Re: [Freedos-devel] Clock

[Travis Siegel]

You don't need permission to write programs.  If you want to write it, do so.  
If nobody finds it useful, then at least you learned something in the exercise. 
 If folks find it useful, they will use it, and you will have learned something 
from the exercise.


On Jan 29, 2015, at 8:30 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote:

> Hello!I was wondering,is there an alarm clock utility needed for FreeDOS?It
> would be a console clock,with alarm functions.If I am given a yes,I will
> program it and have it ready for everyone within two days.
> -Jayden
> --
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. 
> http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Ralf Quint wrote:
> But I would seriously discourage the use of gcc, as that is not going to 
> help to produce anything useful for DOS, as it by and large is a *ix 
> based and targeting compiler, which has only be shoehorned rather 
> crudely to produce code for DOS...

Ok, good to know.  I did use gcc for a (very) short time under dos, and while 
it was a bit problematic to setup (paths had to be right, environment variables 
had to be set) it did the job, but I wasn't trying to do anything fancy with 
it, so don't know how well it handles complicated stuff, and if it's as bad as 
indicated, then I guess I'll stop recommending it. :-).
Interestingly enough, I've seen loads of free C compilers, but very few with 
source, though I did purchase one that was shareware many years ago (the 
purchase gave you the right to obtain the source, and modify the compiler if 
desired), but I never did anything with it.  I did write an assembler though, 
just to prove to myself it couldn't be done in the time frame alloted, only 
that one backfired, and it was actually a workable assembler in just under a 
week.  Nothing approaching commercial quality you understand, but it worked.  I 
did that, because I'd read a book claiming that a beginner assembly programmer 
could produce a working compiler in a week.  I didn't believe it, so set out to 
prove the author wrong.  And, as mentioned, it did indeed work as the author 
stated, which really surprised me.  
But, the point of the sideline here is just to point out that dos compilers 
aren't all that difficult to write, so if necessary, adapting gcc or some other 
compiler and making it part of the freedos project could be done.  Not likely 
to be done mind you, but it could is all I'm saying.
Regardless of what folks settle on, as the final guidelines, folks must 
remember they are (mostly) only guidelines, and I'm sure exceptions can and 
will be made given sufficient reasons to do so.
I agree whole heartedly that freedos should contain complete source for it's 
programs (just like some linux distros do), but I'm also of the opinion that 
free tools are preferable to commercial ones, (something the majority of folks 
seem to agree with), but I'm also of the opinion that opensource should be used 
where possible (an opinion not shared by most it seems) and that's ok, it's 
only an opinion, and I have no authority over the project in any way, so it 
remains my opinions only. :)
I think folks really should use what works for them, but if two things work 
equally well, and one of them is opensource, then by all means, opt for the 
opensource option.
That's my take on it, and I'll shut up now, since I think this topic has 
drifted somewhat from the original intent, and I'm really not out to cause any 
trouble.  I'd love to see the freedos project thrive, and even the kernel 
evolve, so I'm always willing to lend a hand if desired.  I can help with the 
code reviews, as we did them where I worked several years ago, since we were a 
cmm level 5 group, and code requirements were pretty strict.  I know nothing 
like that is necessary here, only stating for the record I have experience, and 
am willing to assist if/when wanted/needed.

And, who knows, if I can think of something useful, perhaps I can contribute to 
the freedos library too.



--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

[Travis Siegel]

There's nothing wrong with quick basic.  The only issue is that it's not 
free/opensource, but freebasic is.  It also has a qb compatibility mode, so 
porting your programs to freebasic would be a trivial task.  If you want to 
compile with basic, then by all means, give freebasic a try, it works, it's 
free, it's opensource, and anyone can use it if they so choose.
No reason to abandon your quickbasic work.
Of course, this isn't to say learning c/c++ is bad either, that also works, but 
if I may, I'd suggest using either gcc or watcom, instead of turbo C, just 
because they are also opensource, and while turboC is free, it's not 
opensource, and the free status is subject to change at any time.  Admittedly, 
it's not likely it will change, but still. ...

On Jan 27, 2015, at 10:16 AM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote:

> I see your point.It makes sense.(Although there is a QBASIC compiler which
> creates EXE's,which I use).I have found a solution too this problem (for
> me).At least a half a month ago,I've started learning turboC++.In another
> month,I should be ready to create simple programs for the community.(As far
> as QBASIC,I'm just gonna step back on this one,as I don't wish to anger
> anyone).So,I've started learning turboC++.I may still make the occasional
> QBASIC program,but other than that,I will be making everything in C++.If
> there is a problem with this,please respond back.I thank everyone for their
> patience with this topic. :-)
> -Jayden
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Ralf Quint  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/26/2015 1:27 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU wrote:
>>> I have noticed that this is an explosive topic.Some people think it
>>> doesn't matter the source,and others disagree.From what I'm reading (I
>>> may be wrong),but it seems from what I'm reading in this discussion
>>> that a program can only be submitted to freeDOS if it is made with a
>>> specific compiler.
>> Well, I think that there are two separate issue at hand here.
>> 
>> 1) Jim (and a couple others) would like to see that each and every piece
>> of software associated with FreeDOS is written in an Open Source
>> programming language. There is not directly any definitive rule about a
>> specific compiler or language being used, but at there is some general
>> preference to use C, with the preferred compiler being used being first
>> Turbo C (back in the good old days 8-) ) and later OpenWatcom, after it
>> was released by Sybase as Open Source some 13/14 years ago.
>> 
>> 2) another issue however is how well a certain language (or a specific
>> implementation hereof) is suited for a certain task. For example, you
>> are referring yourself to QBASIC,, which is an intepreter, requiring the
>> QBASIC executable to be present to execute. That would eliminate it
>> pretty much for a lot of low-level tasks, and not only for speed and
>> memory requirement issues. It would be a pretty bad choice for a
>> replacement or alternative for the existing command.com, just as
>> command.com's batch processing "language" would be a (really) bad choice
>> for a "security" program.
>> 
>> Ralf
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
>> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
>> your
>> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
>> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>> ___
>> Freedos-devel mailing list
>> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
>> 
> --
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. 
> http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-

Re: [Freedos-devel] Instituting a vetting process for FreeDOS software

[Travis Siegel]

I think that the language the program is written in shouldn't be a concern, as 
long as there are freely available compilers for said language.  I.E. Pascal 
has free pascal, basic has free basic, asm has all kinds of assemblers, c has 
gcc, watcom, and so on.  
This would expand the scope some as to what's acceptible, but honestly, as long 
as compilers are freely available, opensource, and easily attainable, I see no 
reason to reject something just because it's not in the quote preferred 
language unquote.

