Hi Jim,
my argument was not that search engines should help us
to advertise specific apps. My point is that it should
be possible to find anything on ibiblio. If I google
freedos kernel 2042 i386 and google returns a HTML of
the LSM which in turn points me to 5fc559f6.zip this
would still help
> On May 2, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:13 PM Eric Auer wrote:
>>
>> Dos compatible filenames are irrelevant for URL, just give
>> the file ANY name you like after downloading the file, it
>> is better to have search-friendly URL which contain both
>> name
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:13 PM Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Dos compatible filenames are irrelevant for URL, just give
> the file ANY name you like after downloading the file, it
> is better to have search-friendly URL which contain both
> name and version. Something like krn386x.zip is ridiculous
> for
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 21:13, Wilhelm Spiegl wrote:
>>
>> hi jim,
>> i think you should feel free to rename filenames to a unique system e.g.
>> program_-mm--dd -at least within a single command. creating
>> subdirectories is nice but not absolutely necessary if the user knows that
>>
On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 21:13, Wilhelm Spiegl wrote:
>
> hi jim,
> i think you should feel free to rename filenames to a unique system e.g.
> program_-mm--dd -at least within a single command. creating
> subdirectories is nice but not absolutely necessary if the user knows that
> the latest
> I might have an opportunity to
> try next weekend - this week is very full with work projects.
as for any one else here.
> In the
> meantime, would anyone else like to compile this and help test it?
even if anyone else could compile this: how exactly would you test
this?
although
a) I'm
Interesting! I didn't realize that kernel development was still
active. We should share this update with the freedos-devel email list
(I'm cc'ing the email list). Good news for developers, so we shouldn't
try to keep this conversation "off list." :-)
I grabbed the source zipball from the link you
Hi Jim,
>> Maybe you would find some volunteers to assist you, *if* you ask.
>>
>
> I think we first need to agree what the file and directory layout
> should be, or we'll have a "bunch of cooks" each doing their own
> thing, and we'll be in the same situation.
Sure! :-)
> Still trying to
Hi Jim,
>> solution, 2.01, 2.02, 2.11, 2.20. if necessary 2.02.01 for minor updates or:
>> 2-01, 2-02, 2-11, 2-20, 2-02-01. but of course this will run out of 8.3.
>> compared with checking and changing thousands of htm help files renaming is
>> a five minutes job.
>>
>
> Using "2.02.01" is an
