Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
I don't think that SEAL (regardless under which name and incarnation, there were several IIRC) ever got to the point that it was in any form usable. Can't call this promising at all. All they got was some nice desktop picture, nothing more... You are wrong. There weren't many useful programs, BUT it provides most widgets and a Desktop! So if somebody had been started writing a GUI program, this would have been the first choice. But I think, this GUI were 5 years too late… Now there seems to be problems compiling the whole framework. Bye Flo -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
El 11.01.2012, a las 03:38, Ralf A. Quint escribió: I'd love to have you contribute to a GUI project. There have been several. The one with the longest history is OpenGEM, but the web site is now idle (http://gem.shaneland.co.uk/). The OpenGEM6 pre-release is the last we heard of this project, in 2006 (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/gui/opengem/6/). I wouldn't contribute to this GUI. The framework has no modern features, were very nice years back. But now… I would only contribute to GUIs, which are ports from Linux or at least are using libraries for the GNU C/C++ compiler. Florian -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
The problems encountered strapping a GUI onto a DOS system are similar to the problems that were encountered when object orientation and classes were added to C to create C++. C++ is really a hybrid language, neither a strictly procedural nor a strictly object oriented language. Any GUI strapped onto a DOS environment will seemingly make it a hybrid. All dos environments share the following problem: Multiple users requires permissions on individual files and resources to keep users from walking all over each other, if such a thing is wanted. DOS environments only have a superuser. So, DOS environments are single user environments. Change DOS so that there are permissions on files, FAT filesystems present a real problem since they predate permissions on files. Many programs that expect uninhibited access to everything and anything won't work. The best you can do is run Linux or something even more secure underneath DOS via DOSBox. Each user has his/her own DOS system. Nowadays with companies greedily protecting their intellectual property, can you access hardware directly if you don't know what's there? Can you use a software library to access that hardware via a well known interface from your favorite OS? Does it ever make sense these days to have direct hardware access without the user abstraction? If DOS itself is in ROM and you are building a kiosk... maybe then if you can directly access the hardware DOS does make sense. Even a GUI on a DOS kiosk might make sense. What doesn't make sense is a DOS system that is supposed to be usable by multiple strangers where the system is not in a ROM but on a writable hard disk. Insofar as a graphical user interface can limit what can be done and make it easier to do what is intended, such an interface will make sense. So a version of DOS with no command line per se outfitted with a GUI could make a nice kiosk system. But if direct hardware access is improbable or software library access of hardware is impossible outside of say Windows 7, you are in trouble even if the target system is a Linux system. -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
I find it tedious to download lots and lots of files from the DJGPP site and putting them into the DJGPP directory. In the process you have to make sure that old packages do not overwrite the files installed by new packages. And you may have selected the wrong version needed or just missed some files. Therefore I made a ZIP archive of my DJGPP directory which I know works with Nano-X and FLTK. So you may use that or try the one you already have. I did not modify or recompile any DJGPP code for this. If you want to develop with Nano-X you just need the binary version. There is also the source code which allows you to recompile Nano-X. Both versions contain user guides and examples. Georg Looks like a better option, specially because is a current project and is free. I see the download lists and I dont undersand what is that we must to download. http://code.google.com/p/nanox-microwindows-nxlib-fltk-for-dos/downloads/list Is needed to download their djgpp package in order the run the calculator and other examples? -- -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marco A. Achury Tel: +58-(212)-6158777 Cel: +58-(414)-3142282 Skype: marcoachury http://www.achury.com.ve -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
Since DJGPP is not up-to-date anymore a fresh installation is a pain! (new versions of the libraries, small fixes, etc, new versions of the compilers ...) Bye Florian El 11.01.2012, a las 12:27, nospam escribió: I find it tedious to download lots and lots of files from the DJGPP site and putting them into the DJGPP directory. In the process you have to make sure that old packages do not overwrite the files installed by new packages. And you may have selected the wrong version needed or just missed some files. Therefore I made a ZIP archive of my DJGPP directory which I know works with Nano-X and FLTK. So you may use that or try the one you already have. I did not modify or recompile any DJGPP code for this. If you want to develop with Nano-X you just need the binary version. There is also the source code which allows you to recompile Nano-X. Both versions contain user guides and examples. Georg Looks like a better option, specially because is a current project and is free. I see the download lists and I dont undersand what is that we must to download. http://code.google.com/p/nanox-microwindows-nxlib-fltk-for-dos/downloads/list Is needed to download their djgpp package in order the run the calculator and other examples? -- -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marco A. Achury Tel: +58-(212)-6158777 Cel: +58-(414)-3142282 Skype: marcoachury http://www.achury.com.ve -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
