Jim Hall schreef:
> The problem is: how will you (Eric) know that the patches will work?
> How long do you intend to hold back the 2038 version before deciding
> it is "good enough"?
>
I'd agree with Jim here, release, then ask feedback. People might lack
the skill to comment on individual patc
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
>>> If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release
>>> 2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend
>>> making 2038 available, and putting the "few pending improvements" in
>>> 2039.
>
Hi Christian,
>> If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release
>> 2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend
>> making 2038 available, and putting the "few pending improvements" in
>> 2039.
>
> The problem is that Eric holds back at least three neces
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton wrote:
> Also I remember from my pre dot net days using a program which would
> inspect a dll and identify all the public methods/functions that it
> has.
> Would this be considered legal? If so anyone remember what that
> program is/was? I used it at a
Bernd Blaauw wrote:
> Christian Masloch schreef:
>
>> Since disassembling MS-DOS is "considered legal" by UDOS and RBIL authors
>> (and these sources are "considered legal" by all members of the FreeDOS
>> project) I think there's no problem using some DLL examination tool.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
Christian Masloch schreef:
> Since disassembling MS-DOS is "considered legal" by UDOS and RBIL authors
> (and these sources are "considered legal" by all members of the FreeDOS
> project) I think there's no problem using some DLL examination tool.
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>
I hope you have h
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton wrote:
> Windows 3x Issues
>
> I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
> to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
> running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
> Plus it replaces parts
> I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
> to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
> running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
Yes, but note that the described "AARD" code is not really used in any
retail release (UDOS 2nd E
> I was thinking of calling the GUI Janus after the code name for windows
> 3.11. Which I think should be ok legalwise. Thoughts?
hmm you could name it after the Roman god Janus, thinking
of looking back to DOS and forward to a GUI?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
In Roman mythology
Windows 3x Issues
I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as
the book hin
>> Simple: If you only use WIN /S then you can use the
>> stable 2036 or stable 2038 kernel. The latter is on
>> http://rugxulo.googlepages.com/ as binary snapshot.
>>
>> There are a few pending improvements before 2038 can
>> be put on "sourceforge file releases"... The sources
>> already are on s
11 matches
Mail list logo
