As noted somewhere on this list, FreeDOS 1.1 is supposed to
come out now 2011 (same had been previously promised for
2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 too) after kernel 2040 comes out.
Some personal suggestions of mine what should come in:
Base:
KERNEL 2040 (hopefully fixed, if not, the fallback
level i
(retransmit, sf.net mailserver disliked me).
Op 4-5-2011 11:08, dos386 schreef:
As noted somewhere on this list, FreeDOS 1.1 is supposed to
come out now 2011 (same had been previously promised for
2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 too) after kernel 2040 comes out.
Once 2040 is out a new FreeDOS distri
On 4 May 2011 15:18, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
> FREECOM (updated (in progress ?) or not (from 2003))
>
> Still same one I guess, unless Jeremy, Pat or Blair succeeded in improving
> things like porting to Openwatcom for example.
I just finished porting FREECOM in SVN to OpenWatcom. It seems to work
pr
Em 04-05-2011 16:45, Bart Oldeman escreveu:
>
> I had to use some of the kernel build infrastructure to be able to
> still also build with Turbo C(++). Writing portable DOS makefiles
> causes all sorts of funny restrictions, esp. dealing with Turbo C 2.01
> make: it cannot do command line redirect
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Alain Mouette wrote:
>
> Em 04-05-2011 16:45, Bart Oldeman escreveu:
>>
>> I had to use some of the kernel build infrastructure to be able to
>> still also build with Turbo C(++). Writing portable DOS makefiles
>> causes all sorts of funny restrictions, esp. de
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
>
> Op 4-5-2011 11:08, dos386 schreef:
Good ol' DOS386, gotta love his enthusiasm! :-)) Although you
left out some important things (and seem stuck on some questionable
tools, which is fine, but I still disagree about the uniqueness
> Not aware of this bug, guess you notified Japheth?
YES. http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=6445
> Bret's USBDOS (free& OS, not GPL)
> Downloaded it, not worked with it yet.
Very good design and open source ... and only UHCI so far and sure
there are devices it doesn't like.
On 5 May 2011 10:52, Rugxulo wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Alain Mouette wrote:
>>
>> Em 04-05-2011 16:45, Bart Oldeman escreveu:
>>>
>>> I had to use some of the kernel build infrastructure to be able to
>>> still also build with Turbo C(++). Writing portable DOS makefiles
>>> causes
Hi again,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, dos386 wrote:
>
>> Not aware of this bug, guess you notified Japheth?
>
> YES. http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=6445
(Japheth): "The problem is: I modified this himem thing mainly for
myself, I don't regard myself as "maintainer". So
Op 4-5-2011 21:45, Bart Oldeman schreef:
> On 4 May 2011 15:18, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
>> FREECOM (updated (in progress ?) or not (from 2003))
>>
>> Still same one I guess, unless Jeremy, Pat or Blair succeeded in improving
>> things like porting to Openwatcom for example.
> I just finished porting F
> Heh, you have a habit of renaming things, making them unrecognizable.
> Anyways, here you're referring to Steve Kirkendall's public domain
> untar.c, which is indeed good.
The name "untar.c" is very BAD ... it neglects the internal piping :-\
> > ### 7ZDECWAT (from major versions 4.65 or 9.20 p
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM, dos386 wrote:
>> Heh, you have a habit of renaming things, making them unrecognizable.
>> Anyways, here you're referring to Steve Kirkendall's public domain
>> untar.c, which is indeed good.
>
> The name "untar.c" is very BAD ... it neglects the internal pipin
Hi again,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM, dos386 wrote:
>
>> > ### 7ZDECWAT (from major versions 4.65 or 9.20 please)
>> https://sites.google.com/site/rugxulo/7zdec912.zip?attredirects=0
>
> 9.12 was buggy and beta ...
Well, I wouldn't recommend 7zdecode from 4.65 since it didn't support
'x' (d
this is greatly appreciated, having a stable up-to-date release of 7-zip!
thanks!
>
>From: Rugxulo
>To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 3:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.1 (again)
>
>Hi aga
> > The name "untar.c" is very BAD ... it neglects the internal piping :-\
> Not sure what "internal piping" means here.
> You mean because it also supports Gzip?
Pipes the un-GZIP'ped data into the TAR (DOS itself can't).
> > > I personally think we must include CWSDPMI r7
> > why ?
> Because mo
Op 3-7-2011 3:55, dos386 schreef:
>> I'd recommend only using it in virtual machines
>
> ???
There's stuff to fix before I'd recommend it for general usage.
For example the batchfiles on cdrom still have a FORMAT C: and SYS C:
somewhere hidden, which already wrecked my USB flash drive as that
16 matches
Mail list logo
