Re: [Freedos-devel] Mirror sites

Anyone here the webmaster for these mirror sites? They are out of date, and I may drop them from the list: http://freedos.rediris.es/ (site unavailable??) Just got back once again and checked what's going on with FreeDOS, checked that site as well and get it just fine, updated with the

Re: [Freedos-devel] GARBO dead?

On 12/26/2013 2:55 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: Hello, I don't know if you realised, but the GARBO files at University of Waasa seems dead? http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/garbo.HTML http://lipas.uwasa.fi/%7Ets/garbo.HTML It was a nice repository of, at times, useful stuff, does anyone know

Re: [Freedos-devel] GARBO dead?

On 12/28/2013 5:22 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: Thanks Ralf! You're welcome... ;-) Looks nice Got a copy of it locally as well, hope that with the new year, my current residential situation changes for the better and I get back into a place where I can run my own web/email server(s) again,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Nano-X supposedly ported to DOS, API similar both to X and Windows GDI, small memory footprint

On 3/19/2014 6:27 AM, Paul Dufresne wrote: http://www.microwindows.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwindows Not sure how it compete with OpenGEM because I did not look to it. In fact I don't even know if OpenGEM is a full GUI or mainly a graphical file explorer. Yes, GEM is a full

Re: [Freedos-devel] Nano-X supposedly ported to DOS, API similar both to X and Windows GDI, small memory footprint

On 3/19/2014 4:29 PM, Paul Dufresne wrote: OpenGem 6 seems to have been published in july 2006, and not have any development since. Yes, OpenGEM is pretty much dead but FreeGEM has seen a bit more of attention and is usable. The advantage of GEM however is that it can execute pretty much any

Re: [Freedos-devel] Nano-X supposedly ported to DOS, API similar both to X and Windows GDI, small memory footprint

On 3/19/2014 5:53 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Ralf Quint wrote: The advantage of GEM however is that it can execute pretty much any (Free)DOS program, so not only GUI programs, while microwindows seems to support only specifically created programs. Its other advantage

Re: [Freedos-devel] Weird behaviour of legacy USB trackball

On 3/26/2014 2:23 AM, Charles Belhumeur wrote: You know, I just had a thought folks. Maybe FreeDOS should have been a 64 bit version right from the start. Why couldn't a 386 mode OS be written that looked and behaved like real mode DOS be written? You'd need some kind of low order shell to

Re: [Freedos-devel] Do not use any code from ms-dos release!

On 3/27/2014 1:24 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: And, anyway, dos 2.0 did things way differently than 3.3+ , especially for file access, (fcbs anyone) You might want to upgrade your knowledge a bit. Since PC/MS-DOS 2.0, FCBS are only for backwards compatibility still around. FCBS were the way to

Re: [Freedos-devel] Difference between command.com and frecom.com when parsing command line arguments of a batch file.

On 7/18/2014 3:09 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote: This is not really disappointing. I was only testing for the possibility to recommend the FreeDOS 1.1 distribution as an alternative to WinXP and/or Win98SE to build DJGPP ports but this seems not really be possible due to different issues

[Freedos-devel] Test

Sorry for making a test, but it seems my previous emails never made it to the list (or I am getting censored :-( ) Ralf --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Re: [Freedos-devel] Test

On 7/21/2014 5:07 PM, Rugxulo wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Ralf Quint freedos...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry for making a test, but it seems my previous emails never made it to the list (or I am getting censored :-( ) I don't know why that would be. Speaking only as an uninformed

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

On 12/23/2014 7:47 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: I don't know how thorough you want to be, but msdos 5+, and some versions of both opendos and ptsdos, you can actually have more than 26 drives, up to 32 if I remember correctly. I saw (once) which characters they used for the additional 6

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

On 12/31/2014 10:40 AM, Michael Brutman wrote: I am a little skeptical about the prospects for success on this project. The FreeDOS roadmap ( http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map ) is out of date and short on details. I would like to see a broad discussion on the roadmap,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

