Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi again, Just FYI, if anyone cares, just to be more informed about such things On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:31 AM Rugxulo wrote: > > > > Regina was (IIRC) compiled with Watt-32 due to external stack queue or > > whatever (rxqueue). You can al

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi again, On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:31 AM Rugxulo wrote: > > Regina was (IIRC) compiled with Watt-32 due to external stack queue or > whatever (rxqueue). You can almost certainly rebuild without it (I've > done it) > > > > Regina at least has some justification. Some later versions of PC DOS > >

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 10:40 AM Mark Olesen wrote: > > DOS Chromebook? I do not believe FreeDOS could compete with the latest > web browser technologies. It is an interesting concept though.I > believe an attempt was made to Resurrect Amiga with a working machine > and desktop sometime ago. >

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

DOS Chromebook? I do not believe FreeDOS could compete with the latest web browser technologies. It is an interesting concept though.I believe an attempt was made to Resurrect Amiga with a working machine and desktop sometime ago. FreeDOS is fun stuff for sure. Every once in a while, I enjoy tinke

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 8:10 AM Mark Olesen wrote: > > That sounds fantastic. It is unfortunate development was abandoned. > Having multiple choices seems like a good idea. TinyCore Linux also has a "Core" (11 MB) "base system which provides only a command line interface". The biggest proble

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

That sounds fantastic. It is unfortunate development was abandoned. Having multiple choices seems like a good idea. Q: Does anyone know if DELL still uses FreeDOS for firmware and BIOS updates? Or maybe they used to ship a computer with FreeDOS as the primary OS? At one point, I know they did. I

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi again, (Sorry in advance for the ramble.) On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:06 PM Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 4:21 PM Steve Nickolas wrote: > > > > On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Eric Auer wrote: > > > > > Regina REXX was not very small, while some others are small? Regina was (IIRC) compiled

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 2:24 PM Mark Olesen wrote: > > Great idea. I like minimalism. However, I don't think networking > drivers are up to snuff to completely automate the process. This has already (unofficially) been done. * https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distrib

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, Mark Olesen wrote: Great idea. I like minimalism. However, I don't think networking drivers are up to snuff to completely automate the process. Depends on the NIC, I think. With the NICs in my DOS boxen, it's possible. -uso. ___

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Great idea. I like minimalism. However, I don't think networking drivers are up to snuff to completely automate the process. On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:46 PM Chelson a wrote: > > Why not have a simple floppy that can install the system via internet > connection? > > Base cd, extras cd and boot dis

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Why not have a simple floppy that can install the system via internet connection? Base cd, extras cd and boot disk with internet install? On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 at 05:37, Mark Olesen wrote: > Why not have a minimal install iso. Then have separate additions iso > for each category? Could the inst

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Why not have a minimal install iso. Then have separate additions iso for each category? Could the install handle that? On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Jim Hall wrote: > > Some of us had this conversation a while back and I wanted to bring it up > again on the list. > > MS-DOS was a small operat

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

I agree with trimming the fat, but Eupora should stay in devel. It was written for DOS and gives the platform at least one dynamic language the other OS's take for granted. Obviously Its not suitable for system utils but applications its a fun and efficient tool to use. On Wed., Nov. 4, 2020, 5:14

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Rugxulo wrote: > > (AFAIK) > Perl 6 was officially renamed Rakudo. Apparently the language proper is "Raku" ("camel" in Japanese, like the old mascot) while the only current major/stable implementation is Rakudo (Artistic License 2.0, FTW!). The website "perl6

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On 11/4/2020 5:13 PM, Rafael Angel Campos Vargas wrote: Well... About the next release of FreeDos... I want Dillo for my next Freedos game. It is educative and i am going to use a help based on wikipedia. I want Setedit. I recommend Rhino (optional) of Djgpp. I want Kraptor... It is a new year

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Well... About the next release of FreeDos... I want Dillo for my next Freedos game. It is educative and i am going to use a help based on wikipedia. I want Setedit. I recommend Rhino (optional) of Djgpp. I want Kraptor... It is a new year tradition. I want fpc, djgpp, fasm and I recommend Pov Ray 3

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi again, Just to clarify On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jim Hall wrote: > > > > Another thought: how outdated is this DOS version of perl? > > Our build of 5.8.8 (from DJGPP) is from 2008. Not quite, but close enough. Our build (at leas

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hello Steve, hello Random Liegh, Development; your decisions work for me. I never use perl on dos and I try to avoid djgpp and GCC-IA16. I end up needing NASM, JWASM, OW, UPX and FreeBASIC. Would it be possible to replace bwbasic with gw-basic? Technology-wise, I would think that Open Watcom i

