Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base operating system. All these extra drivers for this, a compiler for that can just be on the CD and can be installed later. Jerome, if you could find a copy

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, Exactly. If you want networking, install it afterwards. The same for sound, the myriad of development choices and memory managers. Despite wanting to emulate DOS, it seems FreeDOS more closely emulates a Linux distribution from the verbose initial boot to the "package" selection. On Tue, Jan

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: >> Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and >> IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base >> operating system. > I second that. But it would seem we are isolated in this opinion, since > I see

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Rugxulo wrote: > The EXE2BIN in "BASE" is literally from OpenWatcom 1.5. And I have no > idea what you would do with it (or a linker) without some kind of > compiler. So I think that's a bad idea, even if MS used to do it. I've > said this before, but apparently nobody agrees

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS install and ALL to be a most likely wanted install. When I say minimum viable I mean: kernel, freecom, xcopy, deltree, move and a few other more or less absolutes. However, by my understanding of what Jim wants. BASE is

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS > install and ALL to be a most likely > wanted install. > > When I say minimum viable I mean: kernel, freecom, xcopy, deltree, move > and a few

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi Tom, Maarten, Jerome and Rugxulo, > > >> I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. > > > fine. we should look for a new boss with more time to care. > > Not THAT, permanently, busy - Jim is busy

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > > On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: > >> Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and > >> IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base > >> operating system.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC > was small but > > somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. > > > > > Sorry, but

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

pronkelijk bericht- Van: "Jim Hall" <jh...@freedos.org> Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 20:49 Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2 On Sat, Jan

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> -- > Van: Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> > Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 20:49 > Aan: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2 > &g

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

+1 On 1/26/2016 2:54 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: Hi, I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming and DEVELOPING. As it's devloper stuff I would leave it in "devel". It makes no sense to put a devloping part from developing to the basic system part. Leave it with his

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

ourceforge.net> Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2 Since DOS 1.0, (IBM/ROM-)BASIC[0] & DEBUG[1] were the default programming facilities. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_BASIC [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug_(command) On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Ma

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

-‎2016 21:03 Aan: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. <mailto:freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2 +1 On 1/26/2016 2:54 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: Hi, I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming an

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Oh yes! Of course... :/ -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: "Mercury Thirteen" <mercury0x0...@gmail.com> Verzonden: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 21:31 Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Onderwerp: Re: [Fr

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> > On 1/26/2016 2:54 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: > > Hi, > > I should leave BWBASIC right where it is. As it's for programming and > DEVELOPING. As it's devloper stuff I would leave it in "devel". It makes no > sense to put a devloping part from developing to the basic system part. > Leave it

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

At present, BASE is fairly close to the 1.1 BASE. Of course, it no longer includes XMGR and UIDE. this is the current ALL packages that are installed. Pull rdisk? Anything else? https://github.com/shidel/FDI/blob/master/SETTINGS/PKG_BASE.LST Please note, that FDI’s floppy boot image needs a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, For Maarten and Mercury, look into DOS versions prior to 5.0, they included DEBUG and (GW-)BASIC. That would complete the DOS experience... well that and some sample BASIC programs like GORILLA.BAS and having LINK.EXE along with EXE2BIN. -T On Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 4:06 PM Jerome E. Shidel Jr.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Jim Hall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > wrote: > >> Personally, I would like BASE to be more or less a minimum viable OS >> install and ALL to be a most likely >> wanted install. >> >> When I say minimum viable I mean:

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Louis Santillan wrote: > Since DOS 1.0, (IBM/ROM-)BASIC[0] & DEBUG[1] were the default programming > facilities. > > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_BASIC > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug_(command) I personally consider BASIC optional. Also, DEBUG was

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 12:04 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: What's the meaning of "+1"?! That is short for "I am one more person with the exact same opinion/point of view"... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Jerome, Jim et al, In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had the feature and we have something to provide the same feature, then we should make it part of a BASE install. This includes DEBUG, EDIT,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hello all, > On Jan 26, 2016, at 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, Jim et al, > > In view of available disk space on normal computers, I would like to > interpret Jim's view in a broad sense: If ANY version of MS DOS had > the feature and we have something to

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > >> On 1/26/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: >> ... >> >> Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The >> list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in >> older

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Auer wrote: ... Jerome, regarding the packages which are part of the ALL choice: The list seems suspiciously SHORT to me! We had a lot more to offer in older FreeDOS distros when people selected "ALL". Unless things got dropped from Mateusz' repository, I would keep

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Jerome, if Mateusz' repository has "500 MB of packages", then that would make a good choice for ALL as far as I am concerned: It easily fits on a CD and you get plenty of DOS stuff :-) Also, it should fit on most USB sticks as well. Maybe you could make a list of the LARGEST packages in the

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/26/2016 7:07 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: Yes, there are many more packages on his repo. But, I don't think Jim wants everything on his repo to be installed when the user selects ALL. His repo contains about 500mb of zip files. The current USB stick image that only contained packages for BASE

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > > For Maarten and Mercury, look into DOS versions prior to 5.0, they included > DEBUG and (GW-)BASIC. DEBUG is sometimes useful but only rarely (at least outside of actually debugging separately-assembled

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > Yes, if it replicated original MS-DOS functionality, it should be in Base. > This includes programs like APPEND, ASSIGN, ATTRIB, CHKDSK, … UNDELETE, > UNFORMAT, XCOPY, … etc. A lot of things nobody will ever use (e.g.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: > >> devel\fpc > > Only 2.6.4. 3.0.0 requires LFN or an extensive port. No, it doesn't need LFNs for the bare minimum cmdline compiler (no IDE). I'm not even sure the IDE needs LFN, only some rare third-party units