If it becomes necessary, restrictions can always be placed on which compilers 
may be used, since it may be difficult or impossible to recreate binaries with 
newer/older versions of some of the available compilers, and we want to make it 
as easy for folks as possible, but rejecting something because it's not in asm 
or c just doesn't make any sense to me.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Multi user system

[Travis Siegel]

Yah, freebasic should do the job quite nicely.  Although, I've not tried using 
the dos version of it, I do like the linux version.  I'd use it on windows too, 
except that my windows programming is done with delphi or powerbasic, both of 
which are excellent products, only one of which is still being updated and 
supported though.  Nowadays, if you want delphi, you gotta purchase some 
insanely expensive substitute, which allows you to download older versions if 
needed, but powerbasic still sells for less than 200 bucks, so usually, that's 
where my windows development time goes. :)
However, I know freebasic does have a dos version, and I'm fairly sure it would 
support interrupts, so there shouldn't be any issue there.


--
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Multi user system

[Travis Siegel]

Actually, I'm fairly certain qb does allow interrupts to be called.  It 
requires use of an include (can't remember which one off hand), but all you do 
is configure the interrupt call, then call the subroutine in the include, and 
poof, generated interrupt.
I'm not a user of quickbasic, I always used things like powerbasic or turbo 
pascal or turbo C when programming in dos, since I never liked the way qbasic 
apps took over the computer entirely to the exclusion of all else, but in this 
case, considering what you're trying to do, that's probably a good thing.  I'll 
dig around here and see if I can find any programs using the interrupt calls, 
I'm sure I have some, then I can post the details.


--
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

+1
On Jan 4, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Jim Hall wrote:

> I'm traveling, and likely won't be able to check email again or update the
> roadmap on the wiki until Wednesday. With a few disagreements, it looks
> like the consensus remains this:
> 
> 
> *- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDOS 1.1. No major
> changes. Improved installer is a good idea.*
> 
> *- "FreeDOS 2.0" should be 16-bit. Make FreeDOS feel more modern, but keep
> it "DOS." We can improve the userspace. Keep supporting old PCs, but
> support new hardware where we can. UEFI may be tricky (see SeaBIOS
> discussion).*
> 
> *- If FreeDOS-32 will break DOS application compatibility, it should not
> use the "FreeDOS" name.*
> 
> 
> This seems a clear direction.
> 
> I'll admit that I'm curious what the kickstarter might achieve, but I'm not
> hopeful. So while a FreeDOS-32 kernel that ran 16-bit apps while adding new
> features would be very cool, it doesn't seem realistic. And it breaks
> hardware compatibility anyway. So let's take it off the roadmap.
> 
> If they can demonstrate feasibility of FreeDOS-32 running 16-bit programs
> while adding new features, we can consider it and discuss it at that time.
> But I don't think we want to forecast it for a release (that is, not 2.0 or
> 3.0 ... it's up to them to demonstrate feasibility, then we'll pick up the
> topic again.)
> 
> If no serious disagreements with the above, I think we can consider this
> topic done, and I'll update the roadmap on the wiki later this week.
> 
> If you agree, please reply with "+1".
> 
> If you disagree, please share your thoughts by Tuesday.
> 
> Sound fair?


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

Nobody says you gotta run a 32-bit version of dos on a system that isn't 
32-bit.  What's wrong with just leaving the version that's already running 
there, and just use the 32-bit version on 386+ machines.  Nobody said the 
current version would disappear just because a 32-bit version shows up.
Still a nonissue as far as I'm concerned.

On Jan 3, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Travis Siegel wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
>>> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS.  No
>>> problem there.  But once you break compatibility with existing
>>> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base.  And as soon as
>>> you go to 32 bits, you lose all of the early hardware.
>> 
>> I'm puzzled at this.
>> Why does going to 32-bit mean all old hardware will be broken?
> 
> Because old hardware exists, like my 5160, that runs DOS and is still 
> 16-bit?  Obviously you can't run a 32-bit OS on a 5160, but DOS will run 
> just fine.  All of that would be broken by moving to 32-bit.
> 
>> 32-bit os doesn't mean no old hardware, it simply means drivers need to 
>> do something to make the translation.
> 
> ...And how do you expect to run this OS on a 5160? Or an AT? Systems that 
> run DOS just fine now?  You knock out probably half the audience for 
> FreeDOS by eliminating pre-386.
> 
> -uso.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS.  No
> problem there.  But once you break compatibility with existing
> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base.  And as soon as
> you go to 32 bits, you lose all of the early hardware.

I'm puzzled at this.
Why does going to 32-bit mean all old hardware will be broken?
Why does it mean old 16-bit programs won't work?
Neither one of these issues are a problem if the 32-bit is handled properly.  
There's no reason it can't be done.  I mean, look at linux.  It's a 32-bit os, 
but it has been successfully compiled and run on xt class machines.
32-bit os does not mean no 16-bit apps, it simply means special handling is due 
such apps.
32-bit os doesn't mean no old hardware, it simply means drivers need to do 
something to make the translation.
That's all.
I see no conflict.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Dave Pratt wrote:

> Are there other benefits you see to the 32 bit DOS?

