Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website (rants)

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jose Antonio Senna
 wrote:
>
>   This said, I also admit browsing from DOS
>  is going to be less and less practical.
>  Lynx 2.8.5 supports HTTPS (and is the only
>  tried DOS browser which does),

I'm pretty sure Links2 (non-lite version) can support HTTPS also.

But if you try Links2 and it doesn't work well for you, I'm pretty
sure the developer (mikulas) would still accept your feedback. He
seems open to suggestions.

>   It shall be possible to write a browser "for DOS"
>  from scratch (possibly using only expanded
>  memory, so it may run even in a 8088, albeit
>  a fast one), but it will take so much skilled
>  effort that nobody is going to do it.

Honestly, I'd err more on the side of "nobody has those skills
anymore" rather than pretending "if only we had more xyz" (money,
developers, time, etc).

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website (rants)

[Dale E Sterner]

My bank was planning to swithch to html 5.
I told them that if I located a bank using html 4
that I would close my accounts and move to that
bank. They are still using html 4.
If everybody did that maybe this constant
upgrade crap would stop.

cheers
DS



On Sat, 16 Jul 16 00:32:09 + =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZSBBbnRvbmlvIFNlbm5h?=
 writes:
>   On July 15 Rugxulo said:
> 
>  > Let's not pretend that it's really about DOS. 
>  > It's more about ultra-modern advancements 
>  > (which personally I think we can live without, 
>  > but nobody agrees with me).
> 
>   I,at least, agree.
>   Almost all the  "enhancements" in web pages
>  are just gimmicks to force use of the latest 
>  browsers, and offer no advantage to the user, 
>  whether on information, ease of use, or security, 
>  over plain HTML4.
> 
>   This said, I also admit browsing from DOS 
>  is going to be less and less practical. 
>  Lynx 2.8.5 supports HTTPS (and is the only 
>  tried DOS browser which does), but I cannot
>  access Wikipedia with it, because the
>  algorithms they use (or so they said).  
>  Not that they care.
>   Newer versions of Lynx may have wider
>  HTTPS capabilities, but they are really 
>  *nix programs, depending on so much extra 
>  code that they shall probably never run 
>  in a 386.
>   
>   It shall be possible to write a browser "for DOS" 
>  from scratch (possibly using only expanded 
>  memory, so it may run even in a 8088, albeit 
>  a fast one), but it will take so much skilled 
>  effort that nobody is going to do it.
> 
>  JAS
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-
-
> What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and 
> traffic
> patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and 
> protocols are 
> consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for 
> NetFlow, 
> J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using 
> capacity planning
> reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***



Affordable Wireless Plans
Set up is easy. Get online in minutes.
Starting at only $9.95 per month! 
www.netzero.net?refcd=nzmem0216

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website (rants)

[Ralf Quint]

On 7/15/2016 5:32 PM, Jose Antonio Senna wrote:
>This said, I also admit browsing from DOS
>   is going to be less and less practical.
>   Lynx 2.8.5 supports HTTPS (and is the only
>   tried DOS browser which does), but I cannot
>   access Wikipedia with it, because the
>   algorithms they use (or so they said).
>   Not that they care.
>Newer versions of Lynx may have wider
>   HTTPS capabilities, but they are really
>   *nix programs, depending on so much extra
>   code that they shall probably never run
>   in a 386.
https is only one issue, the general use/switch to HTML5 with all the 
multi-media and forms features (negating the need to have flash for a 
lot of things) is probably a much bigger hurdle.
>
>It shall be possible to write a browser "for DOS"
>   from scratch (possibly using only expanded
>   memory, so it may run even in a 8088, albeit
>   a fast one), but it will take so much skilled
>   effort that nobody is going to do it.
Good luck with that. It seems these days nobody can actually program 
anything for DOS anymore.

As much as I like DOS and I think it can still be very useful for 
example in embedded use, like on the Intel Quark based IoT boards, 
(general) web browsing on DOS is just nonsense. Just use Linux for that 
if you do  not want to use Windows and don't want to encumber yourself 
with macOS (fka OS X) either...

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

Dennis, I wish we wouldn't have to constantly state how obsolete DOS
is and how it's horribly dead and useless. I doubt Jasenna is directly
profiting from your "obvious" advice to upgrade. (Sigh.)

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
>
> I browsed www.rahul.net/dkaufman/  just for curiosity.  Last released version 
> of DOS
> port of lynx was 2.8.5rel.1, date 18 April 2004.

There's a newer DJGPP "port" 2.8.9 since two weeks ago. Not from Doug,
though, and I'd hardly call it well-supported. Heck, I haven't even
tried it. I don't know what it supports or how well it works:

http://na.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/djgpp/current/v2tk/lynx289b.zip
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.msdos.djgpp/5HbYKiotvcA

(irony: you probably can't see that announcement without Javascript)

(For my DOS uses, Links2 is plenty good enough.)

> Last line of this web page read:
> This page last updated 2 November 2006.

Links 2.13 (DJGPP build, mirrored to iBiblio for us) was just released
two weeks ago as well.

> I also tried www.nettamer.net/tamer.html : looked like the same old stuff 
> from 1999.
>
> I checked www.glennmcc.org : latest Arachne is v1.97, dating to Mar 04, 2013.
>
> I think it might be possible to produce a DOS web browser with support for 
> current web standards,

It's possible (in theory) to support some Javascript, but adding
things like HTML5 are probably out of the question.

> but would not be worthwhile on an OS that distinguishes between conventional, 
> extended and
> expanded memory.

DJGPP v2 built stuff usually only sees DPMI, which behind the scenes
is based upon whatever other kind is available (EMS/VCPI, XMS, raw).
You don't have to do anything special to access it, so that is a red
herring.

> Writing a web browser is more efficient in Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Haiku

FreeBSD isn't a supported target for Opera anymore (last I checked).
So how "easy" can it be if even they aren't supported? Does any
"major" web browser support Haiku? Or even eCS (OS/2)? AFAIK, no.

Face it, only the big three (billion-dollar) OSes are worth anybody's
effort anymore. Which is horribly lazy and inept, but that's the way
it is. Honestly, a web browser shouldn't be almost bigger than the OS
itself! It's a mess, but there's not much normal people can do about
it.

But it's also not fair to pretend that development just magically
happens (while whining about money, as if that solves everything).
First of all, money and developers don't grow on trees. We're lucky
when anything is supported, and it's not always guaranteed that even
Windows, Linux, and Mac are all equal in features.

> not to mention Windows and Mac, and not many people would be interested
> in web-browsing from DOS.

IE is practically dead (or so I thought) in lieu of Edge. And legacy
things (like "old" Win7) are going away. Let's not pretend that it's
really about DOS. It's more about ultra-modern advancements (which
personally I think we can live without, but nobody agrees with me).

Probably cost-efficient Android tablets or Chromebooks are the future
(though iOS is still extremely popular).

> At this stage, my interest in browsing from DOS would be mainly to see if it 
> works on simpler sites,
> naturally not including any kind of online commerce.

Considering that most companies (and even individuals) are not immune
to hacks, and that this problem seems to be increasing, I think any
overzealous claims of security (on any OS) would be somewhat naive.
Not to be a pessimist, but the Internet itself may not survive if
certain groups can't keep their hands off of other peoples' goods.

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[Thomas Mueller]

from dmccunney:

> And sometimes it's correct advice.  The computer world changes with
> enormous rapidity, and one area where change is fastest is web
> browsing.  These days, the push is to support HTML5, and CSS3, with
> current JavaScript.  HTML5 is a big push because the  keyword
> makes it possible to embed video without using Flash.  You still need
> a codec to decode and display the video, but the codec is part of the
> browser, and not a third party plugin.  CSS3 offers major additional
> capabilities in determining how sites look in a manner separated from
> their content.  And *everybody* uses JavaScript now.
 
> It's why I don't even try to browse from DOS.  No current DOS browser
> comes anywhere close to the support for current web standards that is
> really needed, and none *will*.  It's likely not possible under DOS,
> and  no one will expend the considerable effort to implement what can
> be done under DOS because there's no money in it.  People who can do
> that sort of thing expect to be paid for it, and who will do so?

I browsed www.rahul.net/dkaufman/  just for curiosity.  Last released version 
of DOS port of lynx was 2.8.5rel.1, date 18 April 2004.

Last line of this web page read:
This page last updated 2 November 2006. 

I also tried www.nettamer.net/tamer.html : looked like the same old stuff from 
1999.

I checked www.glennmcc.org : latest Arachne is v1.97, dating to Mar 04, 2013.

I think it might be possible to produce a DOS web browser with support for 
current web standards, but would not be worthwhile on an OS that distinguishes 
between conventional, extended and expanded memory.

Writing a web browser is more efficient in Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Haiku not 
to mention Windows and Mac, and not many people would be interested in 
web-browsing from DOS.

At this stage, my interest in browsing from DOS would be mainly to see if it 
works on simpler sites, naturally not including any kind of online commerce.

Tom


--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[dmccunney]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jose Antonio Senna
 wrote:
>  On July 13 dmccunney said:

>   > One alternative is to install a new browser.
>
>Seems the knee-jerk reaction from support people.
>And a new OS, and a new computer...

And sometimes it's correct advice.  The computer world changes with
enormous rapidity, and one area where change is fastest is web
browsing.  These days, the push is to support HTML5, and CSS3, with
current JavaScript.  HTML5 is a big push because the  keyword
makes it possible to embed video without using Flash.  You still need
a codec to decode and display the video, but the codec is part of the
browser, and not a third party plugin.  CSS3 offers major additional
capabilities in determining how sites look in a manner separated from
their content.  And *everybody* uses JavaScript now.

It's why I don't even try to browse from DOS.  No current DOS browser
comes anywhere close to the support for current web standards that is
really needed, and none *will*.  It's likely not possible under DOS,
and  no one will expend the considerable effort to implement what can
be done under DOS because there's no money in it.  People who can do
that sort of thing expect to be paid for it, and who will do so?

>   >  Another is code that diddles the User Agent string the
>   > browser sends in response to a "What browser are you?"
>   > query...
>
>   In FF this can be done in the about:config page, without
>  extra code, but I doubt they use this method to identify
>  the browser.

What *do* you think they use?  Most sites I encounter use precisely
the User Agent string, because it's what the browser sends when it's
asked to identify itself.

I've diddled that configuration on the past to lie about what I was
using, to cope with brain dead sites designed to work with IE, or with
sites that didn't recognize the browser I was using (not FF) as one
that supported the standards they required...No problem.  Lie and
claim it's Chrome...

>   I think it is more likely they use jquery to make the
>  client return a response dependent on the javascript
>  version it supports.

Possible, but that's another reason for running a relatively current browser.

>   JAS
__
Dennis

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[Jim Hall]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jose Antonio Senna
 wrote:
>  On July 13 dmccunney said:
>
>  > The issue here may be the ancient FF version.
>  > Sites tend to use browser identification code
>  > that will complain if it thinks you
>  > are running an unsupported browser that can't
>  > render the site.
>  > FF 2.X has been unsupported for years.
>
>This may explain why the Sourceforge server failed to
>   detect javascript capability in my browser, but it is no
>   reason for the "disaster recovery mode" message.
> Anyway, Sourceforge is now working again, and their
>   "Site Status" page acknowledges they had a problem.
>
[...]
>   I think it is more likely they use jquery to make the
>  client return a response dependent on the javascript
>  version it supports.


Yes, I think you are correct that they probably use js in their error
page, and they are detecting the version of js supported.

But as you say, SourceForge has fixed their server problem, so I think
this issue is moot.


Jim

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[dmccunney]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
> Interesting. When I replied to the email, I did check the website links. The
> links to SF were broken with a message from SourceForge. But I just checked
> again, and things seem back to normal. So that's good! :-)

I'll be curious to see what happens if Jose tries again.

There have been *many* changes in the JavaScript language since FF 2.X
was released, aside from changes in FF itself.  There are a variety of
sites that won't work correctly because the JavaScript the site uses
contains constructs that weren't in the language when FF 2 was
current, and the site will complain because even though JavaScript is
enabled in the browser, the JavaScript interpreter is too old to run
the code.

(I was grimly amused a while back when Google redid their code so
Gmail would actually work in IE 6.  I don't want to think about what
sort of kludges and work-arounds that took.  IE 6 was the *least*
standards-compliant browser in use, and Google only bit that bullet
because so many machines still used it.  Subsequent changes to Gmail
broke it again for IE 6 users, but by that point there were far less
people still trying to use IE 6.)

It's a subset of the issue that bites FreeDOS.  I don't even *try* to
browse from DOS.  Too many things just won't work.  The good part is I
don't *have* to browse from DOS, and have current browsers under
Windows and Linux that *do* work.
__
Dennis

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[Jim Hall]

Interesting. When I replied to the email, I did check the website links.
The links to SF were broken with a message from SourceForge. But I just
checked again, and things seem back to normal. So that's good! :-)
On Jul 13, 2016 12:58 PM, "dmccunney"  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
> > That's not a good sign. SourceForge did some planned maintenance
> yesterday
> > about noon, and things didn't go as planned. So the FreeDOS Wiki, bug
> > tracker, and Subversion repo are currently offline because they are
> hosted
> > at SourceForge.
>
> The issue here may be the ancient FF version.  Sites tend to use
> browser identification code that will complain if it thinks you are
> running an unsupported browser that can't render the site.  FF 2.X has
> been unsupported for years.
>
> One alternative is to install a new browser.  Another is code that
> diddles the User Agent string the browser sends in response to a "What
> browser are you?" query from a site to claim you have a supported
> browser.  There were several different extensions for FF back when
> that did that, but it's been a long time since I had to use one.
> __
> Dennis
>
>
> --
> What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and
> traffic
> patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols
> are
> consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
> J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity
> planning
> reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[dmccunney]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
> That's not a good sign. SourceForge did some planned maintenance yesterday
> about noon, and things didn't go as planned. So the FreeDOS Wiki, bug
> tracker, and Subversion repo are currently offline because they are hosted
> at SourceForge.

The issue here may be the ancient FF version.  Sites tend to use
browser identification code that will complain if it thinks you are
running an unsupported browser that can't render the site.  FF 2.X has
been unsupported for years.

One alternative is to install a new browser.  Another is code that
diddles the User Agent string the browser sends in response to a "What
browser are you?" query from a site to claim you have a supported
browser.  There were several different extensions for FF back when
that did that, but it's been a long time since I had to use one.
__
Dennis

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[dmccunney]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Jose Antonio Senna
 wrote:
>
>   I just accessed the freedos.org page, and it seems OK.
>
>  However, the links that point to Sourceforge
>  return the message:
>   "We're sorry -- the Sourceforge site is currently in
>Disaster Recovery mode, and currently requires
>the use of javascript to function.
>Please check back later."
>
> I got this using Firefox 2.0 / Win 98,
>   with javascript enabled.

Works fine here in a current Firefox.

FF 2.0 is ancient, and I'm unsurprised at problems.  There have been
major architectural changes, particularly between FF 2.X and FF 3,
including changes in the JavaScript engine implemented in the Gecko
rendering engine.

If you are still running Win98, you might want to play with KernelEx.
It's an open source package that adds enough of the Win32 API to allow
various older 32 bit Windows apps to run.  It hasn't been maintained
in a while, but what's there works.   The last maintenance release
from 2011 advertised the ability to run FF 8.0.  (A contact on another
list uses it, and runs Opera 11 on Win98 when he wants to browse the
web.)

KernelEx is at http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/.  You might try
installing it, and a later Firefox, and seeing if you still encounter
the problems.

>JAS
__
Dennis

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

[Jim Hall]

That's not a good sign. SourceForge did some planned maintenance yesterday
about noon, and things didn't go as planned. So the FreeDOS Wiki, bug
tracker, and Subversion repo are currently offline because they are hosted
at SourceForge.

The www website is hosted elsewhere so is unaffected.
On Jul 13, 2016 11:54 AM, "Jose Antonio Senna" <
jasse...@vivointernetdiscada.com.br> wrote:


  I just accessed the freedos.org page, and it seems OK.

 However, the links that point to Sourceforge
 return the message:
  "We're sorry -- the Sourceforge site is currently in
   Disaster Recovery mode, and currently requires
   the use of javascript to function.
   Please check back later."

I got this using Firefox 2.0 / Win 98,
  with javascript enabled.

   JAS

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity
planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
> I'm interested in learning how games like DOOM (requires 3MB available)
> were able to work. I know I know, read the source code.

AFAIK, Doom was originally compiled with Watcom using a DOS extender
(DOS4G Professional). So it's 386 pmode code.

All the open source ports (since late 1997?) started with the
so-called Linux sources (thus no DOS soundcard support), so pretty
much all of the newer DOS-based ports used DJGPP v2 (DPMI) and Allegro
(sound, gfx). This was before OpenWatcom was officially released
(2003).

See here:ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/doomsrc.txt

> I'm getting there. I'm also reading "MS-DOS Beyond 640K" by James Forney.
> Interesting to note that Id says not to use memory managers or disk caching
> programs with Doom.

Even back in the DOS days, I don't think anyone was naive enough to
expect everyone to (always) run without any memory managers. DOS
extenders usually went out of their way to support multiple
environments (raw, EMS/VCPI, XMS, DPMI). Certainly running under
Windows wasn't always forbidden, and that won't let you disable
everything.

Yes, some DOS games needed a fairly clean setup, but most of them (by
design) could handle themselves gracefully in multiple environments.
E.g. Quake (DJGPP-based) was explicitly debugged and tested so that it
could run under Win95 with (I think?) only 16 MB of RAM.

> Doom and other games must do their own memory management which makes sense
> for performance.

Doom may allocate everything up front and privately manage it all
itself, but that's all. It's not overriding the OS (or APIs).

And yes, that was probably faster for 1993, back when the best you had
was a fast 386 or slow 486. Although technically the Intel Pentium
(586) first came out in 1993, but it wasn't common. Even when Quake
came out in 1996 (and was heavily optimized for Intel's pipelined 587
FPU), the Pentium wasn't universal.

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Great tip!!! I'll have to try that!

