Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-21 Thread maybeway36
There is a package for what I believe is Rugxulo's snapshot: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/fdupdate/kernel.zip Make sure to install country.zip too. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Christian Masloch > wrote: >>> OK,

Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-20 Thread Jim Hall
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Christian Masloch wrote: >> OK, sorry. I thought 2038 was the unstable branch. It is mentioned in >> the wiki about the unstable branch but is denoted stable. > > Apparently it's a bit confusing. 2036 was the original build, later > renamed "Stable". From this, t

Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-19 Thread Christian Masloch
> OK, sorry. I thought 2038 was the unstable branch. It is mentioned in > the wiki about the unstable branch but is denoted stable. Apparently it's a bit confusing. 2036 was the original build, later renamed "Stable". From this, the 37 build was created, called "Unstable". Both of these were

Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-19 Thread Anders Jansson
OK, sorry. I thought 2038 was the unstable branch. It is mentioned in the wiki about the unstable branch but is denoted stable. /Anders -- Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) t

Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-18 Thread Christian Masloch
>>> If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release >>> 2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend >>> making 2038 available, and putting the "few pending improvements" in >>> 2039. >> The problem is that Eric holds back at least three necessary patches,

Re: [Freedos-user] Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches

2009-04-17 Thread Anders Jansson
>> If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release >> 2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend >> making 2038 available, and putting the "few pending improvements" in >> 2039. >The problem is that Eric holds back at least three necessary patches, of >