Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base operating system. All these extra drivers for this, a compiler for that can just be on the CD and can be installed later. Jerome, if you could find a copy

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, Exactly. If you want networking, install it afterwards. The same for sound, the myriad of development choices and memory managers. Despite wanting to emulate DOS, it seems FreeDOS more closely emulates a Linux distribution from the verbose initial boot to the "package" selection. On Tue, Jan

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: >> Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and >> IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base >> operating system. > I second that. But it would seem we are isolated in this opinion, since > I see

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2

Excerpts from Eric Auer: > if Mateusz' repository has "500 MB of packages", then that > would make a good choice for ALL as far as I am concerned: > It easily fits on a CD and you get plenty of DOS stuff :-) > Also, it should fit on most USB sticks as well. Maybe you > could make a list of

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI USB stick

Is there an ISO yet of FDI/FD 1.2preX? Forgot that M6805 has a broken BIOS wrt to USB boot. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: > > Hello Eric and all, > > > > A little more

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI USB stick

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: > Hello Eric and all, > > A little more follow up on the USB stick test. > > The same user who was testing, per my suggestion ran it in advanced mode to > override > the automatic D: drive as the install target. He

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Rugxulo wrote: > The EXE2BIN in "BASE" is literally from OpenWatcom 1.5. And I have no > idea what you would do with it (or a linker) without some kind of > compiler. So I think that's a bad idea, even if MS used to do it. I've > said this before, but apparently nobody agrees

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI, updated

I'd like to make a minor suggestion here. When packaging up USB image to a zip file, leave off directory path to the image. Thanks, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > I forgot something in the old (10 minute ago release). > So, i just put up

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI, updated

Ah, sorry. Didn't realize it was in there. Will do. Sent from my iPhone, ignore bad sentence structures, grammatical errors and incorrect spell-corrected words. > On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:53 AM, Louis Santillan wrote: > > I'd like to make a minor suggestion here. > > When

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS install and ALL to be a most likely wanted install. When I say minimum viable I mean: kernel, freecom, xcopy, deltree, move and a few other more or less absolutes. However, by my understanding of what Jim wants. BASE is

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS > install and ALL to be a most likely > wanted install. > > When I say minimum viable I mean: kernel, freecom, xcopy, deltree, move > and a few

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi Tom, Maarten, Jerome and Rugxulo, > > >> I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. > > > fine. we should look for a new boss with more time to care. > > Not THAT, permanently, busy - Jim is busy

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > > On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: > >> Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and > >> IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base > >> operating system.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC > was small but > > somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. > > > > > Sorry, but

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming and DEVELOPING. As it's devloper stuff I would leave it in "devel". It makes no sense to put a devloping part from developing to the basic system part. Leave it with his brothers (ASM and C). :) Maarten -Oorspronkelijk

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Since DOS 1.0, (IBM/ROM-)BASIC[0] & DEBUG[1] were the default programming facilities. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_BASIC [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug_(command) On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: > Hi, > > I should leave BWBASIC

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

+1 On 1/26/2016 2:54 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: Hi, I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming and DEVELOPING. As it's devloper stuff I would leave it in "devel". It makes no sense to put a devloping part from developing to the basic system part. Leave it with his

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Okay but do you mean you want it back in 'base' or is this just info? -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: "Louis Santillan" Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 21:02 Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." Onderwerp: Re:

[Freedos-devel] unzip problem

Hello!I am having a bit trouble unzipping the DFLAT source files dfp100s.zip. I downloaded the file and copied it to freedos via the floppy drive (I am using VirtualBox).Unzip complains that several files has a crc error. I am using the unzip program that came with freedos 1.1 and have tried

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

It's a way of saying I agree with what you said. On 1/26/2016 3:04 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: What's the meaning of "+1"?! Van: Mercury Thirteen Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 21:03 Aan:

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Oh yes! Of course... :/ -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: "Mercury Thirteen" Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 21:31 Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> > On 1/26/2016 2:54 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: > > Hi, > > I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming and > DEVELOPING. As it's devloper stuff I would leave it in "devel". It makes no > sense to put a devloping part from developing to the basic system part. > Leave it

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

At present, BASE is fairly close to the 1.1 BASE. Of course, it no longer includes XMGR and UIDE. this is the current ALL packages that are installed. Pull rdisk? Anything else? https://github.com/shidel/FDI/blob/master/SETTINGS/PKG_BASE.LST Please note, that FDI’s floppy boot image needs a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, For Maarten and Mercury, look into DOS versions prior to 5.0, they included DEBUG and (GW-)BASIC. That would complete the DOS experience... well that and some sample BASIC programs like GORILLA.BAS and having LINK.EXE along with EXE2BIN. -T On Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 4:06 PM Jerome E. Shidel Jr.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Jim Hall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > wrote: > >> Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS >> install and ALL to be a most likely >> wanted install. >> >> When I say minimum viable I mean:

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Louis Santillan wrote: > Since DOS 1.0, (IBM/ROM-)BASIC[0] & DEBUG[1] were the default programming > facilities. > > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_BASIC > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug_(command) I personally consider BASIC optional. Also, DEBUG was

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 12:04 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: What's the meaning of "+1"?! That is short for "I am one more person with the exact same opinion/point of view"... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Jerome, Jim et al, In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had the feature and we have something to provide the same feature, then we should make it part of a BASE install. This includes DEBUG, EDIT,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hello all, > On Jan 26, 2016, at 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, Jim et al, > > In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to > interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had > the feature and we have something to

[Freedos-devel] FDI USB stick

Hello Eric and all, A little more follow up on the USB stick test. The same user who was testing, per my suggestion ran it in advanced mode to override the automatic D: drive as the install target. He said the install ran flawlessly when he set it to C:\FDOS. He did say that he had an issue

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > >> On 1/26/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: >> ... >> >> Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The >> list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in >> older

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: ... Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in older FreeDOS distros when people selected "ALL". Unless things got dropped from Mateusz' repository, I would keep

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Jerome, if Mateusz' repository has "500 MB of packages", then that would make a good choice for ALL as far as I am concerned: It easily fits on a CD and you get plenty of DOS stuff :-) Also, it should fit on most USB sticks as well. Maybe you could make a list of the LARGEST packages in the

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 7:07 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: Yes, there are many more packages on his repo. But, I don't think Jim wants everything on his repo to be installed when the user selects ALL. His repo contains about 500mb of zip files. The current USB stick image that only contained packages for BASE

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI USB stick

I downloaded it last night. I have an MSI Wind U100 (Atom N2700, 2GB DDR2, 120GB SATA) [0] and an eMachines M6805 (AMD Athlon 64 3000+ DTR, 512MB PC2700, 4GB IDE) [1] I can test with when I get home tonight. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSI_Wind_Netbook [1]

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > > For Maarten and Mercury, look into DOS versions prior to 5.0, they included > DEBUG and (GW-)BASIC. DEBUG is sometimes useful but only rarely (at least outside of actually debugging separately-assembled

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > Yes, if it replicated original MS-DOS functionality, it should be in Base. > This includes programs like APPEND, ASSIGN, ATTRIB, CHKDSK, … UNDELETE, > UNFORMAT, XCOPY, … etc. A lot of things nobody will ever use (e.g.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: > >> devel\fpc > > Only 2.6.4. 3.0.0 requires LFN or an extensive port. No, it doesn't need LFNs for the bare minimum cmdline compiler (no IDE). I'm not even sure the IDE needs LFN, only some rare third-party units

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: > Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and > IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base > operating system. I second that. But it would seem we are isolated in this opinion, since I see all the