On 12/31/2014 1:48 PM, Jim Hall wrote: FreeDOS-32 has been around a long time (since 2000) but they haven't released anything to date. I was in occasional email contact with one or two of the developers at the time, and I know they suffered poor project stability. They completely started

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS / SeaBIOS on modern hardware

On 12/31/2014 5:12 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 03:50:09PM -0800, Ralf Quint wrote: A better spend time (and money?) would be to convince someone at the SeaBIOS project to help providing an (U)EFI boot stub, upon which a classic 16bit FreeDOS then could boot just like

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/1/2015 7:15 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: We can add modern OS features (protected memory and multitasking are still quite doable) without jumping to 32-bit code. After all, there obviously already is a 32-bit FreeDOS project, and it wouldn't really make sense to have /two/ 32-bit versions

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/1/2015 2:43 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the pre-386 crowd without backlash? Absolutely NOT! Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 2:28 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: It wouldn't be only the speed increase, but the fact that we'd be modernizing FreeDOS as a whole. I think of it this way: What would Microsoft have done had they not gone exclusively to Windows? I am doubtless they would've migrated MS-DOS to a

Re: [Freedos-devel] Good Reading Materials

On 1/2/2015 9:03 AM, Andy Stamp wrote: Hello Folks, I've been working on creating a program called LPXLATE which converts ESC/P print data from legacy apps into PCL or PS for printing on modern printers. Most of my time has been spent working on the conversion routines, but I would like

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 12:30 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: Well, I wasn't advocating that we leave behind our 16-bit roots altogether, because it is possible to still run 16- as well as 32-bit code on a 32-bit OS.Then again, if we go to a 32-bit kernel and still run 16-bit code... exactly what have we

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 3:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: The great news is that anybody can go off and do whatever they want to as this is all a hobbyist effort anyway. But lets stop calling it a discussion about the FreeDOS roadmap. Once it goes to 32 bits its not FreeDOS anymore. Copy the code and

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 7:36 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: I doubt that you will even see one (1) 32-bit version of FreeDOS. Whoever is seriously claiming on working on that just doesn't know what they will get themselves into. MS/PC/DR-/FreeDOS is at its very core 16bit/x86. You get yourself

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/26/2015 3:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote: On Jan 26, 2015 4:41 AM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU jcharbonnea...@cpsge.org mailto:jcharbonnea...@cpsge.org wrote: Hello!I was reading you discussion,and I agree with your idea.There should be a mofe formal way to include programs into freeDOS.Although I am

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/27/2015 8:59 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: For example if a program *needs* a 386 I don't see a reason to deny them using GCC, personally. You can get 386 code with OpenWatcom for a fraction of the hassles that you have to go through to get gcc installed and working... ;-) I agree whole

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/27/2015 8:47 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: But I would seriously discourage the use of gcc, as that is not going to help to produce anything useful for DOS, as it by and large is a *ix based and targeting compiler, which has only be shoehorned

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/28/2015 3:16 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: To be clear,it was the first version of Microsoft's QUICKBASIC.It was the only version that supported creating EXE files. Every version of QuickBasic supports that, as opposed to QBASIC. Correct. With

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/28/2015 6:26 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Ralf Quint wrote: Again, we need to be very clear here. QBASIC (the interpreter) was free as a part of MS-DOS 5.0 through MS-DOS 6.22 (and NOT part of IBM-DOS 5.x, they still included BASICA (GWBasic equivalent of MS-DOS, as all

Re: [Freedos-devel] Clock

On 1/29/2015 9:24 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: Let's think about this critically. Is somebody really going to use a personal computer or a virtual machine running DOS to perform the functions of an alarm clock in the year 2015? Well, if you look at everything this way, you could ask why

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/24/2015 3:45 PM, Christopher Evans wrote: perhaps programming documentation or description files should include the coders training marks... AA/AS/BS/M/NCSA ETC... One expects better quality from those with the appropriate training. BS Ralf (getting his training from the SoHK) ---

