From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-27 19:55:27
|
Dev Team, I am very nearly completed on the setup of freedos. all I need now is the network card, its in the mail. :) But I can copy floppy by floppy if I have to :) I am very interested in helping. If you have any tasks that you need done, even if it is unglamorous. I'll take it. :) Not sure how one applies for this or what you need from me. I have been programing for 15 years. I have done a great deal of windows programming but not dos, ... yet I can code C & C++ but not Assembly, ... yet. Willing to learn/do whatever. I am very interested. Need someone interested and willing to mentor the dos programming stuff I don't know. I know that adds a little work and your time but the pay off will be worth your time, promise. Adam Norton aka theMouse |
From: Michael R. <mic...@fr...> - 2009-03-27 20:39:36
|
Hi, I am not a part of the dev team but a pretty active user and I have dozens of ideas to implement in C(++) for DOS... To awake your continued interest on what you might work in the future it might help to let you do things you are personally interested in. It would help if you tell us what is your interest in DOS and/or what you are using it most for. (recovery, backup, hardware testing, benchmark, web browsing, gaming, music player, server or whatever) regards, -mr usul schrieb: > Dev Team, > > I am very nearly completed on the setup of freedos. all I need now is the > network card, its in the mail. :) > But I can copy floppy by floppy if I have to :) > > I am very interested in helping. If you have any tasks that you need done, > even if it is unglamorous. > I'll take it. :) > > Not sure how one applies for this or what you need from me. > > I have been programing for 15 years. > I have done a great deal of windows programming but not dos, ... yet > I can code C & C++ but not Assembly, ... yet. > > Willing to learn/do whatever. I am very interested. > > Need someone interested and willing to mentor the dos programming stuff I > don't know. > I know that adds a little work and your time but the pay off will be worth > your time, promise. > > Adam Norton > aka theMouse > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel |
From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-27 21:35:48
|
> > Hi, > > It would help if you tell us what is your interest in DOS and/or what > > you are using it most for. (recovery, backup, hardware testing, > > benchmark, web browsing, gaming, music player, server or whatever) > My main interest is programming and a challenge. Occasionally play some old games that I miss. Bards Tale etc. http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Subversion%20client%20instructions I think a port would be a good start given my skill set. I am good at debugging etc, and for me looking at existing code is a faster way to start than writing from scratch. Debugging an existing app that has issues is ok too. I considering porting a svn command line tool Some other projects I have thought about are GUI/Desktop. Interested in the Kernel and Assembly programming. Basically anything that is new and different, in windows at work I feel like I have been programming the same thing for years. Different companies, but write a database build the data access and manipulation, throw some buttons and textboxs on a form, write a report. Rinse and repeat for a new client. I want to create that button that I put on the form that I created not borrowed from a the dot net library. etc. I want to know exactly what happens when I do xcopy. reading the hard drive etc. Plus I see alot of download this program from here to do that. take the networking for example. See I am way ahead of myself. I have lots of experience programing and working on teams. What I don't have is dos programming or assembly. I have no clue about what I don't know, am not even sure what to ask where to look. So I am quite content to sit back, take the druggy tasks and do whatever I am told. I'll get to the kewl stuff when I learn what I am doing. :) Adam |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-27 22:26:52
|
Hi Adam, > My main interest is programming and a challenge. Occasionally play some > old > games > that I miss. Bards Tale etc. Check out Commander Keen ;-) > Interested in the Kernel and Assembly programming. If you want to learn something about the DOS kernel and Assembly language I could probably tell you a lot (I'm trying to get the old Assembly sources of the RxDOS kernel working). You might as well ask Udo Kuhnt (from drdosprojects.de, developing another open-source DOS kernel), or the DOS-C kernel guys from here (Eric and Tom wrote recently to the mailing list). > See I am way ahead of myself. I have lots of experience programing and > working on teams. What I don't have is > dos programming or assembly. I have no clue about what I don't know, am > not > even sure what to ask where to look. > > So I am quite content to sit back, take the druggy tasks and do whatever > I > am told. I'll get to the kewl stuff when I learn > what I am doing. If learning Assembly, first decide whether to use Microsoft's MASM (or compatible, free JWASM), or the free NASM (syntax differs slightly), or something else like the free FASM. I know that some versions of NASM's manual (f.e. the older .CHM one) contain a list with descriptions of all Assembly instructions, which helped me to learn the language itself. As Eric put it, NASM is considered more