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

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

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

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 +

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

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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,

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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 >

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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 >

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

> 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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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),

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

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

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

> 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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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.

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

> 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 >

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

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

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

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. > >>

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.1 crashing in VirtualBox 5.0.22

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

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Preview 21

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

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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.

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

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 >

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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. >>

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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 >

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

> > 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

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

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

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

:-) > 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/ >

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 needs you

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. > >

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

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

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

> 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

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >