>"Fully considering" as in "I'll sue you to death like SCO"?
For as far as I understood it, wether or not SCO won the case, they actually
had a very good point.
Linus Torvalds should have refused code from IBM. Just like we should refuse
code from Digital Research or Novell if they ever come
At 09:00 PM 8/18/2006 -0400, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
>Alain M. wrote:
> >
> > May I offer a suggestion: we can have
> > FreeDOS 1.0 alfa
> > FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1
> > FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2
> >
> > That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test...
> >
> >
>Boy, it seems like 1.0 is a perfection that
Alain M. wrote:
> Michael Devore escreveu:
>
>> Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
>> there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
>> follow-up. Currently I feel like I "should" get a release out the door
>> today, and fran
Michael Devore escreveu:
> Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
> there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
> follow-up. Currently I feel like I "should" get a release out the door
> today, and frankly I'd like more time tha
At 01:43 AM 8/19/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>e> are disabled by INT 15, and restored by iret) You miss, that only
>recent releases of EMM386 do now respect original flags value on the stack
>- previous releases just directly manipulate IF flag and do "retf 2". te>
>So I assume th
Hi!
17-Авг-2006 21:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Michael Devore
:
te> I don't know why pushf/cli/popf got even in there, as for any
te> selfrespecting BIOS, this should have *exactly* no effect (interrupts
te> are disabled by INT 15, and restored by iret)
You miss, that only re
Hi!
17-Авг-2006 12:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[email protected]:
>> Unless found precise reason, there are no assurance, that your patch
>>fixes (not masks) anything and not damages anything else.
MD> It wouldn't damage anything else, but it might mask i
At 11:39 PM 8/18/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>MD> a popular compiler might be trouble.
> Let me again disagree with word "popular".
QB 4.5 must have sold into the hundreds of thousands. I owned a copy
myself and there was a huge community around it. It was _very_ popular,
more s
Hi!
18-Авг-2006 12:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Imre Leber) wrote to
[email protected]:
IL> I've just been reading up on DPMI, seems that there are some functions that
IL> prohibit a dpmi host from writing to a swap file.
IL> Maybe such method should be in dosfsck?
If your progra
Hi!
18-Авг-2006 14:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[email protected]:
>>MD> make it work, but this is a compatibility issue that ought to be
>>addressed
>>MD> in some fashion. Even if it's a "QB4 is too stupid to live" announcement.
>> 1. I think, this change ma
Hi!
18-Авг-2006 13:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[email protected]:
EA> Basically the updated patch means "free MCBs become unlinked
EA> when their memory is merged with the memory of adjacent free
EA> MCBs, but thear are no longer invalidated". Quite clean...
At 11:00 PM 8/18/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>MD> make it work, but this is a compatibility issue that ought to be
>addressed
>MD> in some fashion. Even if it's a "QB4 is too stupid to live" announcement.
> 1. I think, this change may be delayed (for post-1.0).
Normally, I would be in
At 02:01 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, Jim Hall wrote:
> > Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a
> > bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and
> > with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original
> > announcement of a
Hi!
18-Авг-2006 11:26 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[email protected]:
EA> I hope you also like my kernel patch for it...
EA> [... QuickBASIC frees a block, resizes another block to the max after
EA> finding the max size with resize to -1 size, then frees the first
EA>
Hi!
17-Авг-2006 21:20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[email protected]:
MD> 1. QuickBASIC (I assume) frees a block of memory via INT 21h function 49h
MD> 2. QuickBASIC resizes a second block of memory via function 4ah with value
MD> 3. QuickBASIC resizes the second
Michael Devore wrote:
> At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> I feel it's important to get "1.0" out there to draw a line in the sand,
>> that we're at least "1.0" quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
>> we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what "1.0"
>> softwa
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>I feel it's important to get "1.0" out there to draw a line in the sand,
>that we're at least "1.0" quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
>we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what "1.0"
>software doesn't have bugs? People expect i
> A:\>if not errorlevel 4 getargs > temp.bat [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ?
> # I needed to press ENTER twice on the line above
Yes, because the echo-ed command itself is also sent to temp.bat...
Redirection combined with single-stepping has a bug.
> A:\>A:\>getargs [Yes=ENTER, No=ESC] ? [Yes=ENTER, No
I feel it's important to get "1.0" out there to draw a line in the sand,
that we're at least "1.0" quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what "1.0"
software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But marking a "1.0"
release means you
At 10:54 AM 8/18/2006 -0700, Blair Campbell wrote:
>So to end this thread, since Michael already seems to own MS-DOS but
>just wants an easier way of getting it on his hard drive, it is
>perfectly legal to use.