free than JWASM. FASM is also "more free" but not used by many people yet. If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and Udo's Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) If you have enough money you may want to buy some of the interesting books, especially the second edition of "Undocumented DOS" (mainly deals with reverse-engineering MS-DOS and using this "undocumented" information, very interesting), "FreeDOS kernel" (deals with the source of an early DOS-C & FreeCOM version) and "Dissecting DOS" (deals with source of early RxDOS version). Be aware that the RBIL and both of the kernel books contain some errors. If something is in doubt, check whether MS-DOS works as predicted by the other source. (Of course only use paid copies of MS-DOS for this. If you don't have one, a recent PC of you running Windows NT (2000, XP, Vista) might contain the NTVDM which is similar to MS-DOS. Windows XP is able to create MS-DOS bootdisks, too.) I've discovered a great source of knowledge on how things actually work is available by using DEBUG (of course the new FreeDOS DEBUG which has more features than the old Microsoft program) to test all kind of stuff in Assembly. The source of useful programs like SHSUCDX (MSCDEX replacement) and DOSLFN is also interesting (possibly only if you already know the basics of DOS programming). If you've learned all this stuff and found it interesting, there'll be plenty of work for you. If not, you might help the DOS-C guys to write their FreeDOS kernel in C. Or port Linux software to the DJGPP environment. Or do something entirely else :-) Regards, Christian |
From: Michael R. <mic...@fr...> - 2009-03-27 23:12:23
|
Christian Masloch schrieb: > If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL > (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and Udo's > Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS > 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) ...and the sources for MS-DOS also. -mr |
From: lyricalnanoha <lyr...@us...> - 2009-03-27 23:27:41
|
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Christian Masloch schrieb: >> If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL >> (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and Udo's >> Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS >> 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) > > ...and the sources for MS-DOS also. > > -mr I thought nothing usable besides the io.sys, sort.exe and sys.com sources from DOS 3.3 had turned up... -uso. |
From: Michael R. <mic...@fr...> - 2009-03-27 23:37:41
|
lyricalnanoha schrieb: > > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > >> Christian Masloch schrieb: >>> If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL >>> (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and Udo's >>> Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS >>> 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) >> ...and the sources for MS-DOS also. >> >> -mr > > I thought nothing usable besides the io.sys, sort.exe and sys.com sources > from DOS 3.3 had turned up... > > -uso. > No, even MS-DOS 6.0. Also source for xcopy and so on. Besides even io.sys would be great becuase it's the bible as it's the whole kernel. -mr |
From: Japheth <ma...@ja...> - 2009-03-28 07:47:31
|
Hi Adam, > As Eric put it, NASM is considered more free than JWASM. as you probably can see there are also rather "questionable" sentences to find in this mailing-list. "Freedom", "Democracy", "Justice", "Fairness", ... are commonly regarded as positive terms and because of this they are also favorite words to hide other, probably not-so-positive intentions. As it is common sense to be very cautious when a second-hand car dealer starts to talk about "fair prices", it is also a good idea not to believe everything what is posted here. |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-28 13:27:00
|
>> As Eric put it, NASM is considered more free than JWASM. > > as you probably can see there are also rather "questionable" sentences > to find > in this mailing-list. "Freedom", "Democracy", "Justice", "Fairness", ... > are > commonly regarded as positive terms and because of this they are also > favorite > words to hide other, probably not-so-positive intentions. So, do you want to accuse me of the "not-so-positive intention" to say that JWASM has indeed disadvantages? Of course _I_ think that NASM is better. However I also listed other available, free assemblers (which are non-existant according to the FreeDOS Spec, aren't they?) and used the word "considered" in the comparison. Because it depends on how you consider freedom. > As it is common > sense to be very cautious when a second-hand car dealer starts to talk > about > "fair prices", it is also a good idea not to believe everything what is > posted > here. I don't understand how this relates to assemblers. Of course he's free to use JWASM instead. You could have posted all the great advantages of JWASM over NASM (that you surely know some) instead of this. Like that it's more "the original" of x86 Assembly than NASM. Who needs a great manual as NASM's, and therefore the possibility to easily learn preprocessor- and assembler-specific syntax? (Yes, there might be great MASM manuals or books which can be used to write JWASM Assembly. But are they "free", only like in "free of charge"?) Or a large community with more than one developer, like NASM has? Who cares about that anyway, use the great JWASM instead! Regards, Christian |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-28 13:58:44