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/26/2015 1:27 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: I have noticed that this is an explosive topic.Some people think it doesn't matter the source,and others disagree.From what I'm reading (I may be wrong),but it seems from what I'm reading in this discussion that a program can only be submitted

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/27/2015 7:16 AM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: I see your point.It makes sense.(Although there is a QBASIC compiler which creates EXE's,which I use).I have found a solution too this problem (for me). Well, which compiler is that? QuickBASIC? PDS? Too be clear, QBASIC is/was the free BASIC

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/27/2015 2:22 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: Of course, this isn't to say learning c/c++ is bad either, that also works, but if I may, I'd suggest using either gcc or watcom, instead of turbo C, just because they are also opensource, and while turboC is free, it's not opensource, and the free

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/27/2015 7:09 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: I almost feel like I should apologize for opening the can of worms. Some thoughts: - Software contributed to FreeDOS needs to be free. (We already require this. No problem ...) - Contributed code should be free from contamination from

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/5/2015 6:14 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: Bringing things back to reality: Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few years even after somebody actively starts working on them. Options 1 and 2 can not promise 100% compatibility with both DOS applications and

Re: [Freedos-devel] FW: FreeDOS compatibility issue according to Asus

On 3/30/2015 11:55 AM, Eric Auer wrote: I totally agree with you that this problem is NOT ABOUT DOS AT ALL: It instead seems to be about Asus BIOS, letting you set a LIST of drives to try for booting - but then showing only some error message if the FIRST drive on your list fails to boot. +1

Re: [Freedos-devel] FW: FreeDOS compatibility issue according to Asus

On 3/31/2015 12:40 PM, Teddy T. wrote: Are Tom's reply supposed to be of any use ?! I don't get the point of it, sorry. Well, the short English version of it would be: Get a clue! Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 boot method?

On 3/27/2015 6:11 PM, Eric Auer wrote: It seems to be fixed, but I am unable to find out since when. Maybe since 2012 or even before, based on some glimpses of: I never had a problem with running FreeDOS in VirtualBox since at least 2011, when I had to switch for a 64bit Windows 7 based laptop

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

On 1/28/2015 10:22 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote: Too much to quote here regarding BASIC interpreters and compilers, but one BASIC compiler I remember is Microsoft BASIC Professional Development System for DOS. That's what I mentioned a couple of times, PDS 7.1 was the last version in the line of

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos os

On 4/10/2015 3:10 PM, Ty Armour wrote: development project for doing...just a thought: snip just for fun thought id throw it out there. I have the strong suspicion that I will read my obituary before I read the announcement of a working version of this Super OS... Ralf:-D --- This email has

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Developer Studio

On 6/3/2015 3:19 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: Keep in mind that OpenWatcom doesn't meet Debian or GNU's criteria to be open source. We are talking here about the FreeDOS project, dealing with source/compilers from a time well before either of those were in any form relevant. I mentioned this

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On 6/2/2015 5:09 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: Everyone take a look at this ZIP http://mercurycoding.com/FreeDOS/FreeDOS-1.2.zip and let me know your feedback. Anything which shouldn't be included? Anything which should but wasn't? There's a few non-open source programs I didn't catch for

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On 6/24/2015 11:07 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: Also, also (lol) I am not finding any source for SRDisk. FreeDOS.org lists it as GPL, its own documentation lists it as copyrighted. Perhaps the initial version was GPL and it later forked over to an author-copyrighted license? Not sure, but

Re: [Freedos-devel] stupid question

On 6/23/2015 7:28 AM, Michael Brutman wrote: Tom's method of correcting your behavior was, shall we say, blunt, but the underlying criticism is still valid for any mailing list. - Subject lines should reflect the subject. Start a new thread if necessary. - If you are asking for help you

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 package compilation

On 6/2/2015 7:39 PM, Louis Santillan wrote: I'm not of this effort, but, Ralf, what are you using to scan for viruses? Got the alert from Avast here on my Windows 8.1 laptop, got the same warning for AVG and Norton on two customer PCs. Ended up downloading it with AV disabled in a sandbox.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS (ODIN) and 8086 compatibility

