Hi Alain,
I completely understand your point, I can't help with that now, but I
assume you have filled a bugzilla entry. We would just make sure that
this bug goes to the 1.0 mandatory list (forthcomming).
Aitor
Alain escribió:
Aitor Santamaría Merino escreveu:
Given the interest back
Hi Tom,
Many thanks, this is the kind of replies I was hoping to have. I just
add my two cents,
tom ehlert escribió:
I'd like to launch a proposal as well:
a) remove all components that don't work like
DEFRAG's that don't do anything
DEFRAG's that thrash FAT32 because they don't
Hi there,
Given the interest back of the FreeDOS 1.0 issue,
...
I'd like to launch a proposal, with this points:
I'd like to launch a proposal as well:
a) remove all components that don't work like
DEFRAG's that don't do anything
DEFRAG's that thrash FAT32 because they don't understand
My two cents,
tom ehlert escreveu:
a) remove all components that don't work like
DEFRAG's that don't do anything
DEFRAG's that thrash FAT32 because they don't understand FAT32
Agreed. No dangerous sw should be in the standard didtribution.
b) decide which chkdsk to use; providing 2,3
Hello Alain,
c) make it a DOS distribution ( ~1-2 MB), not a pile of each and
every more or less useful or useless programm that happens to
work on freedos; provide a hyperlink for [more packets]
I agree. But I am making my own distro, which just shows that I disagree ;-)
I don't
Hi!
2-Ноя-2005 23:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blair Campbell) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
BC present...), and 2) FreeCOM is already VERY Turbo C specific;
BC portability is definately not an issue.
Portability _is_ issue. At least, to OpenWatcom (which is MSVC, not BC
Aitor Santamaría Merino escreveu:
Given the interest back of the FreeDOS 1.0 issue,
I really don't understand why so much effort is put in new and 1.0 stuff
and when I report a BUG in the KERNEL so serious that I had to remove
FreeDOS from a real user machine I didn't even get ONE answer
Hello Alain,
I really don't understand why so much effort is put in new and 1.0 stuff
and when I report a BUG in the KERNEL so serious that I had to remove
FreeDOS from a real user machine I didn't even get ONE answer from the list
what do you expect ?
'some program of mine doesn't
Blair Campbell escreveu:
BC present...), and 2) FreeCOM is already VERY Turbo C specific;
BC portability is definately not an issue.
Portability _is_ issue. At least, to OpenWatcom (which is MSVC, not BC
compatible).
Portability is definately not an issue to non-DOS compilers.
As I
Blair Campbell escreveu:
[...] It will make FreeCOM a smaller binary (desperately needed;
Why do you need so much space? Can you tell me what target application?
2) FreeCOM is already VERY Turbo C specific; portability is definately not an
issue.
I understood from previous discussions
Why do you need so much space? Can you tell me what target application?
FreeCOM can't currently be compiled with all of its features due to
size; the limit of the small memory model is 64kb and FreeCOM is
exceeds this limit with all features compiled in.
Hi Tom,
what do you expect ?
'some program of mine doesn't work; it was to do X'
unless to give precise instructions how to reproduce the bug, and the program
as well, noone will even have a chance to work on this - even IF they
would be interested
I am sorry to disapoint you, but I
Blair Campbell escreveu:
Why do you need so much space? Can you tell me what target application?
FreeCOM can't currently be compiled with all of its features due to
size; the limit of the small memory model is 64kb and FreeCOM is
exceeds this limit with all features compiled in.
Ok,
ok Jeremy, I believe that you arfe entitled a lot more than two cents on
this topic ;-)
I also believe that FreeDOS is ready to 1.0. I installed it in a real
user application which is heavy database + graphics in 32 bits and it
behaved *better* than MS-DOS 7.10!!!
The only problem is that
Personally, I don't know if this is a good optimization because
stdio.h is Standard C, while io.h is an extension. It should
I do, because 1) It will make FreeCOM a smaller binary (desperately
needed; FreeCOM can't even be compiled with all features at
present...), and 2) FreeCOM is already
Hi!
2-Ноя-2005 23:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Pietsch) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
- Input/output functions to replace stdio.h by io.h (aka replace
FILE*-based I/O by handle-based one)
GP Personally, I don't know if this is a good optimization because
GP stdio.h is Standard
Hi!
2-Ноя-2005 21:57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blair Campbell) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
BC present...), and 2) FreeCOM is already VERY Turbo C specific;
BC portability is definately not an issue.
Portability _is_ issue. At least, to OpenWatcom (which is MSVC, not BC
BC present...), and 2) FreeCOM is already VERY Turbo C specific;
BC portability is definately not an issue.
Portability _is_ issue. At least, to OpenWatcom (which is MSVC, not BC
compatible).
Portability is definately not an issue to non-DOS compilers.
18 matches
Mail list logo