|
>> If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL >> (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and >> Udo's >> Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS >> 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) > > ...and the sources for MS-DOS also. An open source version of MS-DOS? I highly doubt that. I disregard using the RxDOS 7.1.5 source not because it's commercial or whatever (it's not, 7.1.5 is GPL) but because it contains many bugs and even without those it won't be as compatible to MS-DOS as the recent versions of all other DOS kernels. Regards, Christian |
From: Michael R. <mic...@fr...> - 2009-03-28 14:10:39
|
Christian Masloch schrieb: >>> If you want to learn about (16-bit) DOS kernel stuff, first get the RBIL >>> (Ralf Brown's Interrupt List) and the source of DOS-C (mostly C) and >>> Udo's >>> Enhanced DR-DOS kernel (Assembly). (You might as well get the old RxDOS >>> 7.1.5 Assembly sources but oh well.) >> ...and the sources for MS-DOS also. > > An open source version of MS-DOS? Not open source, leaked. -mr |
From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-28 16:13:37
|
Japheth, Politics of any sort are this way. It is always extremes that shout the loudest. In my opinion is aways in the middle the answer always is in the middle, the middle rarely if ever has an advocate. :P I like open source and free software. More the spirit of the law though then the law itself. I feel code should be shared so things become standard. So much effort is repeated from developer to developer. If the license provides for that it is good enough for me. The minor differences are merely semantics to me. As for which Assembly Compiler I will use, I probably end up using which ever is the official one, its easier to follow in the beginning than trying to rock the boat. Besides at this point I am more interested in programming and being part of the project than arguing with people. As for decompiled source, I don't mind reading books. If the book was published and the code writer didn't file a lawsuit then its like they gave their permission. But I wont decompile or look at code someone else stole. The person that fences stolen property is as guilty as thief. That being said I rarely have looked at code I didn't think I could write better (even my own LOL). We can do it better. Passion vs paycheck. :) |
From: Gregory P. <gpi...@co...> - 2009-03-28 16:39:00
|
It's okay if you know vaguely about the internals of something, but when you write an imitation of it, chuck all that code aside and try to write yours along different lines. For example, if the original was written to conserve memory usage, go for speed instead, or go for generality. The code will look much different. If the original was in tightly-written assembler, rewrite it in C. As for compiling, I do not release binaries, so you can download the source to FreeDOS Edlin (latest version: 2.11) and try to compile that using whatever compiler you wish. You might have to tweak the config.h file; just read the comments there. Another thing you could do is download all the sources and see in your opinion what looks great, what looks like garbage, what could be reusable. The great stuff, leave alone; the garbage, write a better version; the reusable stuff goes into libraries. ;-) Gregory Pietsch usul wrote: > Japheth, > > Politics of any sort are this way. It is always extremes that shout > the loudest. In my opinion is aways in the middle the answer always is > in the middle, the middle rarely if ever has an advocate. :P > > I like open source and free software. More the spirit of the law > though then the law itself. I feel code should be shared so things > become standard. So much effort is repeated from developer to > developer. If the license provides for that it is good enough for me. > The minor differences are merely semantics to me. > > As for which Assembly Compiler I will use, I probably end up using > which ever is the official one, its easier to follow in the beginning > than trying to rock the boat. > > Besides at this point I am more interested in programming and being > part of the project than arguing with people. > > As for decompiled source, I don't mind reading books. If the book was > published and the code writer didn't file a lawsuit then its like they > gave their permission. > > But I wont decompile or look at code someone else stole. > The person that fences stolen property is as guilty as thief. > > That being said I rarely have looked at code I didn't think I could > write better (even my own LOL). We can do it better. Passion vs > paycheck. :) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release Date: 03/28/09 07:16:00 > > |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-29 19:42:09
|