Do you have any info what happened to Shane/the OpenGEM project, the whole disappearance happened a bit quick and starring for several years now at the site that proclaims Something exciting is coming soon is a bit of a drag :-( ... Ralf IIRC, he became the IT Director or CIO for an organization somewhere in Europe. He said he always meant to go back to finish up the OpenGEM 6 prerelease, make a full release, but I guess he never had the opportunity with his new responsibilities. So the web site got stuck as-is. jh -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.com wrote: The problems encountered strapping a GUI onto a DOS system are similar to the problems that were encountered when object orientation and classes were added to C to create C++. C++ is really a hybrid language, neither a strictly procedural nor a strictly object oriented language. Any GUI strapped onto a DOS environment will seemingly make it a hybrid. Please recall that DesqView, DesqViewX, GEM, and Windows through 9.X were precisely GUIs strapped onto a DOS environment. (Win98 used DOS as a real-mode loader, and once it was up, DOS was out of the loop and Windows *was* the OS.) DesqView and Windows even provided multitasking. They did their own time slicing, and served as dispatcher, serializing access to the underlying OS functions. All dos environments share the following problem: Multiple users requires permissions on individual files and resources to keep users from walking all over each other, if such a thing is wanted. DOS environments only have a superuser. So, DOS environments are single user environments. Change DOS so that there are permissions on files, FAT filesystems present a real problem since they predate permissions on files. Many programs that expect uninhibited access to everything and anything won't work. The best you can do is run Linux or something even more secure underneath DOS via DOSBox. Each user has his/her own DOS system. If you *have* multiple users, you *don't* have a DOS system. it is explicitly single-user, and presumes the user at the machine is the administrator. Windows kept that model through XP, and only made substantial changes in Vista/Win7. Part of the problem is the file system. FAT provides no place to store the required permissions data. Windows didn't really get it till NTFS. Nowadays with companies greedily protecting their intellectual property, can you access hardware directly if you don't know what's there? Can If you *have* a multi user, multitasking OS, you don't *want* to address the hardware directly. The process attempting to do it *cannot* assume it's the only thing running, which was the case under DOS. And in the DOS days, addressing the hardware directly was for performance reasons. The usual direct address was the screen, and the usual reason to do it was something like a game where BIOS updates would be too slow. you use a software library to access that hardware via a well known interface from your favorite OS? Does it ever make sense these days to have direct hardware access without the user abstraction? Yes, for the reasons mentioned above. It depends on how you implement a DOS system. If you have something like FreeDOS installed so you can boot directly into it, a virtual machine solution like DOSBox under Linux isn't in the picture. You *can* directly address the hardware, and your programs may try to. The challenge placed by things like DOSEmu is that the class of programs they were designed to support (games) *did* try to address the hardware, and DOSEmu needs to make the program think it *has*, even though something else is actually handling things. If DOS itself is in ROM and you are building a kiosk... maybe then if you can directly access the hardware DOS does make sense. Even a GUI on a DOS kiosk might make sense. What doesn't make sense is a DOS system that is supposed to be usable by multiple strangers where the system is not in a ROM but on a writable hard disk. Insofar as a graphical user interface can limit what can be done and make it easier to do what is intended, such an interface will make sense. So a version of DOS with no command line per se outfitted with a GUI could make a nice kiosk system. But if direct hardware access is improbable or software library access of hardware is impossible outside of say Windows 7, you are in trouble even if the target system is a Linux system. Why are you assuming said DOS system will be accessed by multiple strangers? For things like FreeDOS, there will be a single user who installs it in the first place and runs it after it is. While it's theoretically possible to set up DOS in a VM so that different users have different DOS systems, t's far more bother than it's worth. If I am setting up a kiosk, DOS is *not* what I'll use. There are three issues being conflated above: multiple users, multitasking, and GUIs. They are separate issues, and for a DOS system, the first doesn't even need to be considered. It won't be used that way, and even if it is, it will be the same way DOS systems were used back before GUIs came on the scene: one user at a time. You won't have the issue of more than one person/process trying to update the same filesystem at the same time and stepping on each other's toes. What is being discussed here is the last: a GUI. There are reasons a GUI may be desireable, and I'd be delighted to see a supported solution
Re: [Freedos-user] x windows server for DOS
At 12:30 AM 1/11/2012, Florian Xaver wrote: El 11.01.2012, a las 03:38, Ralf A. Quint escribió: I'd love to have you contribute to a GUI project. There have been several. The one with the longest history is OpenGEM, but the web site is now idle (http://gem.shaneland.co.uk/). The OpenGEM6 pre-release is the last we heard of this project, in 2006 (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/gui/opengem/6/). I wouldn't contribute to this GUI. The framework has no modern features, were very nice years back. But now What modern features would that be? I would only contribute to GUIs, which are ports from Linux or at least are using libraries for the GNU C/C++ compiler. Why encumber yourself on DOS with a behemoth of a Unix/Linux compiler? Nothing personal Florian, but this all seems to be exactly one of those cases where people are just trying to force DOS into a second coming of Linux... Ralf -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
