"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adfhl4$12s2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>     I was (in past) the coordinator of the project, but due to license
> issues it could not be called DOS/32A, so I removed all the files and the
> docs from the site. Nowadays you can only download the original 7.1
version
> original by Narech, and not the my derived 8.00 version.

So, it would be enough to change the name, in order to make your version available?

>     The project was a bit abandoned until Narech noticed a bit of interest
> in DOS programming in the OpenWatcom group, so he decided to release it as
> Open Source (I must remember it was a commercial product).
>
>     I do not know if he would be interested in modifying it, but there is
> nothing bad in download the program with the sources and adapt it to be
> compatible with DMC as far as it is not called DOS/32 A nor DOS/32
Advanced.

Yep, sounds challenging enough! <g>  I tried to adapt WDOSX, but DMC Win32 code uses CreateSemaphore and ReleaseSemaphore, so when I provided my own dummies, nothing was displayed!  Well, I managed to make it work with Borland's free command line tools, so it's not that bad...

Laurentiu


> "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adfgj4$11no$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the
> project
> > admin.  Therefore I assumed you're developping it...
> >
> > Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications?  Walter, would this be
> of
> > interest for you?  Probably, at least some specs would be needed...
> >
> > Laurentiu
> >
> > "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adf8o1$pno$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >     The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom Perforce
> > > system, and maybe the official web site too.
> > >
> > >     I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in
that
> > > case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech@NOSPAM@telia.com), the original author, since I was only the web site developer.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adf7ni$okl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g>  Are you
maintaining
> > it
> > > > now?  I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he
the
> > same
> > > > guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify
OPTLINK
> to
> > > > generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
> > > executables,
> > > > why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are the
> DMC
> > > > requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in
> another
> > > > extender?  X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to be maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
> > > >
> > > > I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
> > > >
> > > > Laurentiu
> > > >
> > > > "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:addjfo$s3r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > >     It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
> > > > >     By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
> > > > >     If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
> > faster,
> > > > > smaller, and open source, take a look at
> http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

    Yes, changing the name, the version scheme and the copyright and author
is enought, since the distributions license is Apache-like.
    Althought this is not a trivial task because there are a lot of files of
diferent types in the distribution (docs, sources, ...).


"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adfldv$174i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adfhl4$12s2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >     I was (in past) the coordinator of the project, but due to license
> > issues it could not be called DOS/32A, so I removed all the files and
the
> > docs from the site. Nowadays you can only download the original 7.1
> version
> > original by Narech, and not the my derived 8.00 version.
>
> So, it would be enough to change the name, in order to make your version available?
>
> >     The project was a bit abandoned until Narech noticed a bit of
interest
> > in DOS programming in the OpenWatcom group, so he decided to release it
as
> > Open Source (I must remember it was a commercial product).
> >
> >     I do not know if he would be interested in modifying it, but there
is
> > nothing bad in download the program with the sources and adapt it to be compatible with DMC as far as it is not called DOS/32 A nor DOS/32
> Advanced.
>
> Yep, sounds challenging enough! <g>  I tried to adapt WDOSX, but DMC Win32 code uses CreateSemaphore and ReleaseSemaphore, so when I provided my own dummies, nothing was displayed!  Well, I managed to make it work with Borland's free command line tools, so it's not that bad...
>
> Laurentiu
>
>
> > "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adfgj4$11no$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > I looked in the project page at SourceForge, and you appeared as the
> > project
> > > admin.  Therefore I assumed you're developping it...
> > >
> > > Do you think Narech Koumar would be interested in modifying DOS32A for supporting DigitalMars DOS extended applications?  Walter, would this
be
> > of
> > > interest for you?  Probably, at least some specs would be needed...
> > >
> > > Laurentiu
> > >
> > > "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adf8o1$pno$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > >     The DOS/32 A project will be hosted under the OpenWatcom
Perforce
> > > > system, and maybe the official web site too.
> > > >
> > > >     I think there will be no problem with using it with DMC, but in
> that
> > > > case you should contact Narech Koumar (narech@NOSPAM@telia.com), the original author, since I was only the web site developer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@nowhere.near> escribió en el mensaje news:adf7ni$okl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > > It looks really impressive... I'm speechless! <g>  Are you
> maintaining
> > > it
> > > > > now?  I saw on the credits list the name of Thomas Pythel - is he
> the
> > > same
> > > > > guy who wrote the PMODE series extenders, aka Tran?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what it would be easier: to bug Walter to modify
> OPTLINK
> > to
> > > > > generate LX executables (DMC already supports creating DOS/16M
> > > > executables,
> > > > > why not also DOS/4G ones?), or convince him to tell us what are
the
> > DMC
> > > > > requirements for generating a DOSX exe, so we can add support in
> > another
> > > > > extender?  X32 seems to have a few problems, and doesn't seem to
be
> > > > > maintained any more, so we need our own replacement for X32... <g>
> > > > >
> > > > > I can hardly wait for OpenWatcom to do a full release... ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Laurentiu
> > > > >
> > > > > "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:addjfo$s3r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > > >     It seems the Flashtek DOS Extender is a bit outdated.
> > > > > >     By the way, now Rationl Systems is Tenberry.
> > > > > >     If you are looking for a DOS4GW compatible DOS Extender, but
> > > faster,
> > > > > > smaller, and open source, take a look at
> > http://dos32a.sourceforge.net
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:adflku$17hc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>     Yes, changing the name, the version scheme and the copyright and
author
> is enought, since the distributions license is Apache-like.
>     Althought this is not a trivial task because there are a lot of files
of
> diferent types in the distribution (docs, sources, ...).

