On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:56 AM Tom Ehlert wrote:
> > FreeDOS began as an effort to create an open source version of 16 bit
> > DOS, compatible with what Microsoft issued. It largely succeeded in
> > that effort.
> exactly.
> > Providing the support you want is serious system level
> The two aren't currently compatible. Any chance of lfndos getting
> the bugs ironed out?
lfndos is known to be buggy.
use doslfn http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/doslfn.zip instead.
Tom
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> FreeDOS began as an effort to create an open source version of 16 bit
> DOS, compatible with what Microsoft issued. It largely succeeded in
> that effort.
exactly.
> Providing the support you want is serious system level programming.
> The folks who *can* do that get *paid* for it. Tell me
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:28 PM Michael Christopher Robinson
wrote:
> Just because Microsoft doesn't support dos anymore, does that mean that
> the freedos community has to cut off support at the limits of what
> Microsoft did? I for one would like full fat32 support and support
> for at least
On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 01:10 +0200, Eric Auer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > The two aren't currently compatible.
>
> Which problems did you encounter in which context?
Opcodes and hard crashing of a lfndos aware file manager something
commander. I was trying to copy to a fat32 partition out on usb
created
Hi!
> The two aren't currently compatible.
Which problems did you encounter in which context?
Can you specify error messages and their wording?
Can you give instructions for reproducing the problems?
> Any chance of lfndos getting the bugs ironed out?
If LFNDOS is not what you want, you
The two aren't currently compatible. Any chance of lfndos getting the bugs
ironed out? If I could boot Linux instead, I could do backup and restore no
problem as Linux has no difficulty with long filenames on a fat32 partition.
How is it that Linux can handle Windows 2000 Fat32 and freedos
