Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
28.04.2008, 20:49
 

4DOS 7.62 released (Announce)

Thread locked

Lucho has released 4DOS 7.62 on April 25, 2008.

Website: http://4dos.z-bg.com

Changes:

> Build 162 (Version 7.62) ? 25 April 2008:
>
> * The prompt after a CLS now goes to the first, not the second line
> * As in COMMAND.COM, /K now suppresses the signon messages like /C
> (Note: As IO.SYS 7.x appends "/D /K AUTOEXEC" or "/K NETSTART"
> to the SHELL= line, add a colon after the "K" to "mute" the signon.)

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
05.05.2008, 13:17

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> Lucho has released 4DOS 7.62 on April 25, 2008.
>
> Website: http://4dos.z-bg.com
>
> Changes:

Build 163 (Version 7.63) ? 3 May 2008:

* If EditMode is not Init*, cursor shape is now reset on hitting Enter
* "Warm" REBOOT in DOS now also pulses RESET pin on ATs (still "warm")
* If InstallPath is not set, OPTION can now invoke 4HELP
(Note: OPTION can't be built yet, so that's only in source)

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
05.05.2008, 18:34

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> > Lucho has released 4DOS 7.62 on April 25, 2008.
> >
> > Website: http://4dos.z-bg.com
> >
> > Changes:
>
> Build 163 (Version 7.63) — 3 May 2008:
>
> * If EditMode is not Init*, cursor shape is now reset on hitting Enter
> * "Warm" REBOOT in DOS now also pulses RESET pin on ATs (still "warm")
> * If InstallPath is not set, OPTION can now invoke 4HELP
> (Note: OPTION can't be built yet, so that's only in source)

Dearest Robert,
It has been brought to my attention that Lucho does not like me posting 4DOS announcements here. If you wish, you can delete this thread.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
05.05.2008, 21:11

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> It has been brought to my attention that Lucho does not like me posting
> 4DOS announcements here.

For what rational reasons?

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
05.05.2008, 21:17

@ rr
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> > It has been brought to my attention that Lucho does not like me
> posting
> > 4DOS announcements here.
>
> For what rational reasons?

Sour grapes? ;-)

EDIT: Maybe give him a week-long temporary account (possibly extended)? I'd assume he could behave himself.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
05.05.2008, 21:31

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> EDIT: Maybe give him a week-long temporary account (possibly
> extended)? I'd assume he could behave himself.

Are you kidding? :surprised:
But OK, let's face this experiment. I'm re-enabling his account now. I guess, we'll see very soon, that this was a bad idea from you. :-|

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
07.05.2008, 08:18

@ rr
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> But OK, let's face this experiment. I'm re-enabling his account now. I
> guess, we'll see very soon, that this was a bad idea from you. :-|

This seems to be a absolutely clear case of "Wenn's dem Esel zu wohl wird, geht er auf's Eis". :-D

Or, in other words: it was a small step for you, but a great step backwards for the forum.

One bad impact can be seen already: it's now virtually impossible to discuss 4DOS here, since we all know what these guys understand by the term "attacking".

---
MS-DOS forever!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.05.2008, 09:35

@ Japheth
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> Or, in other words: it was a small step for you, but a great step
> backwards for the forum.

Hey, I'm just the admin, not God. Who am I to deny a user's wish? ;-)

> One bad impact can be seen already: it's now virtually impossible to
> discuss 4DOS here, since we all know what these guys understand by the
> term "attacking".

It was Rugxulo's idea, not mine. :-P
But is there really a need discuss 4DOS? I've never used it. If I need a real shell, I use DJGPP's GNU Bash. :-D

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
08.05.2008, 01:45

@ Japheth
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> > But OK, let's face this experiment. I'm re-enabling his account now. I
> > guess, we'll see very soon, that this was a bad idea from you.
> :-|

Is a permanent ban really that useful? I mean, sure if someone is really really persistent, otherwise I do think temporary is more just.

