Blair Campbell wrote: > Those are more likely ISOLinux issues, and most users will probably > not be using PART (which seems to interpret ISOLinux somehow as a > virus, which would somewhat seem like a PART bug to me at least).
I figured that ISOLinux might be the culprit since PART was detecting that something was different while the BIOS's detection code wasn't. And you may be right about it being a PART bug. I don't even know how widely used PART was; it may be rare. The reason that I included it in my report is that it seemed like a good example of the kind of messy interactions (with other pgms) that FreeDOS is likely to encounter once 1.0 is released. Who knows what kind of software is out there that FreeDOS will conflict with - bad BIOSs, anti-virus scanners, boot managers, compression schemes, etc.? I'm hoping to *help* eliminate some potential problems by providing examples of some of the risks of asking FreeDOS to do things which the BIOS can do for itself (e.g. reboot, detect hdds, etc.). Maybe by reducing some of the risky tasks FreeDOS does, we can reduce the number of times that FreeDOS will be blamed for things which are not its fault. -Eddie ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
