After installing 150MB of software - a /vast/ amount for DOS! - I got
a bare C:\ prompt at the end.
No version message, no free-memory display, no Welcome, thanks for
trying FreeDOS! message, nothing. Blank screen, C prompt. That is
about as friendly as a kick in the nuts.
Given that OpenGEM was
Next I went looking through the config files.
Here I found the first problem.
There is a tool called blackout called repeatedly. I tried
HELP BLACKOUT
- not known.
I tried
BLACKOUT
- hung the PC. Ctrl-C didn't work, not Esc, not Ctrl-Break. Nothing quit it.
Reboot.
Try:
BLACKOUT /?
I found it very interesting to install DOS onto a PC from CD-ROM -
this is something I've not done since Caldera gave me the sources for
DR-DOS 7.02 on CD-ROM!
I found the setup process a bit fraught, though. It seemed to me to be
far more complex than it needed to be.
For one thing, it seems to
(Odd, in my day, DOS apps generally didn't have dependencies!)
Examples ??? AFAIK the only one is CWSDPMI (blame DGJPP, not FreeDOS ...)
[1] I suggest removing the different memory configs as they will confuse
novices
Agree, tuning EMS/UBM and legacy crap depending on such should be
No version message, no free-memory display, no Welcome, thanks for
trying FreeDOS! message, nothing. Blank screen, C prompt. That is
about as friendly as a kick in the nuts.
Agree, there is space for improvements.
When I ran GEM, there were no links to any of this 150MB of programs.
Bad :-(
Hi!
3-Ноя-2006 07:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bernd Blaauw) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
IIRC there is a CVS client for DOS, but I might have to find it.
BB ftp://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2gnu
BB as stated on http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/showdoc.php?page=howto-cvs ?
Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Looks like this program is only for handling local CVS databases?
Yes. How about porting a newer CVS version to DJGPP + WATTCP for TCP
connections? ;-) see http://www.nongnu.org/cvs/
Robert Riebisch
--
BTTR Software
http://www.bttr-software.de/
On 11/2/06, Bernd Blaauw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blair Campbell schreef:
He meant the OpenWatcom package that is supplied with FreeDOS 1.0, but
I don't know what that has to do with config.bat
What I mean is that the kernel sources (if installed by FreeDOS 1.0.0)
use a file named
Hi!
11-Окт-2006 02:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bernd Blaauw) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
BB * SETUP.BAT batchfile, line 99, which tests if a file can be created on
BB C:\ , kinda needs a change. It relies on redirection and on
BB the /F parameter of the SHELL LINE in a config.sys
Hi!
11-Окт-2006 12:48 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
%comspec% /f /c copy nul c:\test.txt
EA This is probably because the FIRST shell does the redirection and
EA the second shell only does ECHO YES! Good point. And of course it
EA would be very good
Hi!
2-Ноя-2006 15:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to Arkady
V.Belousov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You can't write on non-FAT partitions, because such partitions
don't get drive letter.
EA cdrom drives have drive letters and are non-FAT, plus
But then they anyway formatted. :)
There
Hi!
2-Ноя-2006 18:41 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to Arkady
V.Belousov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EA cdrom drives have drive letters and are non-FAT, plus
But then they anyway formatted. :)
EA But no valid install targets.
This is another question.
Arkady V.Belousov schreef:
EA But no valid install targets.
This is another question.
FreeCOM does allow COPY NUL C:\TEST.TXT resulting in a 0 byte file.
Can't help it if MS COMMAND.COM doesn't allow it,
we're using FreeCOM anyway for installation purposes due to its added
On 11/2/06, Arkady V.Belousov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
2-Ноя-2006 19:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bernd Blaauw) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
BB Also I'm curious if installing OpenWatcom from FreeDOS 1.0 configures
BB the config.bat,
OW doesn't presents DOS installer. If
Blair Campbell schreef:
He meant the OpenWatcom package that is supplied with FreeDOS 1.0, but
I don't know what that has to do with config.bat
What I mean is that the kernel sources (if installed by FreeDOS 1.0.0)
use a file named config.bat to indicate compiler settings.
Also, FreeDOS
I have a (silly) question. A brand new installation of FreeDOS 1.0 is
supposed to emulate what version of MS-DOS?