> This seems to be a absolutely clear case of "Wenn's dem Esel zu wohl wird,
> geht er auf's Eis". :-D
>
> Or, in other words: it was a small step for you, but a great step
> backwards for the forum.

Only if it all turns into flames, and the same solution can be used as before (unlikely, IMO). None of us are perfect. And more DOS fans having useful discussions can't be bad.

> One bad impact can be seen already: it's now virtually impossible to
> discuss 4DOS here, since we all know what these guys understand by the
> term "attacking".

I haven't really seen any remarks about 4DOS here at all, so I think worries about that are moot. (I'll admit, I very very very seldom use it as I'm not really familiar with its advanced features, mostly due to other interests.)

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
08.05.2008, 10:08

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> Is a permanent ban really that useful? I mean, sure if someone is really
> really persistent, otherwise I do think temporary is more just.

> Only if it all turns into flames, and the same solution can be used as
> before (unlikely, IMO). None of us are perfect. And more DOS fans having
> useful discussions can't be bad.

One single person can "destroy" a forum if the admin doesn't stop it. And this one has already proven what his intentions are. So yes, IMO it was an "unwise" decision.

> I haven't really seen any remarks about 4DOS here at all, so I think
> worries about that are moot. (I'll admit, I very very very seldom use it
> as I'm not really familiar with its advanced features, mostly due to other
> interests.)

I'm also not interested in this thing, but that's irrelevant, it still is a restriction of freedom.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

08.05.2008, 13:55

@ Japheth
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> One single person can "destroy" a forum if the admin doesn't stop it.

Yes, but fortunately Udo was on his duty.

> And this one has already proven what his intentions are.

And what are my intentions? What about yours?

> I'm also not interested in this thing, but that's irrelevant, it still is a restriction of freedom.

So when the maintainer of a program can't attend the discussion about it, this is full freedom, but when he can, this is a restriction of freedom?!

marcov(R)

08.05.2008, 12:39

@ Rugxulo
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> I haven't really seen any remarks about 4DOS here at all, so I think
> worries about that are moot. (I'll admit, I very very very seldom use it
> as I'm not really familiar with its advanced features, mostly due to other
> interests.)

I really liked it and used it daily to +/- 2001. Then I was faced with upgrading to 4NT, and I didn't do that, partially also because I got used to bash on *nix. So for the bit of occasional scripting here and there that I do, I since used cygwin's bash.

That was also around the time that I left the BBS scene, where 4dos was very,very entrenched.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
08.05.2008, 15:22

@ marcov
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> > I haven't really seen any remarks about 4DOS here at all, so I think
> > worries about that are moot. (I'll admit, I very very very seldom use
> it
>
> I really liked it and used it daily to +/- 2001.

It's a very nice shell, I just don't understand it (yet)! Since it is free now, I've considered using it more for .BATs, but so far I've focused more on other compatibility tidbits. (Still patiently waiting for the next OpenWatcom release too, which will supposedly be able to build it!) I even tried to personally benchmark it to prove .BTM was faster than .BAT, but no luck. (Any takers?)

marcov(R)

14.05.2008, 12:11

@ marcov
 

4DOS 7.63 released

 

> I really liked it and used it daily to +/- 2001. Then I was faced with
> upgrading to 4NT, and I didn't do that, partially also because I got used
> to bash on *nix. So for the bit of occasional scripting here and there
> that I do, I since used cygwin's bash.
>
> That was also around the time that I left the BBS scene, where 4dos was
> very,very entrenched.

And left/rewrote the last of Dos programs I used, making a lot of batchfiles that wrap SFN-only dos exes redundant. 4Dos was nice for that IIRC

lucho

06.05.2008, 13:42

@ Rugxulo
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> > > It has been brought to my attention that Lucho does not like me posting 4DOS announcements here.
> >
> > For what rational reasons?

Because if someone attacks 4DOS or me, I couldn't defend myself as I was banned. (Remember that I have a few enemies here who have repeatedly offended myself, my friends, our socialist past, and so on, while denying me defence by banning me.)

