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
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 attempt to
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,
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 MS
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
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
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 my
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
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()
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 done?
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.
Debian can
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, Eric :-).
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 better than
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
think nothing.
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, then I will
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
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,
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
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
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:
Hi Jim, I all!
What should change with FreeDOS 2.0? Some ideas, I think, they have to
be a must :-)
snip
*Using an Editor which supports large files (like FED or SETEDIT)
FreeDOS Edlin can support large files!
snip
Gregory Pietsch
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
