Hi Johnson,
And adding complex filesystems such as ext2, ext3, or ntfs to the
FreeDOS kernel will certainly not make it smaller, probably more like
100% bigger. So you need a driver indeed, and some exist, but that
won't enable booting.
Is it able to let DOS call external support driver
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:53:26 +, you wrote:
Hi BAHCL,
Recently, I compiled the 2036 kernel and copied to a hard disk but found it was
a FAT16 kernel in a FAT32 partition, I ought to be more careful, but it is a
pitfall.
Can DOS in the future boots into the linux ext3?
I think it's a TRAP
On 10/29/07, Johnson Lam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:53:26 +, you wrote:
Hi BAHCL,
Recently, I compiled the 2036 kernel and copied to a hard disk but found it
was
a FAT16 kernel in a FAT32 partition, I ought to be more careful, but it is a
pitfall.
Can DOS in the
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:52:20 +1300, you wrote:
Hi,
And adding complex filesystems such as ext2, ext3, or ntfs to the
FreeDOS kernel will certainly not make it smaller, probably more like
100% bigger. So you need a driver indeed, and some exist, but that
won't enable booting.
Is it able to let
Hello,
I am tired of the variation of FAT12,16,32,32LBA,... file system.
Recently, I compiled the 2036 kernel and copied to a hard disk but found it was
a FAT16 kernel in a FAT32 partition, I ought to be more careful, but it is a
pitfall.
Can DOS in the future boots into the linux ext3?
BAHCL
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Bart Oldeman wrote:
Indeed, the majority of past FreeDOS developers aren't very active. I
might (help) try to get a new kernel release out of the door when I
have time but that's all I can promise. But that's just collecting bug
fixes and basic maintenance work.
We've
Pat,
Interestingly enough, a lot of responses seem not care about new
development.
That's not true.
There's a big difference between 'no new API' and 'no new
developement'
In fact one of the biggest improvement to DOS - which is useful to ANY
user - is completely new (if you count 2003 as
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:45:33 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Pat,
Interestingly enough, a lot of responses seem not care about new
development. Some even go as far as saying that whatever we have for
dos extenders, memory managers, etc., is good enough. Does this mean
I don't think so.
I can only say
Hi Johnson,
IMO, a smaller, solid and flexable kernel is highest priority.
Our kernel is only ca 40 kilobytes on disk, which is quite small.
Kernel grows bigger each release, but the compatibility with MS-DOS
still not finished, the syntax in CONFIG SYS still have a big diff
Agreed, the
Our kernel is only ca 40 kilobytes on disk, which is quite small.
Kernel grows bigger each release, but the compatibility with MS-DOS
still not finished, the syntax in CONFIG SYS still have a big diff
Agreed, the config sys syntax differs considerably.
yes. And unless someone sits down and
: Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:46 AM
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] A Poll of sorts
Interestingly enough, a lot of responses seem not care about new
development. Some even go as far as saying that whatever we have for
dos extenders, memory managers, etc., is good
On 10/26/07, Johnson Lam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, a smaller, solid and flexable kernel is highest priority.
stability is most important of course.
Kernel grows bigger each release
??? Where have you been? Any numbers to back it up? Or were you
looking at the sizes of the source .zips,
On 10/25/07, Pat Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interestingly enough, a lot of responses seem not care about new
development. Some even go as far as saying that whatever we have for
dos extenders, memory managers, etc., is good enough. Does this mean
that there is no new development
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat
Villani
Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:46 AM
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] A Poll of sorts
Interestingly enough, a lot of responses seem not care about new
development. Some even go as far as saying that whatever we have
So far, suggestions seem to be:
1. New device drivers to support new audio subsystems, disks, buses, etc..
2. Network device drivers
3. A built-in network TCP/IP stack.
4. DOS on other platforms with no change(?). I'm not sure if this means
strict real mode execution on ia32 and x86_64, and
Pat Villani wrote:
There seems to be no concern for multi processor/multi core platforms,
power management, among other things. Any other comments/suggestions?
Enhanced ACPI support for FDAPM would be very nice for laptop users like
me. For Windows there's http://www.pbus-167.com/ or
Hi Pat,
3. A built-in network TCP/IP stack.
I would not build it into the kernel, but making Wattcp sort of
modular, with a resident part, would be useful. For example it
would avoid the do DHCP handshake again for each app thing.
real mode execution on ia32 and x86_64, and emulation on
Hola...
I want to add multitasking - like in Dr-DOS. Also if only few programs
are using the API, it is very cool to switch between tasks without
Linux/Windows :-)
There seems to be no concern for multi processor/multi core platforms,
Yes, would be very cool too.
power management, among
.
Původní zpráva
Od: Florian Xaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Předmět: Re: [Freedos-devel] A Poll of sorts
Datum: 23.10.2007 12:35:01
Hola...
I want to add multitasking - like in Dr-DOS. Also if only few programs
are using the API, it is very
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 23:50 +0200, Eric Auer wrote:
Hi Paul,
SMB/CIFS client would be very nice, it would be nice if it also
provided some sort of standard TCP/IP implementation as well ...
The other way round - you need TCP/IP to have a network file system
client like SMB/CIFS. And
Thanks all for taking FreeDOS to where it is. Since the time when
personal commitments no longer allowed me the luxury to contribute, this
team has taken FreeDOS forward and met the project's goal. We now have
a stable MS-DOS replacement that is open source and supported. I thank
you for your
Eric Auer wrote:
PPS: Maybe drivers for certain VM properties would be nice, too?
Many people use VMWare, Virtual PC, Bochs, Qemu, ... for DOS now.
For most VMs we already have drivers, because VMs emulate very common
hardware. I really miss an open-source SMB/CIFS client to connect to
Windows
Hi Pat,
If you folks were to extend the DOS API, in which direction would you
take it?
none at all
Would you go with POSIX/UNIX/Linux, win32 or simply provide
the same API with extensions for modern functionality and platforms?
the same good old API.
The reason is quite simple: virtually
If you folks were to extend the DOS API, in which direction would you
take it? Would you go with POSIX/UNIX/Linux, win32 or simply provide
the same API with extensions for modern functionality and platforms? Of
course, none of this is new. I'm just curious as to what the dyed in
the wool
24 matches
Mail list logo