Can't this be done from Perl? <g>.  Now, putting jokes aside, I think it would be a very interesting project.  Are the "-mx" requirements available for download from DigitalMars?

Laurentiu

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1@smartsoft.cc...
> <g>
> I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
gave/gives...
> It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
> Jan

I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily, but DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying customers are using that).  I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but it seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't we?

Laurentiu

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1@smartsoft.cc...
> > <g>
> > I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
> gave/gives...
> > It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
> > Jan
>
> I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily, but DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying customers are using that).  I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but it seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't we?

If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want to use
DOSX on XP???
Win32 console makes a lot more sense.

Jan

    I use regularlly some DOS apps under XP, so it has sense.

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5@smartsoft.cc...
> Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
>
> > "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1@smartsoft.cc...
> > > <g>
> > > I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
> > gave/gives...
> > > It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
> > > Jan
> >
> > I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily,
but
> > DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying
customers
> > are using that).  I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but
it
> > seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't
we?
>
> If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
to use
> DOSX on XP???
> Win32 console makes a lot more sense.
>
> Jan
>
>

For existing applications yes...
For stuff you have the sources off...???

Jan



"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:

>     I use regularlly some DOS apps under XP, so it has sense.
>
> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5@smartsoft.cc...
> > Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> >
> > > "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFABC59.F14758D1@smartsoft.cc...
> > > > <g>
> > > > I you should compare what size and performance Flashtek's DOSX
> > > gave/gives...
> > > > It's made DOS3GW look pretty bad...
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > I've got some bad news: I contacted Mr. Doug Huffman, and, from what I understood from his answer, he can update stack alignment quite easily,
> but
> > > DOSEmu and XP support is not going to happen (none of his paying
> customers
> > > are using that).  I can't say I don't understand his point of view, but
> it
> > > seems we're somehow on our own with DOS extender support for DMC, aren't
> we?
> >
> > If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
> to use
> > DOSX on XP???
> > Win32 console makes a lot more sense.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3CFCF15B.B7A0EDD5@smartsoft.cc...
> If you want to run it on XP I guess you are, but why the heck do you want
to use
> DOSX on XP???
> Win32 console makes a lot more sense.
>
> Jan

Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu).  If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal.  It beats Java in any case!  :)

I still remember about MapleV3: it had a Windows version (Win32 GUI, very nice, but took 8M only for the GUI part) and a DOS extended version, console only, which needed no memory besides 2M for its mathematical kernel and the PharLap extender.  And with a machine with 32M of RAM, Win95+nice GUI was no match for DOS mode + DOS extender.  And it was much faster, too... (less swapping, I guess :)

Laurentiu

> Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu).  If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal.  It beats Java in any case!  :)

Yes it does!

I nevertheless would create difference executables for the different platforms...

Jan

"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adj61s$1r98$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Not necessarily: to quote from WDOSX, you can have a single small program, with no external DLL dependencies, that can run on more than 90% from all machines (DOS, Win 3.1x, Win9x, WinNT4 and later, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD with DOSEmu).  If it's about console mode programs, that only do standard i/o, and thus don't depend on different DPMI limitations for accessing hardware, it's ideal.  It beats Java in any case!  :)

What I used to do was create dual mode programs, i.e. making a Win32 program and have the "stub executable" be the DOS version. The DOS versions didn't work well under Win32 because they couldn't handle long filenames, had problems with DOS filetimes vs Win32 filetimes, etc.