At 07:39 AM 1/11/2012, dmccunney wrote: Please recall that DesqView, DesqViewX, GEM, and Windows through 9.X were precisely GUIs strapped onto a DOS environment. Just for the record, DesqView is not a GUI, but a text mode multi-tasking/task-switching add-on for DOS and basically an extension to Quarterdesk's QEMM memory manager. And the name GUI means Graphical User Interface. Basically handling common tasks by more visual means rather than having to use/type various and possibly long command line instructions. What people nowadays seem to expect that they get all the new fluff of newer developments in operating systems instead of sticking with the original meaning of the term as far as the use of GUI in relation to (Free)DOS goes... Ralf -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote: At 07:39 AM 1/11/2012, dmccunney wrote: Please recall that DesqView, DesqViewX, GEM, and Windows through 9.X were precisely GUIs strapped onto a DOS environment. Just for the record, DesqView is not a GUI, but a text mode multi-tasking/task-switching add-on for DOS and basically an extension to Quarterdesk's QEMM memory manager. DesqView/X was a GUI, but point taken. They were all shells on top of DOS. (I ran DesqView, back in the day. It worked surprisingly well. I recall one BBS sysop running four instances of a Wildcat BBS on a 25mhz AT under DV. He could have 4 nodes connected to four modems and operating simultaneously on on machine. And the name GUI means Graphical User Interface. Basically handling common tasks by more visual means rather than having to use/type various and possibly long command line instructions. Yes, but I don't see why such a thing shouldn't exist for DOS. GUIs took over the world for a reason. What people nowadays seem to expect that they get all the new fluff of newer developments in operating systems instead of sticking with the original meaning of the term as far as the use of GUI in relation to (Free)DOS goes... Well, not if they are trying to use DOS, they don't. (If they do, they get disabused of the notion very quickly.) Ralf __ Dennis -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] VirtualBox FreeDOS HowTo
Op 11-1-2012 0:58, Ulrich Hansen schreef: I have started a VirtualBox HowTo in our FreeDOS wiki. It is a sort of installation walkthrough with many pictures. It can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=Installing_FreeDOS_in_VirtualBox That looks great, you've done an awesome job at posting such a detailed guide. I'm so happy I kept things simple for now so not that many issues will arise. The more complex binary test release is something which I'll integrate in a next FreeDOS 1.2 release. Some issues were found there, some fixing is needed. Most likely TDSK related. Thanks for your guide, I hope Jim will link it from the download page. -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
At 09:20 AM 1/11/2012, dmccunney wrote: I ran DesqView, back in the day. It worked surprisingly well. I recall one BBS sysop running four instances of a Wildcat BBS on a 25mhz AT under DV. He could have 4 nodes connected to four modems and operating simultaneously on on machine. It did indeed, we used it at a former employer, a CAD/CAM software company, to run compiler servers... And the name GUI means Graphical User Interface. Basically handling common tasks by more visual means rather than having to use/type various and possibly long command line instructions. Yes, but I don't see why such a thing shouldn't exist for DOS. GUIs took over the world for a reason. I don't say that a GUI for DOS in general is a bad thing,... And it is not that GUI's took over the world, but nowadays every mouse jockey insists on using GUI based operating systems. And there is far more to any Windows, Mac OS X, Linux these days than just running a GUI on top of a command line based OS. And IMHO it just doesn't make sense to back port all that additional fluff, as you easily reach the limits of the underlying DOS in terms of available resources. And a lot of efforts that people are making/trying to make in order to push those limits or eliminate them just lead to changing (Free)DOS into another Linux distro. Ralf -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
A kiosk is a multiple user system, but not necessarily a simultaneously multiple user system. So DOS will work most likely. Chances are though, the DOS system files and tools themselves need to be on read only memory if there is any possibility of a person being at a command line and making a mistake or doing something malicious. DOS used in a kiosk breaks down if there is any persistent data tied to a particular person that needs to be saved on the kiosk, but often that isn't what you actually want. A large ROM and a lot of ram placing data on a ram drive is an option. Hit the reset button, the data is gone. Freedos in particular boots up quickly, so users can hit the reset button and the next person will be able to use the system shortly. Dos is simple compared to Linux, less to go wrong and troubleshoot. Dos supports some software that no other environment supports. Dos with local only area networking on a kiosk may be connected to a true multiuser multitasking OS so that individual user data can be saved securely. A kiosk in essence should be just a terminal to a more advanced server. The advantage of a true single user fast booting OS is that you can hit the reset button and you won't damage it. Don't hit the reset button on a Linux system, it may not boot again. Why are you assuming said DOS system will be accessed by multiple strangers? For things like FreeDOS, there will be a single user who installs it in the first place and runs it after it is. While it's theoretically possible to set up DOS in a VM so that different users have different DOS systems, t's far more bother than it's worth. If I am setting up a kiosk, DOS is *not* what I'll use. -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos and graphical user interfaces...
