On this topic, I've compiled dmsdosfs 0.9.2.3-pre2 with DJGPP and had
some success. the executables are mcdmsdos, dcread, and dmsdosfsck.
I tested with a drvspace-compressed floppy created by MS-DOS and I can
extract some files but not all from it. Earlier dmsdosfs versions
also included an alpha
Travis Siegel wrote:
> there's very little that I can't access due to lack of flash support.
Keep looking. It is getting to be more all the time. And it is
content, not just adds. And some sites that worked fine with version 5
apparently had nothing better to do and "upgraded" to later versi
On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Ray Davison wrote:
> You may have overlooked one dependency, not of the functional type you
> listed but an add-on necessary for a browser to be usable today:
> Flash.
I disagree.
Flash may be everywhere, but I'd hardly call it an essential browser
component.
I
Eric Auer wrote:
>> Ages ago there where some discussions about DOSzilla (Mozilla Firefox
>> for DOS) but the project was never released and is dead.
>> Firefox for DOS would be a killer application, pretty cool.
>
> I remember the suggestion coming in from time to time but I also
> remember the i
>> PS: What does all that tell us about compressed FS...?
>
> I'm a gentle and polite person, so I will try to answer your question, just
> in
> case you asked me: it probably tells us nothing about compressed FS.
>
> However, if someone decides to reply to your extraordinary brief posts then
> Ages ago there where some discussions about DOSzilla (Mozilla Firefox
> for DOS) but the project was never released and is dead.
> Firefox for DOS would be a killer application, pretty cool.
I remember the suggestion coming in from time to time but I also
remember the insane dependencies firefo
-- Original message --
From: Michael Reichenbach
> Michael Robinson schrieb:
[...]
> > The advantage of supporting NTFS is that freedos could be
> > used as a tool potentially to work on and repair a modern
> > NT based Windows system.
>
> Yes.
>
There is ano
Michael Robinson schrieb:
> As far as compressed filesystems are concerned or supporting
> NTFS, you are getting away from being 100% MS DOS compatible.
No, it depends on how it's being implemented.
> Freedos isn't 100% compatible yet, more reverse engineering
> needs to be done to make it so.
T
Eric Auer schrieb:
> Hi Robert, Travis,
>
> Robert wrote:
>
>>> Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
>>> My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
>
>>> I think, what FreeDOS needs for daily use is a good graphical web
>>> browser, a nice e-mailer, a word processor like Abiword, FO
Robert Riebisch schrieb:
> Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> - would you want a compressed filesystem to be writeable?
>
> The question to me is: Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
> My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
I never used compressed filesystems anywhere, rather I buy a bigger
> PS: What does all that tell us about compressed FS...?
I'm a gentle and polite person, so I will try to answer your question, just in
case you asked me: it probably tells us nothing about compressed FS.
However, if someone decides to reply to your extraordinary brief posts then
it's virtuall
Hi!
>> In what way would FreeDOS differ from Linux 2.4 then?
>> Apart from being worse in performance, multitasking,
>> having no GUI, no way to show several apps at once...
> it won't need an eternity to boot or reboot ...
Reboots are rare when you can hibernate instead :-)
But DOS boots so fa
Hi!
> I think a compressed file system is a good idea,
> for reasons mentioned before.
As you seem to have experience, please sketch the
possible usage and contents in a bit more detail.
> is instead of showing projected free space, show
> me the actual free space when i do a dir.
You could on
Hi Michael,
> I don't want a graphical web browser at all in freedos. The
> current option does not support out of the box filtering or
> plugins comparable to what Internet Explorer and Firefox have.
True for the plugins, but one could write ad-filters for
Arachne, too. On the other hand, maybe
I don't want a graphical web browser at all in freedos. The
current option does not support out of the box filtering or
plugins comparable to what Internet Explorer and Firefox have.
Freedos is not a system that completely insulates the hardware
nor is it a multiuser system, so it's appropriat
I think a compressed file system is a good idea, for reasons mentioned
before.
(take your point about being bootable, or compressed, but not both)
One thing I'd like to see with a compressed file system though, (which
is something none of the others ever did) is instead of showing
projected f
>>> Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
>>> My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
>
>>> I think, what FreeDOS needs for daily use is a good graphical web
>>> browser, a nice e-mailer, a word processor like Abiword, FOSS USB
>>> drivers, ...
>
> In what way would FreeDOS differ
Hi Robert, Travis,
Robert wrote:
>> Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
>> My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
>> I think, what FreeDOS needs for daily use is a good graphical web
>> browser, a nice e-mailer, a word processor like Abiword, FOSS USB
>> drivers, ...
In what
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote:
> Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> - would you want a compressed filesystem to be writeable?
>
> The question to me is: Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
> My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
>
> I think, what FreeDOS needs for daily
Eric Auer wrote:
> - would you want a compressed filesystem to be writeable?
The question to me is: Would you want a compressed filesystem at all?
My discouraging answer: I just don't need it.
I think, what FreeDOS needs for daily use is a good graphical web
browser, a nice e-mailer, a word proc
20 matches
Mail list logo