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Ulrich Hansen  wrote:
> 
> Hi Abe,
> 
>> Am 01.07.2016 um 14:59 schrieb Abe Mishler :
>> 
>> except linux can 
>> mount raw images for native file sharing 
> 
> Today I found out: If I choose „VHD“ as type for the virtual harddisk in 
> VirtualBox, I am able to mount the VirtualBox image in Windows too. 
> 
> See: https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/vhd.png
> 
> Now I just open „Computer Management“ in Windows, right-click on "Disk 
> Management" and choose "Attach VHD“.
> See this description here: 
> http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/create-mount-vhd-windows/
> 
> (You can only attach local VHDs, not those on a network share.)
> 
> And for the record: For OS X there is a free program by Paragon, which does 
> the same:
> 
> https://www.paragon-software.com/home/vd-mounter-mac-free/
> 
> So another thing VirtualBox can do as good as qemu.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> 
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

Hi Abe,

> Am 01.07.2016 um 14:59 schrieb Abe Mishler :
> 
> except linux can 
> mount raw images for native file sharing 

Today I found out: If I choose „VHD“ as type for the virtual harddisk in 
VirtualBox, I am able to mount the VirtualBox image in Windows too. 

See: https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/vhd.png 


Now I just open „Computer Management“ in Windows, right-click on "Disk 
Management" and choose "Attach VHD“.
See this description here: 
http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/create-mount-vhd-windows/ 


(You can only attach local VHDs, not those on a network share.)

And for the record: For OS X there is a free program by Paragon, which does the 
same:

https://www.paragon-software.com/home/vd-mounter-mac-free/ 


So another thing VirtualBox can do as good as qemu.

Ulrich


--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>> 
>> I think that even 597 kB of low DOS memory is plenty for old DOS programs.
> 
> "597 kb should be enough for anyone." -- Eric Auer, 2016:-)
> 
> In Abe's recent screenshot, he shows that he's now getting (thanks to
> Ulrich) "628 kb" free. This is actually "643,488" bytes! That's
> plenty! (It's easy to forget that "kb" is not equal to 1000.)
> 
> Seriously, I can't speak for all apps, but it's rare to need (much
> more, if any) greater than 500 kb. Needing 600 kb is almost unheard of
> (right??). At least, I only vaguely remember one demo (submerge??)
> that needed over 600,000 bytes free. And even that was probably badly
> designed. Some games require more than 500 kb, but that too is of
> questionable design. Most well-behaved apps (yeah, I know that's not
> saying much) don't really need that much.
> 
> My own VBox setup "only" gets 596 kb (610,544) free. That's HimemX
> only (and FreeCOM XMS_Swap, of course; and yes, packet driver can vary
> a lot in size, too). I can't remember exactly, but my native FreeDOS
> install is also similar, and I see no huge problems. Though it's
> impossible to test everything, of course.
> 
> Can anyone provide real-world usage examples of needing 600,000 bytes
> or more free?? (Besides obvious things like user data or combining
> several TSRs.) Do any popular apps from yesteryear need that much?
> 
I don't have any real-world data for apps, but  I'm interested in learning how 
games like DOOM (requires 3MB available) were able to work. I know I know, read 
the source code. I'm getting there. I'm also reading "MS-DOS Beyond 640K" by 
James Forney. Interesting to note that Id says not to use memory managers or 
disk caching programs with Doom. Doom and other games must do their own memory 
management which makes sense for performance.

http://www.classicdoom.com/doominfo.htm

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>
> I think that even 597 kB of low DOS memory is plenty for old DOS programs.

"597 kb should be enough for anyone." -- Eric Auer, 2016:-)

In Abe's recent screenshot, he shows that he's now getting (thanks to
Ulrich) "628 kb" free. This is actually "643,488" bytes! That's
plenty! (It's easy to forget that "kb" is not equal to 1000.)

Seriously, I can't speak for all apps, but it's rare to need (much
more, if any) greater than 500 kb. Needing 600 kb is almost unheard of
(right??). At least, I only vaguely remember one demo (submerge??)
that needed over 600,000 bytes free. And even that was probably badly
designed. Some games require more than 500 kb, but that too is of
questionable design. Most well-behaved apps (yeah, I know that's not
saying much) don't really need that much.

My own VBox setup "only" gets 596 kb (610,544) free. That's HimemX
only (and FreeCOM XMS_Swap, of course; and yes, packet driver can vary
a lot in size, too). I can't remember exactly, but my native FreeDOS
install is also similar, and I see no huge problems. Though it's
impossible to test everything, of course.

Can anyone provide real-world usage examples of needing 600,000 bytes
or more free?? (Besides obvious things like user data or combining
several TSRs.) Do any popular apps from yesteryear need that much?

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> Am 01.07.2016 um 14:59 schrieb Abe Mishler :
> 
>> 
>> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=B000-B7FF I=C800-EFFF
>> NOVME NOINVLPG
>> 
> That works like a charm! Do those regions work for you?

Yes. I tested it on a FreeDOS 1.1 guest on my Mac. 

And, as I don’t have Windows machine anymore, I started a Windows 10 VirtualBox 
guest, and inside of it I used VirtualBox for Windows and tested it there with 
a FreeDOS 1.1 guest. Normally JEMMEX crashes there, but not this time.

> Could you provide an explanation regarding those regions?

Actually they discussed it in the VirtualBox forum:

https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=4=77078=4702e57e2da69b00248e9a82eeffbe98
 


Seems some people at Oracle are still interested in DOS.

> I will now revisit my decision to use QEMU on linux... except linux can 
> mount raw images for native file sharing without having to FTP into 
> FreeDOS (which I got working).

Yes, this is nice. On OS X you can just double-click the image to mount it.

Just a quick review about qemu and networking: 

Networking with qemu is difficult. Per default it uses NAT, but only for TCP. 
So I can’t ping the outside world. WGET works. I managed to transfer files with 
FileZilla to mTCP ftpsrv. (Which is a miracle as all other clients won’t even 
do a directory listing.)

For bridged networking I’d have to install a TUN/TAP software on the host. 
Complicated.

I start qemu with:

qemu-system-i386 -hda freedos.img -boot c -m 32 -netdev 
user,id=usernet,net=192.168.3.0/24,dhcpstart=192.168.3.101 -device 
pcnet,netdev=usernet -redir tcp:2121::21

With „-device pcnet“ qemu supports the AMD PCFastIII (pcnet) network card, so 
the packet driver in FreeDOS 1.1 (PCNTPK) can be used. 

> Thanks a lot for re-opening my can of worms!!! :-p

Brr. :-)

Good luck!!

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Hi Ulrich!

On 7/1/2016 3:35 AM, Ulrich Hansen wrote:
>
>> Am 01.07.2016 um 01:51 schrieb Abe Mishler > >:
>>
>>  I have been learning a lot about JEMMEX as compared to the other
>> drivers lately.
>
> Hi Abe,
>
> If you don’t mind, it would be great if you could try one last thing
> with VirtualBox and JEMMEX:
>
> Please try to start JEMMEX with this line in FDCONFIG.SYS:
>
> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=B000-B7FF I=C800-EFFF
> NOVME NOINVLPG
>
That works like a charm! Do those regions work for you?

Could you provide an explanation regarding those regions?

I will now revisit my decision to use QEMU on linux... except linux can 
mount raw images for native file sharing without having to FTP into 
FreeDOS (which I got working).

Thanks a lot for re-opening my can of worms!!! :-p

Seriously though, after all of my learning, I think I had decided 
yesterday to walk away from JEMMEX ... (circling back around) in which 
case VirtualBox works just fine... decisions, decisions... grrr.

http://tinypic.com/r/30hq7gi/9

Extended (XMS), Total=32,704K, Used=6,005K, Free=26,699K
Total Expanded (EMS) = 8,576K
Free Expanded (EMS) = 8,192K
Largest executable program size = 628K
Largest free upper memory block = 137K

Thanks!

> Important are both includes I=B000-B7FF I=C800-EFFF.
> Does this change anything for you? Does it still crash?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> Am 01.07.2016 um 01:51 schrieb Abe Mishler :
> 
>  I have been learning a lot about JEMMEX as compared to the other drivers 
> lately. 

Hi Abe,

If you don’t mind, it would be great if you could try one last thing with 
VirtualBox and JEMMEX:

Please try to start JEMMEX with this line in FDCONFIG.SYS:

1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=B000-B7FF I=C800-EFFF NOVME 
NOINVLPG

Important are both includes I=B000-B7FF I=C800-EFFF. 
Does this change anything for you? Does it still crash?

Thanks!


--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>
> But I agree, in theory, that JEMMEX shouldn't be preferred or
> suggested without a good reason. But that's not my decision for FD 1.2
> (and I forget offhand what Jerome uses, I haven't downloaded any
> recent prereleases, too preoccupied with other bagatela).

Just so Jerome doesn't tear me a new one (not really, he's nice), I
quickly downloaded FDI-FLOPPY.zip (dated June 27):

It simply loads HimemX (XMSv3, 386+) and nothing else.

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>
>> If JEMMEX is your only problem, then you have no problems.
>
> This idea has appeared before in this thread and it is a relief to hear it 
> echoed.
> Perhaps a disclaimer like this is warranted in the Wiki install guide for new 
> users
> like myself. (I had very limited exposure to DOS when it was mainstream so 
> the idea
> of so many different memory modes has been overwhelming to learn suddenly.)

I didn't have a PC back then, but AFAIK 

The IBM PC used an 8088 in 1981. The max memory supported was 640 kb
(low / conventional), but even that was usually overly idealistic. I
think?? you typically got 400 kb free back in those days (if you could
even afford the full 640 kb at all). The original IBM PC didn't even
have a hard drive, and it shipped with like two 160 kb floppy drives.
I think 64 kb of RAM was the initial amount (similar to CP/M, I
suppose).

Only later did 500 kb RAM free become the norm and even required, e.g.
MS-DOS 5 bragged about freeing up "45 kb at least".

Of course, originally it was optional things like (hardware) EMS that
(partially) brought more RAM. That was presumably more common with
8086-ish machines than newer ones. With the 286, although it took a
while to standardize, the preferred approach was either "raw", XMSv2,
or DPMI (which really sat atop one of the others). Even DPMI didn't
appear until 1989/1990 with Windows 3.0.

The 286 was, what, 1982? Obviously the 386 was (first) introduced in
1986 by Intel. But the IBM PC didn't get the 286 until (I don't even
know) XT? Nope, Wikipedia says "XT 286" was 1986. Nope, Wikipedia also
says "The 80286 was employed for the IBM PC/AT, introduced in 1984".
But it took a *long* time for megabytes of RAM to become common. It
was just too expensive. (My 1994-era 486 Sx/25 only had 4 MB.)

Long story short, the differing memory APIs were due to different
hardware. So hardware "expanded" (EMS) needed one API while the 286
(max 16 MB RAM)'s "extended" (XMS) memory needed another one. And
Windows 3.0 (1990) invented yet another one (DPMI) that was "better"
than VCPI (and more widely supported, although most DPMI servers ended
up being 386+ anyways).

> If a consensus can be reached, I would humbly submit the idea of swapping 
> options 1 and 2 in the next release to give less emphasis to JEMMEX.

Even Blackthorne (game, which is now freeware BTW) required EMS, and
that was what, 1990s?? (Wikipedia says 1994.) So we can't totally say
that nobody should or can use EMS (e.g. EMM386). But yeah, I agree,
JEMMEX as default isn't really all it's cracked up to be (due to
various rare quirks, among other reasons).

> As a new user, I naively thought that JEMMEX was the best/preferred option 
> based on its ranking which may be intended.

In theory, if everything was perfectly bug-free, then sure, having
both XMS and software-emulated EMS (via V86 mode) + VCPI and using
UMBs (leading to more conventional memory free) is perfectly ideal.
(DPMI is usually loaded on demand via separate TSR.)

Obviously, in hindsight, you don't really need a billion APIs for the
same family of hardware. But that's the point, FreeDOS tries to
support 8086, 286, and 386 memory schemes (but no AMD64, obviously).

> But under the example of VBox, it doesn't hold up. I think I have learned now 
> that even though JEMMEX claims
> to do the same thing as option 2 in less memory by combining driver logic, 
> option 2 really works better even if
> there is a slightly larger overhead.

The more differing environments, the more testing you have to do to
support them all. It can add up, leaving obscure bugs.

> Option 2 certainly gives me more expanded memory (EMS).

Not sure why, offhand.

> At least this seems to be the case in VBox. However, JEMMEX behaves just fine 
> running under QEMU.
> So go figure. Perhaps the Wiki should push people towards QEMU on Linux 
> rather than VBox on Windows.

No, because most people don't need JEMMEX and/or EMS, and VBox
(sometimes) has other advantages. It's not worth giving up the whole
environment due to one or two accidental incompatibilities.

But I agree, in theory, that JEMMEX shouldn't be preferred or
suggested without a good reason. But that's not my decision for FD 1.2
(and I forget offhand what Jerome uses, I haven't downloaded any
recent prereleases, too preoccupied with other bagatela).

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Hi,

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/29/2016 1:03 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>> 
>> On the page that you sent regarding QEMU Binaries for Windows, it says:
>> "QEMU for Windows is experimental software and might contain even
>> serious bugs, so use the binaries at your own risk."
> 
> It's just a standard disclaimer, don't read too much into it. It works
> fine for me (FreeDOS). While I haven't exhaustively tested gigabytes
> of software, everything I tried seems to work fairly well, no huge
> obvious deficiencies. So don't worry.
> 
> The only real problem would be if it had major bugs and they refused
> to hear bug reports or even consider fixing them. AFAIK, that's not
> true. But indeed, I do think they prefer Linux more.
> 
> Nevertheless, several other OSes bundle Windows binaries of QEMU with
> some of their releases (e.g. ReactOS, AROS), so it must also work well
> for them too. So don't overreact, it works! But no software is 100%
> perfect, hence some people feel the need to explicitly disclaim legal
> liability, etc.
> 
>> Since QEMU is more mature on linux right now, I installed Xubuntu 16.04
>> LTS inside VirtualBox (5.0.24 now) and then QEMU inside of that.
> 
> I don't think it's a billion times more mature there. QEMU is a very
> complicated suite of software, for many many different architectures.
> Certainly it's almost strange / funny / pointless to install QEMU
> inside another OS inside VBox!
Yes, the levels of virtualization were getting ridiculous! Funny how it sped 
things up on a Win8.1 host though!!! I guess the farther away from Windows you 
get... well you fill in the rest. Ha!
> 
> VBox works well too. If you have problems with JEMMEX, then don't run
> that. Again, you really don't need it at all. Don't kid yourself, VBox
> is well-tested (overall), just not as much for DOS. So FreeDOS still
> (mostly) works fine there.
Great to hear! I have been learning a lot about JEMMEX as compared to the other 
drivers lately. You guys have been a terrific help!

> 
>> FreeDOS is much peppier inside of this configuration. I will probably get
>> another HD for a native Xubuntu install and skip the VBox on Win 8.1
>> layer altogether.
> 
> Setup a bootable USB jump drive instead, it's probably cheaper and
> easier. Okay, so technically I don't know of all the ways to make one
> (DistroWatch Weekly mentioned a few ways several months ago), but IIRC
> the latest Ubuntu actually recommends RUFUS (which is also well-known
> for supporting FreeDOS)!
> 
> A while back I had setup a Ubuntu 14.04 jump drive (with persistence),
> but it's fairly slow, so that may be a concern for you. But I don't
> think it has to be that way, I just don't have the time or energy to
> try billions of configurations.
I have decided (I think!) to involve the use of another HD (SSD) to get as much 
speed as possible.

> 
> antiX 13 was very good and lightning fast, and 16 was just released,
> so maybe you should try that instead, it's based upon Debian.
I'll have to look into that. Thanks!

> 
>> Side note: Since VBox was updated to 5.0.24 during this thread I decided
>> to try a new installation of FreeDOS with it but had the same problem.
> 
> If JEMMEX is your only problem, then you have no problems.
This idea has appeared before in this thread and it is a relief to hear it 
echoed. Perhaps a disclaimer like this is warranted in the Wiki install guide 
for new users like myself. (I had very limited exposure to DOS when it was 
mainstream so the idea of so many different memory modes has been overwhelming 
to learn suddenly.)

If a consensus can be reached, I would humbly submit the idea of swapping 
options 1 and 2 in the next release to give less emphasis to JEMMEX. As a new 
user, I naively thought that JEMMEX was the best/preferred option based on its 
ranking which may be intended. But under the example of VBox, it doesn't hold 
up. I think I have learned now that even though JEMMEX claims to do the same 
thing as option 2 in less memory by combining driver logic, option 2 really 
works better even if there is a slightly larger overhead. Option 2 certainly 
gives me more expanded memory (EMS). At least this seems to be the case in 
VBox. However, JEMMEX behaves just fine running under QEMU. So go figure. 
Perhaps the Wiki should push people towards QEMU on Linux rather than VBox on 
Windows.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or have missed something important.

Ok, back to you guys :)

> 
>>> But nothing beats running natively (on real hardware).
>> You're right about that. As Ulrich mentioned earlier, he uses screencast
>> software to capture what he's doing. I'm interested in doing the same so
>> I think FreeDOS in QEMU on linux is the way to go (for me, at this time).
> 
> Who knows, eventually there might be an official Flatpak (or Snappy?)
> package that works across all the major 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2016 1:03 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> On the page that you sent regarding QEMU Binaries for Windows, it says:
> "QEMU for Windows is experimental software and might contain even
> serious bugs, so use the binaries at your own risk."

It's just a standard disclaimer, don't read too much into it. It works
fine for me (FreeDOS). While I haven't exhaustively tested gigabytes
of software, everything I tried seems to work fairly well, no huge
obvious deficiencies. So don't worry.

The only real problem would be if it had major bugs and they refused
to hear bug reports or even consider fixing them. AFAIK, that's not
true. But indeed, I do think they prefer Linux more.

Nevertheless, several other OSes bundle Windows binaries of QEMU with
some of their releases (e.g. ReactOS, AROS), so it must also work well
for them too. So don't overreact, it works! But no software is 100%
perfect, hence some people feel the need to explicitly disclaim legal
liability, etc.

> Since QEMU is more mature on linux right now, I installed Xubuntu 16.04
> LTS inside VirtualBox (5.0.24 now) and then QEMU inside of that.

I don't think it's a billion times more mature there. QEMU is a very
complicated suite of software, for many many different architectures.
Certainly it's almost strange / funny / pointless to install QEMU
inside another OS inside VBox!

VBox works well too. If you have problems with JEMMEX, then don't run
that. Again, you really don't need it at all. Don't kid yourself, VBox
is well-tested (overall), just not as much for DOS. So FreeDOS still
(mostly) works fine there.

> FreeDOS is much peppier inside of this configuration. I will probably get
> another HD for a native Xubuntu install and skip the VBox on Win 8.1
> layer altogether.