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 26/01/2016 12:10, Antony Gordon wrote: > Things would be so much simpler if FreeDOS emulated the Microsoft and > IBM (and Caldera, Digital Research) counterparts and installed the base > operating system. I second that. But it would seem we are isolated in this opinion, since I see all the

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > > > Hi Rugxulo et al, > > > > indeed xgrep and grep both have their uses... Regarding BWBASIC, > > current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/22/2016 4:24 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote: I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. fine. we should look for a new boss with more time to care. Now, if Jim were to willingly appoints someone else to take his place, that's a different story entirely, but I can't imagine

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Louis Santillan wrote: > So there won't be a 16-bit QBASIC/GW-BASIC/BASICA replacement? I think > that is important to have. Even if it is buggy. I wouldn't call Bywater a GWBASIC replacment, let alone a QBASIC replacement. -uso.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi! >> Well maybe it would also be nice to have some BASH, such >> as the DJGPP one - both shell and script language... :-) > Nah. Their Bash is ancient (2.05b), not well-supported by anyone > anymore. Most DJGPP stuff mandatorily has to be cross-compiled > anyways, for various reasons. Still

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC was > small but > somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. > > Sorry, but you are here comparing apples and oranges. FreeBASIC is a compiler, which doesn't run

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On 1/23/2016 3:45 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi again, quick reply, > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: >>> On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: >>> BWBasic is an interpreter, which runs

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

(dang it, Gmail keyboard shortcuts, accidentally sent too soon!) On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: >>> On

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: >> >> Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC was >> small but >> somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. >> > Sorry,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi again, quick reply, On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: >> On 1/22/2016 3:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > >> BWBasic is an interpreter, which runs very well on FreeDOS, despite some >>

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hallo Herr Jerome E. Shidel Jr., am 22. Januar 2016 um 20:33 schrieben Sie: > I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. > However, he stated that he wished to get FreeDOS 1.2 out the > door very soon. He did mention some reasons for getting it > released. But, I’m not

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > > I see no reason why a beta release is not ready in the next > few days-weeks. So, I highly recommend taking a look at the > package list files and making any requests you may have for > additions or removals.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hello Tom, > On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > Hallo Herr Jerome E. Shidel Jr., > > am 22. Januar 2016 um 20:33 schrieben Sie: > >> I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. >> However, he stated that he wished to get FreeDOS

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > regarding ALL: > > ping, wget and possibly some more belong to the same package as mtcp, Do you mean same group, e.g. "NET"? Because

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, I don't think Jim would be pleased to hear that. But I am a volunteer! :) I dont know if that's a joke... Why do I say this? I can give 2 reasons one is serious the other isnt. the serious reason: Because I agree. the non-serious reason: Because FreeDOS that's why! probably this mail

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. fine. we should look for a new boss with more time to care. > what package for drivers? maybe ask Jim Tom -- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep

[Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. However, he stated that he wished to get FreeDOS 1.2 out the door very soon. He did mention some reasons for getting it released. But, I’m not going to go into them. I see no reason why a beta release is not ready in the next

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Tom, Maarten, Jerome and Rugxulo, >> I emailed with Jim the other day. He is extremely busy at present. > fine. we should look for a new boss with more time to care. Not THAT, permanently, busy - Jim is busy at the MOMENT with some current news :-) Regarding Maarten's mail: No need for

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > wrote: >> >> I see no reason why a beta release is not ready in the next >> few days-weeks. So, I highly recommend taking a look at the >>

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > wrote: >> >> I see no reason why a beta release is not ready in the next >> few days-weeks. So, I highly recommend taking a look at the >>

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > > "util\grep" and "util\xgrep" (what's the difference?? 32-bit DJGPP > version??) > > Someone mentions, why not xgrep too. Pulled. Well,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Rugxulo et al, indeed xgrep and grep both have their uses... Regarding BWBASIC, current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC was small but somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the distro. Note that the modern compilers (OpenWatcom, FPC (Pascal), Free- BASIC, DJGPP and so

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Maarten Vermeulen wrote: > > as you may noticed I do not agree with the MS-DOS rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design -- Site24x7 APM Insight:

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi Rugxulo et al, > > indeed xgrep and grep both have their uses... Regarding BWBASIC, > current FreeBASIC is extremely cool while BWBASIC was small but > somewhat sketchy, I would agree to drop BWBASIC from the

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

compilers? Maarten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: "Rugxulo" <rugx...@gmail.com> Verzonden: ‎23-‎1-‎2016 00:59 Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Eric Auer wrote: > What are the ins and outs of Bruce C? Any pointers to an > earlier DOS thread about it? Have not seen it in the LSM > software list on freedos.org as far as I remember? I think it's a simple, pre-ANSI, small-model only compiler? > Actually I did mean PC

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi, On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > whether to repackage FPC using LZMA depends on whether > it would unpack with the same hardware requirements that > FPC has anyway and whether it really makes a difference. > I could imagine that other files apart from

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDI and FreeDOS 1.2

Hi Rugxulo, whether to repackage FPC using LZMA depends on whether it would unpack with the same hardware requirements that FPC has anyway and whether it really makes a difference. I could imagine that other files apart from the EXE take much of the space in FPC installations... What are the