Hi guys, EA: > > Thanks for the warning :-)). Luckily most of the FreeDOS > > kernel is written in C... One of the things that make it > > complicated is that it sometimes has to follow long chains > > of things calling each other because it is documented that > > MS DOS does it the same way, so for example drivers only > > work if FreeDOS does the same complicated stuff... I don't think DOS does anythink too complicated. All layers have a special purpose (f.e. CDS for drive redirection, SFT for redirection and device handles, etc.) and it isn't that hard to understand all these. > > A goal reached by illegal means is not really reached in my > > opinion. If the priority of MS DOS compatibility is higher > > than the priority of law, stealing MS DOS install disks is > > a much easier way to reach the goal than stealing sources > > and putting them or things learned from them into FreeDOS. If your priority is not to break the law, buy MS-DOS (and/or Win4.x) install disks plus license and use (or DEBUG) these legally ;-) MR: > Here are very bad news for you. You are violating the law so often in > your life. There is so many law text concerning you and you can never > memorize everything and while you are just living you can not have all > the laws still in back mind, that's impossible. Still no excuse to break the law when you _know_ you're doing it. > How can we finally prove that it's illegal or not? By asking whether we would want someone to "steal" (that is, copy) our source code and use it violating the license it was released with. If you use leaked Microsoft code then that's as if Microsoft would use open-sourced FreeDOS code without providing the source of it or links or whatever. (Just as DR-DOS, Inc did for their crappy DR-DOS version 8.00; and no one accepted it back then.) Please don't say that Microsoft would never do that: I don't care. > The problem with downloading is that things are virtual and the original > is still in hands of the original producer. So stealing is probable not > the right word. What's the right word, then? I doubt it's "pirating". > Also again, why do you believe FreeDOS is free of MS-DOS's intellectual > property? That's impossible as you implemented a "pretty" compatible > operating system. > > What do you think where the Undocumented DOS knowledge has come from? From reverse engineering, of course. Some information (f.e. about Novell Netware and Novell [DR-]DOS 7.0/6.0, but also from Microsoft) came from employees of the associated companies but because they gave these without NDA limitations it's allowed to use them, too. Did you read UDOS, anyway? Regards, Christian |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-29 20:07:32
|
> You know that open source has advantages, That's the reason I use it. > for example FreeDOS > runs on more modern hardware Well, decent MS-DOS kernels plus command interpreters also have LBA, FAT32 and DOSLFN support. (But you're right regarding utilities, the FreeDOS ones are often better.) > and is actively supported. Is it? I'm still waiting for one of us both to apply the latest patches regarding SFTs, file seeks and self-owning PSP termination to the DOS-C SVN. Well, anyway: Granted, that's an advantage. > If you > try to buy MS DOS instead, they will just tell you that you > have bad taste and should buy Vista ;-) So (if you have to) just buy a used version from someone. > In addition, I have > no compatibility problems with FreeDOS that would motivate > me to use another DOS instead. I don't "use" MS-DOS to actually use it, but to debug it and therefore increase the compatibility of FreeDOS, or EDR-DOS, or RxDOS. Regards, Christian |
From: Eric A. <e....@jp...> - 2009-03-29 20:32:20
|
Hi Christian, > Well, decent MS-DOS kernels plus command interpreters > also have LBA, FAT32 and DOSLFN support. That is Windows 98 DOS... Better kernel but fewer apps... And if you buy it, you get a Windows that you do not need if you only wanted DOS as unwanted extra... ;-). > Is it? I'm still waiting for one of us both to apply the > latest patches regarding SFTs, file seeks and self- > owning PSP termination to the DOS-C SVN. And I still wait for some more life in the thread where I tried to discuss several other pending patches. It would be nicer to have some community activity again here... What do you think about my new wiki page about 2037 code? >> In addition, I have no compatibility problems with >> FreeDOS that would motivate me to use another DOS instead. > > I don't "use" MS-DOS to actually use it, but to debug it and therefore > increase the compatibility of FreeDOS, or EDR-DOS, or RxDOS. I get your point but still... I stopped using MS DOS about seven years ago when FreeDOS became useful enough for me. This certainly included some "fandom" because back then it was still a bit minimalistic compared to MS DOS / Win98 DOS. Tastes differ :-). Eric |
From: Michael R. <mic...@fr...> - 2009-03-27 22:54:02
|
You can look at drdos.org, see http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.Development for a nice overview about DOS development in general with many links. There are some pretty cool gui toolskits for DOS. http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.DevelLibs If you prefer text mode you could use D-Flat+ or Turbo Vision. Otherwise if you prefer graphical guy... Perhaps you know wxWidgets, it's also available for DOS. It currently doesn't compile with newest gcc (djgpp) and also not with ow which is a shame, also the wxwidgets version is outdated but this is the less annoying thing. Maybe you want to port it, I think it's a good base for further DOS gui apps and not to hard for the start. regards, -mr usul schrieb: >> Hi, > > >>> It would help if you tell us what is your interest in DOS and/or what >>> you are using it most for. (recovery, backup, hardware testing, >>> benchmark, web browsing, gaming, music player, server or whatever) > My main interest is programming and a challenge. Occasionally play some old > games > that I miss. Bards Tale etc. > > http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Subversion%20client%20instructions > > I think a port would be a good start given my skill set. I am good at > debugging etc, > and for me looking at existing code is a faster way to start than writing > from scratch. > Debugging an existing app that has issues is ok too. > > I considering porting a svn command line tool > > Some other projects I have thought about are > GUI/Desktop. > Interested in the Kernel and Assembly programming. > > Basically anything that is new and different, in windows at work I feel like > I have been programming the same thing for years. > Different companies, but write a database build the data access and > manipulation, throw some buttons and textboxs > on a form, write a report. Rinse and repeat for a new client. > I want to create that button that I put on the form that I created not > borrowed from a the dot net library. etc. > I want to know exactly what happens when I do xcopy. reading the hard drive > etc. > > Plus I see alot of download this program from here to do that. take the > networking for example. > > See I am way ahead of myself. I have lots of experience programing and > working on teams. What I don't have is > dos programming or assembly. I have no clue about what I don't know, am not > even sure what to ask where to look. > > So I am quite content to sit back, take the druggy tasks and do whatever I > am told. I'll get to the kewl stuff when I learn > what I am doing. > > :) > Adam > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel |
From: Alain M. <al...@po...> - 2009-03-27 21:46:20
|
Hi theMouse, if you are willing to help, I have one suggestion that will make you very knowledgeable of FreeDOS: You could put toghether FreeDOS 1.1... most programs have new versions that are ok, but what is mostly needed is put all of it toghether, test new versions, fix a few things and probably modify a little the installer. Then you you really wnat to get into it, you could help with the kernel. There are some open problems that need attention. There are a lot of highly skilled programes in this list, if you start working on something, I am sure they will step in :) Alain usul escreveu: > Dev Team, > > I am very nearly completed on the setup of freedos. all I need now is > the network card, its in the mail. :) > But I can copy floppy by floppy if I have to :) > > I am very interested in helping. If you have any tasks that you need > done, even if it is unglamorous. > I'll take it. :) > > Not sure how one applies for this or what you need from me. > > I have been programing for 15 years. > I have done a great deal of windows programming but not dos, ... yet > I can code C & C++ but not Assembly, ... yet. > > Willing to learn/do whatever. I am very interested. > > Need someone interested and willing to mentor the dos programming stuff > I don't know. > I know that adds a little work and your time but the pay off will be > worth your time, promise. > > Adam Norton > aka theMouse > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel |
From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-28 05:01:22
|
> I agree, the FreeDOS installer is currently a bit annoying, you must > click and wait a dozens of time. Would be better first to choose all > packets or to click just go ahead and install everything without bugging > around. > > -mr Part that I hated most was that I had to keep clicking. Yes I would have liked to select all (tree view) then walk away. Not being able to choose where the applications went was something else I didn't like either. I used to organize all the "system" files in a system directory. and the apps in an app directory under C: instead of under the system directory. C:\FDOS "all the command programs here C:\Apps "all the applications under here grouped in directories like "games", develop, utility etc. Lastly the installer insisted on trying to setup networking even when I have no network card in this laptop. Lots of errors and extra enter keys. I have seen code out there that does hardware detection in dos. Saying that the installer worked and everything got onto my system. So I am not bad mouthing the work that was done. :) ~theMouse |
From: Eric A. <e....@jp...> - 2009-03-29 13:01:44
|
Hi Usul, >> I agree, the FreeDOS installer is currently a bit annoying, you must >> click and wait a dozens of time. Would be better first to choose all >> packets or to click just go ahead and install everything... I would prefer "everything which can install in a fast and safe way" as one of the predefined selections ;-). In other words, no drivers which need download, no network or usb stuff which can hang, no 3rd party software such as F-Prot. Just stuff from the CD-ROM, so I can come back 5 minutes later and have a working base system. Network and other stuff can be done later but at least I have a nice DOS. > Part that I hated most was that I had to keep clicking. Clicking per category and the heavy flicker were annoying yes. Although I must say that most people will be happy with only the BASE category already, so they can download a small ISO... They can still download other stuff later, manually or via the FDUPDATE or other services :-). > I used to organize all the "system" files in a system directory. and > the apps in an app directory under C: instead of under the system > directory. You can move around your files after installing, of course :-). It just makes the installation and package management a lot easier and faster to