Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom unavailable!?!?!?!
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Ralf Quint freedos...@gmail.com wrote: The big question is if OpenWatcom continues to be a viable option to be used with FreeDOS. If the official site would be down for good and Jiri's fork doesn't work right, the the pooch is pretty much screwed... The pooch arguably *has* been screwed for years. DOS is a legacy OS few folks have any real reason to care about. Dennis, once again, you're on the wrong mailing list if you're going to constantly harp on how obsolete and useless DOS is. Please learn to read. I never said DOS was useless - I said it was a legacy OS few folks have a real reason to care about. Like it or not, that's true. People involved in things like compiler writing will be targeting Windows, Linux, and the like. Windows and Linux are too volatile to rely upon. Sure, they're popular, but everything changes very quickly, and many compilers have broken or been abandoned due to upstream failures. Don't pretend that using a modern OS is somehow a panacea to common technical (and political) problems. Too volatile to rely upon? If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why the vast majority of desktop systems run Windows, and the vast majority of web servers run Linux? Many millions of people rely on both daily. I'm one of them. Progress brings volatility with it, but do does life. Somehow, we all manage to deal with it. The fact that nobody (according to you, although I can name a few non-commercial ones) targets DOS is irrelevant to us. We can't make anybody do anything. It's here if they want it (free, stable, well-documented). If not, good luck, go somewhere else. Name whoever you like. I'll be more impressed if you name any *commercial* offerings targeting DOS, since the reasons people care about things computing related tend to involve money. One of the reasons DOS gets little love these days is that there is little or no money in it. Who will *pay* to have DOS code written? Even the embedded market is being taken over by things like 32 ARM CPUs without the real mode issues involved in systems running 16 bit Intel architectures and the bewildering variety of memory models DOS programmers had to deal with. What are you referring to, the kernel? Sure, that uses 16-bit mode because there's no major incentive to switch. Lots of other things are using 32-bit flat model (since decades!), e.g. DJGPP and OpenWatcom. And if you don't have a 32 bit kernel, you jump through all sorts of hoops because of it. Look at the fun involved in trying to run protected mode stuff under DOS. There's *plenty* of incentive to switch, which is why most of the computing world *did* switch, and uses something *other* than DOS. But lets imagine for a moment that $DEITY works a miracle to order, and FreeDOS magically acquires a working 32 bit kernel. What do we get? We theoretically get an OS with a much larger address space, but it still single user and single tasking. How much traction do you think it will get? Don't tell me that (optional) 16-bit support prevents anybody from doing anything. We've had both for a long time, much longer than ARM has been popular. Don't pretend that ARM is superior, it is definitely not! I have nothing against it, but seriously, x86 has much more worthwhile legacy that still works. Why throw away what already works?? I didn't say ARM was superior. I simply said even the embedded world was shifting to 32 bit CPUs because it *could* - the hardware has become small, fast, and cheap enough. There's little reason *not* to, and once you *have* the more powerful hardware, you start finding uses for it. It's the same reason why I predict that all cell phones will increasingly be smart phone because they *can* be. They will be powerful enough to run something like Android, and will. ARM gets extensive use in the embedded space because because it's more power efficient than X86 when the scarce resource these days is battery life, and there is substantial OS and toolchain support, but there are other players like MIPS also in the market. (And note that as we get 64 bit ARM CPUs, we'll start seeing them in the server room *because* of that power efficiency. Think folks like Google and Facebook *won't* install ARM based rack servers by the thousands if they can drop their data center power bills by doing it? If you do, think again...) And increasingly, even embedded applications require 32 bit address space and multi-tasking. Tell you what. Restrict yourself to *only* FreeDOS and things that run under it. Do *all* of your computing that way. Do all of your web surfing that way. Tell me how you make out. I know it *can* be done, because a few folks here seem to successfully do it. I could not. Too much of what I do requires capabilities that
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS wishlist
For a whish list It would be nice to add a version of xcopy that also copies hidden and system file. Also it would be nice to able to read Chinese made UDF cds on dos. Why do they use UDF on a read only cd; its suppose to be for R/W cd's.. cheers DS On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:37:26 +0200 Mateusz Viste mate...@viste.fr writes: Hi all, Yesterday a post on the freedos devel list gave birth to a 'wishlist' of things that would be needed in FreeDOS. I repost this list here, since I am curious what other DOS users think. If you see something missing, that is both within a reasonable technical scope and represents a tangible real-case need, please tell. If there's feedback, I will compile a clean list and post it somewhere on the FreeDOS wiki, so that would be a nice place to send anyone that asks 'how could I contribute'. Here's the list: Creating packages: - Cyclicly making sure all we have packaged so far is still up to date - Creating packages for (free) DOS sofware that is not packaged yet - Porting existing non-DOS software to DOS - Nagging old shareware authors to open their ancient source code to the community Developing user tools: - A http(s) browser that works with today's web pages (CSS3, HTML5, JS...) - Picture viewer/converter, like SEA DOS Viewer - Extend one of the existing network stacks with full IPv6 support - Create a FreeDOS installer that could be used on FreeDOS v1.2 - Interconnectivity tools (ie. 'how to transfer files between a FreeDOS box and another PC, for example MSDOS had interlnk) - maybe a NFS browser, or even just a free equivalent of the old LapLink tool (there's File Maven of course, but it's not free) Developing low-level drivers: - Drivers for modern, unsupported hardware (mostly Sound and networking) - support for GPT partitions within the FreeDOS kernel and associated tools (format, fdisk, chkdsk...) - for sound, a new API based on the VESA sound standard could be nice for new apps - Wider/better/easier USB support - Implementing something better than FAT32 in the FreeDOS kernel, that supports journalling (ext3?) Mateusz - - One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Protect what matters Floods can happen anywhere. Learn your risk and find an agent today. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3165/5558fd56c03197d56618bmp04duc ** From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052 *** -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom unavailable!?!?!?!
