Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
If code is released to the public domain, anyone can use it without restriction. Right. But there would be no license to protect us, to keep someone like Microsoft from copying our code, and re-releasing it as their own under a proprietary license. Yeah, that's a subset of anyone can use it without restriction. So as I wrote my programs, I started to use the GNU GPL. This made it clear that anyone could use my programs, and the source code would remain free and open to everyone. That last part is not entirely accurate. [...] it prevented others from re-releasing my programs without making sure people had access to the source code. That, however, is accurate. I was happy with that. I opted not to use MIT or BSD for personal reasons, I just thought the GNU GPL was the right one for me. Similarly to releasing things into the public domain (where applicable), those licences differ from the GPL in that they do not impose copyleft. So following your perfectly understandable above explanation, of course you specifically wanted a licence with copyleft. Moving from public domain to a MIT-style licence wouldn't have added any copyleft (only attribution, that is, the requirement to display the copyright notice somewhere). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it. Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the GPLs). (Note the distinction of source's freedoms and recipients' freedoms in this paragraph of my reply and the next. This is important.) Avoid licenses that limit the freedom of users, including licenses that look free but exclude certain classes of users (May not be used by the military or For non-commercial use only.) Or for legal use only or for ethical use only etc. (Seen 'em all.) Technically, the GPL does restrict an individual user's freedoms as well, though their disadvantage there is of course only to insure the freedoms of (potential) downstream recipients. However, these different licenses does make it a bit difficult to share code between projects, if they have different licenses. Specifically, if (incompatible) copylefts are involved. That's another reason why I prefer to contribute only to programs under the GNU GPL, so I can easily re-use code from one project to help out another. Ah, but you could do so if you primarily contributed to programs under MIT-style licences as well. And, specifically, the MIT-style licences allow anyone to relicense the content under the GPL (ie adding copyleft), but it naturally doesn't work the other way around. As far as the version of the GNU GPL, I happen to prefer version 2 for DOS programs because I think version 2 applies well to statically-linked programs (typical in DOS.) The most licence-compatible option (if you have already decided to employ the GPL) is to chose wording (such as the FSF's default suggestion) which allows GPLv2+; if you merely specify GPLv2 but do not explicitly state the option to change to a newer one, then this is the same as explicitly specifying GPL v2-only (like the licence of current Linux releases) - that is, that source's copyleft is then incompatible with the copyleft of source released under GPLv3(+). Not to imply you didn't know all of those details. I merely felt that your descriptions here could use some more context. After all, while it's all perfectly simple, choosing a licence should occur after one has learned of the potential consequences of such a choice. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I'm not sure if this is a bug, misfeature, lack of testing (re: FreeDOS specifically vs. arcane dark corners of MS-DOS), or user error. You don't need to be sure, because I am sure enough what it is. And what it is, is completely broken file system semantics. Nothing to do with arcane dark corners of MS-DOS. To the contrary, /not implementing/ proper file system semantics would have been entirely nonsensical if not for compatibility with MS-DOS (without its SHARE). So FreeDOS reproduced this unfortunate architecture (ie file locking implemented in a loadable external module that interfaces with the kernel). The problem is that even with FreeDOS's SHARE loaded, file system corruption occurs (reproducibly), and in cases that do not fail on MS-DOS with MS-DOS's SHARE loaded. As good as FreeDOS is, obviously we haven't ever had a big company kicking the tires. So some minor flaws may persist, but overall it seems to works very very well. I'd like to hear what Jeremy or Japheth have to say, esp. as I don't recall either of them weighing in on this. But others (hi, Tom) seem more pessimistic about it ever being fixed. As much as I like FreeDOS, it does seem unlikely that more will get done unless we get more volunteers. I'm not too skeptical, but I guess it's more realistic (defeatist?) to just accept that FreeDOS will always have a few bugs (like any software). We can't have everything, I guess. If there are enough active kernel developers around, eventually one of them should ask me for the small test case program that I created, or other technical information required to fix this bug; unless they figured it out all on their own already of course. (Naturally such technical communication might be more appropriate somewhere else instead of Freedos-user.) But you're right, maybe there aren't. But, to be fair, this is not something that most people need, and only Marcos seems to have run