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
11 matches
Mail list logo
