Re: 1.2.0 binary install

[norseman <norseman@firstlight.net>]

Bart Oldeman wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, norseman wrote:
> 
> > again:  /usr/local/share/dosemu  is just more typing.
> >         /usr/local/dosemu        see?
> 
> I know, but I'm trying to follow a standard, the FHS, which may be
> different from the norseman standard.
> 

I guess the questions are: Why follow any "Jonhhy come lately"?
	Why not keep it simple, to the point and traditional?

> > MSDOS does not do network.
> 
> it sure does. Think about multiple DOSEMUs running at the same time as
> multiple DOS clients sitting on a LAN. The lredir'ed drives look to DOS
> and DOS applications as network drives. Nothing more and nothing less.
>

NO IT DON'T. IT NEVER DID. There were/are "add-ons" that alow network,
but MSDOS as shipped by MicroSoft NEVER had network buit-in. Truth!
Your version might, but MSDOS doesn't.
 
> > YES - 1.0.2 and 1.1.99.1 do require a disk partition to be dismounted
> > before they run.
> 
> that's *direct* partition access you are talking about. And yes,
> for that ($_hdimage = "/dev/hda1") you need exclusive access, otherwise
> the FAT will be corrupted.
>

Daffynition time:
	 live boot = booting the actual OS
         use real MSDOS 6.22 bootable disk = that's *direct* partition
access

"otherwise the FAT will be corrupted."
 S O C K S (pronounce the letters and you say the mexican equivelant of
             That is what I said.
           )  

> The method of
> linux# mount /dev/hda1 /dosc
> c:\>lredir c: linux\fs/dosc
> is completely different. Now c: is a network drive to DOS apps. And

In REAL MicroSoft_Disk_Operrating_System (MSDOS) use, having C: appear
as a network drive disables a ton of software. Most Norton 4.x disk
utilities (DS- directory sort, NU- direct disk util, etc) will refuse
to run.

I guess it's time to ask: 
	What are you maintaining? Is it supposed to be the ability
to run actual MS-DOS as it was when it was *the* OS or something else?

	As concerns: that's *direct* partition access:
	The use of DOSEMU_1.0.2.? on older hardware and Slackware 8.1
and earlier yielded full MS-DOS compatibility (as far as I tested) on
all but protected mode programs (like AutoCAD). Would you please define
your vision of your current and projected DOSEMU efforts?
(I never tried it on Slack 9.0 or 9.1)

	What do you consider DOSEMU to be?

	What is FHS?  (I see the layout, FHS is F___ H____ S___
			fill in the blanks please.
		      )

	If FHS is interested in turning the world upside down,
	Why should I (or anyone) follow? 

I'm not mad, just concerned (and a bit confused).
	Where are your defined objectives for DOSEMU?

Steve Turner
norseman@firstlight.net