into this issue. I guess most of us are more tame in our usage. At least the code posted on BTTR seems to be user error that nobody in their right mind would willingly write: fopen(test1,wb) twice in near succession. Nope, you're wrong. Besides, that is a typical case that the type of fix I'd propose would correctly[*] handle, but the addressed underlying design flaw can cause other failures as well (such as when deleting an opened file; according to RBIL's Int21.41 description SHARE should insure that no file system corruption occurs then). Additionally, the two opens need not necessarily come from the same program. After all, there is resident software (besides networking servers) which does (write-)access files. [*] Correct here refers to not causing any file system corruption; in this example, data written to that file later would overwrite data written to the same file earlier (seeing as no file region locks were put in place and the file access modes allowed writes from several handles). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:23 AM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de wrote: The problem is that even with FreeDOS's SHARE loaded, file system corruption occurs (reproducibly), and in cases that do not fail on MS-DOS with MS-DOS's SHARE loaded. In very rare cases only, though. If there are enough active kernel developers around, eventually one of them should ask me for the small test case program that I created, or other technical information required to fix this bug; Besides, that is a typical case that the type of fix I'd propose would correctly[*] handle, but the addressed underlying design flaw can cause other failures as well (such as when deleting an opened file; according to RBIL's Int21.41 description SHARE should insure that no file system corruption occurs then). Admittedly nobody wants corruption, but I don't think most people rely on deleting open files (except POSIX, so it's probably only a problem when porting GNU stuff to DJGPP). Additionally, the two opens need not necessarily come from the same program. After all, there is resident software (besides networking servers) which does (write-)access files. Yes, but the point is that practically nobody (or not enough) has encountered this bug frequently enough to care to even whine, much less fix it themselves, so far. Obviously I'm in favor of fixing it (esp. in lieu of just using Linux), but I'm not a kernel dev. In other words, the implied consensus seems to be that it's low priority (though I suspect others are just busy with other things). So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
In very rare cases only, though. Irrelevant. Admittedly nobody wants corruption, but I don't think most people rely on deleting open files (except POSIX, so it's probably only a problem when porting GNU stuff to DJGPP). Inaccurate. RBIL's notes seldom refer to programs that target POSIX. practically nobody (or not enough) has encountered this bug Over-abundant usage of quotation marks. frequently enough to care to even whine, much less fix it themselves, so far. Obviously I'm in favor of fixing it (esp. in lieu of just using Linux), but I'm not a kernel dev. Yeah, right now am uninterested in putting effort into GPLed C code. regards C -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either. FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the minimum standard to which others must compare. I would classify possible file corruption as a major problem, not a side issue. I do tests with FD just to test basic compatibility, but don't really trust it 100%. The FD utilities, as a rule, are more useful to me than the kernel. Some of the FD utilities are just as good or even better better than their MS counterparts, while others are not. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the minimum standard to which others must compare. I would classify possible file corruption as a major problem, not a side issue. You do always load its SHARE though, right? Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
You do always load its SHARE though, right? No, not by default. According to the official documentation (e.g., the MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or multi-tasking environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
No, not by default. According to the official documentation (e.g., the MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or multi-tasking environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation. Then the particular problem in question is generally not a reason to prefer MS-DOS, because whenever you do not load their respective SHARE extensions then both the MS-DOS and the FreeDOS kernel are /designed/ to allow possible file corruption in this and more cases (which by the way I would agree to classify as a major problem, not a side issue). Or in other words, the official documentation is bad. Unsurprisingly so. