On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable, dead-end
technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former Java fanatics (for
which .NET became a substitute once M$ could not get to terms with Sun) have
jumped that ship already
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
On 9/30/2018 10:18 AM, geneb wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable, dead-end
technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former Java fanatics
(for which .NET became a
On 9/30/2018 10:18 AM, geneb wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable,
dead-end technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former
Java fanatics (for which .NET became a substitute once M$ could not
get to terms with
On 9/30/2018 8:51 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM dmccunney wrote:
> >
> > It's no loss to MS to make DOS 1.5 and 2.0 available under a permissive
> > license.
>
> "No loss" might be inaccurate. While it may be trivial compared to
> "newer technology", it's
In fact there are some companies still making money with DOS. I worked
for a company until mid 2016 building embedded 386EX systems, which they
still do up to now. They license Datalight ROMDOS as well as a BIOS from
another vendor, but for that I do not remember the name...
Once I was
On 9/30/2018 1:34 PM, geneb wrote:
Visual Studio for Macintosh will handle the issue for MacOS, Xamarin
will handle the issue for Linux and I don't know of anyone that uses a
GUI on FreeBSD. :) Yes, I know ARM isn't an OS. That's not the
point. The .NET Micro Framework specifically targets
Just wanted to share a quick update that when I see announcements
about programs for FreeDOS, I might post them as news on the website,
or tweet about them from the FreeDOS Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/FreeDOS_Project
I may sometimes share them on the FreeDOS Facebook group:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
>> FreeDOS seems to mostly focus on "four freedoms" (free/libre), aka GPL
>> or OSI. As long as we're as "free" as possible, I think we're okay. It
>> gives us the most advantages, and it helps the most people. But I
>> don't think splitting hairs
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
> On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
> > wrote:
> >> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
> >> this be built by the VAL
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:02 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > "No loss" might be inaccurate. While it may be trivial compared to
> > "newer technology", it's impossible to say that their (MSDN?) revenue
> > from such legacy software is so low as
>
>
>
> > (Speaking personally, I'd love to see *FreeDOS* re-licensed under
> something other than the GPL.)
>
> I don't honestly know if that's even legally possible now that Pat has
> died. (Gotta love legalese, ugh. No, I'm not a lawyer.)
>
>
Correct. Re-licensing the code base would require
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Random Liegh wrote:
>
>
> * On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote: *
>>
>>
>> * Hi,*
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
>>> this be built by the VAL linker? seems
13 matches
Mail list logo