A 32-bit dos would break the 640K barrier permanently for one thing.
For another, multitasking would not only be possible, it would probably become 
the norm.
I know I'm not the only one who would love to have an os that's dos compatible, 
has loads of memory, and could switch tasks, and still do so in less than 5 
megabytes of space.
(ok, probably more like 20-50 megabytes of space when all is said and done, but 
still) ...


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Jim Hall wrote:

> It seems clear a consensus is appearing, but I'll give folks another few
> days to chime in. That will give me time to continue on website cleanup
> things, anyway. :-)

I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat that 
if a 32-bit dos could be built that still maintained the backward compatibility 
for those programs that needed it, it would *not* be a bad thing, in fact, it'd 
be embraced wholeheartedly.  Of course, the chances of that are slim, but if it 
could be pulled off, freedos would do something no other dos has ever managed, 
and that would sure be a boon.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote:

> I too would love to see a fully modern DOS.

As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be perfect 
for a 32-bit dos.  I believe it can be done, and the whole give each program 
it's own virtual 86 machine is one I've wondered about for quite sometime.  It 
shouldn't be difficult, and actually, I read somewhere that the initial version 
of windows did this, but of course, I can't confirm that, since the only 
version of windows 1.0 I ever had was on an xt where such a scheme wouldn't 
have worked anyhow, not to mention, I haven't a clue where that machine wound 
up at. :)
Otherwise, each program being spawned in it's own virtual 86 machine, and 
leaving things in protected mode as much as possible makes perfect sense to me, 
and it was what I'd figured would happen to dos eventually, but it never did.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

[Travis Siegel]

Actually, opendos version 7.01 (or caldera dos depending on when you purchased 
it) did have multitasking, and it worked fairly well.  The problem was, setting 
it up and getting it to run properly was a bear.  I did finally accomplish it, 
but it was a tough nut to crack, and I didn't use it long, due to other issues 
with hardware, but it went far beyond msdos 5.0 task switching, and actually 
allowed full-blown multitasking.
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0

[Travis Siegel]

Actually, if it could be rolled in, I believe the vmix32 project would be an 
excellent 32-bit dos multitasking solution.  I ran vmix when it was version 
2.67, and it not only worked, (in my case) it worked too well.  I had multiple 
programs running, and because of the method vmix used to virtualize the output, 
and the fact that I use a screen reader because of being visually impaired, 
vmix programs were multitasking, and all programs (not just the front most one) 
were speaking simultaneously.  That is the only reason I stopped using it.  If 
the screen output had been virtualized better (I.E. not being sent through the 
dos bios routines when it wasn't the foremost program) I'd probably still be 
using it today.  It was an excellent solution, and now that it's opensource 
(though nowhere near as functional as that 2.67 release was) it might be a good 
starting point for a 32-bit dos that is 100% dos compatible.
I'm not convinced the current opensource version of vmix can do the job, but if 
the older 2.67 code could be brought into the open, then there might be 
something to base a whole compatible 32-bit system on right there.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

[Travis Siegel]

On Dec 26, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote:

> I thought the same as Ralf and was surprised to see the vertical bar being
> used, and I also wasn't aware you could have more than 26 drives either.
> But Drives now checks for letters A - Z, the additional symbols and all
> numbers too. That oughta pretty well cover it lol

Heh.  Good deal.  I'll give this one a try and report back.  Got both opendos 
and windows xp machines I can test, so should be fun.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] drives.exe

[Travis Siegel]

I don't know how thorough you want to be, but msdos 5+, and some versions of 
both opendos and ptsdos, you can actually have more than 26 drives, up to 32 if 
I remember correctly.  I saw (once) which characters they used for the 
additional 6 drives, but I don't remember what they were.  Looking in the ascii 
table beyond capital letters, you have [, ], \, `, and ~.  I'm fairly certain 
the backslash character wasn't used, but I think the | (vertical bar) was, so 
perhaps that's the additional symbols, but if you want to cover those drives, 
you'll of course need to check. :)
Of course, the number of folks running dos these days that have more than 26 
drives is vanishingly small, so it's probably a nonissue, but just thought I'd 
raise the issue anyhow.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

[Travis Siegel]

On Dec 23, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote:

>> (btw, I'm a huge powerbasic fan, do you have your old code available
> somewhere? I'd love to have a look at it.
> 
> I hear you there, PowerBASIC was awesome in its day and in fact it was the
> using of this language that let me get my GUI done to the furthest level of
> completion - despite it still never getting finished lol The entire
> PowerBASIC source for version 1.42 of my GUI's kernel can be found here
> .
> 
Thanks for that, grabbed it.
As far as I know, powerbasic is the only company that still actively sells and 
supports a dos compiler.  Their version 3.5 is still available for purchase.  I 
have their windows version too, though I'm 1 version back (running pbcc 5.0, 
and pbwin 8.0), but still an excellent product.  I am glad they still support 
dos, but it sure does make it hard to opensource pb code, because nobody wants 
to pay for the compiler these days. :-(.
Anyway, getting off topic here, sorry folks, but thanks for the url, already 
downloaded it, will begin fiddling with it, to see what I can do with it.
I've never been that great at i386 assembly, but I'm decent enough to figure 
this all out with a bit of study.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] New software!

[Travis Siegel]

Are you kidding? There's been many many times I wanted a feature that would 
allow me to do a dos function in the background while I kept doing whatever it 
was I was already doing in the foreground.  A way to switch to a second shell, 
do something, and switch back would be fantastic.
(btw, I'm a huge powerbasic fan, do you have your old code available somewhere? 
I'd love to have a look at it.


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Website updates

[Travis Siegel]

I don't know how much help I can be, but count me in.  I'll assist as much as I 
can, (perhaps I could help with the free/no source portion of the work). I've 
used wikis before, though not the freedos one, so would need an account there.
Thanks.