Well, who doesn't have legal MS-DOS, if they ever had a machine back
when. It was inc
I just downloaded Updated 1.0 Testing CD from
www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.0-Testing/fdbasecd.iso
and tried to install it in qemu using singlestepping but it didn't work.
Here are some (hopefully relevant) parts of the installing process:
Lines starting with "#"
So to end this thread, since Michael already seems to own MS-DOS but
just wants an easier way of getting it on his hard drive, it is
perfectly legal to use.
On 8/18/06, Michael Devore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:06 PM 8/18/2006 +0200, Andre Tertlingwrote:
>
> >P.S. I am sure I have a stack
At 01:06 PM 8/18/2006 +0200, Andre Tertlingwrote:
>P.S. I am sure I have a stack of MS-DOS licenses somewhere in the
>basement. If someone really wants to have one, feel free to apply.
Heck, I still have at least two sets of MS-DOS floppies down in basement
somewhere. Don't know if they work, b
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Andre Tertling wrote:
> Do you really want to start a lengthy discussion about whether I am
> using a legitimately created backup with my original license or not? For
> heaven's sake, I'll ship the original discs along with the license.
I might still be able to locate one of
Markus Laire wrote:
> I don't really know if it's legal to use illegally acquired program if
> you have a license for the program but not the program itself.
Do you really want to start a lengthy discussion about whether I am
using a legitimately created backup with my original license or not? Fo
Much 1.0 software is released with known bugs. We never said that
FreeDOS 1.0 would be bug free.
On 8/18/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/18/06, Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You probably know that MS DOS 1.0 did not even
> > support subdirectories... ;-). While FreeD
Eric Auer escreveu:
>
> How about marking free blocks as unresizable at the moment
> when joinMCBs splices them out of the chain, leaving an
> unlinked but "double-freeable" data structure in RAM?
For what I could understand, only one such "double freeable" block is
needed. And it could be cle
On 8/18/06, Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably know that MS DOS 1.0 did not even
> support subdirectories... ;-). While FreeDOS 1.0
> is delayed because we keep adding features to our
> wishlist. Some of which are beyond MS DOS 6.xx!
I wasn't really thinking MS DOS 1.0, but the at
On 8/18/06, Andre Tertling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to
> > FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility
> > (interoperability), even limited reverse engineering
> > would have been allowed in Germany. But that was not
IMHO rev
I've just been reading up on DPMI, seems that there are some functions that
prohibit a dpmi host from writing to a swap file.
>From the specification
"Four functions are provided that allow an application to notify the DPMI host
that memory is or is
not eligible for paging to disk:
0600H Lock Li
Hi!
18-Авг-2006 13:25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) wrote to
[email protected]:
>> >> Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot
>> > Is that legal?
>> > I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site.
>> Nope.
ML> So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy sof
Hi!
>> --- kernel/memmgr.old 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200
>> +++ kernel/memmgr.c 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200
>> @@ -66,7 +66,12 @@
>> /* join both MCBs */
>> p->m_type = q->m_type; /* possibly the next MCB is the last one
>> */
>> p->m_size += q->m_size
Eric Auer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Try www.bootdisk.com. ...
Is that legal?
>>> Nope.
>
>> So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software,
>> created using illegal software.
>
> I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to
> FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility
> (intero
> I would suggest the following patch for kernel 2036 (stable) -->
> --- kernel/memmgr.old 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200
> +++ kernel/memmgr.c 2006-08-18 10:22:33.0 +0200
> @@ -66,7 +66,12 @@
> /* join both MCBs */
> p->m_type = q->m_type; /* possibly the next
On 8/18/06, Lyrical Nanoha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote:
>
> > On 8/17/06, Mark Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Michael:
> >>
> >> Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot
> >
> > Is that legal?
> > I didn't find any kind
Hi!
Try www.bootdisk.com. ...
>>> Is that legal?
>> Nope.
> So FreeDOS 1.0 will be buggy software,
> created using illegal software.
I would not say so. Michael compared MS DOS behaviour to
FreeDOS behaviour to find a bug. To ensure compatibility
(interoperability), even limited reverse e
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Mark Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Michael:
>>
>> Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot
>
> Is that legal?
> I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site.
Nope.
-uso.
---
Hi Michael!
Very nice analysis :-).
I hope you also like my kernel patch for it...
> While testing out a users bug report, I found a terribly obscure difference
> between the way MS-DOS kernel works and FreeDOS kernel works. It shouldn't
> matter, but it does to QuickBASIC 4.x applications, at
On 8/17/06, Mark Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michael:
>
> Try www.bootdisk.com. boot622.exe will extract a usable MSDOS boot
Is that legal?
I didn't find any kind of legal FAQ from that site.
--
Markus Laire
-
U
39 matches
Mail list logo
