Hello all,
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 6:18 PM, Eric Auer <e.a...@jpberlin.de> wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, Jim et al, > > In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to > interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had > the feature and we have something to provide the same feature, then > we should make it part of a BASE install. This includes DEBUG, EDIT, > EDLIN, BASIC, probably even LFN drivers, although LFN are part of a > MS DOS version that could only be acquired as side-effect of Windows > installs. But we have it and it is useful for many users. There are > a few things that never shipped with MS DOS but which are BASE from > my point of view: A package manager, ZIP / UNZIP and drivers for a > number of modern pieces of hardware, including USB devices and DVD. > > BASIC is a bit controversial - use BWBASIC, small but limited? Or use > FreeBASIC, big but versatile? I would say one is enough for BASE but > we should provide both for the "large" install option :-) When making > a floppy distro, experience has shown that BASE nevertheless fits on > two or three disks, with minimal changes, e.g. no BASIC and no EDLIN. > So as said, I suggest a broad selection of base things to be BASE :-) > > Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The > list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in > older FreeDOS distros when people selected "ALL". Unless things got > dropped from Mateusz' repository, I would keep including them all. > The ALL list is short. I do keep asking what else? Mainly, I mean what other packages from Mateusz' repository. Or other packages he may not have. But, I won't be packing up stuff to add so I would need prebuilt packages. :-) > Jim wrote: > >> Yes, my view is that FreeDOS "Base" should provide the equivalent >> functionality to MS-DOS. Anything else (Devel, Edit, Util, .. or "All" if >> you group it into one set) is extra functionality that wasn't included in >> the original MS-DOS. >> >> I think the important feature is that those who want just the "MS-DOS" >> behavior can install only "Base" with the correspondingly small footprint, >> while people who want a more modern DOS experience can install "All." > > Jerome wrote: > > > > Hi Jerome, Jim et al, > > In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to > interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had > the feature and we have something to provide the same feature, then > we should make it part of a BASE install. This includes DEBUG, EDIT, > EDLIN, BASIC, probably even LFN drivers, although LFN are part of a > MS DOS version that could only be acquired as side-effect of Windows > installs. But we have it and it is useful for many users. There are > a few things that never shipped with MS DOS but which are BASE from > my point of view: A package manager, ZIP / UNZIP and drivers for a > number of modern pieces of hardware, including USB devices and DVD. > > BASIC is a bit controversial - use BWBASIC, small but limited? Or use > FreeBASIC, big but versatile? I would say one is enough for BASE but > we should provide both for the "large" install option :-) When making > a floppy distro, experience has shown that BASE nevertheless fits on > two or three disks, with minimal changes, e.g. no BASIC and no EDLIN. > So as said, I suggest a broad selection of base things to be BASE :-) > > Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The > list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in > older FreeDOS distros when people selected "ALL". Unless things got > dropped from Mateusz' repository, I would keep including them all. > > Jim wrote: > >> Yes, my view is that FreeDOS "Base" should provide the equivalent >> functionality to MS-DOS. Anything else (Devel, Edit, Util, .. or "All" if >> you group it into one set) is extra functionality that wasn't included in >> the original MS-DOS. >> >> I think the important feature is that those who want just the "MS-DOS" >> behavior can install only "Base" with the correspondingly small footprint, >> while people who want a more modern DOS experience can install "All." > > Jerome wrote: > >> At present, BASE is fairly close to the 1.1 BASE. Of course, it no >> longer includes XMGR and UIDE. this is the current ALL packages that >> are installed. Pull rdisk? Anything else? > > It is good to exclude XMGR but Jim's 14 Jan mail spared UIDE, which I > would really prefer to keep. You can also reduce that to UDVD2 if you > want a more basic driver. Jim only wrote that we should drop the XMGR > HIMEM-like XMS / HMA driver from the distro. > >> https://github.com/shidel/FDI/blob/master/SETTINGS/PKG_BASE.LST >> >> Please note, that FDI’s floppy boot image needs a CD/DVD driver and >> it is currently using UDVD2. >> >> These are the current additions that are installed when ALL is selected: >> >> util\v8power >> >> net\mtcp > >> util\4dos > > Is the license of 4DOS fine at the moment? I don't know. It seems vague. There was talk about pulling it. And talk about how bad it would be to not have it. So? > >> util\doslfn >> util\fdnpkg > > Make the 2 above BASE, if you ask me. > >> util\memtest >> util\bootfix > >> util\shsufdrv >> util\cwsdpmi >> archiver\zip >> archiver\unzip > > I would make those 4 BASE, too. > >> util\grep >> util\tee >> util\touch >> util\which >> util\pg >> >> archiver\tar >> archiver\gzip >> archiver\bz2 >> >> devel\nasm > > Which version? Latest for DOS, I think it is 2.11.08. It's a couple years old. But much newer than the previous version. I do know that some of the sources don't work with the new nasm. But, the should be brought up to date. Not the other way around. > >> devel\fpc Only 2.6.4. 3.0.0 requires LFN or an extensive port. > >> devel\ow > > OpenWatcom C AND Assembler? I don't use them. But, I have no issue with including them. > And how about FreeBASIC? > Same here. What are the packages names? >> net\wget >> net\rsync >> net\curl >> >> Add or remove anything else? > > Add Bret's USB drivers, if you ask me. And some choice > of network packet drivers for common real and virtual > hardware, otherwise network tools like WGET do not make > much sense. Availability of free open source network > packet drivers is limited, but I am sure you have a few. > I figure once we add a bunch and can mostly agree on what should be in there, we can give the whole list to Jim to veto stuff and change it. >> Jerome > > Regards, Eric > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance > APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month > Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now > Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