Setup a bootable USB jump drive instead, it's probably cheaper and
easier. Okay, so technically I don't know of all the ways to make one
(DistroWatch Weekly mentioned a few ways several months ago), but IIRC
the latest Ubuntu actually recommends RUFUS (which is also well-known
for supporting FreeDOS)!

A while back I had setup a Ubuntu 14.04 jump drive (with persistence),
but it's fairly slow, so that may be a concern for you. But I don't
think it has to be that way, I just don't have the time or energy to
try billions of configurations.

antiX 13 was very good and lightning fast, and 16 was just released,
so maybe you should try that instead, it's based upon Debian.

> Side note: Since VBox was updated to 5.0.24 during this thread I decided
> to try a new installation of FreeDOS with it but had the same problem.

If JEMMEX is your only problem, then you have no problems.

>> But nothing beats running natively (on real hardware).
>>
> You're right about that. As Ulrich mentioned earlier, he uses screencast
> software to capture what he's doing. I'm interested in doing the same so
> I think FreeDOS in QEMU on linux is the way to go (for me, at this time).

Who knows, eventually there might be an official Flatpak (or Snappy?)
package that works across all the major distros. I think that will
ease deployment (instead of having billions of separate incompatible
versions).

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Eric Auer]

Hi, to bring in some thoughts from off-list...

JEMMEX has a built-in HIMEM which apparently is known to have
problems when memory useable for XMS is discontinuous, which
happens quite often on modern (virtual) hardware.

The UMBPCI author tries hard to keep supporting modern chipsets
which can be interesting if you do not need EMS. As mentioned,
EMS is less popular than XMS anyway.

To stay on the safe side, people should use HIMEMX + JEMM386
or other combinations instead of JEMMEX. Also, they should be
able to understand the conflict potential of UMB and prepare
to manually add X=... areas based on their personal insights.

Having UMB areas conflicting with other things can cause hidden
instabilities: The actual crash may be delayed until you touch
the hardware or BIOS feature which resides in the conflict area
while at the same time having relevant DOS data in the conflict
UMB area at the same place.

I would like to avoid discussions about specific drivers beyond
the core "only use JEMMEX if you know what you are doing, make
HIMEMX and JEMM386 the preferred option" recommendation and a
warm mention of UMBPCI for those who have supported chipsets.

Peace guys :-) Eric



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> I think FreeDOS in QEMU on linux is the way to go (for me, at this time).

Inspired by this thread I also looked into qemu (even installed it on my Mac).

Just in case you missed it: 
There’s a great tutorial about running FreeDOS 1.1 in qemu.
Part three is all about networking. :-)

The author is Patrick G. Horneker.

http://pclosmag.com/html/issues/201206/page08.html 

http://pclosmag.com/html/Issues/201207/page11.html 

http://pclosmag.com/html/issues/201208/page11.html 

http://pclosmag.com/html/Issues/201210/page11.html 



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Hi Rugxulo et al.,

On 6/29/2016 1:03 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>>
>> On 6/28/2016 7:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>>>
>>> I would recommend you (also) test under QEMU if you're that worried or
>>> want (potentially) better stability.
>>>
>> QEMU, while about 10x slower (on Win 8.1 amd64 host), ran perfectly.
>> Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps there are some optimizations that
>> I don't know about...
>
> Not sure about improving speed, esp. on Windows. There used to be
> kqemu for older versions (0.9.0?), but that's been discontinued.
>
On the page that you sent regarding QEMU Binaries for Windows, it says:
"QEMU for Windows is experimental software and might contain even 
serious bugs, so use the binaries at your own risk."

Since QEMU is more mature on linux right now, I installed Xubuntu 16.04 
LTS inside VirtualBox (5.0.24 now) and then QEMU inside of that. FreeDOS 
is much peppier inside of this configuration. I will probably get 
another HD for a native Xubuntu install and skip the VBox on Win 8.1 
layer altogether.

Side note: Since VBox was updated to 5.0.24 during this thread I decided 
to try a new installation of FreeDOS with it but had the same problem.

> Anyways, VBox itself is allegedly partially based upon QEMU, but it's

Yes, the VBox developer FAQ makes that claim:
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ

> not true that QEMU is always slower. At least one thing I was running
> was faster under QEMU (+ Linux) than VBox (+ Win7), even without VT-X.
> But that could be because of many different reasons. Using VT-X (which
> for QEMU means using KVM variant instead) obviously increases speed
> even further.
>
> But nothing beats running natively (on real hardware).
>
You're right about that. As Ulrich mentioned earlier, he uses screencast 
software to capture what he's doing. I'm interested in doing the same so 
I think FreeDOS in QEMU on linux is the way to go (for me, at this time).

Thanks to everyone for joining the discussion and sharing your knowledge 
with me. I learned a lot and consider my problem resolved. On to the next...

Best,
Abe

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
> On 6/28/2016 7:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> I would recommend you (also) test under QEMU if you're that worried or
>> want (potentially) better stability.
>>
> QEMU, while about 10x slower (on Win 8.1 amd64 host), ran perfectly.
> Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps there are some optimizations that
> I don't know about...

Not sure about improving speed, esp. on Windows. There used to be
kqemu for older versions (0.9.0?), but that's been discontinued.

Anyways, VBox itself is allegedly partially based upon QEMU, but it's
not true that QEMU is always slower. At least one thing I was running
was faster under QEMU (+ Linux) than VBox (+ Win7), even without VT-X.
But that could be because of many different reasons. Using VT-X (which
for QEMU means using KVM variant instead) obviously increases speed
even further.

But nothing beats running natively (on real hardware).

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

On 6/28/2016 7:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>>
>> Strange, right? And not just on one computer, but three separate ones; each
>> running different hardware and software (host OS). Although I would expect
>> that the underlying differences are abstracted away by VirtualBox.
>
> It's not really that strange. EMS is rarely used nowadays, and DOS (in
> all its billions of setups) isn't highly tested by emulators. Their
> focus is on other, more popular, guests.
>
> It's impossible (or maybe unprofitable) to test every emulator under
> the sun (dozens!), plus having to work around all the bugs and missing
> features. Some OSes present bigger problems than others (OS/2,
> OpenBSD), even requiring VT-X compatible hardware.
>
> I would recommend you (also) test under QEMU if you're that worried or
> want (potentially) better stability. At least Windows (32-bit or
> 64-bit) binaries are easily available below (not to mention that QEMU
> runs on various other host OSes too, e.g. Linux):
>
> http://qemu.weilnetz.de/
>
QEMU, while about 10x slower (on Win 8.1 amd64 host), ran perfectly. 
Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps there are some optimizations that 
I don't know about...

> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> Am 29.06.2016 um 13:08 schrieb Don Flowers :
> 
> The only drivers that work for this is Ulrich's FreeDOS 1.0 drivers Himem.exe 
> and "EMM386.EXE NOEMS"

Before someone gets it wrong: The drivers were written by Tom Ehlert, Michael 
Devore and other fine people. Thanks!



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Don Flowers]

I use Novell  Personal Netware for networking with a dedicated server plus
each of 4 other machines acting in SERVER/CLIENT mode

The only drivers that work for this is Ulrich's FreeDOS 1.0 drivers
Himem.exe and "EMM386.EXE NOEMS" (no other switch is necessary). I load DOS
HIGH, UMB.

This gives me between 689 & 717 conventional and 44-46 UMB depending on the
machine. CTMOUSE doesn't like some of my programs so I use a  Logitech
Mouse driver which utilizes high memory on its own. After PNW gets loaded,
I end up with 444-456 conventional with 4k left in UMB plus a reserve EMS
which gets managed by PNW and it own DPMS driver.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Ulrich Hansen  wrote:

> Am 28.06.2016 um 22:55 schrieb Abe Mishler :
>
> >> is pretty unstable, at least for me.
> > It seems like you should be excluding a different region of memory. From
> your screenshot: E300-EDFF.
>
> The packet driver works, but FDAPM is still crashing when I exclude
> E300-EDFF.
>
> >> But the default line didn’t work for you at all. Hmm.
> > Strange, right? And not just on one computer, but three separate ones;
> each running different hardware and software (host OS). Although I would
> expect that the underlying differences are abstracted away by VirtualBox.
>
> I created the VirtualBox „FreeDOS 1.1.net" image in February. Immediately
> five people complained (very politely) about crashes. No boot menu option
> worked that included JEMMEX or JEMM386.
>
> As temporary fix, I replaced JEMMEX with the obsolete HIMEM.EXE and
> EMM386.EXE from FreeDOS 1.0. There has been no complaint since. (The
> "FreeDOS 1.1net" VirtualBox image has been downloaded 815 times in 2016).
>
>
> > Am 29.06.2016 um 00:24 schrieb Eric Auer :
> >
> > To explain the different memory types:
>
> Thank you! Clears things up and refreshes the memory. This should be part
> of the FreeDOS wiki. Reminds me of the time, when I was reading the MS-DOS
> 5.0 manual in 1992. Got my first computer the day before and intended to
> read the manual first. So I sat on a river bench and read about optimizing
> the use of UMBs. :-)
>
> > UMB - provided by EMM386 - lets you load various drivers
> >  high, can also be provided by UMBPCI or other hardware
> >  drivers, can cause stability issues in conflict cases
>
> This is the reason I want some EMM. For DOS networking I need to load
> drivers, especially for MS Client.
>
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

Am 28.06.2016 um 22:55 schrieb Abe Mishler :

>> is pretty unstable, at least for me.
> It seems like you should be excluding a different region of memory. From your 
> screenshot: E300-EDFF.

The packet driver works, but FDAPM is still crashing when I exclude E300-EDFF.  

>> But the default line didn’t work for you at all. Hmm.
> Strange, right? And not just on one computer, but three separate ones; each 
> running different hardware and software (host OS). Although I would expect 
> that the underlying differences are abstracted away by VirtualBox.

I created the VirtualBox „FreeDOS 1.1.net" image in February. Immediately five 
people complained (very politely) about crashes. No boot menu option worked 
that included JEMMEX or JEMM386.

As temporary fix, I replaced JEMMEX with the obsolete HIMEM.EXE and EMM386.EXE 
from FreeDOS 1.0. There has been no complaint since. (The "FreeDOS 1.1net" 
VirtualBox image has been downloaded 815 times in 2016). 


> Am 29.06.2016 um 00:24 schrieb Eric Auer :
> 
> To explain the different memory types:

Thank you! Clears things up and refreshes the memory. This should be part of 
the FreeDOS wiki. Reminds me of the time, when I was reading the MS-DOS 5.0 
manual in 1992. Got my first computer the day before and intended to read the 
manual first. So I sat on a river bench and read about optimizing the use of 
UMBs. :-)

> UMB - provided by EMM386 - lets you load various drivers
>  high, can also be provided by UMBPCI or other hardware
>  drivers, can cause stability issues in conflict cases

This is the reason I want some EMM. For DOS networking I need to load drivers, 
especially for MS Client.
--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
> Strange, right? And not just on one computer, but three separate ones; each
> running different hardware and software (host OS). Although I would expect
> that the underlying differences are abstracted away by VirtualBox.

It's not really that strange. EMS is rarely used nowadays, and DOS (in
all its billions of setups) isn't highly tested by emulators. Their
focus is on other, more popular, guests.

It's impossible (or maybe unprofitable) to test every emulator under
the sun (dozens!), plus having to work around all the bugs and missing
features. Some OSes present bigger problems than others (OS/2,
OpenBSD), even requiring VT-X compatible hardware.

I would recommend you (also) test under QEMU if you're that worried or
want (potentially) better stability. At least Windows (32-bit or
64-bit) binaries are easily available below (not to mention that QEMU
runs on various other host OSes too, e.g. Linux):

http://qemu.weilnetz.de/

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Eric Auer]

Hi Uli and Abe,

indeed it seems like it is not trivial to find the right
excluded areas for UMB to have stability. Having no page
frame is okay - EMS 4 aware software can still use EMS,
only EMS 3 software will miss a frame.

Normally it is enough to have 550k conventional free.

To explain the different memory types:

low DOS memory - the usual 640 kB that you always use,
  where you want to have at least 500 something free.

HMA - provided by HIMEM - lets mainly DOS kernel load high

XMS - provided by HIMEM - lets various DOS programs enjoy
  extra megabytes (ramdisk, dos extenders, caches etc.)

UMB - provided by EMM386 - lets you load various drivers
  high, can also be provided by UMBPCI or other hardware
  drivers, can cause stability issues in conflict cases

EMS - provided by EMM386 or old special hardware - lets
  old DOS programs enjoy some extra memory for page swap
  and extra data storage, not often needed by modern apps

VCPI - provided by EMM386 - lets DOS extenders share the
  protected mode with EMM386, so if you do not load EMM386
  in the first place, you will not need VCPI either. The
  special GEMMIS feature is similar, but for Windows 3.

DPMI - provided by Windows and some DOS extenders - lets
  programs which use DOS extenders share protected mode,
  popular for modern games. Often, games come with their
  own DPMI driver to be able to run outside of Windows,
  using XMS or raw memory in that case.

Raw memory - if you use protected mode "by hand", you can
  of course use all those megabytes outside the first DOS
  megabyte-and-a-bit, too. But using XMS or DPMI often is
  more convenient.

What does this tell you for normal users? You should load
HIMEM for HMA and XMS. If you need space to load drivers
high, you should also use EMM386. The rest will be magic
DOS extender use of whatever suitable memory you have and
only in rare cases you would actually need EMS :-)

Note that HIMEMX and XMGR are like HIMEM and JEMM386 is
like EMM386, while JEMMEX is like both HIMEM and EMM386
combined into a single driver, with some pros and cons.

Regards, Eric



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Guys,

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Ulrich Hansen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 28.06.2016 um 21:19 schrieb Ulrich Hansen :
>> 
>> The trick is to load PCNTPK low in option 1. Then it won’t crash with your 
>> JEMMEX options. At least for me. :-)
>> 
>> PCNTPK INT=0x60
> 
> Okay, and FDAPM crashes too. I need to load it into conventional memory as 
> well.
You are running a more advanced FreeDOS configuration than me at the moment. 
Mine is still a vanilla install. Nothing extra.
> 
> All in all it seems your configuration 
> 
>> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG
> 
> 
> is pretty unstable, at least for me.
> 
It seems like you should be excluding a different region of memory. From your 
screenshot: E300-EDFF.

> But the default line didn’t work for you at all. Hmm.
Strange, right? And not just on one computer, but three separate ones; each 
running different hardware and software (host OS). Although I would expect that 
the underlying differences are abstracted away by VirtualBox.

> 
> 
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Abe Mishler  wrote:
>
> It's apparent that a well written book might help me come up
> to speed on all of these memory modes and managers.

I'm not an expert, but the simple answer is you don't need all of
them. Pure XMS (and optional DPMI) should suffice for most uses. Don't
overcomplicate it. Don't worry about every feature under the sun
unless an app you want to run direly needs it (unlikely). EMS is quite
old and rare, and even without EMM386, the amount of conventional
memory free should be "good enough" for most existing programs, so you
probably don't need UMBs at all. (But see UMBPCI. Or EMS Magic, which
reuses conventional memory, which is sometimes better for
compatibility.) Besides, you can "JEMM386 LOAD" (and "UNLOAD") later
if you (temporarily) need EMS for something (but not for UMBs).

Somebody, when preparing FD 1.1, was perhaps overzealous for features
when trying to support JEMMEX. But, for the record, VBox is not
necessarily bug-free or a primary target (remember that DOS is meant
for actual native booting, or at least was before UEFI). So yes,
presumably EMM386 (et al.) work better on "real" native hardware than
emulators. That can't be avoided, but perhaps it's not wise to
recommend (or even include) overcomplicated JEMMEX config lines in
future FD versions. (This has been discussed before, so you're not the
first one to notice this hanging VBox + JEMMEX behavior.)

P.S. Emulators are still (usually) run on top of advanced host OSes.
So I'm not sure certain low-level DOS things are directly useful there
(software cache, screen saver, ultra DMA). So I wouldn't worry about
those either.

> My interest is in programming anyways (I'm new to DOS but not programming).
> Any suggestions?

The officially recommended compilers / languages are C (OpenWatcom)
and assembler (NASM). But the DJGPP tree is quite nice too (and
includes barely-related offshoots like Free Pascal, FreeBASIC, and
more). None of these need EMS or UMBs.

So it's unlikely you'll be interested in EMS at all. Stick to real
mode (640 kb) or DPMI (2 GB).

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> Am 28.06.2016 um 21:19 schrieb Ulrich Hansen :
> 
> The trick is to load PCNTPK low in option 1. Then it won’t crash with your 
> JEMMEX options. At least for me. :-)
> 
> PCNTPK INT=0x60

Okay, and FDAPM crashes too. I need to load it into conventional memory as well.

All in all it seems your configuration 

> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG


is pretty unstable, at least for me.

But the default line didn’t work for you at all. Hmm.


--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

> Am 28.06.2016 um 20:41 schrieb Ulrich Hansen :
> 
> If I look closely, I find that PCNTPK crashes at boot. So I have no network. 
> No wonder all the memory is free.
> https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/freedos1.1-vbox-opt1-memory2.png 
> 
> 
> So your solution won’t work for all VirtualBox users…
> I have Version 5.0.14 r105127 running in OS X 10.10.5.

Okay. I also tried it with the new version 5.0.22 but everything’s the same. 
BUT:

The trick is to load PCNTPK low in option 1. Then it won’t crash with your 
JEMMEX options. At least for me. :-)

PCNTPK INT=0x60


--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

Hi Abe (and hi Eric!)

> Am 28.06.2016 um 16:42 schrieb Abe Mishler :
> 
> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG
> 
> Boot option 1 (http://tinypic.com/r/zm1boj/9 ):
> Total memory Free: 26,699K
> Total Expanded (EMS): 8,576K
> Free Expanded (EMS): 8,192K
> Largest executable program size: 597K
> Largest free upper memory block: 2K


With the FreeDOS 1.1 default line

1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG

I get less free conventional memory:

Boot option 1 
(https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/freedos1.1-vbox-opt1-memory.png 
)
Total memory Free: 26,682K
Total Expanded (EMS): 8,576K
Free Expanded (EMS): 8,192K
Largest executable program size: 579K
Largest free upper memory block: 2K

If I try your configuration in my FreeDOS 1.1 VirtualBox image I get even 601K 
executable program size BUT:
If I look closely, I find that PCNTPK crashes at boot. So I have no network. No 
wonder all the memory is free.
https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/freedos1.1-vbox-opt1-memory2.png 


So your solution won’t work for all VirtualBox users…
I have Version 5.0.14 r105127 running in OS X 10.10.5.