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de wrote: In very rare cases only, though. Irrelevant. Maybe to you and me, but most developers seem to weigh the issue with how much time and effort vs. how important it is. To them, it makes perfect sense to ignore things that don't bother them personally or that most people won't encounter. While that's not a great attitude for a perfectionist, it's probably fine for people with lots of other (boring) things to do. Admittedly nobody wants corruption, but I don't think most people rely on deleting open files (except POSIX, so it's probably only a problem when porting GNU stuff to DJGPP). Inaccurate. RBIL's notes seldom refer to programs that target POSIX. My point is that I'm not aware of any experienced DOS developer trying to delete an open file. It's kinda obviously a bad idea. So I don't think it's a widespread problem. The only example I could think of would be hidden-behind-the-scenes assumptions when porting from POSIX (which has accidentally bit a few ports before). N.B. I personally consider it a bad idea to use such (unnecessary?) POSIX assumptions, esp. when GNU code is used in other environments, but some developers feel otherwise. practically nobody (or not enough) has encountered this bug Over-abundant usage of quotation marks. Can you think of (or preferably cite) anybody having run into this before? For FreeDOS? In recent years? In any big projects? I can't. Hence nobody. But since my experience is not all-exhaustive, I tried to make it obvious that it could have happened. But it's still somewhat unlikely (from my admittedly limited perspective). Otherwise it would've been fixed (or at least whined about ad nauseum). frequently enough to care to even whine, much less fix it themselves, so far. Obviously I'm in favor of fixing it (esp. in lieu of just using Linux), but I'm not a kernel dev. Yeah, right now am uninterested in putting effort into GPLed C code. Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update and share freely. While you and I may prefer BSD-ish licenses for various reasons (esp. since if a developer hates the GPL, they won't contribute at all, which seemingly defeats the point), the majority of enthusiasts by far prefer and use GPLv2, esp. here in FreeDOS (hi, Jim!). GPL isn't bad, per se, just annoying, too long, and I'm tired of reading endless arguments about its finer points (just code, damn it, screw the license, who cares? just make it public, free for all, it's not munitions, for freak's sake, lighten up, blah). -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Bret Johnson bretj...@juno.com wrote: So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either. FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the minimum standard to which others must compare. I disagree. While I've used MS-DOS in the past (and it's by far the most popular DOS), it's not the best overall except in rare cases. Same with other DOSes. We could probably have interesting discussions about the pros and cons (lacks, bugs, improvements) of MS vs. DR vs. FD, etc., but for now I'll avoid that. (Where is Matthias Paul when you need him? Heh.) While lots more software was tested with MS in the past, *to me personally*, there are few reasons to want MS-DOS specifically, if at all, so I don't miss it. Since FreeDOS is open (and MS-DOS is harder to buy these days), I think a better goal would be using and improving that. (And DOSBox gets more commercial use than any, e.g. lots of old Gog.com games.) However, for a developer or tester, dual booting (MetaKern?) is probably the ultimate solution for everything. Then again, as far as that goes, MS is far inferior to DR, which is far inferior to FD due to partition installation handling (which was one of the reasons I ended up having to use DR on my old P166 and also why I didn't bother re-installing that but instead prefer FD on this Core i5). I would classify possible file corruption as a major problem, not a side issue. Sure, if it was 50%, but we're talking like %0.02 (or maybe 5%, I don't honestly know, but it can't be that high ... feel free to prove otherwise though). In all seriousness, real mode and FAT aren't meant for high security. Bad things are always possible (even in Linux or Windows, you can still hang or crash the machine by accident). Things could always be better, but if you're that serious, start writing a pmode ext2 Linux fs driver for FD. :-)) I do tests with FD just to test basic compatibility, but don't really trust it 100%. I don't trust anything 100%, mainly because no software is totally trustworthy. There are a lot of DOSes (and compatible environments) for a lot of reasons, and similar to hundreds of Linux distros, we're not likely to convince everyone to *exclusively* run native, under VBox, VMware, Win9x, etc. any time soon. So there will always be environmental issues in software beyond just the kernel proper. I get it, MS' kernel is pretty good, but it's far from perfect, and it's far from ideal in getting a copy (most people just use old ones from years past). FD isn't perfect but is very very very good, thanks to the hard work of a lot of people (hi, Eric!). The FD utilities, as a rule, are more useful to me than the kernel. Some of the FD utilities are just as good or even better better than their MS counterparts, while others are not. All software has bugs, just some are more obvious and painful than others. Seriously, I know it's heavy cliche and exhausting, but if you have any complaints, start coding, patches accepted! That's the only way to make progress. (I'm honestly not against binary patching either.) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de wrote: Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update and share freely. ... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also does not necessitate that language choice, actually. I'm aware of pragmatic reasoning for both though, you merely didn't make it explicit here. Originally it was PD-DOS, but they quickly changed that. I can only blindly guess why since I wasn't personally involved back then. GPLv2 has (by far) the most developers among open source-ish licenses, so you have to go with the flow if you want their help. GPL isn't bad, per se, just annoying, too long, and I'm tired of reading endless arguments about its finer points (just code, damn it, screw the license, who cares? just make it public, free for all, it's not munitions, for freak's sake, lighten up, blah). This is not at all how I would criticise the GPL, any variant. It's only my opinion, so I obviously don't expect you to mirror it. It's amusing, actually. I /should/ prefer copyleft. I'm aware of the involved trade-off, regarding (conceptually intended) individual and collective freedoms, or that is, (more directly) freedoms as experienced by a specific recipient against freedoms associated with a specific text. Copyleft appears very much like an ingenious compromise that I should appreciate. And yet intuitively it just doesn't feel right. I've not yet found anyone who could convince me to overcome that. I find it results in much wasting of time and ends up with pointless arguing about legalities instead of more code patches. (For that reason, I probably won't be endlessly discussing this here.) It would probably be easier just to let everyone focus on actual goals, but that's apparently impossible in some cases. GPL neither solves all problems nor avoids them all either (and wasn't meant to, either). You can't please everyone. Easier just to do your own thing, not take things too seriously, cooperate when possible, etc. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
While you and I may prefer BSD-ish licenses for various reasons (esp. since if a developer hates the GPL, they won't contribute at all, which seemingly defeats the point), the majority of enthusiasts by far prefer and use GPLv2, esp. here in FreeDOS (hi, Jim!). GPL isn't bad, per se, just annoying, too long, and I'm tired of reading endless arguments about its finer points (just code, damn it, screw the license, who cares? just make it public, free for all, it's not munitions, for freak's sake, lighten up, blah). I'll just add that I do prefer the GNU GPL because it suits my needs. It's established, and easy to apply to my programs. Others may prefer different licenses, and that's fine. The BSD is a good license, I just don't prefer it for my own work. Same with the MIT license, or Artistic license. Go with what you are comfortable with. I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it. Avoid licenses that limit the freedom of users, including licenses that look free but exclude certain classes of users (May not be used by the military or For non-commercial use only.) For example, the Caldera's DR-DOS/OpenDOS open license is an example of a license that does nothing to preserve freedom. Caldera had no interest in allowing others to contribute. Their license was basically look, but do not touch. I do not like this license. http://www.freedos.org/technotes/press/opendos.txt Having different licenses is a good thing, in that developers can choose a license that suits their needs. However, these different licenses does make it a bit difficult to share code between projects, if they have different licenses. That's another reason why I prefer to contribute only to programs under the GNU GPL, so I can easily re-use code from one project to help out another. As far as the version of the GNU GPL, I happen to prefer version 2 for DOS programs because I think version 2 applies well to statically-linked programs (typical in DOS.) -jh -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi again, On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote: How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS, DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully compatible with (all other) DOS variations? IIRC, we don't have an app compatibility database a la WINE, so it's hard to say. I'd blindly guess FreeDOS works with 90% of DOS software, but it's impossible to tell with thousands of apps, esp. since I obviously can't test them all. Just for perspective ... Many apps that used to run on Win16 or Win9x don't run anymore on modern Windows. And obviously the reverse is true: most people don't target older than Win2k anymore, if even. I think latest MSVC 2k10 or whatever won't target older than XP SP3 [sic]. Also, I heard Vista originally didn't itself run MSVC 2k5, but I don't know if they ever fixed it. And of course Win7's optional XP Mode wouldn't be necessary if there were no regressions (sad, really). Linux (esp. Android) is also slightly problematic, but maybe moreso due to drivers than otherwise. kernel.org shows ten (!) different versions, though two are EOL'd, with oldest being 2.6.27.62 and newest being 3.5-rc5. It's hard to get people to make drastic upgrades, esp. without heavy testing. Even Mac OS X isn't immune, and (IMO) is probably one of the worst regarding broken compatibility. Latest versions (10.6 on up?) don't support PPC, and I'm not sure 68k emulation works anymore either. Not to mention that Chrome (web browser) is dropping 10.5 support soon, maybe Firefox too. Annoying (to me personally, and I don't even have a Mac). So nothing's perfect. I imagine this is why source code portability (standards) and things like Java / JVM are still popular. