Hi Nick, Robert,
> > Another thing that would be really great woudl be an equivalent
> > of QBASIC...
> > I guess there's FreeBASIC, but it's a compiler, QBASIC was an
> > interpreter.
> There are already the bwBASIC or Regina Rexx interpreters included
> with `fdfullcd.iso'.
We once made an att
Nick Warren wrote:
> Another thing that would be really great woudl be an equivalent of
> QBASIC. QBASIUC is a great old language, but I don't think there's an
> open source equivalent and if there was, it should be part of FreeDOS.
> I guess there's FreeBASIC, but it's a compielr, QBASIC was an
>
Another thing that would be really great woudl be an equivalent of QBASIC.
QBASIUC is a great old language, but I don't think there's an open source
equivalent and if there was, it should be part of FreeDOS. I guess there's
FreeBASIC, but it's a compielr, QBASIC was an interpreter.
On 5/12/07, Fl
I would personaly use a small Linux Distro and many instances of DOSEMU.
That way you have everything stable and well tested with a very good
performance.
IIRC there was such a thing: http://www.magma.com.ni/~jorge/lios/
It would be nice to have a modern port of that :)
Alain
Nick Warren escr
Nick Warren wrote:
> You know what would be really awesome in FreeDOS? multitasking. There
> are no open source multitaskers for DOS. They used to have some programs
> that did that a long time ago, but they were all proprietary. When I say
> "multitasking", I don't mean "task switching" like in
You know what would be really awesome in FreeDOS? multitasking. There are no
open source multitaskers for DOS. They used to have some programs that did
that a long time ago, but they were all proprietary. When I say
"multitasking", I don't mean "task switching" like in MS DOSShell. Can this
be don
>
> BTW: from the JEMM 5.60
> what CL is needed (probably VC 4.0 or better)
> where do I get POLINK ?
I tested several C compilers with good results: MS VC 2 and 6, LadSoft CC386,
Digital Mars C++, Pelles C, and one which failed: Open Watcom WCC386.
PoLink is not required, any linker
>> Moving a 16 Bit DOS program that uses far pointers *extensively* to a
>> 32 bit world comes close to rewriting it (and redebugging it with a
>> zillion crazy programs).
> Only if the 16-bit program has a very bad design! :)
Sorry; I was talking about the kernel. Just try searching for MK_FP()
tom ehlert wrote:
> where do I get POLINK ?
It's part of http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/
Robert Riebisch
--
BTTR Software
http://www.bttr-software.de/
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2
Eric Auer wrote:
> Such a driver already exists: GCDROM, licensed under GPL and
> based on the old GPLed XCDROM. A driver for S-ATA CDROM :-).
But GCDROM is S-ATA only. No P-ATA anymore.
> As the original homepage is gone, I mirrored it on my page:
A look at my Links page proves you wrong. ;-)
Hi Japheth,
> > Better to teach XCDROM/XDMA to handle S-ATA drives as well ;)
> Hm, thanks for the hint, it's appreciated!
Such a driver already exists: GCDROM, licensed under GPL and
based on the old GPLed XCDROM. A driver for S-ATA CDROM :-).
As the original homepage is gone, I mirrored it on
Freedos needs to remain backwards compatible with 8086 cpu. Perhaps, a
protected mode 386/486 kernel can be made and allow user or real mode kernel to
decide (autodetect) which to use at boot up.
--chris
http://nxdos.sourceforge.net/
Florian Xaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:the id
> Maybe you could save 1, 2, or 3 KB lower memory, but probably not more. Hardly
> worth the work that would have to be put into this move.
Ok, but did I indicate that I want to optimize DOS' low memory usage at all?
> Moving a 16 Bit DOS program that uses far pointers *extensively* to a
> 32 bi
Geraldo Netto escreveu:
> IMHO, we should list small and simple things to do first,
> Specially because it is faster and we have not enough manpower :(
Agreed. Im not 100% sure if FreeDOS 1 is final. There should soon be a
1.1 or something, I see many interestings things on the way!
Alain
---
Ho Florian,
That looks like a new DISTRO, not version 2.0
I believe that we should then have more than one "DISTRO", like Linux,
this could be BigFreeDOS, while a basic FreeDOS distro should remain
basicaly the same.
I believe that some "Distro" should come as close to the original MS-DOS
as
Hello Japheth,
>> Dos is much more than a FAT driver
> Do you talk about the "date/time" functions? :)
FAT code is a big part of kernels footprint, but certainly not
the biggest part. Look into yhe kernel map.
>> but a JEMMX plugin version of DOSLFN would be an idea...
> why should this be bett
> > You would get more something like dosbox than something like dos ;-)
> Is this argument meant serious? Hopefully not, because it is "not very
> convincing". Why should a protected-mode FAT driver make DOS change to a "DOS
> emulator"?
