Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-29 Thread David O'Shea
Hi Bernd, Having all of my notes on a web page that everyone can see, and using a tool which is very quick to edit those nodes so that I am more likely to keep them up-to-date, will be of great benefit to everyone when I suddenly disappear from the community :) But the page doesn't

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-29 Thread Bernd Blaauw
David O'Shea schreef: Fixed, I put a download link for the existing releases on there and mentioned that they are pretty much identical to what is in CVS. I also put an alpha version on there which is my code in its current state which I think is not too bad.. not too bad at all, indeed.

[OT] Mail filtering (Was: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility)

2005-08-28 Thread David O'Shea
Hi Aitor, Hi, David O'Shea escribi=F3: I got Eric to forward on an email to him from me but I didn't get a=20 response, possibly due to Hotmail being extremely agressive with spam=20 filtering (if that is the case, my apologies go out to GNU_man!). SourceForge is also quite agressive

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-28 Thread David O'Shea
Hi Bernd, Bernd Blaauw wrote: David O'Shea schreef: I put a bunch of notes at http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/Mem I have done just about everything except /FREE (should be simple like /MODULE since it just means filtering the list) and your suggestion of /NOSUMMARY (should be easy too of

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-28 Thread Bernd Blaauw
hello David, thanks for your response. David O'Shea schreef: Having all of my notes on a web page that everyone can see, and using a tool which is very quick to edit those nodes so that I am more likely to keep them up-to-date, will be of great benefit to everyone when I suddenly

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-10 Thread Robert Riebisch
Aitor Santamaría Merino wrote: Very nice, forgive me for my ignorance with wikis. Interestingly I installed PmWiki to my webspace some days ago too. ;-) I've seen that MEM is a Topic under Main, is there a way to see the tree of all the topics under Main? The obvious stuff didn't work.

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-09 Thread Aitor Santamaría Merino
Hi, Eric Auer escribió: Stable kernel supports at least 2 countries - Germany and USA - so people can test whether NLS date/time format selection has an effect. This does not need nlsfunc or country sys... Because current implementation of COUNTRY= is hardcoded, but would need COUNTRY.SYS if

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-09 Thread Aitor Santamaría Merino
Hi, Eric Auer escribió: DEFRAG was taken off the list, because so many freeware / shareware / commercial defraggers exist - or because many people run FreeDOS in a DOS emulator like VMWare or DOSemu, and defraggers aren't needed... I disagree here. I have no idea what happened to Imre more

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-09 Thread Aitor Santamaría Merino
Hi, Eric Auer escribió: Stable kernel supports at least 2 countries - Germany and USA - so people can test whether NLS date/time format selection has an effect. This does not need nlsfunc or country sys... Because current implementation of COUNTRY= is hardcoded, but would need COUNTRY.SYS if

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-09 Thread Aitor Santamaría Merino
Hi, Bernd Blaauw escribió: http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/Todo_1_0 - can somebody name a few tools for which the wrong errorlevels are returned? I assume it would not be too hard to fix them. Which EL are used by DYNALOAD, by the way? http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/ExitCodes

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-08 Thread Bernd Blaauw
David O'Shea schreef: I put a bunch of notes at http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/Mem I have done just about everything except /FREE (should be simple like /MODULE since it just means filtering the list) and your suggestion of /NOSUMMARY (should be easy too of course). I have also not done any work

[Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Eric Auer
Hi Jim... http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html we shouldn't be afraid to throw off 'crutches' that are no longer needed side of the fence... Sounds like we could discuss the manifesto and 1.0 list again ;-).

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Bernd Blaauw
Eric Auer schreef: DEFRAG was taken off the list, because so many freeware / shareware / commercial defraggers exist - or because many people run FreeDOS in a DOS emulator like VMWare or DOSemu, and defraggers aren't needed... Jim means defraggers for DOS? FreeDOS may still aim at the

[Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Eric Auer
Hi... I said not long ago that running windows on FreeDOS is not a real test, let me explain why: Windows at some point included some very complicated locking mechanism to *avoid* windows running other DOSes. This was about Windows 3.1 and later versions, MS checked for some nonsense

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Bernd Blaauw
Eric Auer schreef: About SYS itself: -fat16 and fat32 bootsector not working. WHAT? You mean you cannot boot FreeDOS from anything else than a FAT12 drive at the moment? Sounds very bad... Then it should be made absolutely clear that people have to use the old stable SYS version, along with

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Alain
-fat16 and fat32 bootsector not working. WHAT? You mean you cannot boot FreeDOS from anything else than a FAT12 drive at the moment? Sounds very bad... Then it should be made absolutely clear that people have to use the old stable SYS version, along with exact information WHICH SYS version to

[Freedos-devel] re: Chasing MS-DOS compatibility

2005-08-03 Thread Eric Auer
I said not long ago that running windows on FreeDOS is not a real test, it would be a test, and it would fail. FreeDOS kernel isn't compatible enough to run Windows 3.x end of story. Hm. Then why does Windows 3.1 win /s run, except DOS boxes, for me? I see that there is not much ongoing