--
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
Take corrective actions from your mobile device.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Roadmap: (Was Getting started

[Travis Siegel]

As far as dos networking goes, there's several network apis/programs  
that can be used.  ka9q is an excellent example of what dos can do,  
and it works on nearly anything. (I had it running on an xt at one  
point, and it handled multiple users just fine).
There's the krin tcp packet drivers, which seem to have drivers for  
just about any kind of card you'd like to support (since most that  
aren't supported can emulate one of those that is), and there's also  
packages (at the application level) that can turn any comm program  
into a tcp/ip capable application, such as 1fossil, or (I think)  
rlfossil.  I used to use rlfossil to log into shell accounts, bbses,  
and other telnet servers using {commo} as my comm program under dos.   
I'd simply use ka9q to make my initial tcp/ip connection, drop out of  
it, load rlfossil, load commo, then adtd and poof, I'm  
connected just as if I'd used commo to dial the phone and connect  
directly to the system in question.
So, there's all kinds of ways to handle networking under dos, though a  
single entry-point supported directly by freedos would certainly  
provide simplicity for those looking, and if some method was developed  
to allow freedos to use ftp, telnet, rlogin, ... directly from the dos  
prompt with no additional drivers, that would be even better.
hth

--
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] File creation times

[Travis Siegel]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Matej Horvat wrote:

>
> I noticed that many files on my FreeDOS partition do not have a  
> creation
> time, or rather they claim to be created in 1980. For a long time I
> thought that this is a bug, but today I looked at the kernel source  
> code
> and found out that file creation times are never actually set.
>
> The file hdr\fat.h does define "dir_crtime" and "dir_crdate" in the
> "dirent" structure, but a search didn't reveal them being used  
> anywhere.
>
> I compiled myself a new kernel with two simple changes to  
> init_direntry in
> kernel\fatfs.c:

Thanks.  I too will make this change.  I don't use my dos partition  
much these days, (using macos mostly now, and a few linux boxes) but  
when I do, it'd be nice to have this set.  Always wondered myself why  
it wasn't done, but it never bothered me enough to go fix it. :)

And, as mentioned in the thread, few (if any) utilities actually  
supported it, so ...
But, thanks for the patch anyhow.


--
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Do not use any code from ms-dos release!

[Travis Siegel]

I'm still wondering why there's nothing to take advantage of these  
multi-core processors to allow someone to run multiple oses  
simultaneously using one core for each os.  No reason you can't use  
task switching, and run dos, windows, linux, and others all on the  
same machine, simply dropping each os on it's own processor, and  
letting it loose.  No need for emulation, and no need to virtualize  
anything (except possibly the video) since keyboard input wouldn't be  
an issue unless you switched specifically to that cpu.
I'm really puzzled why such a system doesn't exist.
I haven't a clue how such a thing could/would be implemented, but it's  
obviously possible, so why hasn't it been done?
I realize there's not a huge demand for multiple oses on a single  
machine, but having linux/windows on the same pc, each booting from  
it's own hd, using it's own cpu, and not interfering with the other  
operating systems on the computer would be a huge boon for some, since  
there'd be no emulation required, no virtualization, and 100 percent  
native code execution.
I think some of the bare metal hypervisors come close to this  
implementation, but they still have emulation layers instead of  
granting direct cpu access, so they don't really fit the bill.


--
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get 
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Do not use any code from ms-dos release!

[Travis Siegel]

Bah.  I couldn't download the stupid thing anyhow, because apparently,  
ya gotta login just to read the blog post.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I  
do not now, nor do I wish to have an ms account.  I'll pass, thanks.   
(same for google) If I can't hit the page, click download, and have  
the file show up on my drive, I'm not the least bit interested in  
downloading it.
And, anyway, dos 2.0 did things way differently than 3.3+ , especially  
for file access, (fcbs anyone) so any use anyone would get out of 2.0  
source would be less than minimal anyhow.  It's probably closer to cpm  
than real dos anyhow.  Not that there's anfything wrong with cpm,  
loads of products based on cpm, and I have source of that too, though  
I've never used them.  I just like having things, even if I never use  
them, I guess I'm labeled as a collector, but having never contributed  
to freedos, I have nothing to fear from looking at such code.  I'm  
really not an os kind of person.  They fascinate me, and I love seeing  
how they do things, but I just don't have the know how to actually  
code for one, my assembly skills just aren't up to the task.   
Utilities are different, anyone can write those, and I have written  
some (none I've givven to freedos though) though I still have hopes of  
getting freedos to include a screen reader, but work is slow on  
porting from a86 to something freedos users can use free of charge, so  
it will likely be a while before I have anything ready for distribution.
   But I do like to see how things are done, and that's why I'm on  
this list, all kinds of internals are very interesting to me, even  
though I don't (usually) understand everything about them.


--
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released

[Travis Siegel]

If you want flat memory model, and unlimited disk space, it sounds  
like os/2 is what you want.  It's a real shame IBM stopped supporting/ 
selling it.  Wonder if we could get IBM to opensource it.  Likely  
not, but it's a nice idea.
As for windows, if you want to have flat memory models, and as much  
disk space as you can use in a programming language, check out  
powerbasic at http://www.powerbasic.com.  It's something I've used  
for years, and believe it or not, they still sell and support their  
dos version of powerbasic.  Of course, the dos one doesn't have all  
the nice memory/disk features the windows version of the compiler  
has, but there's nothing better for getting down and dirty with the  
innards of the os, and writing a console windows app that has no  
memory restrictions.  It's an excellent compiler, and no serious  
basic programmer should be without it.
Unfortunately, for some reason, when I tried to get it added to a  
list of basic compilers I found somewhere, the maintainer of the list  
told me they wouldn't add it, because they didn't think it was it's  
own compiler.  I'm still puzzling over that one, but to each his own  
I guess.
Anyway, the console compiler produces text-mode programs, that will  
use all available memory, run on any version of windows from win95  
through win8, and even their dos version of the compiler has some  
nice features, like tsr support.  It's a nice compiler, and for 49  
bucks for the classic version (I think that special is still going  
on) you really can't go wrong there.