On 5/27/2015 11:35 AM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: Huh.I thought all screens had the same columns and rows (Different scales,obviously),but the same text slots.Apparently CGA monitors are different. Not by a longshot... Just look at such simple things as 40x25 mode. And it is not an issue

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS (ODIN) and 8086 compatibility

On 5/27/2015 12:01 PM, Edouard Forler wrote: Actually 0040:0084 is not reliable. 0040:0084 is populated by the EGA/VGA bios only. All variables after 0071 are not standardized and you cannot, generally speaking, rely on them. You might want to re-read the PC Bible by Michael Tischer ;-) I

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS (ODIN) and 8086 compatibility

On 5/24/2015 2:29 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: Hi all, Not sure that anybody cares about this, but just in case - I recently tested the 1-diskette FreeDOS distribution ODIN on an 8086 PC, and spotted a few more or less serious problems. I got the ODIN image from odin.fdos.org, and more

Re: [Freedos-devel] extending chkdsk to fat32

C.J. van Delft wrote: > > No I am not a developer ( any more ! ) at 70 I am just relaxing and > doing very little. My concern is/was that FreeDos purports to be a > free MS/Dos replacement and is currently more and more being pushed in > the direction of 32/64 bit support, apparently without

Re: [Freedos-devel] mTCP/IP stack by M Brutman is now closed source

On 9/7/2015 1:36 PM, Barry de Graaff wrote: > Why is it important to have it open source? Because: 1. I do read the source, and also compare between versions the changes so I can decide if I need/want the new changes. 2. I actually change software from time to time and also merge my changes

Re: [Freedos-devel] mTCP/IP stack by M Brutman is now closed source

On 9/9/2015 4:00 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: > Ralf,I would ask that you take a breather.It is his program,he may do > whatever he wishes with it. > Well, maybe you should actually read my reply, as that is exactly what I am saying... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast

Re: [Freedos-devel] exfat support from android linux for freedos sdxc support and more?

On 9/24/2015 12:33 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > We could undercut the competition and make our own free FAT > implementation which does fills the same niche as exFAT. > Which will be extremely hard to do without interfering with those patents... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses

Re: [Freedos-devel] exfat support from android linux for freedos sdxc support and more?

On 9/23/2015 2:45 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > Hi again, > >> Maybe some DOSers want to have a look at the exFAT driver code, >> to check complexity: https://github.com/dorimanx/exfat-nofuse > Some other interesting links are: > > https://github.com/relan/exfat > > and: > >

Re: [Freedos-devel] exfat support from android linux for freedos sdxc support and more?

On 9/23/2015 6:11 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote: > Story of the century:The FreeDOS project sued by M$ for using a simple > 16 bit file that is outdated.I would have a good laugh at that > one.Then again,it wouldn't be very funny... > What outdated 16 bit file? :? Bottom line, I would not

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI Language Translations

On 12/21/2015 7:24 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > Klingon? tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'? Ralf :-P --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --

Re: [Freedos-devel] fdisk translation

On 12/22/2015 9:59 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Mercury Thirteen > wrote: >> If it's still maintained, we can ask the developer to do it. > I don't think it is. I haven't seen or heard from that guy (Brian > Reifsnyder) in a few years.

Re: [Freedos-devel] fdisk translation

On 12/22/2015 9:05 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > If it's still maintained, we can ask the developer to do it. If it's > not... well, Idk the legitimacy of us poking around inside the binary > and editing the text strings manually. > Excuse me? =-O That's why FreeDOS is supposed to be Open Source,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Build Tools

On 1/11/2016 12:48 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote: >> So in getting back to this developer studio, it appears obvious the >> previous chain that there was no real agreement on an editor. > editor ??? > EDLIN is the official DOS editor ;) > Tom, just made my day! Ralf ;-) --- This email has been checked

