> I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom
> of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it.
Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving
the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the
GPLs). (Note
> If code is released to the public domain, anyone can use it
> without restriction.
Right.
> But there would be no license to protect us, to keep someone like
> Microsoft from copying our code, and re-releasing it as their own
> under a proprietary license.
Yeah, that's a subset of "anyone can
> While you and I may prefer BSD-ish licenses for various reasons (esp.
> since if a developer hates the GPL, they won't contribute at all,
> which seemingly defeats the point), the majority of enthusiasts by far
> prefer and use GPLv2, esp. here in FreeDOS (hi, Jim!). GPL isn't bad,
> per se, just
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
> >> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
> >> and share freely.
> >
> > ... wh
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>>
>> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
>> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
>> and share freely.
>
> ... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also
>
> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped
> the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update
> and share freely.
... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also
does not necessitate that language choice, actually. I'm aware o
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Bret Johnson wrote:
>>
>> So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either.
>
> FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons
> like this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and
> is still the "minimum standard"
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, C. Masloch wrote:
>> In very rare cases only, though.
>
> Irrelevant.
Maybe to you and me, but most developers seem to weigh the issue with
how much time and effort vs. how important it is. To them, it makes
perfect sense to ignore things that don't bother th
> No, not by default. According to the "official" documentation (e.g.,
> the MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or
> multi-tasking environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation.
Then the particular problem in question is generally not a reason to
prefe
> You do always load its "SHARE" though, right?
No, not by default. According to the "official" documentation (e.g., the
MS-DOS on-line HELP utility), you only need SHARE in a network or multi-tasking
environment, which doesn't apply to my current situation.
--
> FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like
> this. MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the
> "minimum standard" to which others must compare. I would classify
> possible file corruption as a major problem, not a side issue.
You do always
> So if they aren't overly concerned, I guess I shouldn't be either.
FWIW, I use MS-DOS on a daily basis instead of FD for reasons like this.
MS-DOS is, by far, the most stable of the DOS's, and is still the "minimum
standard" to which others must compare. I would classify possible file
corru
> In very rare cases only, though.
Irrelevant.
> Admittedly nobody wants corruption, but I don't think most people rely
> on deleting open files (except POSIX, so it's probably only a problem
> when porting GNU stuff to DJGPP).
Inaccurate. RBIL's notes seldom refer to programs that target POSIX.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:23 AM, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> The problem is that even with FreeDOS's "SHARE" loaded, file system
> corruption occurs (reproducibly), and in cases that do not fail on MS-DOS
> with MS-DOS's "SHARE" loaded.
In very rare cases only, though.
> If there are enough active
> I'm not sure if this is a bug, misfeature, lack of testing (re:
> FreeDOS specifically vs. arcane dark corners of MS-DOS), or user
> error.
You don't need to be sure, because I am sure enough what it is.
And what it is, is completely broken file system semantics. Nothing to do
with "arcane da
Hi again,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T wrote:
>>
>> How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
>> operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
>> DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific util
Hi,
On Jul 3, 2012 7:27 PM, "Marco Achury" wrote:
>
> I was a qbasic fan. Is a great language. Freedos has a lot of
interpreters
> and compilers available, but none has that great IDE.
I'm no heavy user of IDEs and similar complicated stuff, but I think we
have plenty of options. If you're onl
Hi,
On Jul 3, 2012 7:16 PM, "Jeffrey" wrote:
>
> > The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
> > called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
> > that finally changed.
>
> Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
1). In Fr
El 03/07/2012 03:45 p.m., Jeffrey escribió:
> Hi,
>
>> The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
>> called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
>> that finally changed.
> Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
>
>> The rea
Hi,
> The earlier version of edit was essentially a compiled batch file that
> called qbasic with its editor personality. I was *delighted* to see
> that finally changed.
Is there a way to do this from the command line without edit?
> The reason is simple enough: what on earth would you *do* wi
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
> IIRC NT 4.0 included some DOS 5.0 utilities and programs (including edit,
> debug, etc).
> Actually, sometime after this, microsoft created a new version of edit that
> doesn't require
> qbasic.
The earlier version of edit was essentially a comp
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin T wrote:
>
> How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
> operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
> DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS
> applications which do not work und
Hi!
> don't know how else to say it: Windows is crap for DOS compatibility.
Thats about the only way to say it :) Vista dropped support for fullscreen
mode, and I can't imagine support has improved in Windows 7.
> but the only "DOS" [sic] apps that still ship with 32-bit Windows that
> I can re
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>> Recently there was a thread
>> about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS
>> SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS
>
> ... where this "not as good" support apparently amounts to "may corrupt
> yo
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
>
> Actually given Microsoft restored a dos structure to what was it, windows
> 7? some of those utilities may be even more current.
> Just my take,
> Karen
I'm not sure what this means. I (sadly) don't have any machines with
32-bit Win
> Recently there was a thread
> about concurrent file access in the network - apparently FreeDOS
> SHARE and kernel support for it are not as good as in MS DOS
... where this "not as good" support apparently amounts to "may corrupt
your file system when concurrent write access occurs". This, nat
I strongly suggest you do your own research here.
for example there is a ms dos package 7.1 which is augmented with dos
utilities from 2003 and 2005, far more current than 18 years ago. Of
course enhanced Dr does is maintained regularly.
As someone who uses dos exclusively, I can tell you tha
Hi!
> How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
> operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
> DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS
> applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully
> compatible with (
How compatible is FreeDOS with applications written to other DOS
operating systems(for example MS-DOS and Windows 95/98/ME, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS)? Are there any known specific utilities or more complex DOS
applications which do not work under FreeDOS? Or is FreeDOS fully
compatible with (all other) DOS v
29 matches
Mail list logo