--
Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET
Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost.
Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Developing GUI for none programmers

[Travis Siegel]

Really? Since when does my browser version matter just to click a  
flipping download link.  Google won't give m the file, because it  
says my version of safari is unsupported.  This is getting  
rediculous.  For godsake, an html link is a frekin' link, hth cares  
what program cliks on the link.  Anyway, you may want to put a plain  
html download link somewhere, since google seems to be an elitist  
when it comes to who can actually download files from their sharing  
services. *grumble*

On Feb 11, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Евгений Нежданов wrote:

>> Great. Put it on a web page.
> Kuda? ;)
> I put archive with LEVOS (my written GUI; but not complete and bugged)
> into the Google Drive:
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-UOUlCd4JxJU1hTdHdia2N0ckk/edit? 
> usp=sharing
> (PASGUI.ZIP; 56 KB).
>
> -- 
> 
> Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
> Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013
> and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb
> ___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel


--
Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 
and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Source Code Released: 386SWAT, QLINK, and DPMIONE

[Travis Siegel]

On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Bob Smith wrote:

> At long last, I am releasing the source code for three of my old DOS
> projects:
>
> 4.  Finally, if you are interested and I can find the time to wade
> through it all, I'll release the source code for Qualitas MAX (a.k.a.
> 386MAX).
I don't remember seeing anything else about this one.  I'd be very  
interested in seeing this one.
Any idea if/when it'll be available?
Just asking, there's really no rush, I can't do anything with it at  
the moment, probably be a few months at least before I'm prepared to  
work on this sort of stuff again.
Would be nice to have though.
Thanks.



--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] DOS Development Idea

[Travis Siegel]

On May 3, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:

> If you want to really modernize DOS you are going to have to fix or
> break a lot of things that exist today.  You can implement a simple OS
> that uses the INT 0x21 programming interface, but if it doesn't run
> existing software (because you have a 32 bit kernel that doesn't  
> handle
> segment wrapping correctly), doesn't load existing TSRs, has a  
> different
> memory map, and doesn't allow direct access to hardware, is it really
> DOS anymore?
No it isn't, but *some* dos programs will still run, and folks *may*  
be willing to write others (if it's dos-like, but with modern  
features), I for one would be very interested in such a system,  
something fast, clean, simple, able to access loads of memory, and  
still (mostly) use dos development tools, would be a great thing for  
a lot of embeded developers if nothing else.
Yeah, it might break 75% of dos programs, but that's still 25% that  
will still work, and that's 25% of software you don't need to  
rebuild.  Not a bad headstart (imo)
As pointed out before, oses are wide and varied, I think it's about  
time somebody did something with dos, even if it does break it  
somewhat for older programs,, this happens on os releases all the  
time, and nobody complains (at least not that the commercial  
companies listen anyway) so a new updated dos with all new features  
such as memory, usb support, int21 compatibility, and support for  
things like sd cards, flash drives, multicore processors,  
multitasking and so on, would be a fine addition to the existing set  
of operating systems out there.
I agree with Jim here, go for it, and see what comes of it.  If it  
turns into nothing, then no harm done, but if it turns out to be a  
better dos, even at the expense of breaking backward compatibility,  
to some degree, then it may still fill a much needed nich.

--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeCom with OpenWatcom

[Travis Siegel]

I've not checked lately, but I thought command.com was a (renamed)  
exe file, and that it was compressed with lzexe or something similar  
(the freeware clone of exepack if I remember correctly) so that's  
likely why yours is larger than the distributed version.


--
For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Insight requested on drive letter assignation in DOS

[Travis Siegel]

I'm not a dos boot expert, but my understanding was that dos assigns  
drive letters, so if you're the boot manager, you should be able to  
install drives any letter you like, regardless of where they fall in  
the actual boot chain.  I've seen programs from time to time that did  
fiddle with boot sequence (such as boot around) but it required a  
valid floppy in drive a that it could patch to force boot from  
another drive.
However, if you're the controlling process at boot time, I see no  
reason why you couldn't assign any device of your choice to drive C:  
whether it's the first hd or the third usb stick, but again, I'm no  
expert in dos boot code, so I could be completely wrong here, but  
since dos must get it's boot sequence from somewhere, and device  
assignment happens in the kernel (not in bios) you shouldn't have  
trouble assigning any letter you like.
I know bios assigns the boot sequence, but afaik, it does not dictate  
drive letter assignments after that point.


--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] About ESpeak and Provox

[Travis Siegel]

I've not looked at espeak for dos, but I do seem to recall there was  
another dos screen reader called tiny talk.  I don't recall if it  
came with source, but if the author of that program could be found,  
and if source is available, perhaps it could be added to the distro.   
It could use the pc speaker as well as sound cards (if I remember  
correctly) It's been a really long time since I've fiddled with tiny  
talk, (many many years) but since I've gotten permission to develop  
provox, I could try to implement something for wav files.  I don't  
think it would be very usable, though it certainly would/could work  
in a pinch if nothing else was available.  I don't (currently) have a  
pure dos machine to work on, though given another month or two, this  
may be fixed, (moving bites) and I can certainly look into this at  
that point.  Paired with porting provox away from a86 (something I'm  
lothe to do for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that a86  
is such an excellent product) I don't know how much work I can do on  
this, but I'll try to remember to look at it when I have something to  
work with later.
Of course, if anyone else wants to work on it, feel free, I'm by no  
means monopolizing provox, anyone who wants to can work with it.   
(hmm, that reminds me, I probably should get it posted on sourceforge  
just for completness).
Anyway, generation of wav files for speech is a slow process, I doubt  
it would work as well as synthetic speech, but it's worth checking  
into anyhow, perhaps with today's faster processors, it may not be as  
slow and unresponsive as it used to be.