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Karen Lewellen klewel...@shellworld.net wrote: Actually given Microsoft restored a dos structure to what was it, windows 7? some of those utilities may be even more current. Just my take, Karen I'm not sure what this means. I (sadly) don't have any machines with 32-bit Windows anymore, esp. since I run DOS in various other ways, but the only DOS [sic] apps that still ship with 32-bit Windows that I can recall are: edit (circa 1995), debug and edlin (circa 1991). I don't know how else to say it: Windows is crap for DOS compatibility. Even XP was barely usable, but it was still far better than what we have nowadays. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi! don't know how else to say it: Windows is crap for DOS compatibility. Thats about the only way to say it :) Vista dropped support for fullscreen mode, and I can't imagine support has improved in Windows 7. but the only DOS [sic] apps that still ship with 32-bit Windows that I can recall are: edit (circa 1995), debug and edlin (circa 1991). I IIRC NT 4.0 included some DOS 5.0 utilities and programs (including edit, debug, etc). Actually, sometime after this, microsoft created a new version of edit that doesn't require qbasic. As far as I know, these are still shipped with 32-bit windows, minus qbasic for some reason. Jeffrey -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote: How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS, DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully compatible with (all other) DOS variations? There are a lot of DOSes and compatibles, believe it or not. All have quirks and bugs, non-exclusively, sometimes due to undocumented (or broken) quirks. Why, did you want a specific list of examples of such behavior? FreeDOS is free/libre with sources, unlike most, so at least the opportunity to fix or improve it is there (despite few volunteers). I don't want to overhype it, but it does work very very well (IMHO) as is, even discounting that obvious advantage. IIRC, we don't have an app compatibility database a la WINE, so it's hard to say. I'd blindly guess FreeDOS works with 90% of DOS software, but it's impossible to tell with thousands of apps, esp. since I obviously can't test them all. If you have a specific need or something that doesn't work, post to the list, and maybe?? somebody will help you fix or workaround it. (Or do as Tom suggests: just use Linux, heheheh). :-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeffrey ellsn...@aol.com wrote: IIRC NT 4.0 included some DOS 5.0 utilities and programs (including edit, debug, etc). Actually, sometime after this, microsoft created a new version of edit that doesn't require qbasic. The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see that finally changed. As far as I know, these are still shipped with 32-bit windows, minus qbasic for some reason. The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* with qbasic on 32bit Windows? MS was already shifting to embedding Visual Basic for Applications as the macro language in Word, Excel and the like, and if you wanted to program in BASIC for Windows, you bought Visual BASIC. Jeffrey __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see that finally changed. Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit? The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* with qbasic on 32bit Windows? Yes, I'm just surprised they actually took the trouble to get rid of it Jeffrey -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
El 03/07/2012 03:45 p.m., Jeffrey escribió: Hi, The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see that finally changed. Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit? The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* with qbasic on 32bit Windows? Yes, I'm just surprised they actually took the trouble to get rid of it Jeffrey I was a qbasic fan. Is a great language. Freedos has a lot of interpreters and compilers available, but none has that great IDE. -- -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marco A. Achury -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Jul 3, 2012 7:16 PM, Jeffrey ellsn...@aol.com wrote: The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see that finally changed. Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit? 1). In FreeDOS? No. :-) 2). Compile a .BAT? There are third-party utils but none really good (IMO). 3). What, run QBASIC /EDIT manually?? 4). IIRC, QB was still on the Win95 CD under OLDOS, and (assuming you already had a license) is also still on their FTP. The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* with qbasic on 32bit Windows? Yes, I'm just surprised they actually took the trouble to get rid of it To be honest, you do the same with it that you always did. I never understood that move, esp. Since 16-bit was supported so transparently. Anyways, things change I suppose, just not always for the better. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi, On Jul 3, 2012 7:27 PM, Marco Achury marcoach...