OK, obsolete WDE is on the CD in FREEDOS\3RDPARTY ...
The CD has a strange and obsolete kernel:
- NOT UPX'ed
- 2040 from May-25
The floppy DOES have kernel 2040 ... but I really would kick anything
except 2040 and maybe 2038 and maybe 2036 (as from 1.0 distro).
No need for 2039 or even
Op 30-7-2011 15:08, dos386 schreef:
OK, obsolete WDE is on the CD in FREEDOS\3RDPARTY ...
I remember adding that (just like EXTRACT for bootdisk contents under
Windows), just can't think of any purpose/use that I added it for,
anymore. Will be removed then.
If anyone knows a rather universal
Will be removed then.
WDE is cool, but version 0.30 please :-)
Internet-based installation of FD1.1 possible through
packet driver, DHCP program and HTGET/FTP (not WGET, size
constraints). VMware-specific so
I hope it will work on real PC too :-)
--
~~~ wow ~~~
Op 30-7-2011 15:42, dos386 schreef:
Will be removed then.
WDE is cool, but version 0.30 please :-)
I'll have a look.
Internet-based installation of FD1.1 possible through
packet driver, DHCP program and HTGET/FTP (not WGET, size
constraints). VMware-specific so
I hope it will work on
Who gives a shit? It's included in MS-DOS 6.22, it'll be included in
FreeDOS. It's not hurting you is it? You don't suffer from erectile
disfunction because you
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erectile_dysfunction - because you can't
write
BTW, what's the goal of EDLIN ??? Never used it ...
But please keep DEBUG, I'm using it (but not as ASS'embler, maybe add
FASM also ?)
--
~~~ wow ~~~
--
Got Input? Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.
Hi!
BTW, what's the goal of EDLIN ??? Never used it ...
It is there for nostalgic reasons and aims to be the DOS
text editor which is translated into most languages ;-)
But actually even the author of MS EDLIN barely used it,
so we can be happy to also have our EDIT text editor.
But please
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Eric Auer wrote:
Hi!
BTW, what's the goal of EDLIN ??? Never used it ...
It is there for nostalgic reasons and aims to be the DOS
text editor which is translated into most languages ;-)
But actually even the author of MS EDLIN barely used it,
so we can be happy to
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM, dos386 dos...@gmail.com wrote:
In short, I don't think EXE2BIN belongs in BASE for FreeDOS.
So do I.
I don't know of anybody using it
I don't use it and have no clue for what it is supposed to be useful.
In old days, MASM, LINK, EXE2BIN was the norm.
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote:
BTW, what's the goal of EDLIN ??? Never used it ...
It is there for nostalgic reasons and aims to be the DOS
text editor which is translated into most languages ;-)
Presumably it's for limited automated scripting (e.g.
Op 29-7-2011 19:02, Rugxulo schreef:
- KERNELS 2040
- WDE 0.30
- UPX
UPX is too useful, IMHO, though I know some shun it (which seems
weird). And I don't think WDE is included in there (yet). At least a
quick search couldn't find it in BASE or UTIL.
I can't even recall what WDE was for
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote:
Op 29-7-2011 19:02, Rugxulo schreef:
I can't even recall what WDE was for anymore.
disk editor, basically for viewing raw disks and/or editing or
saving bits to wherever. Not useful except for hardcore nerds.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 09:06 PM 7/27/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
I've seen some strange hacks, but .BAT is far from ideal for normal
computations.
It's not supposed to do computations, it's for file scripting. Do
due with what's available...
I
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 04:11 PM 7/26/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
It's just hard to imagine why they would ever include LINK and EXE2BIN
when nothing comes with DOS that can use them. BASICA/GW-BASIC surely
didn't. I don't know, I'm not as savvy as
Hi,
(sorry for dragging this out so long!!)
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
I know users can get a real programming tool themselves, I'm just
saying, having it built-in is more useful overall. It's not that I
think BWBASIC is bad, just far from complete or
At 10:32 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
Some versions of MS-DOS even included LIB (I have some specimens of 2.x and
3.x that do). DEC's releases for the
At 11:08 PM 7/26/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Well, .BAT isn't exactly Turing complete, last I checked.
Why would that possibly matter?
GW-BASIC is fine if you like it. Most will complain about line
numbers.
What's wrong with line numbers?
As I already mentioned, too many people these days don't seem
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 10:32 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
Can't remember (prolly 2.0). It was on the MS-DOS 2.01 master.
