Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Hello all,
I've put online a new bootdisk with which I, and you, can easily
experiment. Download it from:
http://fdos.org/ripcord/beta9-final/test/testing.zip [274KB, 1.44MB
unzipped]
OK, just uploaded a new version, now includes fixed autoexec.bat and
mounting. program for s
Hello all,
I've put online a new bootdisk with which I, and you, can easily
experiment. Download it from:
http://fdos.org/ripcord/beta9-final/test/testing.zip [274KB, 1.44MB
unzipped]
just select option 1. Never mind the menu, just did not get rid of it,
and thus you see bug 1.
I see some stran
Alain escribió:
Lucho, you introduce change in interface. _Such_ actions necessarily
_must_ be discussed and approved.
By whom? By the Boss? Who is the Boss? Arkady?
Hi Lucho, don't feel hurt, he is just sayint what we yelled at him so
many times :) The boss is ... gess who? the comunity, repre
Lucho, you introduce change in interface. _Such_ actions necessarily
_must_ be discussed and approved.
By whom? By the Boss? Who is the Boss? Arkady?
Hi Lucho, don't feel hurt, he is just sayint what we yelled at him so
many times :) The boss is ... gess who? the comunity, represented in
this li
Hi, CALLVER is
http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~eric/stuff/soft/specials/callver.zip
... and it does not support int 2f.122f nor int 21.33fc YET. If
the kernel has it, CALLVER will offer some "set version to ...
until the next change" functionality in a later version.
FREEVER source code got lost in so
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > int fd = open("fool.dat", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);
> > write(fd, "hello", 5);
> > close(fd);
> > sleep(2);
> > fd = open("fool.dat", O_WRONLY);
> > write(fd, "hell
Hello Luchezar,
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 12:18:08 PM, you wrote:
> Sorry Bart, I was wrong AGAIN. I will add creation times again, and this
> will END my participation in the FreeDOS project. I feel that I'm NOT good
> for such activity anymore. Jack R.Ellis was right to never participate in
Sorry Bart, I was wrong AGAIN. I will add creation times again, and this
will END my participation in the FreeDOS project. I feel that I'm NOT good
for such activity anymore. Jack R.Ellis was right to never participate in
mailing lists. At the age of 45, it's time for me to leave the struggle to
#include
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
int fd = open("fool.dat", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);
write(fd, "hello", 5);
close(fd);
sleep(2);
fd = open("fool.dat", O_WRONLY);
write(fd, "hello bye", 9);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
Thanks, Bart. Seems that as I already have written so, I
The question is: does anyone know what does MS-DOS do?
What now unstable FreeDOS does - ZERO creation time/date and access date
on each directory entry write. Verified.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Proje
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> Not speaking about access date, which
> shouldn't be set in DOS as it would mean unexpected writes.
I don't understand why access dates are different in DOS than other OSes.
If the volume is r/o you can't change the access date, sure.
I wonder thou
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> Bart wrote:
> > I wonder about those creation time set removals. It looks like your
> > removing a useful feature here. Sure a reason given is "MSDOS 7.10
> > doesn't do this". Well, I say, who cares about this specific DOS,
>
> Isn't *this* specific
Hola Eduardo,
Not really. In the worst case, only the 4 bytes for the empty DBCS table
will be unused. The idea is to overwrite the hardcoded tables for
CTYINFO, UCASE, FCHAR, and COLLATE and allocate new memory (if needed)
for FUCASE, LCASE and DBCS _only_.
What about a combination of your (1)
Hi,
Luchezar Georgiev escribiÃ:
I wonder about those creation time set removals. It looks like your
I will consider reverting it, but a config.sys option is overkill.
Yes, it is. It'll be difficult to revert it as it leaded to numerous
other optimisations. Besides, I already explained why I remov
CVS isn't accesible for me.
Sorry, I can't help you.
Lucho, you introduce change in interface. _Such_ actions necessarily
_must_ be discussed and approved.
By whom? By the Boss? Who is the Boss? Arkady?
So "don't ask me more" is not in given case.
Eric, read and remember forever! I SWEAR TO NEVER
BTW, Lucho, if you wish, I may prepare for you macroses in TASM to ease
writing more readable and safer country.asm. Probably, someone then may
translate these macro to NASM?
Such translation will be very difficult if not impossible because NASM is
too incompatible :-( So, don't bother with it.
The trouble is that most SYSes don't bother to set this value - they
just copy the whole data area from the old boot sector and replace only
the code and OEM ID. So the FF remains there. Verified.
_And_ their boot code reuse this field?
Yes. No DOS boot sector trusts BIOS DL value like us...
(Bec
17 matches
Mail list logo
