Hi Christian,
If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release
2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend
making 2038 available, and putting the few pending improvements in
2039.
The problem is that Eric holds back at least three necessary
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote:
Hi Christian,
If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release
2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend
making 2038 available, and putting the few pending improvements in
2039.
Jim Hall schreef:
The problem is: how will you (Eric) know that the patches will work?
How long do you intend to hold back the 2038 version before deciding
it is good enough?
I'd agree with Jim here, release, then ask feedback. People might lack
the skill to comment on individual patches,
Christian Masloch schreef:
Since disassembling MS-DOS is considered legal by UDOS and RBIL authors
(and these sources are considered legal by all members of the FreeDOS
project) I think there's no problem using some DLL examination tool.
Regards,
Christian
I hope you have heared
Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Christian Masloch schreef:
Since disassembling MS-DOS is considered legal by UDOS and RBIL authors
(and these sources are considered legal by all members of the FreeDOS
project) I think there's no problem using some DLL examination tool.
Regards,
Christian
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton wrote:
Also I remember from my pre dot net days using a program which would
inspect a dll and identify all the public methods/functions that it
has.
Would this be considered legal? If so anyone remember what that
program is/was? I used it at a
Simple: If you only use WIN /S then you can use the
stable 2036 or stable 2038 kernel. The latter is on
http://rugxulo.googlepages.com/ as binary snapshot.
There are a few pending improvements before 2038 can
be put on sourceforge file releases... The sources
already are on sourceforge in
Windows 3x Issues
I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as
the book
I was thinking of calling the GUI Janus after the code name for windows
3.11. Which I think should be ok legalwise. Thoughts?
hmm you could name it after the Roman god Janus, thinking
of looking back to DOS and forward to a GUI?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
In Roman mythology,
I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
Yes, but note that the described AARD code is not really used in any
retail release (UDOS 2nd
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton usul.the.mo...@gmail.comwrote:
Windows 3x Issues
I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes
to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is
running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives.
11 matches
Mail list logo