I read some of such arguments in the past (not from you, Er
> Dos is much more than a FAT driver
Do you talk about the "date/time" functions? :)
> but a JEMMX plugin version of DOSLFN would be an idea...
why should this be better than a full VFAT driver? AFAICS DOSLFN suffers from
not being tightly integrated into the DOS FAT driver.
> For example if y
Hi Japheth,
> > Very good idea. And JEMMX as option
Not as default, by the way ;-)
> why not a 32bit protected-mdoe VFAT driver which replaces the
> FreeDOS kernel as a whole? :)
Dos is much more than a FAT driver, but a JEMMX plugin version
of DOSLFN would be an idea... For example if you let
> Very good idea. And JEMMX as option - it has plugins, one might
> eventually write a "virtual SB16 to AC97 hardware" plugin for
> that plugin system.
I uploaded a beta version of Jemm v5.6 (http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html) which
also includes samples for the "plugins". One sample is a 32bit p
> We should really talk about internet with DOS more - it seems
> many people do use their old PC with DOS and Arachne to have
> a second "surf PC" around, so FreeDOS should make a statement
> that we do support that use of DOS, too.
Definetely. And folder sharing with Windows Network also.
Debia
Hi Mateusz,
> default, the user should get something similar to an MSDOS
> clone, without bells and whistles...
I got similar feedback and also think that a base / default
install should not, like, install 20 TSRs for the new XY
3d popup GUI or anything ;-).
> > Yes, but new users like GUI, I t
Hi Flox!
Talking about FreeDOS 2.0, there will hopefully be 1.1
early this summer, as many packages have been updated
since we released 1.0, and some issues in 1.0 should be
fine tuned anyway :-).
> *Using 4DOS as standard command tool, and Bash or freecom as choice.
I still think FreeCOM is th
While FreeDOS isn't something like Gentoo (or Linux at all), I'd love to
have some kind of build system so we ensure the 8086 compatibility.
Right now all programs have to be compiled by their own makefiles (and
compilers, linkers etc), and I got no idea on how to make it like a
batch job,
some
Hopefully I don't rant too much...
I rarely post on the list at all but I think that
there has been a trend recently to add features to
FreeDOS but skip over the fact that it's supposed to
reproduce DOS as faithfully as possible. I wasn't all
that happy with FD 1.0 and still use my custom install
On Sunday 13 May 2007 09:38, Florian Xaver wrote:
> why not? There could be a choice of "standard configuration" and
> "enhanced configuration". HX Extender should be a must :-)
> Also FDAPM & XDMA should be included in the enhanced config.sys.
Yes, if you are talking about an "enhanced conf", the
On 13 mei 2007, at 09:38, Florian Xaver wrote:
>>> *No more 386- support
I don't like this.
>> Wow, not so fast!
>> The purpose of FreeDOS is to reproduce a MSDOS system on x86 CPUs...
>> Go read
>> Jim's manifesto ;-)
> Wasn't it the purpose of FreeDOS 1.0? What changed with 8086 code? I
> thin
> > *Using 4DOS as standard command tool, and Bash or freecom as choice.
> 4DOS is okay, but I would prefer to have Freecom by default, and the choice to
> switch to bash/4DOS, because Freecom is the most similar to MSDOS
> COMMAND.COM..
But 4DOS is very compatible ... all batch files should work
On Saturday 12 May 2007 20:11, Florian Xaver wrote:
> Hi Jim, I all!
Hi!
> *Using 4DOS as standard command tool, and Bash or freecom as choice.
4DOS is okay, but I would prefer to have Freecom by default, and the choice to
switch to bash/4DOS, because Freecom is the most similar to MSDOS
COMMA
Hi guys,
IMHO, we should list small and simple things to do first,
Specially because it is faster and we have not enough manpower :(
while we all want many things, we have to take care of our dreams
otherwise we can stall just like gnu Hurd, which is a *really* amazing project
but is almost dead
Florian Xaver wrote:
> Hi Jim, I all!
>
> What should change with FreeDOS 2.0? Some ideas, I think, they have to
> be a must :-)
>
>
> *Using an Editor which supports large files (like FED or SETEDIT)
>
FreeDOS Edlin can support large files!
Gregory Pietsch
-
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/doszip/ evolves... :-)
I don't like it. First time I tried it it looked ok...but there are
much better file managers out there.
> > *No more 386- support
Most changes, maybe all, which has been made, are for 386+ computers.
So one can use FreeDOS 1.0.
> I don't
Florian Xaver wrote:
> *Using an Editor which supports large files (like FED or SETEDIT)
Updated FED has been announced to a small audience only so far. For all
others: It's at http://www.bttr-software.de/fed/ :-)
> *One standard file manager (my choice would be FW or NDN)
http://sourceforge.ne
Hi Jim, I all!
What should change with FreeDOS 2.0? Some ideas, I think, they have to
be a must :-)
*Using 4DOS as standard command tool, and Bash or freecom as choice.
*Using JEMM as memory manager
*Using HX Extender & Co to support Windows programs in DOS
*PythonD as modern script language
*Usi
34 matches
Mail list logo
