>> And I am/was finally aware that PGP is not ported to DOS.
> PGP was originally developed for DOS.
you are right; and even a current 16-bit binary is available from
ftp://ftp.hs-niederrhein.de/pub/pgp/old/dospgp/00index.txt
but I still doubt this has been executed often on FreeDOS based
syst
Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel [08.08.2019 16:55]:
> And I am/was finally aware that PGP is not ported to DOS.
PGP was originally developed for DOS.
--
Hilsen Harald
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.so
Something related to this that I think should be higher priority for FreeDOS is
addressing the fact that many packages rely on proprietary compilers to be
built from source. At the very least, it should be possible to build all
FreeDOS packages using compilers and assemblers also available in F
Beside, this is not just a a matter of trust.
This is code janitoring.
By recompiling programs, we make sure that the programs needed for them are
still available.
We can make small changes if possible, to make the programs built from more
open implementations of C or assembler.
Briefly, we
Thanks Tom Ehlert, to confirm my feeling that most DOS packages have not been
rebuilt from source code.
We used to trust people because we knew no better way in the past.
Well, I was not expecting in any way that the DOS kernel would in any way
verify binaries.
And I am/was finally aware that
> Well, honestly, while I was writing the first messages about packages, I did
> not read yet:
> http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Package
> but I was more thinking about what I would expect, and I still believe there
> is good stuff
> in what I propose that is missing in most packaging so
Well, honestly, while I was writing the first messages about packages, I did
not read yet:
http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Package
but I was more thinking about what I would expect, and I still believe there is
good stuff
in what I propose that is missing in most packaging solutions (for L
Hi Paul
Probably the reason this hasn't gotten any discussion is that I don't
see this as a "problem" that needs to be solved.
>From your other email, you said this as a sort of "preamble" to your idea:
>>I believe, source code is for programmers.
>>I believe, executable code is for users.
>>
>>I
I am thinking about how software is/should be distributed.
I believe, source code is for programmers.
I believe, executable code is for users.
I believe a intermediary between the two should exist.
I guess it is a package.
I believe this intermediary is for installer(s).
I believe this in
