On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Imre Leber wrote:
(I said)
>>
>> I've myself mentioned a couple times (years ago) my plan to take FreeDOS
>> in a new direction but it depends on me being able to use certain tools
>> that do not yet work for me. (i.e., anything using WatTCP/WatT32). If I
>> could get WatT32 w
>-Original Message-
>From: Lyrical Nanoha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2006 08:44 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Why 1.0 (was: Horrible Joke)
>
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, HCL BA wrote:
>
>> The version
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, HCL BA wrote:
> The version number is not important to me as FreeDOS has passed through some
> milestones.
> Being compatible to MSDOS 3.3 is good enough. Forget the Windows series,
> List, Dbase 3, Lotus 123, Laplink and Wordstar just play well with 640K
> memory.
>
> I think
Hello,
This is a long overdue project. I do worry if I can stay alive to cheer the
official 1.0 version.
My 80186 laptop died last year, and my clock is ticking. I feel uneasy to
answer my nephew what I was doing with the computer all these years. Why it
take so long, and to show him what have
Yes, I also think so - it *is* time for version 1.0.
Bye
Flo
Jim Hall wrote:
> Jim Hall wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's as though we're afraid of the "1.0" label, sort of asymptotically
>> approaching "1.0" but never really getting there.
>>
>
>
>
> A lot of people probably wonder "why is '1.0'
Hi Jim,
I have been following FreeDOS for many years now and I am very sad that
so many people are loosing interest when we are so close to having a
working FreeDOS ...
I will start working more hands on. Mainly because I will start *using*
FreeDOS. The only bug that I cannot be sure of fixing
Jim Hall wrote:
> [...]
> It's as though we're afraid of the "1.0" label, sort of asymptotically
> approaching "1.0" but never really getting there.
>
A lot of people probably wonder "why is '1.0' so important?" I feel we
need to get "1.0" out there to draw a line in the sand, that we're a