> Sour grapes? ;-)

If you hint the fable of Aesop for the Fox and the Grape, no!!! This forum isn't the "sweet grape" that everybody in the world except me could "enjoy". I don't aspire for it. There are other DOS forums in the world and yours isn't the best.

> EDIT: Maybe give him a week-long temporary account (possibly
> extended)? I'd assume he could behave himself.

Thanks, this will allow me to defend myself if someone attacks 4DOS. Otherwise, I will refrain myself from attending this forum anymore, because my enemies will enjoy again attacking me, and defending myself from such attacks isn't much fun.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
06.05.2008, 18:18

@ lucho
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> > > For what rational reasons?
>
> Because if someone attacks 4DOS or me

Who attacked you or 4DOS here recently? Rugxulo just posted an announcement about 4DOS.

> I couldn't defend myself as I was
> banned. (Remember that I have a few enemies here who have repeatedly
> offended myself, my friends, our socialist past, and so on, while denying
> me defence by banning me.)

I will not talk about this sh*t again.

> If you hint the fable of Aesop for the Fox and the Grape, no!!! This forum
> isn't the "sweet grape" that everybody in the world except me could
> "enjoy". I don't aspire for it. There are other DOS forums in the world

Could you please name a few?

> and yours isn't the best.

Which one is the best? And why do you think, it's the best?

lucho

06.05.2008, 18:59

@ rr
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> Who attacked you or 4DOS here recently? Rugxulo just posted an announcement about 4DOS.

Nobody, for which I'm thankful, but they could. "Where it leaked, it'll leak again" (a Bulgarian proverb). Let's hope not.

> I will not talk about this sh*t again.

No, I was banned for another reason!

> > There are other DOS forums in the world

> Could you please name a few?

Udo's board, the mailing lists for FreeDOS, the Russian FIDO7 DOS newsgroup... Not strictly forums, but close...

> Which one is the best? And why do you think, it's the best?

You'd disagree, of course, but I think that Udo's is the best, solely because of its users (nobody enjoys attacking other people there). As a technical design, yours may be superior, but some people have discredited it in my eyes.

It's the people who matter most in this world, and of course, the society.

Anyway, thank you for lifting the ban on me. I decided to take advantage of this, although some may now interpret this as "the fish biting the bait" and start playing the same bad old game again... What pleasure they have in this?!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
06.05.2008, 22:14

@ lucho
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> > Which one is the best? And why do you think, it's the best?
>
> You'd disagree, of course,

Why do you think so? I don't expect this forum to be the best by now, but I want to make it the best in future.

> but I think that Udo's is the best, solely
> because of its users (nobody enjoys attacking other people there). As a

Sorry, but here I really have to disagree. Users might be very nice at Udo's board, but there's no content. You can count recent topics on the fingers of one hand.

> technical design, yours may be superior, but some people have discredited
> it in my eyes.
>
> It's the people who matter most in this world, and of course, the
> society.

Just dreaming? Money rules the world. There is no denying.

> Anyway, thank you for lifting the ban on me. I decided to take advantage
> of this, although some may now interpret this as "the fish biting the
> bait" and start playing the same bad old game again... What pleasure they
> have in this?!

We'll see, what happens next.

lucho

07.05.2008, 13:40

@ rr
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> Why do you think so? I don't expect this forum to be the best by now, but I want to make it the best in future.

Great, and let's hope that it will be able to attract the best DOS people too.

> Sorry, but here I really have to disagree. Users might be very nice at Udo's board, but there's no content.
> You can count recent topics on the fingers of one hand.

True, but quantity doesn't mean quality, nor quality means quantity.

> > It's the people who matter most in this world, and of course, the society.
>
> Just dreaming? Money rules the world. There is no denying.

You're probably too young to understand how far this common misconception is from the truth.

> We'll see, what happens next.

Nothing bad initiated by me. So everybody worried by my return can calm down.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.05.2008, 17:48

@ lucho
 

Sour grapes? No. Just the right to defence!