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michael Robinson plu...@robinson-west.com wrote: Why are you assuming said DOS system will be accessed by multiple strangers? For things like FreeDOS, there will be a single user who installs it in the first place and runs it after it is. While it's theoretically possible to set up DOS in a VM so that different users have different DOS systems, t's far more bother than it's worth. If I am setting up a kiosk, DOS is *not* what I'll use. A kiosk is a multiple user system, but not necessarily a simultaneously multiple user system. So DOS will work most likely. Chances are though, the DOS system files and tools themselves need to be on read only memory if there is any possibility of a person being at a command line and making a mistake or doing something malicious. DOS DR-DOS came about because Digital Research got requests from OEMs for a ROMmable version of DOS for embedded applications. You couldn't do it with MS-DOS because it wasn't architected to allow the necessary separation of code and data. (Microsoft did eventually address that.) used in a kiosk breaks down if there is any persistent data tied to a particular person that needs to be saved on the kiosk, but often that isn't what you actually want. A large ROM and a lot of ram placing data on a ram drive is an option. Hit the reset button, the data is gone. Freedos in particular boots up quickly, so users can hit the reset button and the next person will be able to use the system shortly. Dos is simple compared to Linux, less to go wrong and troubleshoot. Dos supports some software that no other environment supports. Dos with local only area networking on a kiosk may be connected to a true multiuser multitasking OS so that individual user data can be saved securely. A kiosk in essence should be just a terminal to a more advanced server. The advantage of a true single user fast booting OS is that you can hit the reset button and you won't damage it. It's hard to damage most current OSes that way. I used to have a specialized telecommunications server in a computer room at one employer that ran OS/2 Warp, on an HFS file system. Have a problem with it? Power cycle. It came back up fine *every* time, with the problem that made me power cycle it gone. I know if they still do, but the kiosks that print Amrak tickets at Penn Station in NYC used to run OS/2. Don't hit the reset button on a Linux system, it may not boot again. Haven't used Linux in a while? That has *not* been my experience. I have *never* had a Linux system fail to boot after a reset. I *have* had *Unix* systems that needed file system *repair* after a reset or a power outage, but current Linux filesystems are a lot more robust than early Unix file systems were, and often journaling, so that resorting to things like fsck is not required. All the information to successfully restore the last state is present and applied during the boot process. And file systems like Ext4 under Linux and NTFS under Windows are *far* more robust than DOS FAT. I've had problems under Windows that required running CHKDSK. Under DOS, that would result in a slew of FILE.CHK files that might or might not be something salvageable, and a system that would require fairly massive repair to make operational once the file system was sane. Under Linux, I've never even needed to do fsck, and under Windows, CHKDSK matter of factly corrected the file system, and put all the orphaned files back in the proper directories under their correct names. The only time it failed to do so was when directory information happened to be on a bad block and couldn't be recovered. The *files* could, and recreating the correct directory for them to live in was trivial. If I have to set up a kiosk, I want a robust filesystem that survives power outages and resets. That's *not* FAT. Boot time is *far* less important than being robust when up and running, doing whatever the kiosk does. *That's* not DOS. I repeat, if I need to set up a kiosk, DOS is *not* what I'll use. __ Dennis -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