@gmail.com wrote: I was a qbasic fan. Is a great language. Freedos has a lot of interpreters and compilers available, but none has that great IDE. I'm no heavy user of IDEs and similar complicated stuff, but I think we have plenty of options. If you're only talking bundled editor and/or debugger, I understand, but still lots of DOS tools still exist, even free/libre for FreeDOS. Off the top of my head, here's some: * XST BASIC * Regina REXX (THE) * FreePascal (FP.EXE) * RHIDE / RHGDB * Euphoria (ed??) I guess it depends on what you need, expect, are used to, etc. etc. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS, DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully compatible with (all other) DOS variations? regards, martin -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Hi! How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS, DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully compatible with (all other) DOS variations? FreeDOS is generally quite compatible, and runs better on modern hardware than e.g. MS DOS (where the newest version is 18 years old by now)... It also supports FAT32 and there are drivers for long file names, so it is similar to Win9x DOS in that sense but of course it is not meant for running Windows programs. You can run some (even graphical) Windows programs with the HXRT extender under DOS, though. Also, while Windows 3.0 and 3.1 work okay, it is possible that 386enh mode and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 do not run well in FreeDOS. Note that they also do not work if you have too much RAM anyway. Even with special config tricks, you have to hide RAM beyond 1 GB from Windows... Some very low-level DOS drivers might also give problems. Recently there was a thread about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS but for example software and drivers for modern hardware (USB stuff, HDA / AC97 media player) might be even more tested and compatible with FreeDOS than with older DOS versions :-) As said, as far as everyday use and software are concerned, they should run equally well on all DOS variants and you can most of the time use drivers and tools from mixed versions together to get a best of all worlds system if you have licenses for all used DOS versions :-) I think drivers used in the FreeDOS world often need only little DOS RAM and are often more modern than what you may be used to from MSDOS. Regards, Eric -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I strongly suggest you do your own research here. for example there is a ms dos package 7.1 which is augmented with dos utilities from 2003 and 2005, far more current than 18 years ago. Of course enhanced Dr does is maintained regularly. As someone who uses dos exclusively, I can tell you that it pays to hunt for what you desire. Actually given Microsoft restored a dos structure to what was it, windows 7? some of those utilities may be even more current. Just my take, Karen On Sun, 1 Jul 2012, Eric Auer wrote: Hi! How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS, DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully compatible with (all other) DOS variations? FreeDOS is generally quite compatible, and runs better on modern hardware than e.g. MS DOS (where the newest version is 18 years old by now)... It also supports FAT32 and there are drivers for long file names, so it is similar to Win9x DOS in that sense but of course it is not meant for running Windows programs. You can run some (even graphical) Windows programs with the HXRT extender under DOS, though. Also, while Windows 3.0 and 3.1 work okay, it is possible that 386enh mode and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 do not run well in FreeDOS. Note that they also do not work if you have too much RAM anyway. Even with special config tricks, you have to hide RAM beyond 1 GB from Windows... Some very low-level DOS drivers might also give problems. Recently there was a thread about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS but for example software and drivers for modern hardware (USB stuff, HDA / AC97 media player) might be even more tested and compatible with FreeDOS than with older DOS versions :-) As said, as far as everyday use and software are concerned, they should run equally well on all DOS variants and you can most of the time use drivers and tools from mixed versions together to get a best of all worlds system if you have licenses for all used DOS versions :-) I think drivers used in the FreeDOS world often need only little DOS RAM and are often more modern than what you may be used to from MSDOS. Regards, Eric -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Recently there was a thread about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS ... where this not as good support apparently amounts to may corrupt your file system when concurrent write access occurs. This, naturally, is expected for MS-DOS-lacking-SHARE semantics; with the FreeDOS kernel though, there seems to be some missing functionality even with its SHARE loaded! [I just created and ran a particular test on the latest kernel release (build 2041 compiled 2012-02-07) with the latest SHARE (2005-09-14) loaded and it reproducibly causes clusters to be lost. I believe that more serious file system corruption is possible as well.] Concurrent file (write) access is often incorrectly conflated with networking, but can in fact occur even on a single-tasking single user system that doesn't run anything network-related. (For historical reasons, most typical DOS programs try to avoid accessing files in a way that would expose such problems, of course.) Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