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly qualified to say whether Windows or Linux are reliable. I will only say that I prefer using Linux instead of Windows, particularly due to these Windows viruses I've been hearing about. As for FreeDOS, I will only say it allows me to use the New Deal Office Suite I had on an old computer years ago, so I still have some use for DOS on occasion. Arthur -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Doing #include foo.h in Turbo C
It has been a long time since I've used the Turbo C 3.0 IDE and I'm stumped on something very basic. I'm trying to figure out how to get an existing project into the IDE. I've already figured out how to create a .PRJ file, but when I go to build the project, the compiler can't find any of my header files that are included with quotes around them (as opposed to angle brackets for system includes). I've been previously compiling this project using a Makefile without the assistance of the IDE, but now that I have a bug to track down, I need to use the IDE. What option am I missing that allows the IDE to know where to get include files specified with quotes? -- David Griffith dgri...@cs.csubak.edu A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom unavailable!?!?!?!
Hi, On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:48 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote: Dennis, once again, you're on the wrong mailing list if you're going to constantly harp on how obsolete and useless DOS is. Please learn to read. I never said DOS was useless - I said it was a legacy OS few folks have a real reason to care about. Like it or not, that's true. I think your perspective is far too limited to be declaring this as absolute truth. People involved in things like compiler writing will be targeting Windows, Linux, and the like. Windows and Linux are too volatile to rely upon. Too volatile to rely upon? If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why the vast majority of desktop systems run Windows, The vast majority are Home users (not Pro or Enterprise), which means they don't do production work (often considered only multimedia hounds). And most of them, by far, apparently run (dead) WinXP or (extended support only) Win7. Heck, didn't you say you run Win2k?? That's far from compatible with most modern apps. Most compilers won't even target it anymore. (Even XP is better off, barely, for now. But at least you aren't trying to run NT 4!) I think you overestimate the amount of legacy (and compatibility) that Microsoft is interested (and qualified) to support as far as end users are concerned. It's not anywhere near 100%. and the vast majority of web servers run Linux? All running the exact same kernel? Supported upstream? Drivers compatible? No. Many millions of people rely on both daily. I'm one of them. No, they don't rely on them, they use them. There's a big difference. The world would not end if they had to reinstall or upgrade. If anything, upgrading happens far too often (and is often mandatory, breakage or not). Progress brings volatility with it, but do does life. Somehow, we all manage to deal with it. Constantly destroying everything just to rebuild is not a sane way to live. The fact that nobody (according to you, although I can name a few non-commercial ones) targets DOS is irrelevant to us. Name whoever you like. I'll be more impressed if you name any *commercial* offerings targeting DOS, There are still many commercial compilers sold that target DOS. However, I don't honestly know whether they are (strictly speaking) maintained or not. since the reasons people care about things computing related tend to involve money. One of the reasons DOS gets little love these days is that there is little or no money in it. I've read a similar opinion from Walter Bright (Digital Mars) before. I figure he ought to know. Then again, what makes you think people would pay when they won't even use what's free? We've got GCC, FPC, etc. If those aren't good enough, then nothing is. (And no, it's not the technical fault of DOS for lack of developers. If they can't be bothered, that's more of a cultural problem.) Who will *pay* to have DOS code written? Are you seriously telling me you'd pay to have Clang ported to DOS? Go ahead, email Christian Lattner, tell him how much you're willing to hire him for. And make sure to tell him why OpenWatcom and DJGPP aren't good enough. Even the embedded market is being taken over by things like 32 ARM CPUs without the real mode issues involved in systems running 16 bit Intel architectures and the bewildering variety of memory models DOS programmers had to deal with. What are you referring to, the kernel? Sure, that uses 16-bit mode because there's no major incentive to switch. Lots of other things are using 32-bit flat model (since decades!), e.g. DJGPP and OpenWatcom. And if you don't have a 32 bit kernel, you