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos and fsf

On 2/11/2016 11:58 AM, Henrik Schick-Hansen wrote: Fsf keeps a recommendation list for systems that are NOT GNU/Linux. We could make it long term strategy to have all parts of freedos truly free and to qualify Freedos for this list. I mention this because I believe that freedos could have a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC was > small but > somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. > > Sorry, but you are here comparing apples and oranges. FreeBASIC is a compiler, which doesn't run

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/23/2016 3:45 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi again, quick reply, > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint <freedos...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: >&

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 12:04 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: What's the meaning of "+1"?! That is short for "I am one more person with the exact same opinion/point of view"... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Freedos-devel] An idea???

On 2/17/2016 12:19 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: Hi all, It’s not really about FreeDOS… but it has something to do with it. :) I thought that maybe if you all like the idea, I could make a GUI shell. It would be exclusive of course. Though, It will be especially for FreeDOS. And maybe also

Re: [Freedos-devel] An idea ??? - BGI

On 2/19/2016 5:48 PM, Jose Antonio Senna wrote: > I read (quickly) the Wikipedia article on BGI and > the page at openBGI.sourceforge.net and it seems > to be just another C library to be linked with apps, > not a resident resource. > BGI is a library that allows to load drivers for various

Re: [Freedos-devel] freedos and fsf

On 2/10/2016 5:17 PM, Jim Hall wrote: On Feb 10, 2016 7:14 PM, "Jim Hall" > wrote: > > Agreed. Also, I recall Stallman didn't like the license used in the OpenWatcom compiler. And that the kernel couldn't be compiled using an entirely free

Re: [Freedos-devel] JEMM386

On 5/17/2016 8:13 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: >> On May 17, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: >> I saw in a recent post that JEMM386 has been removed from FreeDOS distributions, and perhaps from ibiblio, because of license issues. Would someone

Re: [Freedos-devel] Designing Effective OOH

On 7/24/2016 9:36 PM, antonygeorge wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that this post is just an attempt of spamming the list? The ramblings don't make much sense to me as far as FreeDOS is concerned... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling PowerPaint

On 7/29/2016 5:04 PM, David McMackins wrote: > I have some modifications I'd like to make to PowerPaint as hosted on > the FreeDOS archives, but I'm unable to compile the source. I'm > attempting to use FreePascal to do the job, but it's failing to compile > some of the units due to assembler

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling PowerPaint

On 7/29/2016 7:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Ralf Quint <freedos...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 5:04 PM, David McMackins wrote: >> >>> I have some modifications I'd like to make to PowerPaint as hosted on >>> th

Re: [Freedos-devel] Booting other O/Ses from FreeDOS

On 12/30/2016 6:57 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > *I* did it, but that was many years ago. I do remember the VDM didn't > work. What I remember (granted, getting old LOL) was that someone had 3.0 starting but then couldn't do much beyond that. Not aware that anyone every got it working (beyond a

Re: [Freedos-devel] Booting other O/Ses from FreeDOS

On 12/29/2016 4:00 PM, Jose Antonio Senna wrote: > So no, it's not reasonable to expect FreeDOS to work under a >> running Win95. It may be possible in theory (if someone >> fixed the bugs), but nobody has done it (yet, AFAIK). >I did not say Win95, I said Win98SE, and I did not try to >

Re: [Freedos-devel] Booting other O/Ses from FreeDOS

On 12/29/2016 8:52 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > >> NO version of Windows will start from FreeDOS, not 3.x nor any 9x... > I know 3.1 did in the past, with provisos, did that regress? Sorry but I am not aware that anyone has successfully been able to do that... > >> There is no MS-DOS 7, despite

Re: [Freedos-devel] VME Broken on AMD Ryzen

On 5/12/2017 4:33 PM, Alain Mouette wrote: > > On 12-05-2017 16:14, Rugxulo wrote: >>> Should JEMMEX or the FreeDOS installer work around this? >> Just use "NOVME", and don't worry about it. > Could you please explain that... > Use that parameter when you load JEMMEX, as per instructions

Re: [Freedos-devel] Linux commands in DOS - Minibox

On 5/25/2017 4:59 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > Minibox is an interesting project, but I wonder why implement > everything in one large binary, just to execute simple commands. I > know you are mimicking Busybox (above). But on a DOS system, it seems > very resource heavy to load a large exe that

Re: [Freedos-devel] Would someone help me with my subscription ?

