Due to the serious nature of the recent bug reports for the latest
testing release, I would like to release one more testing release (at
least) that would hopefully fix the users' problems. (Probably coming
out tomorrow). I've implemented free disk space checking in the
installer and I may
:
: Thanks for the feedback, John, I'll see into this the soonest.
This one:
: - Something horrible happens to the first codepage loaded the second time
: it is selected.
looks like it's caused by MoveBufferToSelect copying twice as many bytes
as it should. The real-memory move copies
I believe that you are doing the right thing. A stable 1.0 is *very*
important, just in my opinion, of course ;-)
Alain
Blair Campbell escreveu:
Due to the serious nature of the recent bug reports for the latest
testing release, I would like to release one more testing release (at
least)
Alain M. schreef:
I believe that you are doing the right thing. A stable 1.0 is *very*
important, just in my opinion, of course ;-)
A stable 1.0 is appreciated, for how the public judges on FreeDOS. For
other people it however counts as hey now we got a stable base platform
we can extend
By now, you are all just wandering what happened to defrag version 1.
Well, I am working on defrag.
There will be two versions out shortly.
One will be the version 1, stable. Same speed, no FAT support. A rather flat in
your face screen problem with large disks will be fixed in this release
At 12:08 AM 8/1/2006 -0700, Blair Campbell wrote:
Due to the serious nature of the recent bug reports for the latest
testing release, I would like to release one more testing release (at
least) that would hopefully fix the users' problems. (Probably coming
out tomorrow).
Tangentially related,
Hi!
31-Июл-2006 17:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Imre Leber) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
IL But still it would have been nice to have this kind of compiler when I was
IL searching for one before I started writing on FreeDOS. I think this compiler
IL might even be better than the one I
Hi!
31-Июл-2006 15:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alain M.) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
The problem may then be that openwatcom is not GPL licensed. And it is still
controlled by a big company that would most likely not want to listen to
issues from the FreeDOS project.
AM In my
GPL also free for _any_ use (binaries). And, for example, you may
compile commercial apps by GCC.
BUT IIRC if you compile commercial apps with GCC and don't want to
make source available, you have to dynamically link (not possible
under DOS except with DJGPP)
Hi!
30-Июл-2006 22:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
0. In emm386.c you forget remove one space (in / *).
MD And? It's a comment. Is there another one of those #ifdef 0 type
MD things? Because I'm not ready to debate the style of embedded
Alain M. wrote:
Arkady V.Belousov escreveu:
GPL also free for _any_ use (binaries). And, for example, you may
compile commercial apps by GCC.
That is what the comercial says. the hard reality is that you have
problems with the lib which cannot be used, with GCC you have worse
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that
case; only dynamically.
Mark
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Mark Bailey escreveu:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
There is nowhere to be seen any licence for glibc, not even in it's
site. But even in LGPL it is a problem: you have to use the systems's
version and it brings many compatibility problems
Alain
Blair Campbell wrote:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that
case; only dynamically.
Specifically, the GNU LGPL says this in its preamble:
For example, [..] If you link other code
At 01:02 AM 8/2/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Though, I don't understand, why to AVB duplicate all pops on each exit
branch, whereas you may just move push move _pushf_ AVB after
other pushes?
Because it was not prone to any introduced error that way. Many pushes in
many
Alain M. wrote:
Mark Bailey escreveu:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
There is nowhere to be seen any licence for glibc, not even in it's
site. But even in LGPL it is a problem: you have to use the systems's
version and it brings many
16 matches
Mail list logo
