David O'Shea schreef:
It says The UNSTABLE (aka development) branch is what I refer to as the
development kernel (kernels with w suffix). It looks like those kernels
actually have .dev or .dbgdev in them, right?
There doesn't seem to be a discussion of the naming convention for FreeCOM.
Bart Oldeman schreef:
To be fair I found Eric's email rather demanding. In general if you
want things to happen in the NEAR future you either have to do it
yourself or pay big bucks, not just pizza money. Certainly when the
kernel doesn't have a real maintainer (just an interim one who does
Howdy,
Hi,
http://fdos.org/kernel/
makes people use 8086 FreeCOM if I understand the text right.
This means they will likely have no XMS swap and no LOADHIGH.
In short, they will think FreeCOM is really a BAD command.com
I find the site a bit confusing.
It says The UNSTABLE (aka
Eric Auer escreveu:
Hi,
http://fdos.org/kernel/
makes people use 8086 FreeCOM if I understand the text right.
This means they will likely have no XMS swap and no LOADHIGH.
In short, they will think FreeCOM is really a BAD command.com
I agree.
My other wish is using a new version number.
Hi,
http://fdos.org/kernel/
makes people use 8086 FreeCOM if I understand the text right.
This means they will likely have no XMS swap and no LOADHIGH.
In short, they will think FreeCOM is really a BAD command.com
Please make the XMS SWAP 186+ FreeCOM the one which is linked
at the Stable Kernel