jump through all sorts of hoops because of it. Look at the fun involved in trying to run protected mode stuff under DOS. What's the difference? It works. It's well documented. Dare I remind you that DPMI was invented ... by Microsoft ... for Windows?? Intel published and propagated the spec. It was standardized. What makes you think that 32-bit systems programming is magically easier than anything else? It's still dicey no matter which way you look at it. There's *plenty* of incentive to switch, which is why most of the computing world *did* switch, and uses something *other* than DOS. There used to be tons of DJGPP apps, but once NTVDM started sucking the big one (and not existing at all on AMD64), lots of developers jumped ship. Without a common, reliable, and easy to use environment, it was much harder for people to care. (I think it's obvious by now that FreeDOS cares more than Microsoft.) But lets imagine for a moment that $DEITY works a miracle to order, and FreeDOS magically acquires a working 32 bit kernel. What do we get? We theoretically get an OS with a much larger address space, but it still single user and single tasking. How much traction do you think it will get? Larger address space than DPMI
Re: [Freedos-user] Doing #include foo.h in Turbo C
On 5/24/2015 9:31 PM, David Griffith wrote: I'm well aware of the distinction between foo.h and foo.h. My problem is that with the Turbo C IDE, it just says that it can't find foo.h, even though foo.h is in the same directory as main.c. If I build using a Makefile, this isn't a problem. Well, not sure what else to tell you, works fine for me. Using Borland C++ 3.11 for decades on my plain DOS/16 bit capable Windows PCs, and likewise for the Turbo C++ 4.0 I run here on this 64bit Windows 8.1 laptop in a specialized DOSBox... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Doing #include foo.h in Turbo C
On 5/24/2015 5:33 PM, David Griffith wrote: It has been a long time since I've used the Turbo C 3.0 IDE and I'm stumped on something very basic. I'm trying to figure out how to get an existing project into the IDE. I've already figured out how to create a .PRJ file, but when I go to build the project, the compiler can't find any of my header files that are included with quotes around them (as opposed to angle brackets for system includes). I've been previously compiling this project using a Makefile without the assistance of the IDE, but now that I have a bug to track down, I need to use the IDE. What option am I missing that allows the IDE to know where to get include files specified with quotes? Not much info to go by but in general, you need to be aware that there is (always has been) a difference if you specify the include file with #include foo.h or with #include foo.h The later will look first in the source file path for the include file, then in the include path as set in the IDE Options-Directories, while the former will look only in the include path and not look in the source path... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Doing #include foo.h in Turbo C
On Sun, 24 May 2015, Ralf Quint wrote: On 5/24/2015 5:33 PM, David Griffith wrote: It has been a long time since I've used the Turbo C 3.0 IDE and I'm stumped on something very basic. I'm trying to figure out how to get an existing project into the IDE. I've already figured out how to create a .PRJ file, but when I go to build the project, the compiler can't find any of my header files that are included with quotes around them (as opposed to angle brackets for system includes). I've been previously compiling this project using a Makefile without the assistance of the IDE, but now that I have a bug to track down, I need to use the IDE. What option am I missing that allows the IDE to know where to get include files specified with quotes? Not much info to go by but in general, you need to be aware that there is (always has been) a difference if you specify the include file with #include foo.h or with #include foo.h The later will look first in the source file path for the include file, then in the include path as set in the IDE Options-Directories, while the former will look only in the include path and not look in the source path... I'm well aware of the distinction between foo.h and foo.h. My problem is that with the Turbo C IDE, it just says that it can't find foo.h, even though foo.h is in the same directory as main.c. If I build using a Makefile, this isn't a problem. -- David Griffith dgri...@cs.csubak.edu A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom unavailable!?!?!?!
I've tried the DOS host. So far it doesn't work right. It can't read makefiles correctly and VI crashes when loading a file from command line. There are some more bugs but these are the ones that bother me personally. I've reported both bugs but I've haven't seen a reply yet. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