The reason I ask this is because while comparing FreeDOS 1.0 and MS-DOS 6.22
side by side, I started looking for features and other system utilities. I
found that COMPINFO is the
Right now, my base install of FreeDOS 1.0 reminds me of a cross between
MS-DOS 3.3 and MS-DOS 5.0. I know there will probably be no equivalent to
MS-DOS Shell (courtesy of the Central Point Software UI) especially since
GEM is widely available.
Or oZone ;-))
Bye
Flo
--
Florian Xaver
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, TG wrote:
I have a (silly) question. A brand new installation of FreeDOS 1.0 is
supposed to emulate what version of MS-DOS?
As far as I know, 3.31.
Right now, my base install of FreeDOS 1.0 reminds me of a cross between
MS-DOS 3.3 and MS-DOS 5.0. I know there will
Hi Bernd,
Guys, where's the best place to put some feedback on the 1.0 ISO? tiny
bugreports and tiny enhancement ideas as well to an otherwise great
distro already.
* Bugzilla?
for real bugs ;-)
* Tech Wiki?
* Install Wiki?
you can add a note about misbehaving 1.0 things to the
Eric Auer escreveu:
you have to decide yourself whether things are interesting
for the list. sometimes it can be better to mail a few
people directly first, and only start using the list as
soon as things start being of public interest.
That has been an old source of disagreement between
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Alain M. wrote:
Eric Auer escreveu:
you have to decide yourself whether things are interesting
for the list. sometimes it can be better to mail a few
people directly first, and only start using the list as
soon as things start being of public interest.
That has been
PROTECTED]
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 bugreport place?
Hi Bernd,
Guys, where's the best place to put some feedback on the 1.0 ISO? tiny
bugreports and tiny enhancement ideas as well to an otherwise
You know, a small piece of code could be written to simply read the
partition table and check for FAT/FAT32 partitions instead of the
whole %comspec% /f thing...
The answer to this is two-fold...
First, things are not that simple. You can get drives
from various sources, and it can be
Guys, where's the best place to put some feedback on the 1.0 ISO? tiny
bugreports and tiny enhancement ideas as well to an otherwise great
distro already.
* Bugzilla?
* Tech Wiki?
* Install Wiki?
* Mailinglist?
* Privately mail Blair Campbell?
What I've so far found are:
* Are the exact
-
From: Bernd Blaauw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 bugreport place?
Guys, where's the best place to put some feedback on the 1.0 ISO? tiny
bugreports and tiny enhancement ideas as well
Hi all,
I created an initial version of a FreeDOS 1.0 install
howto, including a list of known problems and workarounds.
The text is partially based on the FreeDOS beta install
howto. Because the SF Wiki can be slow, I created a static
copy on my homepage:
Hi everybody,
I took the freedom to post the images available on ibiblio to the emule
content database at http://content.emule-project.net/view.php?pid=1519
so that more people learn about it and can download it within a
reasonable time (took me several hours to get the smallest iso from
I'm not sure how it's done, but I think you can also use ibiblio to host
torrents for any content already on they're servers. See:
http://torrent.ibiblio.org/
Andre Tertling wrote:
Hi everybody,
I took the freedom to post the images available on ibiblio to the emule
content database at
Just in case anyone is interested in the press coverage this is getting:
Heise Online was the first to post an article about us:
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/77674
I also sent out something of a press announcement to a variety of news
outlets, and I've contacted
Well, the first feature of FreeDOS mentioned in Slashdot is LFN
support... I hope it is not bringing much headaches ;-)
Aitor
2006/9/5, Jim Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just in case anyone is interested in the press coverage this is getting:
Heise Online was the first to post an article about us:
a:xcopy DIR test3 /d
where DIR is a directory
should create test3 without asking
PS: the 'single stepping' bug
singlestepping can be disabled (if it's not supported)
by replacing
CALL INSTALL
with
command /c install.bat
Tom
Hi!
24-Авг-2006 14:48 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
te a:xcopy DIR test3 /d
te where DIR is a directory
te should create test3 without asking
Who is maintainer of xcopy?
te PS: the 'single stepping' bug
te singlestepping can be disabled (if
Michael Devore escreveu:
Yeah, but if you release what is perceived by more than a few percentage of
users as a failed install or operation, FreeDOS could require significant
damage control. And give more credibility to a few vultures who will
over-hype FD problems for their own purposes,
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand,
that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0
software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But
Michael Devore wrote:
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand,
that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0
software doesn't have
At 02:01 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, Jim Hall wrote:
Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a
bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and
with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original
announcement of a month
Michael Devore escreveu:
Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door
today, and frankly I'd like more time than
Alain M. wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door
today, and frankly I'd
At 09:00 PM 8/18/2006 -0400, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
Alain M. wrote:
May I offer a suggestion: we can have
FreeDOS 1.0 alfa
FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1
FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2
That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test...
