On Sunday 29 March 2009 04:23, usul wrote:
> I am not ready to write driver code, yet.
>
> My main an interest is in designing writing a gui/desktop,
> and in writing libraries that can be shared and used by command line
> application as well as gui.
Well, before re-inventing the wheel, take a loo
Hi Usul,
>> I agree, the FreeDOS installer is currently a bit annoying, you must
>> click and wait a dozens of time. Would be better first to choose all
>> packets or to click just go ahead and install everything...
I would prefer "everything which can install in a fast and safe way"
as one of t
Hi Michael,
I thought nothing usable besides the io.sys,
sort.exe and sys.com sources from DOS 3.3 had turned up...
>>> No, even MS-DOS 6.0.
>>> Also source for xcopy and so on.
>> I said *usable*, as in compilable.
>
> I haven't tested to compile as I am to lazy to setup a build
> en
Eric Auer schrieb:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I thought nothing usable besides the io.sys,
> sort.exe and sys.com sources from DOS 3.3 had turned up...
>
No, even MS-DOS 6.0.
Also source for xcopy and so on.
>>> I said *usable*, as in compilable.
>> I haven't tested to compile as I am to
By the way I also think Arachne is one of the DOS flagship projects.
Unfortunately there are some very basic things which makes this software
less useful and afaik there is currently no one continuing the
development of this project.
1) no SSL support
- latest DOSLynx implemented it
2) Linux por
Hi Michael,
>> Why on earth would you want to compile 17 year old stolen
>> source code if you can just steal the pre-compiled Windows
>> of your flatmate today? ;-) Or for example download MS DOS
>> from a warez page etc etc. Not my taste, of course... ;-).
> Well, compiling makes indeed no poi
Hi Michael,
> By the way I also think Arachne is one of the DOS flagship projects.
I agree.
> 1) no SSL support
> - latest DOSLynx implemented it
I believe there are also eLinks based projects with SSL for DOS?
> 2) Linux port
> - From Arachne v1.93 there is also a Linux port.
> - Unfortunate
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>> 1) no SSL support
>> - latest DOSLynx implemented it
>
> I believe there are also eLinks based projects with SSL for DOS?
Dunno if the elinks port does SSL, I haven't tried that aspect.
>> 4) compiler
>> - still dependent to Borland
Hi Usul,
> My main an interest is in designing writing a gui/desktop,
You could make OpenGEM or apps written for it better then.
There are other GUIs which look more fancy but they often
do not have enough software written for them, which makes
improving GEM the better choice at the moment...
>
Eric Auer schrieb:
> Hi Michael,
>
>>> Why on earth would you want to compile 17 year old stolen
>>> source code if you can just steal the pre-compiled Windows
>>> of your flatmate today? ;-) Or for example download MS DOS
>>> from a warez page etc etc. Not my taste, of course... ;-).
>
>> Well,
Eric Auer schrieb:
>> - As I think xswap will not work in native Linux
>
> You will not need any of that if you simply compile Arachne
> with a 32bit compiler in the first place.
Why it can't be also simple compiled on DOS with 32 bit compiler?
>> 6) graphics backend
>> - Dr WebSpyder and Lineo
Hi Usul,
to collect packages for freedos 1.1, you would work with
Mateusz of FDUPDATE and Rugxulo of rugxulo.googlepages.com
because they know which packages we already have and which
apps have updates for which we still need a package. The
work is mostly fetching the updated programs from the we
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
> It's still questionable if it's illegal.
...only in one way: one could take the code, describe it in gory detail,
then have someone else write new code from the description without having
seen the code, that would be (I think) legal, and it's
Hi Michael,
> "FreeDOS developer stolen ms-dos source code and now in prison"?
That not, but for example "China DOS" seems to be a
rip of Win98 DOS so they often have to change their
homepage and I never saw them in a commercial product.
While FreeDOS is used for things like mainboard CDs,
indu
Hi,
>>> - As I think xswap will not work in native Linux
>> You will not need any of that if you simply compile Arachne
>> with a 32bit compiler in the first place.
>
> Why it can't be also simple compiled on DOS with 32 bit compiler?
