Why not have a simple floppy that can install the system via internet connection?
Base cd, extras cd and boot disk with internet install? On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 at 05:37, Mark Olesen <markjole...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not have a minimal install iso. Then have separate additions iso > for each category? Could the install handle that? > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > > > Some of us had this conversation a while back and I wanted to bring it > up again on the list. > > > > MS-DOS was a small operating system. MS_DOS 5 and 6 fit on a few 1.44MB > floppy disks. > > > > We always intended FreeDOS to not just replace but enhance DOS. FreeDOS > is "MS-DOS plus more." To make clear what's part of the "core" of FreeDOS, > we have the "Base" package group. These packages replicate the behavior and > functionality of MS-DOS. But we also have a lot of other packages that add > new functionality to FreeDOS, and we put these programs in other package > groups like "Editors" (additional editors) and "Devel" (compilers, > assemblers, and other development tools). > > > > Over time, FreeDOS has grown to include lots of interesting programs. > The FreeDOS 1.2 and 1.3RCx distributions are very big. > > > > As we look to the next FreeDOS 1.3 Release Candidate, I think we should > consider removing some packages from the FreeDOS distribution. > > > > To be clear: I am not suggesting deleting packages or programs from the > FreeDOS archive at ibiblio. There's lots of useful and interesting programs > there. But I don't think we need to include everything in the FreeDOS > distribution. > > > > Here are my thoughts from the FreeDOS 1.3 package list (wiki) > > > > Base > > Keep everything > > > > Archivers > > Do we really need all of those archivers? For example, who needs Zoo > these days? My suggestions: > > 1. Move bz2, gzip, and tar to the "Unix" group - these are replicas of > Unix tools > > 2. Keep zip, unzip, p7zip > > 3. Remove the other packages: 7zdec, arj, cabext, lpq1, lzip, lzma, > lzop, zoo > > > > *Note that p7zip can unpack a ton of other file formats, so we don't > need these other archivers anyway. > > > > Boot Tools > > *I don't have any strong feelings here. What are your thoughts? > > > > Development > > Can we pare down the list a bit? We have a lot of packages here, but I > don't think we need them all. For example, we should include the tools we > know we'll need to compile the different FreeDOS utilities. I'd also like > to keep the GCC related packages, and other packages that remain popular. > My suggestions: > > 1. Move perl to the "Unix" group > > 2. Keep BWBasic, the DJGPP packages, FASM, the FBC packages (FreeBASIC > Compiler) fpc (FreePascal compiler), the GCC-IA16 packages, JWASM, NASM, OW > (OpenWatcom C Compiler), and UPX > > 3. Remove bcc (Bruce's C Compiler), euphoria, insight, lua, regina, > runtime > > > > *I think I missed some packages in that list. I don't have a good > opinion on those. What do you think? > > > > Editors > > Not sure about these. I know there are a few here I'd like to keep: > > Blocek, Elvis, FED, Freemacs, MSEDIT, pico, Vim > > > > *I don't have a good opinion on the other editors in the list. Which > ones do you think need to stay? > > > > Emulators > > I don't think that these are useful to include in the full distribution. > These all fall in the general category of "games," anyway. I'd recommend we > eliminate the entire "Emulators" package group. > > > > Games > > I generally feel that we can add and remove games in the FreeDOS > distribution on a whim. If a game is interesting and open source, we can > include it. When a game stops being interesting, or doesn't interest a lot > of people, we can remove it. > > > > *I really enjoy Wing and a few others. I don't have strong opinions on > the other games. What are your thoughts? > > > > Graphical Desktop > > We added GUIs a long time ago when people were still doing active > development on OpenGEM, oZone, and Seal. If you've been part of the > discussion for a long time, you also remember we included a few other > graphical menus and things that have since fallen out of the distribution. > I think it's time to look at these GUIs too. My recommendations: > > 1. PC-GEOS was released as open source software. I haven't followed it, > but last I checked, they weren't able to compile it (missing libraries, I > think - requires some rewrites?) If they can get this to compile, I think > we can include it. If they still can't compile it, then do not include it. > > 2. Remove SEAL and oZone. These haven't been worked on for a long time, > and they are still incomplete > > 3. Keep OpenGEM. It's not under active development, but it's currently > pretty solid, if plain looking > > > > Networking > > I don't run FreeDOS with a network, so I don't have any opinions on > these packages. What do you think? > > > > Sound > > I know OpenCP and MPlayer both work fine, because I demo'd them in a > YouTube video. I don't have any opinions otherwise. > > > > Unix > > The wiki page lists a few packages to remove based on duplicates or > license concerns. > > 1. Move bz2, gzip, and tar from "Archivers" to "Unix" > > 2. Move perl from "Devel" to "Unix" > > > > Utilities > > We have a mix of things in this package group. I think some of these > were interesting long ago, but probably aren't used anymore and can be > deleted. My recommendations: > > 1. Keep aefdisk, ansimat, bootfix, callver, cdrcache, cdrom2ui clamav + > clamdb, cpied, cwsdpmi, dialog, dn2, dog, dos32a, dosutil, doszip + dzemm, > fdimples + fdisrc, fdnpkg, fdshield, fdtui, foxcalc, foxtype, gcdrom, > gnuchcp + gnufonts, hexcomp, localize, lptdrv, memteste, ntfs, pcisleep, > pdtree, pg, rcal, rdisk, search, setlock, shareext, shsufdrv, slowdown, > spool, srdisk, stamp, switchar, udvd2, uhdd, uide, unrtf, usbdos, utf8tocp, > V8power, wcd, wde, xdel, xfdisk, xkeyb, xmgr > > 2. Remove b64, blwcbc, bmp2png, bsum, daa2iso, edict, fdshell, finddisk, > flashrom, gifsicle, hip, hiram, pgme, pngcrush, sqlite, terminal, topspin, > wptail, zdir, zerofill > > > > *We have both doslfn and lfndos, but do we need both? Is one better > (more complete) than the other? > > **If I missed any of Jack's utilities, that's an oversight from me. I > would want to keep them. > > ***I skipped some packages in that list. I don't have a good opinion on > those. What do you think? > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedos-devel mailing list > > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
