Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?

Hi Christian, > 6.22 doesn't include LBA, FAT32 and LFN-aware command line, > so FreeDOS mostly aims to be compatible to 7.10. I would not count in strict numbers here - for me, it is okay to say "5.0 with several 6.22ish tools and the 7.10ish features of LBA and FAT32". Note that LFN is in the

Re: [Freedos-user] LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Hi Michael, indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... > What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense > also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would have to re-implement LFN from scratch and there is also a risk to get nagg

Re: [Freedos-user] (no subject)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fox Muldar wrote: > Mailing list please? > > -- > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourcefor

Re: [Freedos-user] [Sourceforge-outages] 2009-03-31: Mailing List Archives: Planned Maintenance

Just got this note from SourceForge, thought I'd forward it for anyone who reads this list via the archives. SourceForge admins are running maintenance, and the list archives will be unavailable for about an hour this afternoon. Other services may see a performance impact, but should remain up.

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Eric Auer schrieb: > Hi Michael, > > indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... > >> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense >> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? > > Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would > have to re-implement LFN from scratch an

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 10:04 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: >Otherwise I would say that if you are scared of Microsoft patents then >you can publish nothing you have developed. Because You should really read up before you make such statements... >1) Not only Microsoft has patents, many others have also.

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Question on these as I don't really understand. > U.S. > Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file > names having different file name formats > - >

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

As an American I was under the impression that the European Union decided that software methodologies were not patentable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent Even if someone files a patent - infringement cases are not enforced by the government patent office but by the patent holder.

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 11:16 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote: >Question on these as I don't really understand. > > > U.S. > > Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file > > names having different file name formats > > - > >

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Ralf A. Quint schrieb: >>> >From that view it's not possible for non-cooperates (individual hobbyist >> projects) to develop and publish software. You would always need a legal >> department which is telling "it's ok to violate patents, if them are are >> accusing us we will accuse them with out co

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to > store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in > FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names > and Extended Attributs as covered by those patents. What about the way UMSDOS used to

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

There is always another way to do it. "receiving a long file name in a long file name format; storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location of the file in the memory; automatically generating a short file

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Eric Auer schrieb: > Hi Michael, > > indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... > >> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense >> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? > > Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would > have to re-implement LFN from scratch an

[Freedos-user] Zet PC platform

Hi! I'm forwarding this message from the bochs-developers mailing list. *** Hi all bochs developers, Sooner or later I wanted to write this email. I'm the founder and lead developer of the Zet processor ( http://zet.aluzina.org ) which is an open implementation of the x86 architecture in real ha

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > > In regards to "having a legal department", that's why the OSF has one > > for Open Source projects... > >What do you mean with OSF? Open Software Foundation? Correct. >However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones).

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

usul schrieb: > I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. > > So educate me why am I wrong. :) Well, the final verdict gives always the court. Unfortunately not always the logic wins. (I haven't said anything about bribemoney!) It also depends on the technical understanding of

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 11:52 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote: >same result different method. > >I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor >legaleese. But still different method and system >is still different. > >I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. > >So educate me why am I wrong. :)

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote: > > And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to > > store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in > > FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names > > and Extended Attributs as covered

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 11:59 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote: > > So why cant we just create a "database/table - file" that allows > > lookup in a second area, either a file on > > the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the > > file/directory "ID" and store that in the database table completely > > s

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> > Whenever theoretically someone would claim "you are violating our > patents, stop it for we sue you" it questionable if the sabre rattle was > already enough for the extortion and if ever a court would have the > chance to judge. > I would stand my ground if I knew that I took the time to avoi

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 12:08 PM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: >Eric Auer schrieb: > > Hi Michael, > > > > indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... > > > >> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense > >> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? > > > > Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

By the way I must repeat the question "who would be theoretically sued?". I would think the end users. For Example: Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed. someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB Someone that sold and built CD for open source. --

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Eric Auer schrieb: >> Hi Michael, >> >> indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... >> >>> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense >>> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? >> >> Yes but: The DOSLFN license does

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> So why cant we just create a "database/table - file" that allows > lookup in a second area, either a file on > the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the > file/directory "ID" and store that in the database table completely > separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Ralf A. Quint schrieb: >> However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones). >> >> As I live in Germany I see no reason to ensure to follow all US laws (no >> racism or whatever here, just the same way I do not ensure it for any >> other country where I do not life). >> >> I