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jim Hall wrote: > > Another thought: how outdated is this DOS version of perl? I know it's Perl > 5.8.8 and the current version is 5.32.x. > But how "far apart" are those two versions? (It's been years since I > intentionally wrote a perl script, so I don't k

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 4:21 PM Steve Nickolas wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Eric Auer wrote: > > > Regina REXX was not very small, while some others are small? > > Regina at least has some justification. Some later versions of PC DOS > came with REXX. Yeah, it replaced QBASIC there. REX

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but ... I don't feel like reading ten pages before quickly responding to this misunderstanding. On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Jim Hall wrote: > > Over time, FreeDOS has grown to include lots of interesting programs. The > FreeDOS 1.2 and 1.3RCx distributio

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Eric, > On Oct 26, 2020, at 9:06 AM, Eric Auer wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, > >> The more I think about it. The more I like a having a separate EXTRAS disc. >> >> Possibly even dropping the FULL/BASE choice and having just a BASE. > > We did have a separate BASE ISO at some point in the past, bu

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi Jerome, > The more I think about it. The more I like a having a separate EXTRAS disc. > > Possibly even dropping the FULL/BASE choice and having just a BASE. We did have a separate BASE ISO at some point in the past, but given your earlier hint that FPC and DJGPP are 70 MB each, I think w

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 7:26 PM, Jim Hall wrote: The more I think about it. The more I like a having a separate EXTRAS disc. Possibly even dropping the FULL/BASE choice and having just a BASE. BASE to replicate MS-DOS functionality, plus networking support (FDNET), FDNPKG and FDIMPLES. Pu

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020, Harald Arnesen wrote: I made a new port of tail in March, taken from 4.3BSD, and sent it to the list. Here it is again, rename attachment to "tail.zip". 4.3BSD would certainly be an improvement over what I did. I should've thought of that - knew the 4.4BSD version wouldn

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Jim Hall [25.10.2020 01:44]: > In my original email, I gave this link: > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages > > On that wiki page, if you scroll down to the "Unix" group, you'll see > we're removing Tail and Uptime from that license group.  I made a new port of tail in

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020, Eric Auer wrote: Do you say in the Unix group, only TAIL and UPTIME have license issues? Any other packages in other categories? If tail and uptime are the only issues I can solve the former: I've got a PD (it's unambiguous that this was the author's intent; it says "Cop

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi Jim, a few short additional thoughts: > But CAB files? No DOS system distributed files in CAB format I remember DOS drivers for stuff like soundcards shipping as part of some Windows installers. So it helps to be able to dig into files meant for Windows, without needing any Windows or Wine, bu

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Random Liegh via Freedos-devel wrote: What DOS was, in my mind, was simple. You didn't really have an entire tree with documents in one place, helpfiles in another and LSM files in a third. You had -for MS DOS, c:\dos. Everything was there. It's been a long time, but I

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On 10/24/2020 3:26 PM, Jim Hall wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:06 PM Jerome Shidel > wrote: Hi, If I don’t mention removing or keeping something, I don’t have much of an opinion on it. Over time, FreeDOS has grown to include lots of interesting

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 3:22 PM Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi Jim, good to think about the package list :-) > > If you ask me, the distro has grown large because a SMALL > number of packages are rather LARGE. Even then, when you > do not install all sources, it uses a lot less space: It > would be fine

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:06 PM Jerome Shidel wrote: > Hi, > > If I don’t mention removing or keeping something, I don’t have much of an > opinion on it. > > Over time, FreeDOS has grown to include lots of interesting programs. The > FreeDOS 1.2 and 1.3RCx distributions are very big. > > As we lo

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi, If I don’t mention removing or keeping something, I don’t have much of an opinion on it. > Over time, FreeDOS has grown to include lots of interesting programs. The > FreeDOS 1.2 and 1.3RCx distributions are very big. > > As we look to the next FreeDOS 1.3 Release Candidate, I think we sho

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Eric Auer wrote: I guess the complete DJGPP ecosystem could be moved to a separate group, it can get really big. DJGPP is practically an OS unto itself. I would move RUNTIME to some generic tool category. I believe Regina REXX was not very small, while some others ar

Re: [Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Hi Jim, good to think about the package list :-) If you ask me, the distro has grown large because a SMALL number of packages are rather LARGE. Even then, when you do not install all sources, it uses a lot less space: It would be fine to keep the sources zipped until one wants to work on a speci

[Freedos-devel] Simplifying FreeDOS

Some of us had this conversation a while back and I wanted to bring it up again on the list. MS-DOS was a small operating system. MS_DOS 5 and 6 fit on a few 1.44MB floppy disks. We always intended FreeDOS to not just *replace* but *enhance* DOS. FreeDOS is "MS-DOS plus more." To make clear what'