unzip everything into c:\fdos... As Blair already said, if you move around stuff, it could confuse the installer, fdpkg or fdupdate... On the other hand, you can always download zips manually and ignore fdpgk and co anyway. You will miss some comfort but if you are used to moving your files into custom directories, I am sure you prefer manually sorting your files according to your taste anyway :-). > Lastly the installer insisted on trying to setup networking even when > I have no network card in this laptop. Lots of errors and extra enter > keys. I have seen code out there that does hardware detection in dos. Yeah... Our installer does use PCI bus scanning, too, but the DHCP autoconfiguration still has some risk to fail... Or the drivers might crash, etc. In short: I recommend NOT to use any network during INITIAL install. Avoid anything that can hang or crash. Please DOS users with a quick basic installation :-). > Saying that the installer worked and everything got onto my system. > So I am not bad mouthing the work that was done. :) Eric |
From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-28 05:30:59
|
> You could put toghether FreeDOS 1.1... > most programs have new versions that are ok, but what is mostly needed > is put all of it toghether, test new versions, fix a few things and This sounds like a good task for me to start. And I am most certainly willing. Would this be pulling together the compiled executables or will I have to compiled? I am not sure I am ready to do the compiling since I come from an environment of fancy compilers and no make files etc. But I will if that is what is needed. Test environment: Virtual environment like QEMU or similar? Or will I need to test it on my machine, I would prefer not to undo the work I have done in the last week or so getting this thing running. Pros rebuild the test environment via a script is faster script could could create logs and documentation of the newer files etc Virtual environment is vanilla little bland, no hardware surprises. Cons Virtual environment is vanilla little bland, no hardware surprises. Virtual environment can be slower/faster than the end user system. Benchmark testing would be a little off. Test Cases: Tests are there any test cases or anything like that? Its been a while and I could go through the help for each. Could use batch scripting to run the tests and redirect the output for review. Reporting issues and bugs, how and where? > probably modify a little the installer. Not a problem is there any installer building software that could be used for this? Put it all together, just put it in the same place directory wise that I do now correct? or shall I do a different structure. What files dos commands and systems files only or all executables? Comments suggestions please, and an official ok to do this :) Or is it more informal ~theMouse > There are a lot of highly skilled programes in this list, if you start > working on something, I am sure they will step in :) |
From: usul <usu...@gm...> - 2009-03-28 16:31:39
|
fdpkg requires c:\FDOS? how do you maintain a working existing environment along side the beta one even following the existing structure and using c:\FDOSBETA or something acceptable. perhaps fdpkg could be modified to use a database to store where the packages are came from etc. Is there a open source database that can be used in an dos application, if none exist a flat file could be used as well. just a thought. the best thing would be to get 1.1 out the door. I am sure there is documentation for fdpgk I'll read it and figure out what needs to be done. ~theMouse |
From: lyricalnanoha <lyr...@us...> - 2009-03-28 16:44:44
|
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, usul wrote: > perhaps fdpkg could be modified to use a database to store where the > packages are came from etc. > > Is there a open source database that can be used in an dos > application, if none exist a flat file could be used as well. I randomly wonder if it's possible to hack apt-get and the dpkg system into working on DOS... *HIDES* -uso. |
From: Christian M. <cm...@bt...> - 2009-03-28 16:44:51
|
> fdpkg requires c:\FDOS? > how do you maintain a working existing environment > along side the beta one even following the existing > structure and using c:\FDOSBETA or something acceptable. No, it doesn't require this directory name. The directory name is read from the DOSDIR environment variable. It only requires the structure of subdirectories found in the %DOSDIR% directory (bin, doc, source, ...). BTW, why is FDPKG only in the directory of the FreeDOS 1.0 release on ibiblio.org? I couldn't find it anywhere else. Regards, Christian |
From: Eric A. <e....@jp...> - 2009-03-28 18:39:24
|
> fdpkg requires c:\FDOS? No, just a %DOSDIR% variable pointing to it. Simply use SET DOSDIR=... to set it. > perhaps fdpkg could be modified to use a database > to store where the packages are came from etc. The LSM files and FDUPDATE work well enough imho ;-) It also has a structure of one directory per package to store more data, but I suggest to change that in the future to support also one filename plus several file name extensions per package, so all those extra data files could be put into the same directory. For sources, I do not think much metadata has to be stored by FDPKG. This is similar to what for example RPM does as well... After all, sources do not run, they just sit around in your filesystem for you to look at or to compile :-). Eric |