> While you and I may prefer BSD-ish licenses for various reasons (esp.
> since if a developer hates the GPL, they won't contribute at all,
> which seemingly defeats the point), the majority of enthusiasts by far
> prefer and use GPLv2, esp. here in FreeDOS (hi, Jim!). GPL isn't bad,
> per se, just
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
> >> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
> >> and share freely.
> >
> > ... wh
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>>
>> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
>> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
>> and share freely.
>
> ... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also
>
> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
> and share freely.
... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also
does not necessitate that language choice, actually. I'm aware o
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Bret Johnson wrote:
>>
>> So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either.
>
> FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons
> like this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and
> is still the "minimum standard"
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, C. Masloch wrote:
>> In very rare cases only, though.
>
> Irrelevant.
Maybe to you and me, but most developers seem to weigh the issue with
how much time and effort vs. how important it is. To them, it makes
perfect sense to ignore things that don't bother th
> No, not by default. According to the "official" documentation (e.g.,
> the MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or
> multi-tasking environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation.
Then the particular problem in question is generally not a reason to
prefe
> You do always load its "SHARE" though, right?
No, not by default. According to the "official" documentation (e.g., the
MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or multi-tasking
environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation.
--
> FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like
> this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the
> "minimum standard" to which others must compare. I would classify
> possible file corruption as a major problem, not a side issue.
You do always
> So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either.
FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like this.
MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the "minimum
standard" to which others must compare. I would classify possible file
corru
> In very rare cases only, though.
Irrelevant.
> Admittedly nobody wants corruption, but I don't think most people rely
> on deleting open files (except POSIX, so it's probably only a problem
> when porting GNU stuff to DJGPP).
Inaccurate. RBIL's notes seldom refer to programs that target POSIX.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:23 AM, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> The problem is that even with FreeDOS's "SHARE" loaded, file system
> corruption occurs (reproducibly), and in cases that do not fail on MS-DOS
> with MS-DOS's "SHARE" loaded.
In very rare cases only, though.
> If there are enough active
> I'm not sure if this is a bug, misfeature, lack of testing (re:
> FreeDOS specifically vs. arcane dark corners of MS-DOS), or user
> error.
You don't need to be sure, because I am sure enough what it is.
And what it is, is completely broken file system semantics. Nothing to do
with "arcane da
13 matches
Mail list logo
