If code is released to the public domain, anyone can use it
without restriction.
Right.
But there would be no license to protect us, to keep someone like
Microsoft from copying our code, and re-releasing it as their own
under a proprietary license.
Yeah, that's a subset of anyone can use
I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom
of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it.
Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving
the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the
GPLs). (Note
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 dark
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:23 AM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de 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
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.
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
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 load
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.
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
prefer
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de 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
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Bret Johnson bretj...@juno.com 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
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de 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
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
Hi again,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS)? Are
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Karen Lewellen
klewel...@shellworld.net wrote:
Actually given Microsoft restored a dos structure to what was it, windows
7? some of those utilities may be even more current.
Just my take,
Karen
I'm not sure what this means. I (sadly) don't have any
Hi!
don't know how else to say it: Windows is crap for DOS compatibility.
Thats about the only way to say it :) Vista dropped support for fullscreen
mode, and I can't imagine support has improved in Windows 7.
but the only DOS [sic] apps that still ship with 32-bit Windows that
I can recall
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS
applications which
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeffrey ellsn...@aol.com wrote:
IIRC NT 4.0 included some DOS 5.0 utilities and programs (including edit,
debug, etc).
Actually, sometime after this, microsoft created a new version of edit that
doesn't require
qbasic.
The earlier version of edit was
Hi,
The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
that finally changed.
Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* with
El 03/07/2012 03:45 p.m., Jeffrey escribió:
Hi,
The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
that finally changed.
Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
The reason is
Hi,
On Jul 3, 2012 7:16 PM, Jeffrey ellsn...@aol.com wrote:
The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
that finally changed.
Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
1).
Hi,
On Jul 3, 2012 7:27 PM, Marco Achury marcoach...@gmail.com wrote:
I was a qbasic fan. Is a great language. Freedos has a lot of
interpreters
and compilers available, but none has that great IDE.
I'm no heavy user of IDEs and similar complicated stuff, but I think we
have plenty of
Hi!
How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS
applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully
compatible with (all
I strongly suggest you do your own research here.
for example there is a ms dos package 7.1 which is augmented with dos
utilities from 2003 and 2005, far more current than 18 years ago. Of
course enhanced Dr does is maintained regularly.
As someone who uses dos exclusively, I can tell you
Recently there was a thread
about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS
SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS
... where this not as good support apparently amounts to may corrupt
your file system when concurrent write access occurs. This,
25 matches
Mail list logo