I am fairly certain that whatever DEC Rainbow version of MS-DOS 2.01
you have that this is the same
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
At 10:32 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
Can't remember (prolly 2.0). It was on the MS-DOS 2.01 master.
I am fairly certain that whatever DEC Rainbow version of MS-DOS 2.01
you have that this is the same disk/image that I have in my archive.
And I am
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 11:08 PM 7/26/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Well, .BAT isn't exactly Turing complete, last I checked.
Why would that possibly matter?
Hmmm? The whole point was about what is/was included by default, e.g.
DEBUG vs. QBASIC or
At 09:06 PM 7/27/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 11:08 PM 7/26/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Well, .BAT isn't exactly Turing complete, last I checked.
Why would that possibly matter?
Hmmm? The whole point was about what is/was
something while you're at it?
- Original Message -
From: Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] EXE2BIN
Hi again,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Joe Cosentino wrote:
Who gives a shit? It's included in MS-DOS 6.22, it'll be included in
FreeDOS. It's not hurting you is it? You don't suffer from erectile
disfunction because you dir and see exe2bin listed there do you? NO!
Jebus Christ, can't you find something
Steve Nickolas wrote:
For the record and for the sake of historical accuracy, I checked the
installation floppies for both upgrade and nonupgrade versions of MS-DOS
6.22, as well as full installers all the way down to 5.0 - 5.0 was the
last version to include exe2bin on the install
HAHA, Oh snap, son!
- Original Message -
From: Robert Riebisch r...@bttr-software.de
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] EXE2BIN
Steve Nickolas wrote:
For the record and for the sake of historical accuracy, I
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Joe Cosentino hardmar...@comcast.net wrote:
Who gives a shit?
I don't know, that's why I'm bringing it up. Constructive criticism is
welcome (but ...).
It's included in MS-DOS 6.22, it'll be included in FreeDOS.
That's not a good metric since, as
Jebus Christ, can't you find something better to bitch about? Or how
about
fixing something while you're at it?
This might be a good time to practice what you preach.
Sorry dude, but I've done more to advance this project in 6 months (not the
last 6 months, mind you), than you have done
Op 26-7-2011 22:32, Joe Cosentino schreef:
Jebus Christ, can't you find something better to bitch about? Or how
about
fixing something while you're at it?
This might be a good time to practice what you preach.
As useless as EXE2BIN might be, we'll keep it..in BASE even. I'll admit
to never
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Joe Cosentino hardmar...@comcast.net wrote:
can't you find something better to bitch about? Or how
about fixing something while you're at it?
This might be a good time to practice what you preach.
Sorry dude, but I've done more to advance this project
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote:
Op 26-7-2011 22:32, Joe Cosentino schreef:
Or how about fixing something while you're at it?
This might be a good time to practice what you preach.
As useless as EXE2BIN might be, we'll keep it..in BASE even.
it's
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Joe Cosentino hardmar...@comcast.net
wrote:
It's included in MS-DOS 6.22, it'll be included in FreeDOS.
That's not a good
At 04:11 PM 7/26/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
It's just hard to imagine why they would ever include LINK and EXE2BIN
when nothing comes with DOS that can use them. BASICA/GW-BASIC surely
didn't. I don't know, I'm not as savvy as some people here (Ralf?).
Well, as you asked... ;-)
EXE2BIN and LINK where
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
Seeing that there is so little respect for the old tools that made
out DOS, I am not sure if I should pick up one of my projects I had
started a few years back, a GW-BASIC clone, looks like there won't be
much interest for this at least in here. Or
At 08:10 PM 7/26/2011, Steve Nickolas wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
Seeing that there is so little respect for the old tools that made
out DOS, I am not sure if I should pick up one of my projects I had
started a few years back, a GW-BASIC clone, looks like there won't be
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
Some versions of MS-DOS even included LIB (I have some specimens of 2.x and
3.x that do). DEC's releases for the Rainbow even had MASM (!).
Now that is surprising! I wonder which version (and why
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
Some versions of MS-DOS even included LIB (I have some specimens of 2.x and
3.x that do). DEC's releases for the Rainbow even had MASM (!).
Now that is
Hi again,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Steve Nickolas
lyricalnan...@usotsuki.hoshinet.org wrote:
Exe2bin: Not all software uses compilers which create COM directly.
PC DOS 2000 doesn't even *have* exe2bin.
I'm not sure about MS-DOS 6.22 since I can't find an online listing.
(I used to
37 matches
Mail list logo