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 12:30 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote: >When others have asked me, I have recommended a "wait and see" >approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux >first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN >and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. In February 2009, M

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Ralf A. Quint schrieb: >> Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the >> hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C. >> >> I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case >> the responsible person for the website. (Fortunally also other people >> are red

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

usul schrieb: > By the way I must repeat the question "who would be theoretically sued?". > > I would think the end users. > > For Example: > Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed. > someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB > Someone that sold and built CD for open source. >

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Does that mean everyone has to take out DOSLFN? >From linux and freedos? Maybe this is also a dumb question but is it possible to run FreeDos on a different File System? liek on of the linux ones and still be able to run/use most dos programs? -

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

I just missed it thats all, :) -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Jim Hall schrieb: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Michael Reichenbach > wrote: >> Eric Auer schrieb: >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... >>> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? >>> Yes bu

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

Well, it would be theoretically possible to implement something like ext3 as most DOS applications use the filesystem API and not the disk directly, them wouldn't recognize. But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other patents we might have not considered yet. -mr usul

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM > To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS > kernel? - was: aimed compatibility? > ... > If LFN support were part of th

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> > But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other > patents we might have not considered yet. But I believe there is enough usage of the Linux file systems to make this a less than likely target. And FAT = Microsoft so it was easy for them to use that as a target. -

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

David C. Kerber schrieb: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM >> To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS >> kernel? - was: aimed compatibility? >> > >

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> Adding LFN support directly to the kernel could have a much larger > impact. In reality, the first step is always a Cease & Desist letter - > which usually means stop distributing the offending parts. Where LFN > remains with DOSLFN (an external TSR) we simply remove DOSLFN from > ibiblio and fro

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS Wiki

The new and up to date and linked on freedos.org wiki seams to be http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=Main_Page. While when I google for "freedos wiki" I still find http://wiki.fdos.org/. Can the old wiki be linked on freedos.org? It still contains some informations. What

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS Wiki

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > The new and up to date and linked on freedos.org wiki seams to be > http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=Main_Page. > > While when I google for "freedos wiki" I still find > http://wiki.fdos.org/. Can the old wi

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

> OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS > started some fight with TomTom > >> In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include >> DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it >> separately. (http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 04:01 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote: > > OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS > > started some fight with TomTom > > > >> In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include > >> DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it > >> s

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 12:59 PM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: >Ralf A. Quint schrieb: > >> Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the > >> hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C. > >> > >> I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case > >> the responsible per

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > David C. Kerber schrieb: >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM >>> To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in F

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote: >Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents - >developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along >with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago. > >Extended partitions were introduced in 1986. Again just 3 ye

Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Ralf A. Quint wrote: > At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote: > >> Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents - >> developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along >> with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago. >> >> Exten

Re: [Freedos-user] MS compatible CLIENT

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:20:29 -0500, you wrote: Hi, >Is MSCLIENT the only choice? Has anyone tried to create something open >sourced for FreeDos? Seems only MSClient available, didn't see anyone do this, maybe too complex. >Like FDCLIENT? :) Big project :) 1) New NICs stop providing NDIS drive

Re: [Freedos-user] MS compatible CLIENT

Johnson Lam escreveu: >> Like FDCLIENT? :) > Big project :) Agree ;) > 1) New NICs stop providing NDIS drivers anymore > 4) Need to support not only NDIS but packet driver, or even code your own NIC > drivers Not exactly. Lots of new motherboards run with netbootdisk which uses NDIS2, but unfo

Re: [Freedos-user] MS compatible CLIENT

> 2) MS compatible client need to fully support LFN read and write, but I'm not > sure the DOSLFN write action is safe or not Why isn't DOSLFN safe? I've used it plenty without issues. > > 3) You can leave out UNC support otherwise printer will not work, but this > will consume lot of memory > >

[Freedos-user] New FreeDOSers Monthly Reminder

/* This is an automated message sent out on the 1st of each month. It is automagically downloaded from http://freedos.sourceforge.net/freedos/lists/remind.txt */ MONTHLY REMINDER FOR THE FREEDOS MAILING LIST Hi! If you are a new reader of freedos-devel (or the other FreeDOS lists) then, welcome!