Boy, it seems like 1.0 is a perfection that no one can achieve
Hi!
26-Июл-2006 04:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
EA data. So echo hello foo,bat will write something
EA like to foo,bat like:
EA echo hello foo.bat [YES=Enter No=Esc] ?
---^
EA hello (also note the space after hello).
This
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
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
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,
Eric Auer schreef:
Hi all,
for extra fun, I traced through the installer batch
files in the new fdbasecd (1.0 preview 2 cdrom iso)
tonight... The new ISOLINUX 3.11 still did not like
me (hangs on boot), but I could again use the special
boot diskette... The cdrom driver liked my dvd drive
Hi all,
for extra fun, I traced through the installer batch
files in the new fdbasecd (1.0 preview 2 cdrom iso)
tonight... The new ISOLINUX 3.11 still did not like
me (hangs on boot), but I could again use the special
boot diskette... The cdrom driver liked my dvd drive
better this time, no crc
Another thing when running FreeDOS in a VM is the CPU usage of the host
machine. It will be go to 100% and the CPU fan will start. I use always
the FDAPM with the parameter APMDOS so the HLT command is used (I think
it's the instruction). With this, the host CPU is about 4% usage on my
1GHz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
AB Most emulators / virtualizer are now close to 1 (as of QEMU and VMware).
AB There is no real / perfect solution to have a precise clock in a VM.
AB This is because it would have a big performance penalty.
Let me
Hi!
21-Июл-2006 18:43 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Bollhalder) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
AB There is no real / perfect solution to have a precise clock in a VM.
AB This is because it would have a big performance penalty.
Let me doubt in this - for example, for DOS
Hi!
19-Июл-2006 17:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Bollhalder) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
AB for two days and I had to read about 70 mail... I personally use QEMU
AB and VMware Server for testing purposes and timers often run too fast. I
AB remember that I saw this effect in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As I can tell from my experince, the factor depends a lot from the host
speed and emulation / virtualisation software. I saw speed differences
from about a bit faster ( 1.0) up to 10 times.
Most emulators / virtualizer are now close to 1 (as of QEMU
Hi!
20-Июл-2006 18:43 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Bollhalder) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
Does this mean, that when you run some program, which shows clock (for
example, Norton and Volcov Commander may show clock), then this clock is too
fast? And how it fast - 1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok, first sorry about the unneeded info. I couldn't check my emails
for two days and I had to read about 70 mail... I personally use QEMU
and VMware Server for testing purposes and timers often run too fast. I
remember that I saw this effect in Bochs
I feel very strongly that we must not have timeouts on the options when
you first boot. Eric gives a good example - it happened to me. I was
at work when I was testing the new CDROM (on Parallels on my iMac) and
happened to get a phone call. When I looked back at my session, I had
gotten an
At 12:41 PM 7/17/2006 -0700, Blair Campbell wrote:
The only two timeouts are the first timeout which defaults to boot
from the hard drive rather than the CD-ROM (nothing wrong with that
IMHO), and the second just boots defaultly into installation mode,
which is what most people will be after.
I,
Hi!
17-Июл-2006 19:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blair Campbell) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
The only two timeouts are the first timeout which defaults to boot
from the hard drive rather than the CD-ROM (nothing wrong with that
IMHO), and the second just boots defaultly into
Hi!
18-Июл-2006 23:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Bollhalder) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
One thing I would recommend is that we not have a timer on the options
when you boot the install CD. If I were a new user to FreeDOS, I'd
probably feel a bit rushed and would prefer to
We agree (Eric, Arkady ans me(Alain)) without any discussion! This must
be something to comemorate...
Alain
Arkady V.Belousov escreveu:
Win9x setup gives timeout before reboot, _after_ setup finished (some
steps). And I disagree, that installer should be timeouted in any part,
Arkady V.Belousov escreveu:
AB Especially when testing in a VM, the timer runs often too fast.