--
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] final preview for FreeDOS 1.1 release

[Travis Siegel]

I'm assuming this is only a preview (as mentioned) and not a release  
candidate?
There's lots of things missing from this one (just browsing the iso  
image, not actually installing it you understand)
I'm puzzled why the actual fd iso is inside another iso that would be  
basically unusable if booted on a pc (unless I'm missing things on  
the image, like I said, I just browsed the disk in osx finder, didn't  
actually try installing it or anything)
Also, a point for the networking section.  Has anyone thought about  
including ka9q in this section? It's not wattcp to be sure, but it  
sure has a lot of  power, comes in gpl versions (or at least some  
versions do) and it can turn a dos machine into a full blown tcp/ip  
server.  I used it (briefly) back in 1996 when I first got my  
softcon.com domain up and going until I had my linux boxes ready to  
take the load.

Also, I'm not seeing any development tools, was this deliberate?

Good to see fd moving along.
hth.

--
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Freedos and lack of drivers

[Travis Siegel]

Mike, I like your suggestions.  One thing that always bothered me  
about dos versions that have come out since ms dropped the ball is  
their complete lack of inovation.  I realize there's only so much  
that can be done if you're intending to keep 100 percent  
compatibility, but still, it's not hard to imagine such details as  
enumerated here.
One thing I wonder is why nobody builds a dos multitasker that simply  
spawns a new virtual 386 machine for each new dos task.  That would  
keep 100 percent compatibility, and still allow complete and free  
multitasking.  The virtual 386 machines would take care of  
virtualizing keyboards and video output automatically, since it's all  
built into the 386 hardware.  I'm fairly certain, none of that  
ability has been removed with the newer cores and such.
I see no reason why this sort of thing couldn't work.  I'm not  
positive, but I think this is the approach vmix386 took, and why it  
worked so well (at least with my testing) it would be fantastic to  
have such an os.

Another thing I wonder, is why it is that nobody has built anything  
that allows executing of multiple oses on a single computer, using  
one cpu core for each os, thereby allowing each os to run natively on  
it's own cpu, thus eliminating the need to vertualize anything  
(except perhaps output and input), but then each and every os would  
have it's own cpu, and all of them would run at full native speeds.   
Then you could have as many oses running as you have cpu cores to  
handle them.
(still waiting) I guess someone will do it eventually, but until they  
do, I'll stick with my osx machine, and my several dos boxes  
scattered everywhere. :)

--
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
Learn about the latest advances in developing for the 
BlackBerry® mobile platform with sessions, labs & more.
See new tools and technologies. Register for BlackBerry® DevCon today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-devcon-copy1 
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Freedos and lack of drivers

[Travis Siegel]

On Sep 11, 2011, at 5:36 PM, jhall wrote:

>
>>
>>> There are multitasking DOSes (DR-DOS, RDOS, TSX-32 ??, etc.)
>>
>> inherently useless
>
>
> Not useless, really. For example, MS-DOS 5 introduced their DOS  
> Shell that supported task switching, a rudimentary form of  
> multitasking.
>
> I used to use this feature all the time as a student: for example,  
> to run a word processor and spreadsheet program as separate tasks.  
> I think I usually had a command.com shell in there too. That let me  
> write up my data analysis for labs much faster, because I could  
> quickly jump back to the spreadsheet or my own analysis program to  
> look at results, then describe it using the word processor.
>
> I'd love to see this as a feature added to FreeDOS one day.
There's always vmix, it's pretty good, and actually does true  
multitasking.  Last I saw, it was trying to become an os in it's own  
right, where it could be used as a dos replacement.  I don't think  
this got very far, but if I recall correctly, it is on sourceforge,  
or something similar.
That program worked so well, my screen reader would read all the  
active windows simultaneously, which really reaked havoc with  
understanding what was going on, but it did work, and worked very  
well. :)
Perhaps freedos could talk to the vmix folks, and ask them to release  
code to the 2.67 version, so we could include it into freedos as it's  
own shell, or something similar (or was the latest 2.87, I forget)
It may be worth a try though.



--
Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop 
What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses
from deploying virtual desktops?   How do next-generation virtual desktops
provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable
virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] eSpeak (was: Re: provox dos screen reader)

[Travis Siegel]

Heh, I didn't even know there was a version of espeak for dos.
However, turning text to wav files is inherently slow, and wouldn't  
even begin to operate in a screen reader environment where text on  
screen really really needs to be heard instantly (or close enough) I  
doubt anyone would use a computer if they had to wait for the screen  
to be translated into a mode they could use before it could be read  
directly.  :)
I'm not discouraged, :) there's no way this could work as a general  
screen reading package, it's just too slow.  Though, I admit, I've not  
tried it so can't say from experience how well (or not) it works, but  
since provox speaks text directly, and uses hardware the blind person  
probably already has, it's not subject to the delay while text is  
converted on the fly.  However, if someone doesn't have a hardware  
synth, espeak's method is certainly better than nothing, and just  
might permit someone to use the computer who otherwise couldn't do so,  
so I'll definitely be taking a look at this one.
Espeak is popular on linux, so there must be something it's doing  
right. :)


--
uberSVN's rich system and user administration capabilities and model 
configuration take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and 
the tools developers use with it. Learn more about uberSVN and get a free 
download at:  http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] New FreeDOS 1.1 test ISO (#3) released

[Travis Siegel]

As regards the time out issue, before continuing, I understand the  
argument against selecting anything, and just letting the end-user  
choose one after they've gotten around to it.  However, I would  
strongly discourage this behavior, since many folks expect the  
machine to choose a default, and boot if they do nothing.  In  
addition, folks who are trying to use the environment w/o sight kind  
of need it to continue, so their speech drivers will load.  If they  
add stuff to autoexec.bat to load their speech drivers, and don't  
look at config.sys after they have sighted assistance the first time,  
then they will have no idea why it's not working.
This could lead to all kinds of confusion, as well as a great deal of  
frustration on behalf of the user who doesn't realize the computer is  
waiting for them to do something to make it continue.
Defaulting to continue after x seconds makes more sense in light of  
such considerations.

