Re: [Freedos-user] VMSMOUNT 0.5: Now with (partial) long file names su pport
> I'm aware of AMIS. I could implement it in vmsmount. Then you'll only > have to convince the maintainers of shsucdx, doslfn and some more or > less popular proprietary tsrs like ntfs4dos... :) > > Please, don't get me wrong. I think AMIS is a great idea, maybe just > a bit too late, and I'm open to consider it for a future release if > it is worth the effort. I know that not all programs, even new ones, will implement it, even if they "should". However, I don't think the fact that many/most others don't do it is a valid reason for me not to do it. It's a VERY good idea, and ultimately helps the user. As far as I'm concerned, it is almost always worth the effort when it helps the user. I'm going to implement AMIS it on all of my new/updated programs, whether anybody else decides to follow suit or not. Also, FWIW, all of my new/updated programs will support DPMS and EMS (and possibly later other "environments" like JLM) to reduce conventional/upper memory requirements, at least where it makes sense (it doesn't necessarily make sense on VERY small TSR's that use only a couple kB of RAM). -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] VMSMOUNT 0.5: Now with (partial) long file names su pport
2011/11/7 Bret Johnson : >> This is unavoidable. When you intercept system interrupts, you only >> can safely uninstall when the nobody else has trapped the same >> interrupt or, in other words, you can only uninstall when the >> interrupt vector is pointing to the TSR you are trying to uninstall. > > This is an opportunity to jump on my AMIS soap box again, so I will. This > actually IS avoidable when the "involved" programs (in this case, SHSUCDX, > VMSMOUNT, and any other programs that may be installed after those) implement > AMIS. IMO, all modern TSR's and device drivers should implement AMIS. Hi Bret, I shouldn't have said unavoidable, but "practically unavoidable"... I'm aware of AMIS. I could implement it in vmsmount. Then you'll only have to convince the maintainers of shsucdx, doslfn and some more or less popular proprietary tsrs like ntfs4dos... :) Please, don't get me wrong. I think AMIS is a great idea, maybe just a bit too late, and I'm open to consider it for a future release if it is worth the effort. Best, Eduardo -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] VMSMOUNT 0.5: Now with (partial) long file names su pport
> This is unavoidable. When you intercept system interrupts, you only > can safely uninstall when the nobody else has trapped the same > interrupt or, in other words, you can only uninstall when the > interrupt vector is pointing to the TSR you are trying to uninstall. This is an opportunity to jump on my AMIS soap box again, so I will. This actually IS avoidable when the "involved" programs (in this case, SHSUCDX, VMSMOUNT, and any other programs that may be installed after those) implement AMIS. IMO, all modern TSR's and device drivers should implement AMIS. -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
