;-) Of course, they need a way to find what they want. So someone either has to make a VERY long list in .txt or else we have to give them some sort of web browser (presumably Arachne, which isn't perfect but good enough). If we integrate MTCP properly in FD1.1 your software might inspire people to write more networking programs based on your stack. Something to be proud of, hehe :) Somebody always comes out with something awesome (DOS-related) and surprises us all. There are so many good authors out there. Bernd, I don't envy your having to thank them all !!! ;-)) Yeah, maybe I'll make a list of them (alphabetically), heheh, gimme six months -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Hi Mike, - Are all of the binaries always put into the one bin dir? I expected Yes, like with Linux. Also remember that DOS often has small environment variable space, so we keep PATH short and have no opt or usr local ;-) However, FreeDOS 1.0 did have a few packages using further directiories because they have so many files, e.g. Arachne, Emacs, Freebasic, Ghostscript, Fdsmtpop, Openxp, Pacific C, Pegasus Mail and Setedit :-) If you want, you could think of those as being the opt part of FreeDOS as KDE was opt in older Linuxes and Acroread is now. the optional packages to be separated into subdirectories, not lumped in with the critical OS commands. Actually I think it is nice that way, but of course many users are already quite happy with the many(!) packages which are in the BASE category. Yet FreeDOS 1.0 with base versus full maybe gave them the idea that base would be very minimalistic, so many use full. - I noticed the PCNet packet driver, which was a happy coincidence because I was installing under VMWare. Has their been any thought to including other common packet drivers? I could guess that Bernd also uses vmware, but I would say that RTL8139, 3com, ne2000 and a few others would be common (also in/for virtual machines). On the other hand, we can simply include all free crynwr drivers :-) - Did I miss the option to install the WATTCP based programs? Networking stuff is in a non-base category and Bernd probably is not done with adding everything yet... - Do I have time to do a minimal mTCP configuration program that can be used to walk users through setting up the configuration file? If I have to guess, Bernd will probably try to offer some DHCP. Regards, Eric -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Some general questions and comments from a newbie: - How do I use the new installer that Jim has been working on? The new Install isn't in the first 1.1 test release. Look for it in the next test distro, if Bernd decides it is okay for testing. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
Op 15-7-2011 5:08, Michael B. Brutman schreef: - How do I use the new installer that Jim has been working on? It's in the new ISO that I plan to upload by Sunday evening. Still need to work out some things to make it a smoother experience. The initial menu showing which CD drives were found for example (which I also should add plain directories to, but that's more difficult). - Are all of the binaries always put into the one bin dir? I expected the optional packages to be separated into subdirectories, not lumped in with the critical OS commands. All is together. Nothing is preventing an additional directory called EXTRA, putting subdirectory PACKAGES below it and a BASE directory below that, and then install from that location, allowing a 2nd directory. - I noticed the PCNet packet driver, which was a happy coincidence because I was installing under VMWare. Has their been any thought to including other common packet drivers? FreeDOS 1.0 has lots of packet drivers, I didn't include them so far to keep the CD minimalistic. Rebuilding for every change on batchfiles can be a pain :) - Did I miss the option to install the WATTCP based programs? See above, minimising things. WATTCP programs are usually compiled as DJGPP programs, having kind of huge disk footprint compared to your drivers for example. - Do I have time to do a minimal mTCP configuration program that can be used to walk users through setting up the configuration file? Ofcourse, knock yourself out :) -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Bernd Blaauw wrote: See above, minimising things. WATTCP programs are usually compiled as DJGPP programs, having kind of huge disk footprint compared to your drivers for example. The Watt32 libs are pretty big. The regular WatTCP is a lot smaller and 16-bit Internet apps built with it aren't extremely large (my own irc client, as an example, is 71K when compiled with Borland for 8088, and 656K when compiled with GNU for 386. This is an example case; may not be typical of other programs. Also, it works better under Borland for certain reasons relating to Ctrl-C/Ctrl-Brk handling that I haven't yet figured out in djgpp.) -uso. -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Testing evaluating the 1.1 release
I just took my first pass at installing 1.1 using the ISO image that Bernd Blaauw provided a few days ago. I got it done, but it was not without a few problems. I'll assume those are user errors until I can prove otherwise. Some general questions and comments from a newbie: - How do I use the new installer that Jim has been working on? - Are all of the binaries always put into the one bin dir? I expected the optional packages to be separated into subdirectories, not lumped in with the critical OS commands. - I noticed the PCNet packet driver, which was a happy coincidence because I was installing under VMWare. Has their been any thought to including other common packet drivers? - Did I miss the option to install the WATTCP based programs? - Do I have time to do a minimal mTCP configuration program that can be used to walk users through setting up the configuration file? Mike -- AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on Lean Startup Secrets Revealed. This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