PS: I use a screencast software to record boot messages in VBox - otherwise 
they move to quickly to read them.

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

On 6/28/2016 11:08 AM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi Abe,
>
>> Based on Eric's suggestion of using more cautious settings,
>> I found the JEMMEX doc page
>> (http://help.fdos.org/en/hhstndrd/base/jemmex.htm)
>
> The documentation is also included in your installation on disk.
>
>> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG
>
> You could also try X=TEST Without I=TEST, but excluding C900 to DFFF
> seems to be an even more cautious choice for your specific system.
>
Doing that results in an additional message before crashing so it looks 
like I will have to stick with the specific exclusion.

The additional message:
Warning: no suitable page frame found, EMS functions limited.

>> Boot option 1 no longer crashes, but it doesn't appear to be an
>> improvement over boot option 2...
>
> Option 2 loads SHARE and uses HIMEMX together with JEMM386 instead
> of JEMMEX which combines "HIMEM" and "EMM386" into a single driver.
> Option 2 also moves the PCNTPK network packet driver to UMB, which
> is why you have slightly more "largest executable program size" in
> option 2 compared to option 1 in spite of option 2 loading SHARE.
>
> You can try using LH for PCNTPK, but if you do not use internet in
> DOS, you could simply comment out the whole line that loads PCNTPK.
>
> If you only use EMS-aware software which is EMS 4.0 compatible,
> you can disable EMS 3.2 compatible page frames with some option
> for JEMMEX and JEMM386: That way, you get 64 kB extra space for
> UMB use, so it will be easier to LH things and gain low space.
>
> I think today EMM386 is more often used for UMB and less often
> for EMS. If you only use UMB but do not need EMS at all, you
> can also disable EMS 3.2 compatible page frames, of course :-)
>
>> Boot option 1 (http://tinypic.com/r/zm1boj/9): [JEMMEX]
>> Total memory Free: 26,699K
>> Total Expanded (EMS): 8,576K
>> Free Expanded (EMS): 8,192K
>> Largest executable program size: 597K
>> Largest free upper memory block: 2K
>
>> Boot option 2 (http://tinypic.com/r/2zzjl77/9): [HIMEMX+JEMM386]
>> Total memory Free: 26,669K
>> Total Expanded (EMS): 31M
>
> Interesting that JEMM386 defaults to offer more EMS than JEMMEX.
>
>> Free Expanded (EMS): 25M
>
> Odd, what happened to the other 6 MB of EMS?
>
I was wondering that myself...

>> Largest executable program size: 610K
>
> This is because that option loads SHARE & network drivers high.
>
>> Largest free upper memory block: 4K
>
> This is interesting: In spite of loading more things into UMB,
> you have more UMB left. That MIGHT mean that option 2 does not
> have the X=C900-DFFF option but still is lucky enough to avoid
> a crash? It could already be unstable, though. Maybe it would
> still crash as soon as you use the network in DOS.
>
Right, I didn't block that region in option 2. I used networking with 
option 2 to install the VBOX-FIX COM patch earlier. I didn't experience 
a crash. Perhaps I was "lucky". What's interesting is that there is no 
delay loading the UIDE driver so maybe Oracle has fixed the bus scan 
problem with VirtualBox rendering the patch unnecessary. Perhaps someone 
else can duplicate these results and confirm.

> ALSO, the option 2 takes the "dangerous" step of explicitly
> including the monochrome graphics card text memory area as
> UMB memory (I=B000-B7FF). This means that attempts to use a
> program which uses monochrome video modes may cause crashes.
> It could also be the real reason why more UMB is free there.
>
I was going to use option 2 even after all of this, but I will remain 
with option 1 now that it works; especially since you have indicated 
twice now that option 2 might be unstable. Thanks for that insight.

> I think that even 597 kB of low DOS memory is plenty for old
> DOS programs. New DOS programs use a DOS extender anyway, so
> they will be able to use your EMS and XMS, which are several
> megabytes. You can use other MEM command line options to see
> more details. Check the output of "MEM /?" to learn more :-)
>
> Regards, Eric
>
> PS: Do you use a special MOUSE or the usual CTMOUSE driver?
>
I have not installed a mouse driver or configured the mouse in any way. 
My AUTOEXEC.BAT has the standard "MOUSE" command in it.

> PPS: I see 1.1 uses XMGR in option 3 and 4DOS in option 4,
> not sure if those are included in the 1.2 distro any more.
>
For the record it looks like 4DOS is also in option 3, but thanks for 
the info. It's apparent that a well written book might help me come up 
to speed on all of these memory modes and managers. My interest is in 
programming anyways (I'm new to DOS but not programming). Any suggestions?
>
Thanks,
Abe

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Eric Auer]

Hi Abe,

> Based on Eric's suggestion of using more cautious settings,
> I found the JEMMEX doc page
> (http://help.fdos.org/en/hhstndrd/base/jemmex.htm)

The documentation is also included in your installation on disk.

> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG

You could also try X=TEST Without I=TEST, but excluding C900 to DFFF
seems to be an even more cautious choice for your specific system.

> Boot option 1 no longer crashes, but it doesn't appear to be an 
> improvement over boot option 2...

Option 2 loads SHARE and uses HIMEMX together with JEMM386 instead
of JEMMEX which combines "HIMEM" and "EMM386" into a single driver.
Option 2 also moves the PCNTPK network packet driver to UMB, which
is why you have slightly more "largest executable program size" in
option 2 compared to option 1 in spite of option 2 loading SHARE.

You can try using LH for PCNTPK, but if you do not use internet in
DOS, you could simply comment out the whole line that loads PCNTPK.

If you only use EMS-aware software which is EMS 4.0 compatible,
you can disable EMS 3.2 compatible page frames with some option
for JEMMEX and JEMM386: That way, you get 64 kB extra space for
UMB use, so it will be easier to LH things and gain low space.

I think today EMM386 is more often used for UMB and less often
for EMS. If you only use UMB but do not need EMS at all, you
can also disable EMS 3.2 compatible page frames, of course :-)

> Boot option 1 (http://tinypic.com/r/zm1boj/9): [JEMMEX]
> Total memory Free: 26,699K
> Total Expanded (EMS): 8,576K
> Free Expanded (EMS): 8,192K
> Largest executable program size: 597K
> Largest free upper memory block: 2K

> Boot option 2 (http://tinypic.com/r/2zzjl77/9): [HIMEMX+JEMM386]
> Total memory Free: 26,669K
> Total Expanded (EMS): 31M

Interesting that JEMM386 defaults to offer more EMS than JEMMEX.

> Free Expanded (EMS): 25M

Odd, what happened to the other 6 MB of EMS?

> Largest executable program size: 610K

This is because that option loads SHARE & network drivers high.

> Largest free upper memory block: 4K

This is interesting: In spite of loading more things into UMB,
you have more UMB left. That MIGHT mean that option 2 does not
have the X=C900-DFFF option but still is lucky enough to avoid
a crash? It could already be unstable, though. Maybe it would
still crash as soon as you use the network in DOS.

ALSO, the option 2 takes the "dangerous" step of explicitly
including the monochrome graphics card text memory area as
UMB memory (I=B000-B7FF). This means that attempts to use a
program which uses monochrome video modes may cause crashes.
It could also be the real reason why more UMB is free there.

I think that even 597 kB of low DOS memory is plenty for old
DOS programs. New DOS programs use a DOS extender anyway, so
they will be able to use your EMS and XMS, which are several
megabytes. You can use other MEM command line options to see
more details. Check the output of "MEM /?" to learn more :-)

Regards, Eric

PS: Do you use a special MOUSE or the usual CTMOUSE driver?

PPS: I see 1.1 uses XMGR in option 3 and 4DOS in option 4,
not sure if those are included in the 1.2 distro any more.



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Hi Ulrich,

Thanks for the link. I compared the 2 files and didn't find anything of 
significance. Your change:

IF "%config%"=="2" PCNTPK INT=0x60
IF NOT "%config%"=="2" LH PCNTPK INT=0x60

seems smart, however.

Based on Eric's suggestion of using more cautious settings, I found the 
JEMMEX doc page
(http://help.fdos.org/en/hhstndrd/base/jemmex.htm)

and learned how to change the JEMMEX options. I excluded the region of 
memory that might already be in use (indicated in the original error 
message):
1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=C900-DFFF I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG

Boot option 1 no longer crashes, but it doesn't appear to be an 
improvement over boot option 2. Here is what I am getting from C:\mem 
after boot:

Boot option 1 (http://tinypic.com/r/zm1boj/9):
Total memory Free: 26,699K
Total Expanded (EMS): 8,576K
Free Expanded (EMS): 8,192K
Largest executable program size: 597K
Largest free upper memory block: 2K

Boot option 2 (http://tinypic.com/r/2zzjl77/9):
Total memory Free: 26,669K
Total Expanded (EMS): 31M
Free Expanded (EMS): 25M
Largest executable program size: 610K
Largest free upper memory block: 4K

I don't have much experience with the way DOS memory works. What do you 
think of these results? Anything else I should be looking at?

Thanks,
Abe

On 6/27/2016 8:23 PM, Ulrich Hansen wrote:
> Hi Abe,
>
> if you like, take a look at:
>
> https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox
>
> There are three VirtualBox images of FreeDOS 1.1.
>
> I put quite some effort in them to make them work. I remember the crash
> you are talking about, but, sorry, I don’t remember how I fixed it
> (wasn’t it something about not loading high something?? Very sorry.
> Maybe you compare the AUTOEXEC.BAT and FDCONFIG.SYS of the FreeDOS 1.1
> VirtualBox image?
>
> -
> AUTOEXEC.BAT
>
> @echo off
> SET LANG=EN
> SET MTCPCFG=C:\FDOS\MTCP.CFG
> SET WATTCP.CFG=C:\FDOS
> SET PATH=%dosdir%\BIN;C:\DOSZIP
> SET NLSPATH=%dosdir%\NLS
> SET HELPPATH=%dosdir%\HELP
> SET TEMP=%dosdir%\TEMP
> SET TMP=%TEMP%
> SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330
> SET DIRCMD=/P /OGN /4
> SET COPYCMD=/-Y
> if "%config%"=="4" goto end
> SHSUCDX /QQ /D3
> LH SHSUCDHD /QQ /F:FDBOOTCD.ISO
> LH FDAPM APMDOS
> IF "%config%"=="2" LH SHARE
> LH DOSLFN
> REM NLSFUNC C:\FDOS\BIN\COUNTRY.SYS
> REM DISPLAY CON=(EGA),858,2)
> REM MODE CON CP PREP=((858) C:\FDOS\CPI\EGA.CPX)
> REM KEYB US,858,C:\FDOS\bin\keyboard.sys
> REM KEYB GR,,keyboard.sys /NOHI
> REM CHCP 858
> IF "%config%"=="2" PCNTPK INT=0x60
> IF NOT "%config%"=="2" LH PCNTPK INT=0x60
> DHCP
> REM M2WAT.COM  transfers the mTCP configuration to
> WATTCP.CFG.
> REM Disable it, if you want to use a custom WATTCP.CFG.
> C:\FDOS\M2WAT.COM 
> MOUSE
> DEVLOAD /H /Q %dosdir%\BIN\UIDE.SYS /H /D:FDCD0001 /S5
> SHSUCDX /QQ /~ /D:?SHSU-CDR,D /D:?SHSU-CDH,D /D:?FDCD0001,D
> /D:?FDCD0002,D /D:?FDCD0003,D
> MEM /C /N
> IF NOT "%config%"=="4" SHSUCDX /D
> GOTO END
> :END
> SET AUTOFILE=%0
> SET CFGFILE=C:\FDCONFIG.SYS
> alias reboot=fdapm warmboot
> alias reset=fdisk /reboot
> alias halt=fdapm poweroff
> alias shutdown=fdapm poweroff
> alias cfg=edit %cfgfile%
> alias auto=edit %0
> echo Done processing startup files %cfgfile% and %0
> echo Type HELP to get support on commands and navigation
> echo.
> echo Welcome to the FreeDOS 1.1 operating system (http://www.freedos.org)
>
>
> -
> FDCONFIG.SYS
>
> !COUNTRY=001,858,C:\FDOS\BIN\COUNTRY.SYS
> !SET DOSDIR=C:\FDOS
> !LASTDRIVE=Z
> !BUFFERS=20
> !FILES=40
> !MENUCOLOR=7,0
> MENUDEFAULT=1,5
> MENU 1 - Load FreeDOS with JEMMEX, no EMS (most UMBs), max RAM free
> MENU 2 - Load FreeDOS with EMM386 (Expanded Memory) and SHARE loaded
> MENU 3 - Load FreeDOS including XMGR XMS-memory driver
> MENU 4 - Load FreeDOS without drivers
> 123?DOS=HIGH
> 12?DOS=UMB
> 12?DOSDATA=UMB
> 1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG
> 2?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\HIMEMX.EXE
> 2?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMM386.EXE X=TEST I=TEST I=B000-B7FF NOVME NOINVLPG
> 3?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\XMGR.SYS
> 3?SHELL=C:\FDOS\bin\4dos.com  C:\FDOS\bin /E:1024
> /P:C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
> 4?SHELL=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM  C:\FDOS\BIN /E:1024
> /P=C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
> 12?SHELLHIGH=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM  C:\FDOS\BIN
> /E:1024 /P=C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
>
>
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Ulrich Hansen]

Hi Abe,

if you like, take a look at:

https://www.lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox 


There are three VirtualBox images of FreeDOS 1.1. 

I put quite some effort in them to make them work. I remember the crash you are 
talking about, but, sorry, I don’t remember how I fixed it (wasn’t it something 
about not loading high something?? Very sorry. Maybe you compare the 
AUTOEXEC.BAT and FDCONFIG.SYS of the FreeDOS 1.1 VirtualBox image?

-
AUTOEXEC.BAT

@echo off
SET LANG=EN
SET MTCPCFG=C:\FDOS\MTCP.CFG
SET WATTCP.CFG=C:\FDOS
SET PATH=%dosdir%\BIN;C:\DOSZIP
SET NLSPATH=%dosdir%\NLS
SET HELPPATH=%dosdir%\HELP
SET TEMP=%dosdir%\TEMP
SET TMP=%TEMP%
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330
SET DIRCMD=/P /OGN /4
SET COPYCMD=/-Y
if "%config%"=="4" goto end
SHSUCDX /QQ /D3
LH SHSUCDHD /QQ /F:FDBOOTCD.ISO
LH FDAPM APMDOS
IF "%config%"=="2" LH SHARE
LH DOSLFN
REM NLSFUNC C:\FDOS\BIN\COUNTRY.SYS
REM DISPLAY CON=(EGA),858,2)
REM MODE CON CP PREP=((858) C:\FDOS\CPI\EGA.CPX)
REM KEYB US,858,C:\FDOS\bin\keyboard.sys
REM KEYB GR,,keyboard.sys /NOHI
REM CHCP 858
IF "%config%"=="2" PCNTPK INT=0x60
IF NOT "%config%"=="2" LH PCNTPK INT=0x60
DHCP
REM M2WAT.COM  transfers the mTCP configuration to 
WATTCP.CFG.
REM Disable it, if you want to use a custom WATTCP.CFG.
C:\FDOS\M2WAT.COM 
MOUSE
DEVLOAD /H /Q %dosdir%\BIN\UIDE.SYS /H /D:FDCD0001 /S5
SHSUCDX /QQ /~ /D:?SHSU-CDR,D /D:?SHSU-CDH,D /D:?FDCD0001,D /D:?FDCD0002,D 
/D:?FDCD0003,D
MEM /C /N
IF NOT "%config%"=="4" SHSUCDX /D
GOTO END
:END
SET AUTOFILE=%0
SET CFGFILE=C:\FDCONFIG.SYS
alias reboot=fdapm warmboot
alias reset=fdisk /reboot
alias halt=fdapm poweroff
alias shutdown=fdapm poweroff
alias cfg=edit %cfgfile%
alias auto=edit %0
echo Done processing startup files %cfgfile% and %0
echo Type HELP to get support on commands and navigation
echo.
echo Welcome to the FreeDOS 1.1 operating system (http://www.freedos.org 
)


-
FDCONFIG.SYS

!COUNTRY=001,858,C:\FDOS\BIN\COUNTRY.SYS 
!SET DOSDIR=C:\FDOS
!LASTDRIVE=Z
!BUFFERS=20 
!FILES=40
!MENUCOLOR=7,0
MENUDEFAULT=1,5
MENU 1 - Load FreeDOS with JEMMEX, no EMS (most UMBs), max RAM free
MENU 2 - Load FreeDOS with EMM386 (Expanded Memory) and SHARE loaded
MENU 3 - Load FreeDOS including XMGR XMS-memory driver
MENU 4 - Load FreeDOS without drivers 
123?DOS=HIGH
12?DOS=UMB
12?DOSDATA=UMB
1?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMMEX.EXE NOEMS X=TEST I=TEST NOVME NOINVLPG
2?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\HIMEMX.EXE 
2?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\JEMM386.EXE X=TEST I=TEST I=B000-B7FF NOVME NOINVLPG
3?DEVICE=C:\FDOS\BIN\XMGR.SYS 
3?SHELL=C:\FDOS\bin\4dos.com  C:\FDOS\bin /E:1024 
/P:C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT  
4?SHELL=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM  C:\FDOS\BIN /E:1024 
/P=C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT 
12?SHELLHIGH=C:\FDOS\BIN\COMMAND.COM  C:\FDOS\BIN /E:1024 
/P=C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT --
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Eric,

Thanks for your time and attention. See my responses inline.

On 6/27/2016 3:05 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi Abe,
>
>> upon bootup and selecting option 1, I get the following message:
>>
>> JemmEx v5.75 [05/21/11]
>> System memory found at c900-dfff, region might be in use
>> JemmEx loaded
>> Kernel: allocated 46 Diskbuffers = 24472 Bytes in HMA
>>
>> after which nothing ever happens. It hangs permanently.
>
> This means that JEMMEX (EMM386) tried to allocate UMB but
> predicted troubles. Soon after that, DOS does indeed hang.
> I suggest to select a boot option without JEMMEX instead.
>
I understood JEMMEX to be the preferred option. Yes, the other boot 
options all work.

> Alternatively, you could change the JEMMEX options in your
> config.sys to more cautious settings regarding UMB areas.
> Then you get at least some UMB and thus more free DOS RAM.
>
Can you point me in the direction of a good resource where I could learn 
about adjusting the JEMMEX options/settings?

