Re: Commercial use of FreeDOS / BETA status and missing features

Sane wrote:

>Howdy, I'm new to this list, but decided to chime in on this
>
>On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 17:40, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>>  need a 386 CPU and must not use the FreeDOS EMS driver). The FreeCOM
>>  command.com shell does not see long file names, though.
>>
>
>Personal opinion is FreeCOM does not need to have LFN support ... even
>DOS under Win 9x does not support this and names with spaces would break
>batch files.
>
What do you mean? I open MS-COMMAND.COM under Win9X, and I see LFN 
listings. I can run LFNs whenever I put them into quotes...
C:\>"MY BIG PROGRAM WITH SPACES"
For the contrary, I believe that it would be good if FreeCOM would have 
this, at least in DIR (although I don't see this as prioritary).

>>  However, we should at least wait for an EMM386 with VCPI (what makes it DPMI
>>  compatible: Then we have UMB, EMS and DPMI all at the same time) and better
>>  versions of CHKDSK (and have some bugs like the FDISK/FAT32 one fixed) etc.
>>  before we leave BETA status.
>>
>
>DPMI support would be very nice, I would like to see this in a 1.0, but
>I remember that DOS 5.0 & 6.22 does not have this feature, that is why
>at work we used QEMM.
>
And I'd like to use CWSDPMI, that doesn't come with FreeDOS ;-)
My claim was about VCPI in EMM386  :))

>>  By the way, do we need a BASIC to leave beta status? Our BASIC is a very
>>  limited version, I wonder if anybody still buys MS DOS because of QBASIC ???
>>  If yes, we cannot really offer QBASIC. But we could take efforts to have a
>>  "no line numbers needed" clone of GWBASIC. Most people use QBASIC that way,
>>  only few use the other (many) advanced features of QBASIC.
>>
>
>There are probably some out there that use QBASIC, though I'm not one of
>them and what few programs I do have were written in GWBASIC.
>
>That said it's a great project and seems to be very useful as it is now.
>
There were BWBASIC and BASEC. I have not used them. What happened about 
these two?

Aitor