On 6/12/2017 12:34 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: > >>> Form security (reCAPTCHA) missing, please submit again >> Nowhere on the original page there was a captcha field. > reCAPTCHA opens a pop-up, where you have to selected from a 4x4 (?) set > of images, e. g., all images showing a bus, or a

Re: [Freedos-devel] What is FreeDOS 2.0?

On 10/17/2017 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote: > My thoughts: > > > FreeDOS is meant to be an open source software replacement for MS-DOS. > As such, "FreeDOS 2.0" must maintain compatibility with MS-DOS. I am > not suggesting changing core compatibility. "FreeDOS 2.0" needs to > remain 16-bit, with a

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 11/20/2017 1:55 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: > Additionally to Ralf's answer this book might be handy for the future: > http://www.borncity.de/Library/DOSProgHB.PDF (in German only) > It's not "the best", but fairly okay. > > Robert Riebisch Nice one, thanks. Without seeing the actual front

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 11/18/2017 9:34 AM, Andreas K. Foerster wrote: > By the way, can anybody tell me, how to access environment variables, > when the compiler doesn't support it? (no getenv() and environ=NULL) > Well, yes, you have to pretty much write those functions yourself by accessing the MCB (Memory Control

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 11/18/2017 10:46 AM, David McMackins wrote: > But isn't bcc proprietary, thereby undermining the entire goal here? > Contrary to the believes of the FSF, the world is full of C compilers and he is talking about a different one than the one that crosses your mind... Ralf --- This email has

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 11/18/2017 9:34 AM, Andreas K. Foerster wrote: > > By the way, can anybody tell me, how to access environment variables, > when the compiler doesn't support it? (no getenv() and environ=NULL) > Attached is a file from a PD snippets collection to get (and set, with the usual limitations) the

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 11/19/2017 8:16 AM, Andreas K. Foerster wrote: > > Are there any documented limits for environment variables in DOS? > > My implementation uses a static buffer. So the content changes with > every call to getenv. This is explicitly allowed by the standard. > > I don't want to make the buffer

Re: [Freedos-devel] row4

On 11/1/2017 3:06 PM, Andreas K. Foerster wrote: > Am Mittwoch, dem 01. Nov 2017 schrieb Mateusz Viste: > >> I planned to go into details, but Eric already did an excellent job at >> that. I will only add, as an extra motive to stop using raw HLT, that the >> "no-hlt" kernel option in Linux

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 10/29/2017 3:04 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > Without getting in the *Free Software* v *Open Source Software* > debate, I believe FreeDOS should be available to everyone, and should > never become closed source. For that reason, I contributed my FreeDOS > work under the GNU GPL. I don't think that

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 10/29/2017 8:02 PM, David McMackins wrote: > On 10/29/2017 09:36 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: >> MS/PC-DOS predates the FSF, GPL and the Stallman virus. DOS itself (in >> pretty much any incarnation, up to and including FreeDOS itself) has >> always been depending on "less-th

Re: [Freedos-devel] Need help with Kitten library

On 5/8/2018 8:44 AM, Jim Hall wrote: I'm a bit embarrassed to ask about this, since I wrote the Kitten library. But it's been a very long time since I used Kitten, and I'm having trouble using Kitten in a simple program. Ercan asked me for help adding Kitten multi-language support to his DOS

Re: [Freedos-devel] Compiling with gcc

On 10/26/2017 5:51 AM, David McMackins wrote: > I have been informed that gcc has a -m16 flag that actually outputs > binaries that can run in 16-bit mode. Is there then anything stopping > FreeDOS from being compiled fully with gcc? Hell no. For starters, gcc is a Linux/Unix based compiler, it

