Hi!
27--2004 00:56 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Nickolas - Using Windoze) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ha, I'm stupid. It was compressed with Diet, but UNP undid it. UNP
looks like a pretty slick tool, particularly for something that's almost
ten years old.
SNW I swear by unp. XD
?
At 09:09 PM 9/28/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Hi!
26-óÅÎ-2004 12:34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is bad. :( Please, add as much, as possible, more checks before
executing emulated instruction inside RING0, else we may/will receive
reports about
Micheal (and Tom):
I'll post this announcement on FreeDOS.org as soon as one of you sends
me the new LSMs for HIMEM/EMM386 - Tom mentioned on the list the other
day that he had new LSMs, but I must have missed them. Please re-send.
Thanks.
-jh
Michael Devore wrote:
Uploaded to
At 03:43 AM 9/26/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
This is right way, I suggest. Though, I should ask: will EMM386 check
instuction validness (for example, what about F0 0F C7 C8?) and how will
behave system in case, when instruction will work incorrectly? As I
understand, you mean
Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Jim Hall schreef:
Micheal (and Tom):
I'll post this announcement on FreeDOS.org as soon as one of you sends
me the new LSMs for HIMEM/EMM386 - Tom mentioned on the list the other
day that he had new LSMs, but I must have missed them. Please re-send.
I will prepare packages,
Hi,
Michael Devore escribió:
To avoid inflaming the issue, I'm not going to ask why all new
documentation is desperately needed to be written for something which
has behaved effectively the same way for end-users for the past six
months. And roughly 20 years for MS-DOS, as far as general
At 09:47 AM 9/24/2004 +0200, Aitor Santamaría Merino wrote:
Before Rob took over HTML-Help, the help files there were (as Tom
correctly complained repeatedly) info taken from MS-Help, thus useless for
FreeDOS users. And I don't think it's too much of a quarrel to write a
couple of HTML-files
Try writing the lsm files yourself. You're the
maintainer -- or certainly the last person to make
changes.
NOW you tell people the LSM files are wrong. Why not
provide the LSM files yourself in the first place? Who
can guess the origin of YOUR code?
Rather than flame the list and make FreeDOS
Hello Robert,
Try writing the lsm files yourself. You're the
maintainer -- or certainly the last person to make
changes.
I wrote one myself - and published it.
and the current one on freedos.org/software is not the one I wrote.
and however changed copying liocense to 'open source(public)'
Tom has of course every reason to be pissed -- and in the latest emm386 he
released there *is* an lsm file. The problem really stems from this I think:
on www.freedos.org you can read:
Michael Devore wrote: Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads
are the files emm386.zip and
At 12:41 PM 9/24/2004 +1200, Bart wrote:
Tom has of course every reason to be pissed -- and in the latest emm386 he
released there *is* an lsm file. The problem really stems from this I think:
snip
Moral of the story:
1. please do not make updates to appear like full versions
2. do not change the
well, a while ago we had a serious, heated debate about licensing,
in particular about the all so important GPL, and if it's allowed to
distribute the APACK'ed kernel.
now I wonder:
WHO THE HELL made up himem.lsm and emm386.lsm ?
the original author is certainly NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
12 matches
Mail list logo