Why are the JEMMEX defaults not set to work with a 
fresh install? Or does it work for most people, and my 3 computers just 
happen to all not work?

>> I don't believe this is related to the UIDE driver...
>
> It is possible that the same memory area where JEMMEX tries
> to allocate UMB is also in use for disk, network or UMB I/O
> buffers of your virtual hardware... So it is possible that a
> crash is more likely with UIDE (more modern disk I/O) but a
> better solution compared to avoiding UIDE would be to select
> more cautious JEMMEX options regarding that memory region.
>
Perhaps I should allocate more than 32MB of RAM to avoid this collision? 
I will try that too.

>> Boot options 2,3,4 all work without issue.
>
> What are the names of boot options 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively?
>
They are the stock options found in the C:\FDCONFIG.SYS file:

1 - Load FreeDOS with JEMMEX, no EMS (most UMBs), max RAM free
2 - Load FreeDOS with EMM386 (Expanded Memory) and SHARE loaded
3 - Load FreeDOS including XMGR XMS-memory driver
4 - Load FreeDOS without drivers

I have not altered C:\FDCONFIG.SYS.

> Regards, Eric
>
Thanks again
>
>
> --
> Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Eric Auer]

Hi Abe,

> upon bootup and selecting option 1, I get the following message:
> 
> JemmEx v5.75 [05/21/11]
> System memory found at c900-dfff, region might be in use
> JemmEx loaded
> Kernel: allocated 46 Diskbuffers = 24472 Bytes in HMA
> 
> after which nothing ever happens. It hangs permanently.

This means that JEMMEX (EMM386) tried to allocate UMB but
predicted troubles. Soon after that, DOS does indeed hang.
I suggest to select a boot option without JEMMEX instead.

Alternatively, you could change the JEMMEX options in your
config.sys to more cautious settings regarding UMB areas.
Then you get at least some UMB and thus more free DOS RAM.

> I don't believe this is related to the UIDE driver...

It is possible that the same memory area where JEMMEX tries
to allocate UMB is also in use for disk, network or UMB I/O
buffers of your virtual hardware... So it is possible that a
crash is more likely with UIDE (more modern disk I/O) but a
better solution compared to avoiding UIDE would be to select
more cautious JEMMEX options regarding that memory region.

> Boot options 2,3,4 all work without issue.

What are the names of boot options 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively?

Regards, Eric



--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

[Abe Mishler]

Dear List,

I've attempted to install FreeDOS 1.1 using VirtualBox 5.0.22 on 3 
different machines with 3 different operating systems: (Macbook Pro 
(10.11.5), Windows 8.1 Home, and Windows 10 Pro). On each system, upon 
bootup and selecting option 1, I get the following message:

JemmEx v5.75 [05/21/11]
System memory found at c900-dfff, region might be in use
JemmEx loaded
Kernel: allocated 46 Diskbuffers = 24472 Bytes in HMA

after which nothing ever happens. It hangs permanently. I don't believe 
this is related to the UIDE driver as suggested in the installation Wiki 
pages because of where it freezes. Regardless, I installed the VBOX-FIX 
COM patch on the Windows 10 Pro setup and it didn't solve the problem.

Boot options 2,3,4 all work without issue.

Has anyone else run into this? Your help in understanding (& fixing!) 
this is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Abe

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Preview 21

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello All,

I have just released Preview 21.

This is only a minor preview update. Mostly these things:

installed configuration for FDNPKG now points to the 1.2 repository.
a couple of additional utilities by Eric Auer are included as EXTRAS on the big 
USB and CD image.
some release building improvements 

You can download it from either http://up.lod.bz/FDI  or 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.2/previews/1.2-pre21
 
.

Jerome--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Ulrich Hansen]

> 
> WATTCP is the only one remaining. 
> 

The license of WATTCP is a bit hard to find out. At the moment it is 
distributed by its author Erick Engelke at:
http://www.erickengelke.com/wattcp/ 

The license of this official version from 14. September 2015 is in the 
/include/copyrigh.h file. I append it as text further down this mail.

As I understand it, you can use the WATTCP library to produce commercial or 
open source software. The library itself is not allowed to be sold. This could 
conflict with FreeDOS, as some vendors in the past have bundled their hardware 
with FreeDOS which could be seen as commercial distribution.

In 2005 WATTCP was distributed by a site called http://www.wattcp.com/ 
. This site also sold the WATTCP manual. The download 
file was called wat1104.zip and included a copyrigh.h file which stated WATTCP 
was GNU LGPL. I also quote this text a bit further down in  this mail.

The FreeDOS site at 
http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp 

points to another version of WATTCP at 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/net/wattcp/ 


This version is from 05. June 2001 and includes a copyrigh.h file similar to 
the version from 2015.

All versions contain sources. As I see it, the relevant license is the one from 
September 2015.

I send this mail in BCC to Erick Engelcke in the hope, he might give us a hint 
if WATTCP can or should be distributed with FreeDOS.

Thanks a lot!




-- Copyright WATTCP 14. September 2015 


/*
 *   WATTCP - TCP/IP library routines
 *
 *   Copyright (c) 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 Erick Engelke
 *
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1993  Quentin Smart
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1990  National Center for Supercomputer Applications
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1990  Clarkson University
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1983, 1986, Imagen Corporation
 *
 *  This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 *  but without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of
 *  merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
 *
 *   RESTRICTIONS
 *   
 *   You may freely use this library to produce programs which you may give
 *   away or sell in source format, or as compiled executables, or both.
 *
 *   You may not sell this library or a portion thereof or distribute modified
 *   versions the library code in either source or OBJect or LIBrary format
 *   without written permission from the author.  The author still maintains
 *   copyright privileges and will assert the privileges of ownership for
 *   purposes of royalties such distributions.
 *
 *   Portions of this code were written or enhanced by others and offerred
 *   to me for distribution in WATTCP under my copyright.  To my knowledge,
 *   all copyrights exercised are listed at the top of this file.  If this
 *   is incorrect, please contact me so I can rectify the situation.
 *
 *
 *   OFFICIAL SITE
 *   -
 *   The official distribution site for WATTCP (and many other TCP goodies)
 *   is dorm.rutgers.edu in pub/msdos/wattcp  (thanks Jim!)
 *
 *   That is where I upload the latest libraries, my own free applications
 *   and other applications I have collected and find useful.
 *
 *
 *   DOCUMENTATION
 *   -
 *   A programmer's reference manual I wrote is now available from the
 *   publisher.  They provide no additional support and cannot help
 *   you with any aspect of the software.  But they do pay a royalty
 *   to me which has been used to compensate my costs for developing
 *   this software and extending it, so I am very appreciative.
 *
 *   That manual is copyrighted and protected by international law.
 *   It may not be copied without the authors permission.  And its
 *   sale does not constitute a warranty or an automatic license to
 *   use WATTCP beyond the terms described in this file.
 *
 *  WATTCP Manual
 *  www.wattcp.com
 *
 */
#define WATTCP_C "WATTCP_C"





-- Copyright WATTCP 02. November 2004 from WAT1104.zip 


/*
 *   WATTCP - TCP/IP library routines
 *
 *
 * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
 * Library General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public
 * License along with this library; if not, write to the
 * Free Software Foundation, 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my 
> opinion is not even relevant.
> I have not been informed of any decision to do so. The problem is its 
> licensing is unclear. There is no
> licensing information contained in its source files or with its binaries. It 
> may be Public Domain.
> I have no idea.

You'd have to email the two authors and ask for either clarification
or relicensing:  Henrik Haftmann and Jason Hood. I already pointed you
to the latter's webpage, but I understand if you don't want the
tedious burden of doing that.

If not, then just keep things simple, don't include it (by default);
instead, let users grab it by themselves. Not 100% ideal but certainly
less stressful.

> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
> works are Copyright at the
> moment of their creation.

That's not quite true. U.S. government officials are (sometimes?)
forced to keep their works and documents in the "public domain" (which
itself isn't a universally accepted idea). At least that's the
impression I got (from old TDE 4.0). And things may be different for
works predating the major law changes (1988? '70s??).

But I have no full grasp of the mess, and none of us are lawyers (or
can't afford to hire one full-time, certainly!). Sometimes I think
it's impossible to be perfect, too many obstacles, even when trying
our hardest.

> Regardless if it is declared or not. However, it is nearly impossible to 
> enforce
> a Copyright violation without said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS 
> sued into non-existence
> do to a minor copyright violation?

FreeDOS is not a legal entity, only a very unofficial loose-knit group
of volunteers. The cost of an initial lawsuit against us would most
likely outweigh our total assets! Literally nobody would win. However,
that doesn't mean we have the right to be lazy and sloppy. (Nor should
every spurious complaint be treated as valid.)

> Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be 
> unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.

Honestly, it's probably dubious, "as is". So I don't blame you.
Certainly, VFAT patents don't expire for another year or two (2017?).
I hate to be the bringer of bad news or (accidentally, falsely) imply
that it's not legally suitable, as we've all used it for many years,
but it's probably not "perfect" by any stretch.

> Someone in either the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was 
> another program that did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is 
> called.

I can only guess. The only ones I know, offhand, are LFNDOS (GPL) and
StarLFN (public domain). I haven't heavily used either, but I've
lightly dabbled with the latter (in non-VFAT mode only, LONGNAME.DAT a
la DESCRIPT.ION, which is somewhat slow when dealing with lots of
files).

> I have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.

I hate to be a pessimist, but it's just too much stress for too little
gain. DOS users should be used to 8.3 limitations. Some people (ahem,
DOS386) would even complain that it's not proper "DOS" software if it
can't handle SFNs properly (e.g. some DJGPP-compiled stuff, although
that's not DJGPP's fault, per se).

I doubt anybody here can really complain. All of us already have all
the DOS software we need. The FD 1.2 distro is meant for (presumably)
new users or those who haven't used DOS in a while. The diehards
already know where everything is, how to find and install it, etc.

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it.
> Hopefully, it is not broken.
>
> CURL - Listed as GPL, IT IS NOT GPL! It is less strict and is only
> copyrighted public domain. Included.

Even the official Curl website now points to (IMO, unreliable link)
M.K.'s recent (Dec. 2015) build of 7.46.0 (while latest is 7.49.0).

AFAIK, it is not broken, it supports "SSL SSH" (according to Curl's
download page). I did, minimally, use it once or twice. I could
definitely try it again, that's not hard to do (under QEMU or VBox).

Since Curl (unwisely?) decides to point *directly* to Mik's
(unreliable) webpage, it makes me want to mirror it to iBiblio.
Certainly the (main) license is presumably okay.

The problem is making sure it has all the (third-party source)
dependencies and making sure their licenses are acceptable. Which
unfortunately is hard to do since (AFAIK) rebuilding on or for DOS is
never easy for things like that. Maybe its makefile has improved
lately, but I haven't tried. And without an official "DOS" maintainer,
it's just too hard to guess on our own for every single file.

So it's just uncertain (as are most things that are complicated),
unfortunately. So I can't put any huge confidence in it, but it's
"probably" okay (or no worse than usual, just sloppy, sigh). I'd
really hate to guess blindly or make a mistake in this area.

N.B. I should probably ignore Curl (for now) and focus on CTMOUSE.ZIP
and JEMM.ZIP tomorrow instead. I said I would "fix" those, so I need
to do that, first and foremost.

> I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At
> least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I
> will be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed.

It may be a lost cause. Maybe having tons of third-party packages
included is a bad idea. There probably needs to be a smaller "core" of
FreeDOS that doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification - UMBPCI

[Don Flowers]

Yes, I see that now, I apologize for the sarcastic tone, I am a bit
frustrated, although I should not be surprised that this licensing phase
should become such a "sticky wicket."

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Eric Auer  wrote:

>
> Hi Don,
>
> >> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
> >
> > http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
> >   * Conditions and Download*
> > The original version came from the german magazine c't
> > , but there were several problems and no free
> > updates. This version is based upon the source-code
> >  published by c't in 1995
> which
> > supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.
>
> The original version is totally ancient and only supports a rather
> small set of older mainboards.
>
> > It's Freeware.
> >
> > Download:
> > http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
> >
> > Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
> >
> > No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source
> code?
>
> The problem is that - as far as I remember! - newer versions of UMBPCI
> contain driver code for modern hardware which required the UMBPCI author
> to agree to not make the details of the hardware totally public. So the
> source code is available on request for individual UMBPCI users, not for
> distribution to everybody who downloads our distro or repository. Please
> correct me if I remember wrongly.
>
> Regards, Eric
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification - UMBPCI

[Eric Auer]

Hi Don,

>> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
> 
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
>   * Conditions and Download*
> The original version came from the german magazine c't
> , but there were several problems and no free
> updates. This version is based upon the source-code
>  published by c't in 1995 which
> supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.

The original version is totally ancient and only supports a rather
small set of older mainboards.

> It's Freeware.
> 
> Download:
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
> 
> Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
> 
> No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source code?

The problem is that - as far as I remember! - newer versions of UMBPCI
contain driver code for modern hardware which required the UMBPCI author
to agree to not make the details of the hardware totally public. So the
source code is available on request for individual UMBPCI users, not for
distribution to everybody who downloads our distro or repository. Please
correct me if I remember wrongly.

Regards, Eric



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 19, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Louis Santillan  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> 
>> Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my 
>> opinion is not even relevant. I have not been informed of any decision to do 
>> so. The problem is its licensing is unclear. There is no licensing 
>> information contained in its source files or with its binaries. It may be 
>> Public Domain. I have no idea.
>> 
>> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
>> works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. Regardless if it is 
>> declared or not. However, it is nearly impossible to enforce a Copyright 
>> violation without said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS sued into 
>> non-existence do to a minor copyright violation?
>> 
>> Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be 
>> unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.  Someone in 
>> either the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was another 
>> program that did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is 
>> called. I have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
>> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.
> 
> I finally found a(n obvious) term for DOSLFN's situation, License-Free
> Software [0].  This means source is unmarked with license and/or
> copyright info.  And if you believe DJB's judicial reasoning, placing
> the code on the net, demonstrating how to use the software "creates"
> an implied license with similar restrictions to Public Domain software
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software 
> 

Sounds good to me.

Thanks

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[perditionc]

Some replies intermixed, on my phone so hopefully readable.

On May 19, 2016 3:33 PM, "Don Flowers"  wrote:
>
> >UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
>
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
>   Conditions and Download
> The original version came from the german magazine c't, but there were
several problems and no free updates. This version is based upon the
source-code published by c't in 1995 which supported only intel chipsets up
to the 430FX.
>
> It's Freeware.
>
> Download:
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
>
> Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
>
>
> No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source
code?
>

I have in the past, however it is for an older version and if memory serves
it is preferred to retrieve from origin to avoid using outdated version.  I
will eventually ask for an updated version, but we should respect authors
wishes and not make available without explicit permission as as it can
still be obtained from origin.  (I fully believe local mirrors of DOS
software are important as sites disappear all the time)

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:
>>
>> Hello Eric and all,
>>
>> First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the
update repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.
>>
>> So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently
installed under ALL or BASE.
>>
>> RIPCORD

This should not be included.  It is specific to defunct ripcord (beta)
releases.  It is public domain (from me).  It included version information
now fully replaced by LSMs in packages.

>> DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
>> SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to
build it, probably should add this to ALL.
>> FLASHROM
>> FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
>> CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
>> SAMCFG

Yes this just a sample/documented config.sys file.  It is also public
domain I think (also originated from me - I can't recall if it includes any
copyrighted comments ie examples I borrowed and can't read it currently to
check.)

>>
>>

Thank you for all your work, I know how time consuming it can be.

Jeremy
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Louis Santillan]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my 
> opinion is not even relevant. I have not been informed of any decision to do 
> so. The problem is its licensing is unclear. There is no licensing 
> information contained in its source files or with its binaries. It may be 
> Public Domain. I have no idea.
>
> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
> works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. Regardless if it is 
> declared or not. However, it is nearly impossible to enforce a Copyright 
> violation without said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS sued into 
> non-existence do to a minor copyright violation?
>
> Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be 
> unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.  Someone in 
> either the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was another 
> program that did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is called. 
> I have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.

I finally found a(n obvious) term for DOSLFN's situation, License-Free
Software [0].  This means source is unmarked with license and/or
copyright info.  And if you believe DJB's judicial reasoning, placing
the code on the net, demonstrating how to use the software "creates"
an implied license with similar restrictions to Public Domain software

Food for thought.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

>UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.

http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
  * Conditions and Download*
The original version came from the german magazine c't
, but there were several problems and no free
updates. This version is based upon the source-code
 published by c't in 1995 which
supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.

It's Freeware.

Download:
http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip

Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.


No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source code?

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:

> Hello Eric and all,
>
> First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the
> update repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.
>
> So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently
> installed under ALL or BASE.
>
> RIPCORD
> DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
> SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to build
> it, probably should add this to ALL.
> FLASHROM
> FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
> CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
> SAMCFG
>
> UPX had not gone away, it was it the DEVEL group. I just missed seeing it
> when compiling the list.
>
> And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it.
> Hopefully, it is not broken.
>
> WATTCP is the only one remaining.
>
> I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At
> least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I
> will be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed.
>
> On May 19, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of
>
>
> Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.
>
> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.
>
>
> Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?
>
>
> Yes, however some are elsewhere on ibiblio.
>
>
> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos
>
>
> What is the content of that package?
>
> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.
>
>
> Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distort.
>
>
> For now, included. I will try it out prior to next release.
>
>
> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
>
>
> Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
> Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
> for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
> would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)
>
> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
>
>
> Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.
>
>
> Probably, someone should really update it.
>
>
> WATTCP, No Source files present
>
>
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp says that would
> be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.
>
> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1
>
>
> Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield
> This does include sources.
>
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ has
> a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.
>
> I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?
>
> For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
> it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl (a very nice tool!)
>
> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.
>
>
> This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
> the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
> users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.
>
> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.
>
>
> That is really cool, thanks :-)
>
> By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
> the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
> which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.
>
> Regards, Eric
>
>
>
> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
> 1.1, all 80 of them.
>
>
> Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
> Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
> Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
> Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
> Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello Eric and all,

First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the update 
repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.

So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently 
installed under ALL or BASE.

RIPCORD
DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to build it, 
probably should add this to ALL.
FLASHROM
FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
SAMCFG

UPX had not gone away, it was it the DEVEL group. I just missed seeing it when 
compiling the list.

And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it. Hopefully, 
it is not broken.

WATTCP is the only one remaining. 

I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At 
least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I will 
be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed. 