That is what I meant - port Arachne to GNU C / DJGPP and
the
Hi Usul / Adam,
> I am very interested in helping. If you have any tasks that
> you need done, even if it is unglamorous. I'll take it. :)
We have a page about this:
>> www.freedos.org/jhall/2009/01/29/you-can-help.html
- package updated packages for FDUPDATE and FDPKG and installer
Work in
Eric Auer schrieb:
>> It's still questionable if it's illegal.
>> How can we finally prove that it's illegal or not?
>
> By reading any law book you can probably find out
> that company secrets are not open for free use ;-)
> Even if it was somebody else who leaked them first.
On law book there a
You're starting to sound more and more like a troll with each post you
write:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
> Also again, why do you believe FreeDOS is free of MS-DOS's intellectual
> property? That's impossible as you implemented a "pretty" compatible
> operating system.
Reme
Hi Michael,
> Again, theft = original is lost and in hands of thief only.
Yeah I agree that stealing copies is something different
from stealing the original but if stealing copies was
legal then nobody could sell anything that can be copied
which would be a very strange situation if you ask me.
Hi all,
wouldn't be better porting dillo for freedos?
imho, the main bottleneck is the gui part that should be re written
http://www.dillo.org/
See Ya,
Geraldo
Sapere Aude
Non ducor, duco
São Paulo, Brasil, -3gmt
site: http://exdev.sf.net/
msn: geraldo_boca_at_hotmail.com
skype: geraldo-netto
Michael wrote:
Arachne has GPL license so you can force WebSpyder/Lineo to
make their Arachne modifications public.
No, them have purchased a proprietary license from the copyright holders
(original developers). GPL doesn't surrender rights. It's dual licensing
like with Qt.
Hi guys,
EA:
> > Thanks for the warning :-)). Luckily most of the FreeDOS
> > kernel is written in C... One of the things that make it
> > complicated is that it sometimes has to follow long chains
> > of things calling each other because it is documented that
> > MS DOS does it the same way, so f
> - I am not sure whenever Udo Kuhnt's version uses 16 or 32 bit DPMI but
> it I think it's 16.
The difference isn't that big, anyway. Default code operation size
changes, but this doesn't require changes to the actual code (even in .ASM
source files) if the assembler or compiler supports both
Hi, at the risk of making this thread long...
> If your priority is not to break the law, buy MS-DOS (and/or Win4.x)
> install disks plus license and use (or DEBUG) these legally ;-)
You know that open source has advantages, for example FreeDOS
runs on more modern hardware and is actively supp
> You know that open source has advantages,
That's the reason I use it.
> for example FreeDOS
> runs on more modern hardware
Well, decent MS-DOS kernels plus command interpreters also have LBA, FAT32
and DOSLFN support. (But you're right regarding utilities, the FreeDOS
ones are often better
I was building a FreeDOS system, and since I didn't need/want EMM386
and the FreeDOS 1.0 version of HIMEM is a bit old, I decided to use
HIMEMX from Japeth's site (http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html). I like to
keep things organized, so when I couldn't find a FreeDOS package for
HIMEMx, I built one my
Hi Christian,
> Well, decent MS-DOS kernels plus command interpreters
> also have LBA, FAT32 and DOSLFN support.
That is Windows 98 DOS... Better kernel but fewer apps...
And if you buy it, you get a Windows that you do not
need if you only wanted DOS as unwanted extra... ;-).
> Is it? I'm stil
> Blair has been working on alternative C libraries, for
> example for almost-drop-in-LFN (long file name) support
> or for making compiled apps smaller by compiling with a
> smaller C library. I have the impression that this could
> use some careful proofreading to improve stability...
Yeah I spe
>> - 32 bit DPMI would be better.
>
> Not necessarily. Some applications even run dual-mode (RM or 16-bit PM) so
> even 16-bit has it's advantages. The 64 KiB code segment limit is the only
> real disadvantage. (Or are code segments with 16-bit default operation
> size not actually limited to 64 Ki
> What could you do? You would need to stop using FreeDOS as it *probable*
> contains illegal stuff. On the other hand you have *no way* to confirm
> whenever it's the truth or not.
Was MS-DOS even written in C? if not, at least the parts written in C
(most) could never have been copied and paste
30 matches
Mail list logo