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/23/2018 7:47 AM, Roy Tam wrote: Hi all, Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components like kernel, FreeCOM, or accessories like EDIT can be

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/23/2018 11:42 AM, David McMackins wrote: And that means you still have to pay $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... Not really. If it's under a free (as in freedom) license, then only

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/23/2018 12:23 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: Hi Ralf, Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his C(++) compiler? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17129678 Besten Dank, Robert! Just curious as to why there is not one word mentioned on his Digital Mars web

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/24/2018 4:48 AM, David McMackins wrote: in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman, and I won't be part of the FSF much longer.

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/25/2018 4:22 PM, David McMackins wrote: ... Sorry David, but you are naive at best. And I leave it at that... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?

On 8/25/2018 9:22 PM, TK Chia wrote: Hello Mr. McMackins, Mr. Quint, Rugxulo, And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. Bollocks in what sense? In a legal sense, you couldn't be more wrong. Now you do say that you're not an

Re: [Freedos-devel] VGA frame rates and mouse

On 7/19/2018 12:34 PM, David McMackins wrote: so basically you want to find out how fast you can update blocks of 64 000 pixels I never said that. I wanted to find out why my frame rate was dependent on the mouse activity. Without seeing the actual source code, my best WAG is that there us a

Re: [Freedos-devel] Yes, Digital Mars C/C++ is Boost Licensed!

On 8/26/2018 1:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote: To answer some questions: Hello Walter, quite a surprise visit. What I complained/stated in my original reply to one of our enthusiastic friends was that while there is mentioned the change to the Boost license on the Github site, there is not one

Re: [Freedos-devel] Decompressing the FreeDOS kernel

On 7/9/2018 7:43 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-devel wrote: So, I've been looking into de-UPXing the kernel image and keep getting told by the UPX binary that the image "wasn't compressed by UPX". Is there anything special I have to do to convince it otherwise? Was the kernel in fact not

Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?

On 7/12/2018 8:41 PM, Jim Hall wrote: There's also an "emulator" for GW-BASIC for Mac/Windows/Linux. You'd have to port to DOS, but that might be a good start. GPL 3 https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcbasic/ While interesting in general, there is no easy way to "port" it to DOS, as it requires

Re: [Freedos-devel] UNIX fortune for DOS

On 9/30/2018 1:02 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote: Pretty much same.  Some port of fortune from BSD... I don't see that as a big deal, it can find a place in FreeDOS.  Random pong clone #262143, that's a bit different. -uso. freedos-user would IMHO a much better place to post about things like

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeCOM 0.84-pre6 prerelease

On 10/23/2018 2:05 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: Hi Ralf, barts freecom has length 84756 myfreecom has length 82758 (without UPX) should this not be identical? One would expect so. But a two byte difference, and the bug in one Not two bytes: 84756 - 82758 = 1998 bytes Cheers Robert

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeCOM 0.84-pre6 prerelease

On 10/23/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: now things become strange. I tried to reproduce and fix the bugs reported on oct 19. when I replace freecomW as compiled by Bart by a watcom compiled by me, the bugs vanish. compiled by wcc 1.9 barts freecom has length 84756 myfreecom has length

Re: [Freedos-devel] I have a quite small pong game to offer for including in FreeDOS

On 9/26/2018 7:19 PM, Rugxulo wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 1:20 AM stecdose > wrote: What type of machine do you use for FreeDOS you have tested on? I mostly tested my old 2011 Lenovo desktop. But I also today went and tested my old 2010 Dell laptop

Re: [Freedos-devel] PC/GEOS Source code released

On 12/5/2018 12:05 AM, Javier Gutiérrez Chamorro wrote: Just found this: https://github.com/bluewaysw/pcgeos Interesting, and apparently legit. It seems it was Open Sourced under an Apache License after the death of Frank Fisher, the owner of the software back in 2015... Not sure who's "in

  1   2   3   >