> On May 19, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Eric Auer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jerome,
> 
>> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
>> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of
> 
> Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.
> 
>> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
>> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
>> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.
> 
> Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?

Yes, however some are elsewhere on ibiblio.

> 
>> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos
> 
> What is the content of that package?
> 
>> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.
> 
> Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distort.

For now, included. I will try it out prior to next release.

> 
>> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
> 
> Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
> Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
> for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
> would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)
> 
>> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
> 
> Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.

Probably, someone should really update it.

> 
>> WATTCP, No Source files present
> 
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp 
>  says that would
> be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.
> 
>> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1
> 
> Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield 
> 
> This does include sources.
> 
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ 
>  has
> a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.
> 
> I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?
> 
> For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
> it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl 
>  (a very nice tool!)
> 
>> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
>> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.
> 
> This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
> the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
> users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.
> 
>> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
>> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.
> 
> That is really cool, thanks :-)
> 
> By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
> the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
> which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.
> 
> Regards, Eric
> 
> 
> 
>> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
>> 1.1, all 80 of them.
> 
> Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
> Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
> Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
> Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
> Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex Kernel Keyb Label
> Lbacach(e) Localiz(e) Mem Mirror Mode More Move Mtcp Nansi Nlsfunc
> Printq Print Recover Replace Ripcord Samcfg Share Shsucdx Sort
> Subst Tree Uide Undel(ete) Unf(or)m(a)t Usbdos Xcopy Xmgr Dosutil
> 
> Boot: Sysl(i)n(u)x
> 
> GUI: Fdshell (?)
> 
> Net: Wattcp Wget
> 
> Util: Bootfix Callver Doslfn  Flashr Fdshield Upx Vmsmnt
> 
>> And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick.
>> All, 232 of them.

This is a repost/updated not included and problem 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jerome,

> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of

Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.

> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.

Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?

> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos

What is the content of that package?

> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.

Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distro.

> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.

Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)

> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.

Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.

> WATTCP, No Source files present

http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp says that would
be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.

> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1

Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield
This does include sources.

http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ has
a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.

I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?

For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl (a very nice tool!)

> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.

This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.

> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.

That is really cool, thanks :-)

By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.

Regards, Eric



> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
> 1.1, all 80 of them.

Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex Kernel Keyb Label
Lbacach(e) Localiz(e) Mem Mirror Mode More Move Mtcp Nansi Nlsfunc
Printq Print Recover Replace Ripcord Samcfg Share Shsucdx Sort
Subst Tree Uide Undel(ete) Unf(or)m(a)t Usbdos Xcopy Xmgr Dosutil

Boot: Sysl(i)n(u)x

GUI: Fdshell (?)

Net: Wattcp Wget

Util: Bootfix Callver Doslfn  Flashr Fdshield Upx Vmsmnt

> And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick.
> All, 232 of them.

[see original mail]


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Dale E Sterner]

You can call the copyright office and have them do a search (its not
free)
If they don't find anything registered then its pretty much open
season for that software. You have to pay by the hour (labor) for a
search.


DS



On Wed, 18 May 2016 18:22:02 -0400 Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
 writes:
> 
> > On May 18, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Tom Ehlert  
> wrote:
> > 
> >>> Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?
> > 
> >> Correct. Although, I hear the was another very buggy one that was
> >> around before DOSLFN. I don’t know the name.
> > 
> > THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
> > 
> > one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
> > 
> > bye
> > 
> > Tom.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I understand you may have strong feelings regarding this subject. 
> However, name calling, labels, slander, racism and other 
> inflammatory and degrading remarks are unacceptable behavior. I have 
> zero tolerance for such games. 
> 
> Now, my opinion regarding open source. Could not care less. I have 
> written and released Public Domain, Open Source, Freeware, Trialware 
> and Extremely Copy-protected software and have every intention of 
> doing so in the future. The only type I have not done is Shareware 
> and even that is not do to some moral objection. I just don’t 
> think that model works as intended.
> 
> For the packages that are to be included with the next OS release, I 
> have been given several directives. Among those are that the 
> software package should be open source and its sources need to be 
> included. Public domain software is less restrictive than open 
> source. So as long as its source is present, it is fine that that 
> type of software is included. Other software that places additional 
> restrictions on use, do not fit the given requirements. Exceptions 
> may be made. But, that decision is not up to me. I have a moral 
> obligation to evaluate all of the packages and insure they meet the 
> requirements I was given. 
> 
> Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me 
> and my opinion is not even relevant. I have not been informed of any 
> decision to do so. The problem is its licensing is unclear. There is 
> no licensing information contained in its source files or with its 
> binaries. It may be Public Domain. I have no idea. 
> 
> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. 
> All works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. Regardless 
> if it is declared or not. However, it is nearly impossible to 
> enforce a Copyright violation without said notice. But, would you 
> like to see FreeDOS sued into non-existence do to a minor copyright 
> violation?
> 
> Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to 
> be unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.  
> Someone in either the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that 
> there was another program that did lfn and it was very buggy. I have 
> no idea what it is called. I have no idea if it is buggy. If you 
> would like to find a suitable alternative, it can be considered for 
> inclusion.
> 
> Jerome
> 
> 
>
-
-
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees 
> who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition 
> of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only 
> the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data 
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


ABP Tactical
This Pen Could Save Your Life
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573dc7cede54f47ce78c1st01duc

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Missing Packages and XDEL

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

I have created "xdel/" under "util/file/", so your .ZIP (and the old
one) can now be found here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/file/xdel/


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Alain Mouette  wrote:
>
> On 10-05-2016 00:39, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> A quick search on iBiblio shows the following files:
>>
>> ./distributions/1.0/pkgs/xdels.lsm
>> ./distributions/1.0/pkgs/xdels.zip
>> ./distributions/1.0/pkgs/xdelx.lsm
>> ./distributions/1.0/pkgs/xdelx.zip
>> ./util/file/xdel204.zip
>>
> This is the updated version is 206c, only LSM and some files moved for
> compatibility by Jerome
>
> Last version only real difference is in 205: "added kittenization (by
> Blair Campbell)" and english/portuguese/spanish translations
>
> Thanks for updating it :)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Eric, 

> On May 18, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Eric Auer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> I would like to agree with Tom: It is good that FreeDOS comes
> with a nice collection of drivers for modern hardware! Those
> times when a DOS driver was included when people bought their
> CD drive have long passed. Also, there are no reasons to limit
> our distro to those minimal features of a few MS DOS disks ;-)

I am more than happy to include any suitable open source drivers.

> 
>>> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
>>> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
>> 
>> I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
>> nothing else (that is, "BASE")...
> 
> It is good to have a BASE download (probably with "live CD" or
> "live USB stick" function, not requiring but allowing install
> to other disks) if you want a basic no-nonsense system. Still
> I would like to see drivers included even in such a download.
> 
>> But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
>> FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
>> bits by hand over the internet.
> 
> It also is good to have a FreeDOS distro which contains a pile
> of nice useful free software, if possible fully open source. I
> think IBIBLIO also requires open source for the file hosting.
> 
> I would NOT want the FreeDOS distro to be limited by extremely
> specific license taste. As far as I am concerned, GPL 2 and 3,
> MIT, Artistic license, BSD license, public domain etc. are all
> perfectly fine for inclusion of packages in our normal distro.
> 
>> Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users,
>> and that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.
> 
> Looking at your package listing, Svarog386 is quite nice, but we
> should not give up the hope of having a nice plain FreeDOS distro.
> 
> Jerome, could you make a list of packages which existed in either
> FreeDOS 1.0 or 1.1 but are not currently included in 1.2, along
> with the reason for exclusion? I think we should indeed be a bit
> more generous regarding inclusion of packages! Thanks :-)
> 
> Regards, Eric
> 

Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable packages 
are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of packages shipped with 
1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these packages are on the ibiblio 
repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not put any work into trying to include 
these packages as of yet.

DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos somewhere.
RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested. 
SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
SYSLNX, There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
WATTCP, No Source files present
CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1

Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never shipped 
with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.

FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the slim USB and 
232 on the big USB.


Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS 1.1, all 80 
of them.

BASE\APPENDX
BASE\ASSIGNX
BASE\ATTRIBX
BASE\CDRCACHX
BASE\CHKDSKX
BASE\CHOICEX
BASE\COMMANDX
BASE\COMPX
BASE\CPIDOSX
BASE\CTMOUSEX
BASE\CWSDPMIX
BASE\DEBUGX
BASE\DEFRAG
BASE\DELTREEX
BASE\DEVLOADX
BASE\DISKCPYX
BASE\DISPLAYX
BASE\DOSFSCKX
BASE\DSKCOMPX
BASE\EDITX
BASE\EDLINX
BASE\EXE2BINX
BASE\FASTHLPX
BASE\FCX
BASE\FDAPMX
BASE\FDISKX
BASE\FDPKGX
BASE\FDUPDATX
BASE\FINDX
BASE\FORMATX
BASE\FOURDOSX
BASE\FXMS286X
BASE\GRAPHICX
BASE\HELPX
BASE\HIMEMXX
BASE\INFOZIPX
BASE\INSTALLX
BASE\JEMMEXX
BASE\KERNELX
BASE\KEYBX
BASE\LABELX
BASE\LBACACHX
BASE\LOCALIZX
BASE\MEMX
BASE\MIRRORX
BASE\MODEX
BASE\MOREX
BASE\MOVEX
BASE\MTCPX
BASE\NANSI
BASE\NLSFUNCX
BASE\PRINTQX
BASE\PRINTX
BASE\RECOVERX
BASE\REPLACEX
BASE\RIPCORDX
BASE\SAMCFGX
BASE\SHAREX
BASE\SHSUCDXX
BASE\SORTX
BASE\SUBSTX
BASE\TREEX
BASE\UIDEX
BASE\UNDELX
BASE\UNFMTX
BASE\USBDOSX
BASE\XCOPYX
BASE\XMGRX
BOOT\SYSLNXX
GUI\FDSHELLX
NET\WATTCPX
NET\WGETX
BASE\DOSUTILX
UTIL\BOOTFIXX
UTIL\CALLVERX
UTIL\DOSLFNX
UTIL\FLASHRX
UTIL\FSHIELDX
UTIL\UPXX
UTIL\VMSMNTX

And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick. All, 232 of them.

; BASE Packages

archiver\unzip
archiver\zip
base\append
base\assign
base\attrib
base\chkdsk
base\choice
base\command
base\comp
base\cpidos
base\ctmouse
base\debug
base\defrag
base\deltree
base\devload
base\diskcomp
base\diskcopy
base\display
base\dosfsck
base\edit
base\edlin
base\exe2bin
base\fc
base\fdapm
base\fdisk
base\fdxms
base\fdxms286
base\find
base\format
base\help
base\himemx
base\jemm
base\kernel32
base\keyb
base\keyb_lay
base\label
base\lbacache
base\mem
base\mirror
base\mkeyb
base\mode
base\more
base\move
base\nansi
base\nlsfunc
base\print
base\recover
base\replace
base\share
base\shsucdx
base\sort
base\swsubst
base\tree
base\undelete

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E . Shidel Jr .]

> On May 18, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Tom Ehlert  wrote:
> 
>>> Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?
> 
>> Correct. Although, I hear the was another very buggy one that was
>> around before DOSLFN. I don’t know the name.
> 
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
> 
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
> 
> bye
> 
> Tom.

Tom,

I understand you may have strong feelings regarding this subject. However, name 
calling, labels, slander, racism and other inflammatory and degrading remarks 
are unacceptable behavior. I have zero tolerance for such games. 

Now, my opinion regarding open source. Could not care less. I have written and 
released Public Domain, Open Source, Freeware, Trialware and Extremely 
Copy-protected software and have every intention of doing so in the future. The 
only type I have not done is Shareware and even that is not do to some moral 
objection. I just don’t think that model works as intended.

For the packages that are to be included with the next OS release, I have been 
given several directives. Among those are that the software package should be 
open source and its sources need to be included. Public domain software is less 
restrictive than open source. So as long as its source is present, it is fine 
that that type of software is included. Other software that places additional 
restrictions on use, do not fit the given requirements. Exceptions may be made. 
But, that decision is not up to me. I have a moral obligation to evaluate all 
of the packages and insure they meet the requirements I was given. 

Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my opinion 
is not even relevant. I have not been informed of any decision to do so. The 
problem is its licensing is unclear. There is no licensing information 
contained in its source files or with its binaries. It may be Public Domain. I 
have no idea. 

Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All works 
are Copyright at the moment of their creation. Regardless if it is declared or 
not. However, it is nearly impossible to enforce a Copyright violation without 
said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS sued into non-existence do to a 
minor copyright violation?

Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be 
unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.  Someone in either 
the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was another program that 
did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is called. I have no idea 
if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable alternative, it can be 
considered for inclusion.

Jerome


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Alain Mouette]

Please, beware of  Stallmanitis, it is a serious desease and highly 
contagious.

In the particular case of FreeDOS it bad, at the time of DOS programs 
were free but GPL was not widely known

Alain


On 18-05-2016 11:12, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>>> Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?
>> Correct. Although, I hear the was another very buggy one that was
>> around before DOSLFN. I don’t know the name.
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
>
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
>
> bye
>
> Tom.
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Eric Auer]

I would like to agree with Tom: It is good that FreeDOS comes
with a nice collection of drivers for modern hardware! Those
times when a DOS driver was included when people bought their
CD drive have long passed. Also, there are no reasons to limit
our distro to those minimal features of a few MS DOS disks ;-)

>> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
>> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
> 
> I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
> nothing else (that is, "BASE")...

It is good to have a BASE download (probably with "live CD" or
"live USB stick" function, not requiring but allowing install
to other disks) if you want a basic no-nonsense system. Still
I would like to see drivers included even in such a download.

> But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
> FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
> bits by hand over the internet.

It also is good to have a FreeDOS distro which contains a pile
of nice useful free software, if possible fully open source. I
think IBIBLIO also requires open source for the file hosting.

I would NOT want the FreeDOS distro to be limited by extremely
specific license taste. As far as I am concerned, GPL 2 and 3,
MIT, Artistic license, BSD license, public domain etc. are all
perfectly fine for inclusion of packages in our normal distro.

> Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users,
> and that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.

Looking at your package listing, Svarog386 is quite nice, but we
should not give up the hope of having a nice plain FreeDOS distro.

Jerome, could you make a list of packages which existed in either
FreeDOS 1.0 or 1.1 but are not currently included in 1.2, along
with the reason for exclusion? I think we should indeed be a bit
more generous regarding inclusion of packages! Thanks :-)

Regards, Eric



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Mateusz Viste]

On 17/05/2016 14:23, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.

I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
nothing else (that is, "BASE"). The legalese on these things can be a 
bit confusing, so I believe that the extreme caution that FreeDOS 
applies in this area is legitimate.

But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
bits by hand over the internet.

Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users, and 
that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.

Mateusz


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Marco Achury]

Please illustrate me:

Define Stallmanitis

El 5/18/2016 a las 9:12 AM, Tom Ehlert escribió:
>>> Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?
>> Correct. Although, I hear the was another very buggy one that was
>> around before DOSLFN. I don’t know the name.
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
>
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
>
> bye
>
> Tom.
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

Finally, the problem and path to a solution in a nutshell,
I concur.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 PM, dmccunney 
> wrote:
> >
> > Going back to cases, what prompted this discussion was Rex Conn's open
> > source license for 4DOS, which indicated his source code couldn't be
> > used in a *commercial* product without contacting him.  There was a
> > question about including it with that restriction. I don't see that as
> > unreasonable, and it's actually standard practice in most cases.
>
> It's an unacceptable restriction to the "open source" (OSI) and "Free
> software" crowd, so they will shun the entire distribution (as they
> already have been, which means less redistribution, less forks, less
> improvements).
>
> Jim Hall is the FreeDOS project head and is heavily in favor of being
> as free/libre as possible. iBiblio and SF.net are both similarly
> minded (among others), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to go against
> the grain.
>
> But the DOS ecosystem (or whatever fractured mess is left) is so lazy,
> stubborn, and ignorant that it seems content to ignore the obvious
> hazards. I'm not really blaming anyone, but this situation is not very
> acceptable. Is it better than nothing? Sure, but so is living in a
> hole in the ground.
>
> We have to do better, if only because we need more developers. If we
> continue to piss them off for no good reason, then we're screwed.
>
> "FreeDOS" does not mean "FreewareDOS". That was never the goal, and
> you can't do much future work with only proprietary blobs.
>
> > The implicit assumption is that a commercial offering will be closed
> > source, and you must contact the author for permission to use it that
> > way.  And I would be flatly astonished if anyone ever *did* contact
> > Rex about using the 16 bit code he released as open source in a
> > commercial product.
>
> Even if you were correct, it's still not compatible with free/libre
> ideals, so any developers or users who adhere to those "four freedoms"
> will completely avoid FreeDOS (and call it "non-free").
>
> > For that matter, I strongly suspect there are license
> > incompatibilities between stuff currently offered with FreeDOS,  in
> > the sense that you may not be able to lift source from one project and
> > use it an another with a different license.
>
> There are rough edges in Linux, OpenBSD, modern x86 hardware, etc.
> There is no perfect system (AFAIK).
>
> Even just idle thinking, trying to make FreeDOS compatible for the
> below list, seems mindbogglingly impossible!
>
> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html
>
> Is FreeDOS perfect? No, far from it, but we aren't doing ourselves any
> favors by being lazy and stubborn. We can't keep making excuses. We
> have to change and improve.
>
> > Everything issued as part of a FreeDOS distro should be open source,
>
> The "BASE" should be free/libre (four freedoms), yes, that is Jim's goal.
>
> > offered under licenses that permit providing the source along with the
> > binaries.  Whether any of the sources may be incorporated in a
> > commercial product offered for sale will be governed by the specific
> > license under which the source is offered.  The same will be true for
> > whether any of the sources can be used in other projects offered under
> > a different license.  It should not be a factor in whether its offered
> > in a FreeDOS distribution.
>
> I just can't explain this any more clearly. FreeDOS must be "Free". It
> must do a better job of making clear what exactly is free/libre and
> what is not. I don't want to delete or throw away working software,
> even proprietary, but we need to heavily emphasize the free/libre
> stuff and deprecate anything that prevents us from widely
> redistributing. I'm not saying throw away 4DOS, but if it causes other
> people to shun the entire project then we need to rethink our goals.
> The less obstacles the better!
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> Going back to cases, what prompted this discussion was Rex Conn's open
> source license for 4DOS, which indicated his source code couldn't be
> used in a *commercial* product without contacting him.  There was a
> question about including it with that restriction. I don't see that as
> unreasonable, and it's actually standard practice in most cases.