--
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts. 
Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader

[Travis Siegel]

On Jul 17, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> However, DTC.LIB doesn't seem to have sources, but I'm not sure what
> exactly that does or if it's needed or what the deal is, so we'll have
> to wait for Travis to explain that. (Perhaps that is the optional
> hardware synthesizer part??)
Hmm, good point.
The dtc.lib is the library required to talk to dectalk synthesizers.   
Source is not available, but I've seen it included in other products  
as well, so apparently it's not against the license to distribute it  
in and of itself, as long as it's part of another package.  I did  
manage to talk to the dectalk folks some years ago, and although the  
topic of the libs came up, I didn't specifically ask if it was ok to  
distribute it as part of another package, though it would almost have  
to be, unless their license specifically states it should be compiled  
into the executable and not distributed separately.  That would kind  
of defeat the purpose of the lib in that case I'd think, but if  
anyone else knows better, I'm of course willing to take reports to  
the contrary.

I'm fairly certain (though not positive) that obtaining the initial  
copy of the dectalk libs did require a fee of some tipe, as far as I  
know, there's no restriction against distributing the lib itself  
(since it's necessary for program usage) and since none of the other  
files are included, it should be ok, but again, the keyword is should.
I know dec had sold dectalk somewhere along the line, though who owns  
rights to it now is a huge question, (and was at the time I had been  
talking to the original dectalk folks) but since I personally haven't  
heard a peep out of anyone relating to the lib, and as far as I know,  
nobody else has either, it may be a moot point, but that's only gpl/ 
freeware talking, not commercial distribution plans as is needed with  
some of the other windows/dos screen readers, so there may or may not  
be something lurking there, but I tend to doubt it.
However, it's easy enough to remove the lib if it becomes absolutely  
necessary, which would disable support for dectalk synths, though I'm  
relatively sure (though not positive) that other external synths will  
still operate. I can do some testing after I get all my hardware in a  
single location.
Again, I stress that this archive as currently posted is as I  
received it, and not with the modified docs/license file I worked on  
afterwords.  I'm of course willing to make whatever changes are  
necessary to get this into freedos archives, since  it really is the  
best place for it, so that folks who need it will have a much easier  
time finding it.

As for a86, it may be possible that the author will be silling to  
relase shareware terms on a copy that could be included in freedos as  
well, even if it is w/o source, just for such cases as this.  I only  
talked with him once, but he sure seemed like the reasonable sort at  
the time.



--
AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric 
Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup 
Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, 
optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader

[Travis Siegel]

On Jul 16, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Rugxulo wrote:

>> Included with this zip file is the a86 assembler used to compile the
>> code, which obviously would need to be removed for the freedos
>> distribution copy, since it's a completely separate application.
>
> Just for the record, A86 is shareware, so in theory it's fine
> including it (though obviously NASM would be better). Of course, I
> find it funny that you use an ancient copy (3.22 from 1990!) when even
> latest 4.05 has been stable for 10 years!!   ;-)I assume there's
> no hard dependency on that particular version. Oh well, it doesn't
> matter right now, I just find it funny.   ;-)
I own the registered copy of a86, and I know 4.05 is the latest.  I  
didn't write the provox program, merely took it over from it's  
original author.  Apparently, 3.22 is the version used for development.
Another reason why I figured it would be better to separate the  
assembler from the screen reader.

As for porting it to nasm, that's not something I've looked at yet, I  
expect it won't be a straightforward port, but perhaps it will  
surprise me and work out quickly and easily. :)
I'll not be able to check into that for quite some time though, since  
I'm in the middle of a move, and my hardware is scattered between two  
different states.



--
AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric 
Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup 
Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, 
optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

[Freedos-devel] provox dos screen reader

[Travis Siegel]

The provox screen reader for dos which I would like to have added to  
the freedos ftp site is currently located at:
http://www.thesiegelsnest.us/provox/provox7.zip
I don't (currently) have access to my other computer where I modified  
the documentation, and created a .lsm file.  I will have this in a  
couple weeks.  The program was put under the gpl, and I had contacted  
the original author some time ago asking permission to try to get it  
included in the freedos distribution, as well as take over development.
Both requests were granted, and now that I have a sourceforge  
developer account, I'll likely upload the program there for initial  
distribution, after I get back to the machine with the modifications  
on it.
The program currently only works with hardware synthesizers (since  
there weren't any software synths for dos.  However, since finding  
one of these devices is relatively easy, since most folks who have  
them no longer use them with a few exceptions such as myself and a  
couple others I'm aware of, this shouldn't be a show stopper.
If a software synth could be developed, provox could easily be  
extended to support such a synth, though I doubt such a program would  
be useful, because of the amount of memory it would require, and  
under dos, that's generally not practical.
So, If there are any other folks on list who use screen readers under  
dos, feel free to grab this one and give it a try.
Adding additional synths is (relatively) simple, so if anyone has one  
that isn't supported other than artic synths, I'm already working on  
those, I'd be happy to try to add them.
Of course, artic synths can already be made to work by using either  
the porttalk or accent sa options, but both modes lack some useful  
features supported directly by the artic synthesizers themselves.

Included with this zip file is the a86 assembler used to compile the  
code, which obviously would need to be removed for the freedos  
distribution copy, since it's a completely separate application.
Otherwise, it's ready to go, and can be added at any time after I get  
my version with updated docs and lsm file off the other machine.
hth.


--
AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric 
Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup 
Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, 
optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

[Freedos-devel] getting programs into the freedos site/archive (was confused by NLS-settings)

[Travis Siegel]

On Jul 10, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> You know what can edit arbitrary-sized files? sed !!! (My favorite!)
> Maybe that should be included in FreeDOS 1.1 by default!   ;-))


Hmm, speaking of including things in freedos.
How does one get a program added to the freedos distribution/archive?
I have a screen reader I'd like included for those of us who need  
such a thing.
Some time ago I did fill out the lsm info, but had no idea where to  
send the completed file.
Any suggestions?


