Hello Tom et al,
or call the 'optimized' kernel keUNSTABLExxx or keARxxx, as the main stream kernel should concentrate on FIXING bugs, rather then introducing new ones.
100% agreed. Since I use "unstable" kernel every day in practice, I think it has no more bugs than the "stable" one. But during the last few weeks I noticed several more bugs and incompatibilities present in both "stable" and "unstable" branches, most of them extremely difficult to fix, namely:
1. While copying a directory tree containing many LFNs *without* DOSLFN loaded and *with* delayed write of SMARTDRV in a FAT32 directory, many invalid directory entries are created, which consist of parts of the contents of the copied files. Turning delayed write off makes the bug vanish. If FreeDOS ir replaced by MS-DOS or if copying to a FAT16 directory under FreeDOS, there is no bug.
2. The same test above, but *with* DOSLFN loaded, if done with the "COPY /S" command of 4DOS, which supports LFNs, causes only lost clusters and all the target files are in zero length. If done by another program which supports LFNs, for example FM, there is no bug. (FM is a Bulgarian all-in-one file manager / file editor / disk editor / CD player / calculator / Tetris / etc.etc.). Again, if FreeDOS is replaced by MS-DOS or if copying to a FAT16 directory under FreeDOS - no bug.
3. If load segment (/L option) was different than 60h, bootstrap causes a read error during the loading of the kernel if it's longer than about 62 KB. The exact value of the load segment doesn't matter, and the bug reveals for *any* value other than 60h.
4. SYS hangs up or causes an invalid opcode at the time of reading the boot sector of my ATA flash cards, if compiled by anything than Watcom. Non-Watcom versions of SYS work on all other drives.
5. DOSLFN 0.33, run off a XMSDSK RAM-disk, doesn't show the files there with "dir" in FreeDOS, but works in MS-DOS 7.10. DOSLFN 0.32 works everywhere. DOSLFN 0.33 works on any other disk in FreeDOS
Needless to say that these bugs and incompatibilities are only a small part of the whole picture. You already know the DOS extender compatibility problems I've reported earlier. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that writing files under DOSLFN is significantly slower than under MS-DOS.
So, as a prospective user of the kernel, after contributing to it for more than an year, I can conclude than it's good enough for simpler tasks not involving writing a lot of long named files on a FAT32 partition. For more complex tasks, however, MS-DOS 7.1, PC-DOS 7.1 and ROM-DOS 7.1 are more suitable. You can find a good comparison betweent the different DOS versions on the page of Wengier Wu (åææ, China DOS Union) http://newdos.yginfo.net/dosfat32.htm (page is in English).
Thank you for your attention. It's time for me to concentrate on other tasks. It's been a pleasure for me to work with you guys. I hope that FreeDOS will be THE DOS one day. But hardly "real soon now"...
Regards, Lucho (ÐÑÑÐ)
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