It's an unacceptable restriction to the "open source" (OSI) and "Free
software" crowd, so they will shun the entire distribution (as they
already have been, which means less redistribution, less forks, less
improvements).

Jim Hall is the FreeDOS project head and is heavily in favor of being
as free/libre as possible. iBiblio and SF.net are both similarly
minded (among others), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to go against
the grain.

But the DOS ecosystem (or whatever fractured mess is left) is so lazy,
stubborn, and ignorant that it seems content to ignore the obvious
hazards. I'm not really blaming anyone, but this situation is not very
acceptable. Is it better than nothing? Sure, but so is living in a
hole in the ground.

We have to do better, if only because we need more developers. If we
continue to piss them off for no good reason, then we're screwed.

"FreeDOS" does not mean "FreewareDOS". That was never the goal, and
you can't do much future work with only proprietary blobs.

> The implicit assumption is that a commercial offering will be closed
> source, and you must contact the author for permission to use it that
> way.  And I would be flatly astonished if anyone ever *did* contact
> Rex about using the 16 bit code he released as open source in a
> commercial product.

Even if you were correct, it's still not compatible with free/libre
ideals, so any developers or users who adhere to those "four freedoms"
will completely avoid FreeDOS (and call it "non-free").

> For that matter, I strongly suspect there are license
> incompatibilities between stuff currently offered with FreeDOS,  in
> the sense that you may not be able to lift source from one project and
> use it an another with a different license.

There are rough edges in Linux, OpenBSD, modern x86 hardware, etc.
There is no perfect system (AFAIK).

Even just idle thinking, trying to make FreeDOS compatible for the
below list, seems mindbogglingly impossible!

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html

Is FreeDOS perfect? No, far from it, but we aren't doing ourselves any
favors by being lazy and stubborn. We can't keep making excuses. We
have to change and improve.

> Everything issued as part of a FreeDOS distro should be open source,

The "BASE" should be free/libre (four freedoms), yes, that is Jim's goal.

> offered under licenses that permit providing the source along with the
> binaries.  Whether any of the sources may be incorporated in a
> commercial product offered for sale will be governed by the specific
> license under which the source is offered.  The same will be true for
> whether any of the sources can be used in other projects offered under
> a different license.  It should not be a factor in whether its offered
> in a FreeDOS distribution.

I just can't explain this any more clearly. FreeDOS must be "Free". It
must do a better job of making clear what exactly is free/libre and
what is not. I don't want to delete or throw away working software,
even proprietary, but we need to heavily emphasize the free/libre
stuff and deprecate anything that prevents us from widely
redistributing. I'm not saying throw away 4DOS, but if it causes other
people to shun the entire project then we need to rethink our goals.
The less obstacles the better!

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 17, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Tom Ehlert  wrote:
> 
>>CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.
> 
>>GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.
> 
> GCDROM sources are available.
> 
> 
>>UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.
>>UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.
>>XCDROM - Removed.
> 
> 
> 
> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
> 
> Tom

It still contains UDVD2, which can function as a CD-ROM driver.

Jerome


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:52 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> What we now face is a situation where work might *never* lapse into
> the public domain.
>
> The US is currently Life + 70 years.

Totally logical, you pinko commie swine! (extreme sarcasm)

> Canada is still Life + 50, and
> the Project Gutenberg Canada site is leading the fight to keep it that
> way.

Are you sure? I thought it was 60. I vaguely remember hearing that
_The Little Prince_ was public domain in Canada (but not U.S.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince#Extension_of_copyrights_in_France

Okay, this makes no sense, but who said it had to?  ;-)   I honestly
have no idea of their rationale behind this. Perhaps these kinds of
rules are meant to benefit the copyright holder's children??

> There are people making a good case it's time to simply abolish
> copyrights, as they largely no longer serve the original intended
> purpose.

Well, when the copyright holder is nowhere to be found, or it's proven
that you can't legally buy xyz anymore, then what good is
(effectively) throwing it away unused? Especially for software, which
ages faster (and thus loses value) worse than any other kind of work.

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Rugxulo]

Hi, thanks for the response!

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Kenneth Davis  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>
>> I notice that there is seemingly one bug / regression
>
> Try http://www.fdos.org/kernel/testing/truename/KERNEL.SYS

Using this one, everything seems fine (although more testing needed is
always a given).

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Tom Ehlert]

> CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.

> GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.

GCDROM sources are available.


> UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.
> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.
> XCDROM - Removed.



an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.

Tom


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:

> Dennis, I almost hate to bring this type of stuff up. It's almost
> flamebait because nobody can agree. So it's a waste of time.
> Nevertheless 

I think we are talking past each other, but...

> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
>>> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
>>> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
>>> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
>>>
>>> It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
>>> commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD.
>>
>> What has that to do with anything?
>>
>> Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
>> majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
>> that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.
>
> It's pretty relevant. Without a "free" DOS, he couldn't (re)distribute
> a bootable CD at all. He'd have to make all his users find a
> compatible DOS elsewhere, which is not as easy as it sounds (anymore).

The key for Gibson was that he could pick up and use the FreeDOS
*binaries* to create a bootable floppy from which Spinrite could be
run without special license or cost.. The fact that he could get
*source* was likely irrelevant.  If a version of MS/PC/DR DOS was
freely available for reuse in binary format without licensing
requirements or cost, it likely would have gotten the nod.

>> It just means FreeDOS is compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that
>> Spinrite *will* work under it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS
>> design goal from the beginning.
>
> Yes, but compatibility means little if you can't redistribute (or
> easily acquire) the OS. There are many commercial, proprietary DOSes,
> but almost all of them have died (and can't be easily found legally).
> I'm not trying to overhype FreeDOS, but it's literally the only one
> who cares about that. Any one of them could've done it, but they
> didn't.

See above about reasons for using FreeDOS.  I don't argue that.  What
we are specifically discussing is the licenses that will let various
open source programs be distributed as part of an actual FreeDOS
distribution.

>> And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
>> actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
>> for disk access and testing.
>
> Great, but "barely uses" still means you have to have a compatible DOS
> ... unless he makes it like old PC booter games (no OS or only uses
> BIOS).

Which it appears Gibson may be doing going forward.

Part of the issue is that the floppy is an endangered species.  My
current desktop doesn't have one.  I have a USB floppy drive I can
plug in, and it's recognized as A: and will work, but I've never had
reason to use it.

Most software these days simply won't fit on a floppy, and gets
distributed on media as a CD or DVD, or as an ISO file that can be
burned to one ot to a USB thumb drive. Machines can be told to boot
from them.  For that matter, when I installed Ubuntu on my desktop in
dual-boot mode with Windows, I migrated the original Win7 Pro
distribution from hard drive to SSD.  Once it was up and running from
SSD, I re-partitioned the SSD drive from Windows to clear a raw slice,
burned the Ubuntu ISO to a bootable USB thumb drive, and rebooted and
ran Ubuntu from the thumb drive. It saw and installed to the raw slice
on the SSD, creating the desired ext4 file system for Ubuntu to live
on and run from.  The end result was a multi-boot configuration using
grub2 giving me a choice of Ubuntu, Windows on the SSD, or Windows on
the HD to boot from.  I've subsequently upgraded from Win7 Pro to
Win10 Pro on the SSD, and my multi-boot menu is Ubuntu, Win10 on SSD,
and Win7 on HD.

Floppies are unlikely to be part of systems Spinrite will be run on
these days, so a bootable floppy containing it will be irrelevant, and
FreeDOS unnecessary.

>> The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
>> commercial product.
>
> I hate to nitpick, but please stop using "open source" to mean
> something other than OSI. Yes, it can be misused, and no, they
> probably can't stop you (trademark claims), but it's not beneficial at
> all to pretend that "open source" means just "sources available". Most
> people only refer to "open source" as OSI (or similar free software).

Unfortunately, nitpicking gets required.  There are a variety of
licenses under which source code is offered along with programs built
from the source.  Some of the licenses are incompatible with each
other, which means code you see in one open source project may be
something you can't *use* in yours, because the license under which it
is issued won't permit it.

This sort of thing makes 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Kenneth Davis]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> Hi again,
...
> I notice that there is seemingly one bug / regression, otherwise all
> my "tests" (MetaDOS) seem to work fine. (I assume Jeremy will notice
> this and that I don't have to file a separate bug report or email him
> privately. If not, I'll try to remember later.)
>
> In an attempt to not load the RAM driver over and over again, I had a
> naive "if exist %RAMDRIVE%:\nul goto end" inside the actual
> RAMDRIVE.BAT file (which is called by autoexec).
>
...

Try http://www.fdos.org/kernel/testing/truename/KERNEL.SYS
I have to revisit commit r1724 which was to fix an issue opening
character devices with bad paths as it is the cause of this issue.
Thank you for the testing and report with details for me to duplicate.

Jeremy

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:
> I understand your comments re: certain type of Ubuntu software.  Ubuntu is
> also worried about providing restricted software and its legal problems for
> a deep pocket.  My comment is in regards to the bandwidth consumption re:
> different tweaks of the license.  Just keep the squeaky clean stuff in the
> main install program, and reference the rest in a separate .zip with the
> appropriate caveats.

Ubuntu has the right to offer it, or wouldn't proceed.

But the Linux community has strong feelings about the issue, and there
are those who will vociferously object to including anything that you
can't get source for.  Canonical, Ubuntu's parent, handles the issue
by carefully separating free and non-free, and making non-free an
option the user can choose to accept.  The default is free software
only.

For that matter, Ubuntu's default GUI is Unity, an attempt at a
"one-size-fits-all" interface that scales from a small screen device
like a tablet to a big monitor.  Ubuntu is the closest thing to a
standard Linux distro these days, because Canonical has taken pains to
produce a distro that figures out what it's being installed on, sets
itself up, and Just Works with minimal involvement from the user.
(That's why I installed it.  I've worked with other distros where
things like video and networking were pains to configure.  With
Ubuntu, I didn't have to.  I could spend my time using it, not
fiddling to *make* it usable.)

One of the things on the default Unity desktop was a link to Amazon.
People screamed bloody murder about it being there.  (It's trivial to
remove.)  Gee, folks.  If you want Linux to be an acceptable choice
for a home machine, it needs to be able to do things home users are
likely to do, and one of those things will be shop at Amazon.  But the
more fanatical and self-righteous members of the community don't seem
to grasp that.

With something like Ubuntu, bandwidth isn't a great concern.  The
implicit assumption is that folks running it have broadband.

For something like FreeDOS, it might be.  My default for a FreeDOS
distro might be "binaries only".  Most folks don't need and couldn't
use the source, so why make it part of the package?  It *should* be
available from the same place you get the base distro, and you can get
it if you need it, but there's no requirement to provide it as part of
the base distro.

The question came up a while back on another open source list, as "Do
I have to provide source for my open source offering with my
binaries?"  The stuff in question was all GPLed code.  My response
was, "No, you don't.  Most folks don't need and can't use the source.
They just want the binaries and docs.  But the essence of the GPL is
that you will *provide* the source if requested, in a form convenient
for the user, and you must *tell* the user you will do so and provide
the source on request."

(It must also be the source you used to create the binaries.  The
intent is that the user can reproduce your build environment, get your
source, and produce a duplicate of what you provided.  So you can't
just point them at your repository, because you've likely made changes
since you issued your binaries, and what the user will get if they
pull from the repository won't be the same code you built from.
Either package it separately for distribution, or provide links to
your repository for the specific revision level you used in building
you code.)

> John
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[John R. Sowden]

I understand your comments re: certain type of Ubuntu software.  Ubuntu 
is also worried about providing restricted software and its legal 
problems for a deep pocket.  My comment is in regards to the bandwidth 
consumption re: different tweaks of the license.  Just keep the squeaky 
clean stuff in the main install program, and reference the rest in a 
separate .zip with the appropriate caveats.


John


On 05/16/2016 06:31 PM, dmccunney wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:44 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:

Excuse me for butting in ...  but,

I understand the the FreeDOS package should be pure open source with no
caveats.  I also see that there are many programs out there that are
'available for use by the general public', but have varying license tweaks
that make them not pure open source.  Some of these programs have been in
use long before we got picky about the term 'open source'.  Ubuntu seems to
have solved this by treating them separately, not part of the install.
Couldn't the same be done here?  If any author or troll (strike that -
license holder)  complains, their program could be removed from the separate
.ZIP.

Possibility?

Ubuntu draws a distinction between "free" and "non-free" software, and
the distinction I know is whether source is available.

The non-free stuff tends to be things like drivers.  For instance,
AMD/ATI and Nvidia both offer Linux drivers for their video cards, but
do *not* provide driver source.  You use them if you have special
needs the generic open source video drivers bundled with Ubuntu don't
handle.  (You are likely a gamer if you have needs like that.)

I have an older AMD/ATI card in my dual boot desktop.  It has a
current ATI driver on the Windows side, but uses the generic Linux
drivers under Ubuntu.

(On an older machine, I did once resort to ndiswrapper, a *nix utility
that let me use Windows drivers in Linux, to get full support for the
hardware on the machine Linux was multi-booting on.)


John
Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User

__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user




--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:44 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:
> Excuse me for butting in ...  but,
>
> I understand the the FreeDOS package should be pure open source with no
> caveats.  I also see that there are many programs out there that are
> 'available for use by the general public', but have varying license tweaks
> that make them not pure open source.  Some of these programs have been in
> use long before we got picky about the term 'open source'.  Ubuntu seems to
> have solved this by treating them separately, not part of the install.
> Couldn't the same be done here?  If any author or troll (strike that -
> license holder)  complains, their program could be removed from the separate
> .ZIP.
>
> Possibility?

Ubuntu draws a distinction between "free" and "non-free" software, and
the distinction I know is whether source is available.

The non-free stuff tends to be things like drivers.  For instance,
AMD/ATI and Nvidia both offer Linux drivers for their video cards, but
do *not* provide driver source.  You use them if you have special
needs the generic open source video drivers bundled with Ubuntu don't
handle.  (You are likely a gamer if you have needs like that.)

I have an older AMD/ATI card in my dual boot desktop.  It has a
current ATI driver on the Windows side, but uses the generic Linux
drivers under Ubuntu.

(On an older machine, I did once resort to ndiswrapper, a *nix utility
that let me use Windows drivers in Linux, to get full support for the
hardware on the machine Linux was multi-booting on.)

> John
> Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Corbin Davenport  wrote:
> The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement extends copyright laws for all countries
> involved, but to my knowledge it's not in force yet.

It's not.  See the Project Gutenberg Canada website at
http://gutenberg.ca/#h2newreleases for more than you might want to
know about opposition to it.

> Corbin
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Dale E Sterner  wrote:
> I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
> extended.

Senator Bono (one half of pop music duo Sonny and Cher) had ties to
the entertainment industry, and pushed for life of copyright to be
extended.  As mentioned, DisneyCo was unhappy because the original
conception of Mickey Mouse was about to fall into the public domain.

> The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
> futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
> she said she had to renew every couple of years for
> a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
> last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
> to perfect.

How long a copyright should last is an ongoing battle.  The original
incentive for copyrights was to encourage creative work by giving the
creators exclusive rights to revenues derived from sale of what they
created, and the original life was intended to permit that but expire
after a period of years, allowing the work to lapse into the public
domain.

What we now face is a situation where work might *never* lapse into
the public domain.

The US is currently Life + 70 years.  Australia used to be Life + 50,
changed to Life + 70, but work that had already lapsed into the public
domain in Ausrtalia under the old rules was grandfathered, and did not
magically come under copyright again.  Canada is still Life + 50, and
the Project Gutenberg Canada site is leading the fight to keep it that
way.

There are people making a good case it's time to simply abolish
copyrights, as they largely no longer serve the original intended
purpose.

Patents also have designated expiration dates.  But unlike copyrights,
you do have to jump through hoops to get them.  In the US, you must
submit an application to the USPTO, and it must be examined and
approved before a patent is issued.  There's a lot of unhappiness in
the computer industry about the process.  For instance, you don't get
a patent if it can be demonstrated  that prior art exists, and you are
trying to patent something that has already been in use before you
came along and you have not made something new.  Patent examiners are
overworked, and in many cases simply not qualified to judge the merits
of the patent applied for.

And for more fun, look at trademarks, where you must apply for
trademark and wait to see whether anyone objects.  Star wrestler Hulk
Hogan had to negotiate a license from Marvel comics to be able to call
himself Hulk because Marvel had trademarked the name.

> cheers
> DS
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Corbin Davenport]

The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement extends copyright laws for all countries
involved, but to my knowledge it's not in force yet.

Corbin
On 16 May 2016 3:38 p.m., "Dale E Sterner"  wrote:

> I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
> extended.
> The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
> futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
> she said she had to renew every couple of years for
> a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
> last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
> to perfect.
>
> cheers
> DS
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2016 15:14:11 -0400 dmccunney 
> writes:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner
> >  wrote:
> > > Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> > > In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> > > his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> > > can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> > > it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> > > in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> > > If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.
> >
> > Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
> > States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
> > 1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
> > practices are the same.
> >
> > The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
> > Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
> > years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after
> > a
> > push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
> > public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).
> >
> > There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
> > register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the
> > work.
> > (Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
> > allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement,
> > but
> > is not needed to *have* copyright.)
> >
> > > cheers
> > > DS
> > __
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> -
> -
> > Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees
> > who
> > bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition
> > of MDM
> > restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only
> > the
> > apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> > untouched!
> > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> > ___
> > Freedos-user mailing list
> > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> >
>
>
> **
> >From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
> ***
>
> 
> The New York Times
> Prince's Addiction And An Intervention Too Late
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573a218252eda2182522ast04duc
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Dale E Sterner]

I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
extended.
The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
she said she had to renew every couple of years for
a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
to perfect. 

cheers
DS



On Mon, 16 May 2016 15:14:11 -0400 dmccunney 
writes:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner 
>  wrote:
> > Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> > In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> > his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> > can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> > it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> > in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> > If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.
> 
> Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
> States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
> 1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
> practices are the same.
> 
> The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
> Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
> years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after 
> a
> push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
> public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).
> 
> There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
> register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the 
> work.
> (Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
> allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement, 
> but
> is not needed to *have* copyright.)
> 
> > cheers
> > DS
> __
> Dennis
> 
>
-
-
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees 
> who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition 
> of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only 
> the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data 
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


The New York Times
Prince's Addiction And An Intervention Too Late
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573a218252eda2182522ast04duc

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner  wrote:
> Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.

Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
practices are the same.

The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after a
push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).