--
AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric 
Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup 
Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, 
optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] bug in edit

[Travis Siegel]

On Jun 1, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:


0.7d is what I am using.  it seems to work much better when
- the files are fully extracted
- the files are not readonly (I was copying off of cd), especially  
the .cfg file I should think.


so it's my problem.

when copying files off of a cd, the readonly attribute is  
automatically set on the file.  If I were unzipping, this would not  
be a problem I should think.

so I have an issue with my OEM cd.
this has nothing to do with the freedos cd (unless you guys are  
doing the same thing).


This is perfectly normal.  The read-only bit gets set by the os  
everytime you copy something from a read-only media (how could it be  
any different) It's not the os's fault, it's the media.  It's read- 
only, so the files copied from it are the same way.  If you copy the  
zip file, then extract the zip, you won't have this problem, but if  
you copy the files directly from the cd, then this is the expected  
behavior.


p://p.sf.net/sfu/quest- 
sfdev2dev___

Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel


--
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] C/C++ BIOS backup

[Travis Siegel]

There is a program that I used to use to backup my award bios, it was  
written in assembly, and I don't remember if it came with source or  
not, but it was called something like cmossave or something like  
that.  Perhaps you can locate it and take a look to see how it was done.
There was a nice explanatory document in the archive that explained  
how the process was done.  No code (that I remember), but you should  
have little trouble reproducing the process from the documentation  
provided.
If you can't find it, drop a line, and I'll try to dig up more details  
out of this old memory of mine. :)


--
Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest
Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in  U.S. and Canada
$10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing
Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Standardized development tools

[Travis Siegel]

Regardless of what is finally settled on for use, it really needs to  
be something that works from the freedos environment itself.  It would  
be kind of silly to tell folks that they need a windows machine just  
to recompile some code they're currently already using.
If that's open watcom, great, if that's djgcpp, great, if that's pcc,  
great. it's really not an issue of what is chosen, only that what is  
chosen can work within ghe freedos environment itself, and recompile  
itself from a standing start.
Including kernels, and all supporting files.


--
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] is anybody even using my apps?

[Travis Siegel]

I don't actually see any software on that page.  I suppose there's a  
link somewhere, and I'm just missing it, but I didn't see anything  
that looked like it linked to programs that would be dos executables  
with source.
Direct url?
I too have a piece of software I'd like to get into the freedos  
distribution, and am not sure how to do so.  I've filled out the form  
required, but have no idea where to send it.
I have a screen reader, one I got permission to take over development  
on from the original developer, and would really like to get it into  
the freedos distro, so if anyone knows where I should send/upload this  
thing, please let me know.


--
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] IDE CDrom/Dvd

[Travis Siegel]

I don't know about others, but I for one would find a udf driver  
*extremely* helpful.  Sometimes, when you have a cd/dvdR disk, it's  
tough to tell if it has anything on it, and being able to boot from  
such a disk would be worlds better than cramming a full system backup  
with only limited files to get you started on a cd, when you could  
store the entire boot opartition on a single disk if udf capabilities  
were available.
My vote is to do it. :)
Of course, that's easy for me to say, I won't be the one writing the  
thing (I don't know enough about either assembly or udf formats to  
help with this one)
hSure wish I did though.


--
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status

[Travis Siegel]

I have contacted the author of provox, and he has given his permission  
to include provox in freedos.
I've also run it under freedos, and it works perfectly.
It's likely the code could use some tweaking to make it work better,  
but it does ork as is.
Currently, folks will need an external synthesizer (well, some  
internal ones work too) because soundblaster-type cards aren't  
supported directly.  Whether this is something that can be corrected  
or not I suppose is a matter of time/research/programming.
As distributed, provox7.zip contains a copy of the a86 assembler,  
likely this will need to be removed for the fd distribution, since a86  
is shareware, and not gpl.
I'll fill out the required forms, produce a compatible zip file, and  
send wher ever it needs to go to be included on the main site.
It's already under the gpl so no trouble there.
Thanks for your reply.



On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I guess in a CD there is enough room. The only need is that the basic
> rules are observed: basically that the license must be GNU-GPL 2 or
> "weaker", and just to observe some basic rules about how the packing
> should be.
> Have a look at the several documentation how-tos at fd-doc to get an  
> idea.
> Also you should fill-in a LSM record for the program, so that it can  
> be tracked.
>
> FD-DOC: http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php
> LSM:  http://www.freedos.org/freedos/software/
>
> Greetings and good luck!
> Aitor


-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] help for the freedos bugzilla

[Travis Siegel]

Not *exactly* sure what this is, but if you want to feed me some info,  
(just so I can understand what's being moved) not that understanding  
what it is is necessary, but I like to be informed. :) I can certainly  
assist with the move.  I've hosted sites for roughly 12 years, and  
probably managed to run into every snag there is between now and  
then. :)
If you can provide details (offlist of course) I can probably help get  
things moved.
Hope this helps.


On Aug 27, 2008, at 3:03 AM, Markus H. Maussner wrote:

> hi
>
> sorry for somehow offtopic and posting to the 2 ml's but i know of  
> ppl who
> are just in one of them...
>
> the freedos bugzilla runs on one of my systems.
> but its too slow and sometimes theres errors. this is because its  
> running
> on a rather small box. long storry why etc.
> is there somebody who wants to take over the task moving the stuff  
> from
> one site to the other.
> the current one is a debian box the target system is a solaris10  
> container
> (shouldnt make much problems since it runs on perl and thats  
> avalible on
> both systems)
>
> it got moved twice and everytime there where some problems, (missing  
> perl
> stuff, css not right etc etc). the person who helped bevore is right  
> now
> covered with work and told me he cant help in the near future.
>
> regards
>
> tassilo
>
>
> -
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's  
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win  
> great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in  
> the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> ___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
>
>


-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel