Joe wrote:
>> Because you can't try it there's no point in adding it (I will add it but
>> you can't use it since pppdrc.cfg isn't changed - that's up to core.exe).
>
> That's the purpose of the 'pppd.cfg' file ... (well, at least until
> you eliminate support for it ... )-:
Ok, so you are saying that it's good to have for testing new things. I can
agree with that, but in normal operation do you have any use for it then?
> 1. This will make 'epppd' fragile (IMHO).
"fragile"? It's the same program, just that settings that aren't changed
will be unchangable. It is not (more anyway) fragile. And please keep in
mind that this is the Arachne specific version we are talking about - the
other version will retain all kinds of options that you can use if you need
them (but will also use less memory since parts of the code that can NEVER
be reached is removed).
> 2. This also eliminates the possibility to retain support
> for the 'pppd.cfg' file ...
But what do you use it for? (Settings obviously, but what settings are
those?) I am not telling you that you can't use the "normal" version, it's
just that the majority of users do NOT use these options (or even know that
they exist for that matter).
> You may be right, I'm no expert on protected mode stuff.
>
> However, the DPMS documentation says that this stuff
> is much more suitable for TSR's than DPMI (and simpler).
> I don't know if you need a different compiler, but any 286
> with XMS can use DPMS. In fact, this "cloaking.exe"
> stuff *sounds* very similar, anyway. However, it's up to
> you - whatever you think is easiest or best suited, I just
> mentioned this stuff in case it is useful for you. :-)
I appreciate your comments, but I honestly don't know how:
1. to make a TSR (much less use the DPMI (that the DPMS offer), such as
cloaking - but atleast there's info in the Interupt List about that one)
2. the PPP protocol works
If I knew these I would try and start from scratch in ASM instead (but
knowing that much ASM is probably also on the list of things I don't know).
Although I'm learning these by studying the source (and that from other
programs and texts of course). This might sound bad but it isn't as bad as
it sounds, I've used a slightly trimmed down version for a few months now
and haven't experienced any problems (except those my ISP have introduced,
such as a busy line - something I've only seen on like 3 times earlier in
the 5 years I've used the Internet earlier).
(snip)
>This means that you *are* allowed to create and
> distribute *derivative* works, doesn't it? :-)
Hmm, ah yes. I missed the "derivate works" part. Thanks, not that I was
worried but it's good to know :)
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