There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the work.
(Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement, but
is not needed to *have* copyright.)

> cheers
> DS
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Dale E Sterner]

Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in 
it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.



cheers
DS






On Sun, 15 May 2016 16:58:00 -0400 dmccunney 
writes:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
>  wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
> > *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS 
> as
> > open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved 
> on
> > from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
> >
> > It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of 
> the
> > commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD. Although,
> > I  hear the next version will be adding Mac Support and dropping 
> all
> > Operating System for direct hardware access.
> > So, not the entire world has moved on yet.
> 
> What has that to do with anything?
> 
> Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
> majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
> that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.  It just means FreeDOS 
> is
> compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
> it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
> beginning.
> 
> And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
> actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
> for disk access and testing.
> 
> The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
> commercial product.  That may not be impossible, but it's so 
> unlikely
> that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
> usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.  As a
> rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
> product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and 
> likely
> pay a fee for the right to do so.)  If the idea is that only code
> issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
> contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
> FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.
> 
> > Jerome
> __
> Dennis
> 
>
-
-
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees 
> who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition 
> of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only 
> the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data 
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


KooBuzz
Meet 60 Kids Who Look Like Their Famous Parents
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5739e1686cf9961687b34st01duc

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[John R. Sowden]

Excuse me for butting in ...  but,

I understand the the FreeDOS package should be pure open source with no 
caveats.  I also see that there are many programs out there that are  
'available for use by the general public', but have varying license 
tweaks that make them not pure open source. Some of these programs have 
been in use long before we got picky about the term 'open source'.  
Ubuntu seems to have solved this by treating them separately, not part 
of the install.  Couldn't the same be done here?  If any author or troll 
(strike that - license holder)  complains, their program could be 
removed from the separate .ZIP.


Possibility?

John
Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User

On 05/15/2016 03:52 PM, Rugxulo wrote:

Hi,

Dennis, I almost hate to bring this type of stuff up. It's almost
flamebait because nobody can agree. So it's a waste of time.
Nevertheless 

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:

I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
*wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.

It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD.

What has that to do with anything?

Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.

It's pretty relevant. Without a "free" DOS, he couldn't (re)distribute
a bootable CD at all. He'd have to make all his users find a
compatible DOS elsewhere, which is not as easy as it sounds (anymore).


It just means FreeDOS is
compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
beginning.

Yes, but compatibility means little if you can't redistribute (or
easily acquire) the OS. There are many commercial, proprietary DOSes,
but almost all of them have died (and can't be easily found legally).
I'm not trying to overhype FreeDOS, but it's literally the only one
who cares about that. Any one of them could've done it, but they
didn't.


And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
for disk access and testing.

Great, but "barely uses" still means you have to have a compatible DOS
... unless he makes it like old PC booter games (no OS or only uses
BIOS).


The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
commercial product.

I hate to nitpick, but please stop using "open source" to mean
something other than OSI. Yes, it can be misused, and no, they
probably can't stop you (trademark claims), but it's not beneficial at
all to pretend that "open source" means just "sources available". Most
people only refer to "open source" as OSI (or similar free software).


That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.

It's not unlikely or they wouldn't have bothered making such restrictions.


As a rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
pay a fee for the right to do so.)

Not at all. Who told you that? You're pretty uninformed here. "Open
source" always means able to use without charge. The term was designed
to be business friendly so that they could hire developers (if needed)
to improve existing code bases, similar to (but broader than) GPL.
Even GPL was designed more to sell future development as a service
instead of perpetual royalties just to use a single-user license of
proprietary crud that can't be changed.


If the idea is that only code
issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

Silly? Aren't you friends with Eric Raymond? He's a very big "open
source" (OSI) proponent. Heck, he co-founded OSI!

OSI was meant to 'promote open source ideas on "pragmatic,
business-case grounds." '. And business obviously means money, but
that doesn't mean paying (over and over again) for frozen software.

I realize that there's still lots of proprietary software, and not
everyone agrees with OSI or FSF. But there is a heavy push towards
business-friendly "open source" / "free software". It's just easier
for developers (and those who are willing to pay people to improve
public software).

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

Dennis, I almost hate to bring this type of stuff up. It's almost
flamebait because nobody can agree. So it's a waste of time.
Nevertheless 

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
>>
>> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
>> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
>> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
>> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
>>
>> It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
>> commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD.
>
> What has that to do with anything?
>
> Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
> majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
> that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.

It's pretty relevant. Without a "free" DOS, he couldn't (re)distribute
a bootable CD at all. He'd have to make all his users find a
compatible DOS elsewhere, which is not as easy as it sounds (anymore).

> It just means FreeDOS is
> compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
> it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
> beginning.

Yes, but compatibility means little if you can't redistribute (or
easily acquire) the OS. There are many commercial, proprietary DOSes,
but almost all of them have died (and can't be easily found legally).
I'm not trying to overhype FreeDOS, but it's literally the only one
who cares about that. Any one of them could've done it, but they
didn't.

> And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
> actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
> for disk access and testing.

Great, but "barely uses" still means you have to have a compatible DOS
... unless he makes it like old PC booter games (no OS or only uses
BIOS).

> The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
> commercial product.

I hate to nitpick, but please stop using "open source" to mean
something other than OSI. Yes, it can be misused, and no, they
probably can't stop you (trademark claims), but it's not beneficial at
all to pretend that "open source" means just "sources available". Most
people only refer to "open source" as OSI (or similar free software).

> That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
> that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
> usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.

It's not unlikely or they wouldn't have bothered making such restrictions.

> As a rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
> product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
> pay a fee for the right to do so.)

Not at all. Who told you that? You're pretty uninformed here. "Open
source" always means able to use without charge. The term was designed
to be business friendly so that they could hire developers (if needed)
to improve existing code bases, similar to (but broader than) GPL.
Even GPL was designed more to sell future development as a service
instead of perpetual royalties just to use a single-user license of
proprietary crud that can't be changed.

> If the idea is that only code
> issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
> contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
> FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

Silly? Aren't you friends with Eric Raymond? He's a very big "open
source" (OSI) proponent. Heck, he co-founded OSI!

OSI was meant to 'promote open source ideas on "pragmatic,
business-case grounds." '. And business obviously means money, but
that doesn't mean paying (over and over again) for frozen software.

I realize that there's still lots of proprietary software, and not
everyone agrees with OSI or FSF. But there is a heavy push towards
business-friendly "open source" / "free software". It's just easier
for developers (and those who are willing to pay people to improve
public software).

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Jerome Shidel  wrote:
>> On May 15, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Kernel update is forthcoming.
>>> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
>>> packages will be available at
>>> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ and release builds
>>> uploaded to SF.
>>
>> Uh, it doesn't work. Any attempt to download the 2042 files from
>> SF.net fails with an error message.
>
> I had no problem downloading them from the provided link. Also, put them into 
> FDI - P19 that I released earlier today.

Okay, I just grabbed it from above (and not SF.net).

I notice that there is seemingly one bug / regression, otherwise all
my "tests" (MetaDOS) seem to work fine. (I assume Jeremy will notice
this and that I don't have to file a separate bug report or email him
privately. If not, I'll try to remember later.)

In an attempt to not load the RAM driver over and over again, I had a
naive "if exist %RAMDRIVE%:\nul goto end" inside the actual
RAMDRIVE.BAT file (which is called by autoexec).

That no longer works. Apparently it's even getting confused about
drives since "\tmp" already exists on boot drive. "if exist g:\tmp\nul
echo Yup!" succeeds (as does "q:" or "z:" or anything else, which is
way past my setting for LASTDRIVE). Same with "a:\extras" or
"a:\system" or "a:\network".

So "A:\> if exist z:\network\nul echo Yup!" says "Yup!" when it
shouldn't (because "a:\network" exists). But "if exist z:\netwrk\nul
echo Yup!" still fails (as it should).

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
>
> It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
> commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD. Although,
> I  hear the next version will be adding Mac Support and dropping all
> Operating System for direct hardware access.
> So, not the entire world has moved on yet.

What has that to do with anything?

Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.  It just means FreeDOS is
compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
beginning.

And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
for disk access and testing.

The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
commercial product.  That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.  As a
rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
pay a fee for the right to do so.)  If the idea is that only code
issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

> Jerome
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:34 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
>>
>> However, clause 3 for its license makes it NON-COMMERCIAL use only.
>>
>> (3) The Software, or any portion of it, may not be used in any commercial
>>   product without written permission from Rex Conn 
>
> I fail to understand why that's a problem.

If you're forbidden from making derivatives and redistributing them
openly, even selling them, then it's neither "open source" (OSI) nor
"Free software" (FSF).

Many online hosts (e.g. SF.net) demand open source. Even Jim Hall
doesn't want anything non-free mirrored to iBiblio anymore, if at all
possible.

It's easy to discount it as zealotry, but it really does simplify
things when you have the so-called "four freedoms" (run, study,
modify, redistribute).

FreeDOS was meant to be "free". The kernel is GPL. I realize that it's
a losing battle in some ways. Some things are probably insurmountable
(binary blobs?). Even Linux is still having as hard a time as ever.
There's just too many proprietary pieces in today's world, and they're
not going away any time soon.

You can't win everything. But we still have to try. Otherwise what's
the point? Just use Windows (and IE/Edge, MSVC, Hyper-V, Word, etc).

If there are literally no practical benefits for license restrictions,
then they should be lifted / avoided.

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
 wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
> [..]
>
> Kernel update is forthcoming.
> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
> packages will be available at
> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ and release builds
> uploaded to SF.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> I just realized it was available.
>
> So, even though I pushed FDI Preview 18 last night…
>
> I took a few seconds, and Preview 19 is now out the door. It uses and
> installs 2042.

Uh, it doesn't work. Any attempt to download the 2042 files from
SF.net fails with an error message.

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> 
> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
> __
> Dennis

It is not an impossibility. For example, the current version of the commercial 
product
SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD. Although,  I hear the next version will be
adding Mac Support and dropping all Operating System for direct hardware access.
So, not the entire world has moved on yet.

Jerome--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
> On May 15, 2016, at 1:17 AM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> [..]
>>> 4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?
>>
>> 4DOS sources, for the original 7.50 release, and the later 8.0 release
>> by Luchezar Georgiev may be found here, along with 4DOS original
>> author Rex Conn's open source license:
>> http://www.4dos.info/sources.htm#1
>>
>> 4DOS is my command processor of choice under DOS.
>
> Thanks for the link. I have attached the sources to the my build copy of the
> 4DOS package.
>
> However, clause 3 for its license makes it NON-COMMERCIAL use only.
>
> (3) The Software, or any portion of it, may not be used in any commercial
>   product without written permission from Rex Conn 
>
> We will have to see if Jim is OK with keeping it in FreeDOS 1.2.

I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Many open source licenses have language about commercial use resolving
to "Contact the author about a license if you want to include the
software in a commercial product".  The assumption is that commercial
use involves taking it closed source.

Rex specifically released the 16bit 4DOS code as open source.  Later
32/64 bit products like TCC remain commercial.  If you expect to take
any of the 4DOS code and include it in something you will *sell*, Rex
expects a piece of the action.  I would be stunned if anyone ever
*did* contact Rex about it.

I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
*wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
__
Dennis

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

:-)

> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
> [..]
> Kernel update is forthcoming.
> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
> packages will be available at
> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ 
>  and release builds
> uploaded to SF.
> 
> Jeremy

I just realized it was available.

So, even though I pushed FDI Preview 18 last night…

I took a few seconds, and Preview 19 is now out the door. It uses and installs 
2042.

Unrelated to 2042, with the additional sources in some of the other packages. I 
had to stop
installing a couple things due running out of space on the 32MB USB stick. I 
picked not to 
install MTCP, WGET and VMSMOUNT. They are still included on the Big USB and 
CD-ROM
images as uninstalled EXTRAS. Either the USB stick had to grow or something had 
to go.

Jerome--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 needs you

[Dale E Sterner]

Are you saying Linux over freedos.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:27:37 -0500 Rugxulo  writes:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Dale E Sterner 
>  wrote:
> >
> > If Jack's drivers are left out of version 1.2 ; is there
> > something to replace them.
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/
> 
>
-
-
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees 
> who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition 
> of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only 
> the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data 
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


Living Tips
$3 Teeth Whitening Has Dentists Furious
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5738903e4138a103d6953st02duc

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello,

> >Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t >mean 
> >they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
> provided on ibiblio.
> 
> I am a bit confused by this, it seems to be an "end-around" solution; has 
> this been happening all along?

I don’t feel like it is. I am talking about them having been dropped or removed 
them from the Official  FreeDOS 1.2 release. Most of the dropped packages never 
even shipped with FreeDOS. They could be added later by the user. However, for 
those packages that met Jim’s requirements and for user convenience many of 
these uninstalled packages can be provided as EXTRAS on the big USB stick and 
CD-ROM versions. This would let the user have many desired add-on programs 
available without any extra fuss. But, there are requirements for all packages 
that are to be included on the Official install mediums. 

Also, think of it this way. MS-DOS never shipped with SoundBlaster or Adlib 
drivers. Besides the extra floppies that would have required. There would have 
licensing concerns. However, there was no problem with a user installing those 
drivers later.

> >PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?

They are from there 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/

> Perhaps this is the ideal solution, trim FreeDOS to a genuine FREE/Open 
> Source distro, and let end-users include the files they wish from alternate 
> sites?

This is one of reasons for all of the specific requirements packages must meet 
for their inclusion.

Jerome



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

>Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t >mean
>they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
provided on ibiblio.

I am a bit confused by this, it seems to be an "end-around" solution; has
this been happening all along?

>PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?
Perhaps this is the ideal solution, trim FreeDOS to a genuine FREE/Open
Source distro, and let end-users include the files they wish from alternate
sites?





On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:

> PS - I apologize for the mistypes, I am on my first cup of coffee :^)
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:
>
>> > XCDROM - Removed.
>> UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
>> SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
>> reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
>> install.
>>
>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>> > aforementioned packages, but
>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>> Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task
>> wasn't delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
>> employed.
>>
>> MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and
>> is one of my favorite games.
>>
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
>>> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>>>
>>> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>>>
>>> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
>>> on ibiblio.
>>>
>>> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
>>> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
>>> > few days, and then re-upload them
>>> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
>>> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
>>> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me. :-)
>>>
>>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>>> > aforementioned packages, but
>>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>>>
>>> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or,
>>> the "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
>>> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>>>
>>> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
>>> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
>>> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
>>> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
>>> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
>>> > isn't easy in some programs).
>>> >
>>> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
>>> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
>>> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
>>> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>>>
>>> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
>>> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot
>>> be
>>> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship
>>> with the
>>> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>>> untouched!
>>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>>> ___
>>> Freedos-user mailing list
>>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jerome,

> Mostly, I think your interpretation matches mine. However, when UIDE was
> used FDINST would throw random errors. Why? IDK. It was suggested that
> command line switches could be used to help correct the issue. However...

It would not be the first driver which is not always automatically
doing the right thing. However, DOS users are known to know what
they do, so you can include the driver in the distro. Simply drop
it from being part of the default config and autoexec :-) Same for
USB or network drivers. In FreeDOS 1.0, those would hang on some PC,
so it would have been better to not activate them by default. Still
it was good that they were included in the distro in general :-)

> Per a different suggestion, switched to using UDVD2 and the problems
> vanished. UDVD2 is by the same author...

Good point. UDVD2 is a good choice for those who want a CD/DVD driver
and need something newer than the latest open source version of XCDROM.

However, I would still include (but not default-activate) one of the
UIDE family drivers for those who want extra harddisk UDMA support.

Regards, Eric

PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

PS - I apologize for the mistypes, I am on my first cup of coffee :^)


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:

> > XCDROM - Removed.
> UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
> SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
> reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
> install.
>
> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> > aforementioned packages, but
> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> > disappeared), it falls to such
> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
> Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task wasn't
> delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
> employed.
>
> MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and
> is one of my favorite games.
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
>> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>>
>> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>>
>> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
>> on ibiblio.
>>
>> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
>> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>>
>> >
>> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
>> > few days, and then re-upload them
>> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
>> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
>> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>>
>> Sounds good to me. :-)
>>
>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>> > aforementioned packages, but
>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>>
>> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the
>> "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
>> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>>
>> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
>> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
>> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
>> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
>> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
>> > isn't easy in some programs).
>> >
>> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
>> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
>> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
>> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>>
>> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
>> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot
>> be
>> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship
>> with the
>> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>> untouched!
>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>>
>
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

> XCDROM - Removed.
UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
install.

> Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> aforementioned packages, but
> since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> disappeared), it falls to such
> pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task wasn't
delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
employed.

MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and is
one of my favorite games.

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:

>
> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> >
> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
> >
> >
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>
> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>
> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
> on ibiblio.
>
> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>
> >
> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
> > few days, and then re-upload them
> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>
> Sounds good to me. :-)
>
> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> > aforementioned packages, but
> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> > disappeared), it falls to such
> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>
> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the
> "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>
> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
> > isn't easy in some programs).
> >
> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>
> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship with
> the
> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello Eric and all,

4DOS:

I fixed the missing source issue. If Jim is fine with including a 
“Non-commercial use only” program it can stay. Otherwise,
it will either have to be installed later or could be provided on
unofficial FreeDOS releases.

GCDROM:

The GCDROM are incomplete they only contain the XCDROM source.
Also, it states that it is based on XCDROM. XCDROM has been removed for 
other reasons. So, GCDROM even if fixed. It’s fate is in question.

UIDE:

Mostly, I think your interpretation matches mine. However, when UIDE was used
FDINST would throw random errors. Why? IDK. It was suggested that command 
line switches could be used to help correct the issue. However, that would not
be remotely practical and might have required having a different install media
fork for every platform and virtual machine. Per a different suggestion, 
switched
to using UDVD2 and the problems vanished. UDVD2 is by the same author and
may eventually suffer the same fate as UIDE, XCDROM, RDISK and XMGR. 


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
> (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
> 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/

Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well. 

There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not on 
ibiblio.

Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that LSM 
data problems that I corrected as well.

> 
> If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
> few days, and then re-upload them
> so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
> means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
> shouldn't be "too" hard.)

Sounds good to me. :-)

> Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> aforementioned packages, but
> since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> disappeared), it falls to such
> pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(

Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the "but 
there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you using it?” I 
shake my head and sigh. 

> I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
> free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
> anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
> never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
> loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
> isn't easy in some programs).
> 
> Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
> the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
> problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
> FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).

Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship with the
official release of FreeDOS 1.2. 



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user