This is very strange, because shouldn't happen - config.c for timeouts
uses BIOS timer variable (see GetBiosTime() usage in GetBiosKey()). And,
with current code in GetBiosKey(), worser case
Soon available at
www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.0-Testing
will be the files:
fdfullws.iso - FreeDOS with all disksets and corrosponding sources
fdfullcd.iso - FreeDOS with all disksets without sources
fdbasews.iso - FreeDOS BASE diskset with corrosponding sources
I'm experimenting with fdfullws.iso at the moment. It looks good so
far, but I'm not done with the install yet. There is some menu cleanup
that we could do before 1.0 ... I'll do some more experimenting and see
if I can suggest something.
One thing I would recommend is that we not have a
Jim Hall wrote:
I'm experimenting with fdfullws.iso at the moment. It looks good so
far, but I'm not done with the install yet. There is some menu cleanup
that we could do before 1.0 ... I'll do some more experimenting and see
if I can suggest something.
One thing I would recommend is
They have 15 seconds the first time (Win98 only gives 10 FYI), and the
second timeout gives 30 seconds. More than enough IMHO.
On 7/17/06, Eric Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only two timeouts are the first timeout which defaults to boot
from the hard drive rather than the CD-ROM
Everybody can expect a testing release on Sunday. It's ready, but I
have to tie up some loose ends and I'll be busy all day Saturday.
--
Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change
color and fall from the trees.
David Letterman (1947 - )
See ya
Blair Campbell wrote:
I think that 1.0 pre1 is good to start with, as we want to be able to
work out distribution bugs before a final release (we don't want to
repeat SR2).
I'd rather we went for 1.0 instead of 1.0 pre1. I agree we should
verify the distribution, but I'd rather we not
errors). Thus LFN support should not be mandatory, in fact we
may want to offer support for it as a second binary (eg tree v3.x
is intended for older systems or spaced limited ones, whereas
pdtree (tree v4.x) supports LFNs (and additional items on NT systems
such as indicating SPARSE
errors). Thus LFN support should not be mandatory, in fact we
may want to offer support for it as a second binary (eg tree v3.x
is intended for older systems or spaced limited ones, whereas
pdtree (tree v4.x) supports LFNs (and additional items on NT systems
such as indicating SPARSE
Hi!
8-Ноя-2005 22:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blair Campbell) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
BC May be distributed freely, but not sold as a programmer's tool.
BC Hmm. Seems to be compatible with the GPL
No, this is _not_ compatible to GPL (GPL doesn't restricts usage,
BC May be distributed freely, but not sold as a programmer's tool.
BC Hmm. Seems to be compatible with the GPL
No, this is _not_ compatible to GPL (GPL doesn't restricts usage,
including solding).
But isn't it against the GPL to sell source code or binary unless it
is a distribution
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Blair Campbell wrote:
BC May be distributed freely, but not sold as a programmer's tool.
BC Hmm. Seems to be compatible with the GPL
But isn't it against the GPL to sell source code or binary unless it
is a distribution fee? I think that this is what the author
Blair Campbell wrote:
BC May be distributed freely, but not sold as a programmer's tool.
BC Hmm. Seems to be compatible with the GPL
No, this is _not_ compatible to GPL (GPL doesn't restricts usage,
including solding).
But isn't it against the GPL to sell source code or binary unless
Many thanks! Interesting... I'll see about licensing, of course.
Aitor
Blair Campbell escribió:
(Well, personally I would not be happy with LFN being mandatory, it'd
force me to entirely write LFN for Pascal, or see how FPC's LFN can be
compiled for TP, as the KEYB non-resident code is, for the
Many thanks! Interesting... I'll see about licensing, of course.
Aitor
Kim Kokkonen, TurboPower Software Co.
CompuServe 76004,2611
May be distributed freely, but not sold as a programmer's tool.
Version 1.0, 10/3/95
Hmm. Seems to be compatible with the GPL (or other open-source
dblspace/drvspace/stacker clone using large amounts of code from the
linux fs driver dmsdosfs
For all compilers, for assembler, etc?
dmsdosfs is written in C.
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with
(Well, personally I would not be happy with LFN being mandatory, it'd
force me to entirely write LFN for Pascal, or see how FPC's LFN can be
compiled for TP, as the KEYB non-resident code is, for the moment,
written in Pascal, the only inheritance remaining from the xkeyb days).
What about
At 10:21 PM 10/15/2005 -0700, Blair Campbell wrote:
Hi. I just thought that I'd start a topic before I left for two weeks
about a FreeDOS 1.0 release. It has been suggested that I release my
Beta 9 Enhanced Release distro as a FreeDOS 1.0 pre-release distro.
For one, this would mean that it
Hi!
I am very lucky with FreeDOS at the moment. This week it was the first
time, i have had a STABLE FreeDOS system!!!
I may tell you, which drivers i am using(latest versions of drivers):
(FreeDOS kernel from 21. Juli 2005)
himem.exe
udma2.sys
duse.exe (USB support)
ctmouse.exe
atapicdd.sys
Hi,
Blair Campbell escribió:
Hi. I just thought that I'd start a topic before I left for two weeks
about a FreeDOS 1.0 release. It has been suggested that I release my
Beta 9 Enhanced Release distro as a FreeDOS 1.0 pre-release distro.
For one, this would mean that it would get tested more
emm386 RAM=m-n range for UMBs + EMS
emm386 ROM=m-n range of RAM to be used to shadow ROM
as soon as someone finds out what that's supposed to do _exactly_
ASM My guesses:
ASM RAM
wrong guess
ASM My suspicion is ...
ASM ROM, my guessing is (only a guessing), ...
e.g. Eric implemented it as
Hi all,
I have committed most of the pending changes to the TODO list.
While Jim and I acknowledge on the way of reintegrating it on the site,
Bernd has kindly posted a preview of the list in the links below:
1.0 todo's: http://fdos.org/ripcord/fdos_1_0/official/todos.htm
post-1.0:
Thanks, Aitor!
1.0 todo's: http://fdos.org/ripcord/fdos_1_0/official/todos.htm
As far as I know, APPEND is considered dangerous and incompatible. It had
better stay missing.
I think that SCANDISK is the most important missing program. Whether to
borrow code for it from CHKDSK, DOSFSCK, both or
Hi,
I found this:
chkdsk Ready 2003-10-6
I don't agree. If we have a fat32 kernel, and chkdsk is only fat16 we
cannot use it :( There could be a reference to dosfsck, stating not
compatible or something.
Alain
Aitor Santamaría Merino escreveu:
I have committed most of the pending
tom ehlert escreveu:
himem /TESTMEM:ON|OFF
really want a (bad) memory test in 1.0 ?
As bad as is MS's is, it did save me many times. Consider it not a
_test_for_100%_ok_ but as a _test_if_exists_ and you can understand how
good it is.
IMHO if implemented, it should be implemented with that
If we have a fat32 kernel, and chkdsk is only fat16 we cannot use it :(
We can, but only on FAT12 and FAT16 volumes.
But SCANDISK must support FAT32. That's why it had better use the DOSFSCK,
not CHKDSK engine.
---
This SF.Net email is
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
Thanks, Aitor!
1.0 todo's: http://fdos.org/ripcord/fdos_1_0/official/todos.htm
As far as I know, APPEND is considered dangerous and incompatible. It had
better stay missing.
I think that SCANDISK is the most important missing program.
it may
Hello Alain,
A tom ehlert escreveu:
himem /TESTMEM:ON|OFF
really want a (bad) memory test in 1.0 ?
A As bad as is MS's is, it did save me many times. Consider it not a
A _test_for_100%_ok_ but as a _test_if_exists_ and
I disagree.
If you want a memorytest (I don't question that), you can
Yes, Bart, the show must go on! ;-)
The FreeDOS spec still states that we should be compatible with MSDOS
3.3.
Here is a quote from the spec
(http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/spec/spec.html):
The MS-DOS 3.3 compatibility extends only to the FreeDOS kernel. FreeDOS
programs should be compatible
Nice that you pointed about FAT32.
I'll explain what I tried to reflect in the list (because FAT32 was not
popular time ago).
My point has been: FAT32 support is left as post-1.0. The fact that
KERNEL, FDISK and other components already support FAT32 is an extra
plus, but maybe we don't need to
Hi,
BTW, TO EVERYBODY (I forgot to say): changes will not be commited
IMMEDIATELY, ok?
tom ehlert escribió:
emm386 RAM=m-n range for UMBs + EMS
emm386 ROM=m-n range of RAM to be used to shadow ROM
as soon as someone finds out what that's supposed to do _exactly_
My guesses:
RAM (you can
Aitor Santamaría Merino wrote:
Hi,
Gregory Pietsch escribió:
I don't see anything about edlin or code in there, so I guess they
are okay, or am I just not getting any feedback?
Oops, sorry!
When the list was first posted, EDLIN didn't exist, so I'll add it (to
MISC utilities, ok?). Could
90 matches
Mail list logo