 

> > You can count recent topics on the fingers of one hand.
>
> True, but quantity doesn't mean quality, nor quality means quantity.

That's correct, but I didn't see much quality over there. :-P

> > Just dreaming? Money rules the world. There is no denying.
>
> You're probably too young to understand how far this common misconception
> is from the truth.

I'm old enough, I think. But it's the truth, that money rules the world. If you like it or not.

lucho

07.05.2008, 19:10
(edited by lucho, 07.05.2008, 19:48)

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

It's pointless to argue on those issues here. By the way, how can I delete my own posts here?

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
08.05.2008, 01:14

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> It's pointless to argue on those issues here. By the way, how can I delete
> my own posts here?

You can't. They're being held as evidence.

lucho

08.05.2008, 09:07

@ Steve
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> > By the way, how can I delete my own posts here?
>
> You can't. They're being held as evidence.

Hmm, A. Grech could do that some months ago, but I see, he's a "superuser"! :-D

Evidence of what crimes and before which court?

The only real court is the court of one's conscience, and mine is clear.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
08.05.2008, 10:07

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> Hmm, A. Grech could do that some months ago, but I see, he's a
> "superuser"! :-D

Anybody can - it's easy to save Web pages. There is also the Google cache - try deleting that, too.

> Evidence of what crimes and before which court?

I did not use the words crime or court. You, however, are free to use your imagination.

> The only real court is the court of one's conscience, and mine is clear.

And here I was, thinking you had no sense of humor.

lucho

08.05.2008, 13:45

@ Steve
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> There is also the Google cache - try deleting that, too.

It auto-deletes after the original page is gone, with a delay of some days/weeks.

> I did not use the words crime or court. You, however, are free to use your imagination.

You wrote "evidence" and didn't answer my question (for what? before what?).

> And here I was, thinking you had no sense of humor.

Sorry, I don't understand "and here I was". You mean that you were right? I do lose my sense of humor when talking to people whose attitude to me is not good.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
09.05.2008, 01:47

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> It auto-deletes after the original page is gone, with a delay of some
> days/weeks.

Time enough for anyone who is interested to catch it before you delete the original.

> You wrote "evidence" and didn't answer my question (for what? before
> what?).

You are free to use your imagination.

> > And here I was, thinking you had no sense of humor.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand "and here I was". You mean that you were right?

It means, more or less, in the position of thinking something until new data show the need to revise a hypothesis.

> I do lose my sense of humor when talking to people whose attitude to me is
> not good.

This is hilarious. Does anyone else have the same right?

lucho

09.05.2008, 15:34

@ Steve
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but whatever it is, it's grossly off-topic, so please stop.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
09.05.2008, 21:23

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> I don't understand what you are trying to say, but whatever it is, it's
> grossly off-topic, so please stop.

I mean that you have come back in attack mode and, as usual, accuse anyone who disagrees with your paranoid analysis of causing unpleasantness. I find your lack of sensitivity to your own role here to be hysterically funny.

Before you delete your messages (why do you want to?), read them.

sol(R)

10.05.2008, 01:20

@ Steve
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

I figured it couldn't last. Forum was nice 'n readable until now.

What's next? Jack will come back?

sol(R)

10.05.2008, 01:22

@ sol
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

Oh right, on topic:

4DOS is bloatware. A shell should be minimalistic and consume as little memory as possible since it's required to be running. Too much hogging of memory leaves too little for applications.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
10.05.2008, 03:49

@ sol
 

4DOS != bloatware

 

> 4DOS is bloatware. A shell should be minimalistic and consume as little
> memory as possible since it's required to be running. Too much hogging of
> memory leaves too little for applications.

IIRC, it only uses approx. 250k conv. memory (and that's when no XMS or EMS is found). That's bad if you need that low memory, but indeed only an 8086 really has that problem. Everybody else lets it swap to XMS/EMS. Of course it's more "bloated" than COMMAND.COM, it includes more functionality (attrib, deltree, move, replace, touch, xcopy). If you want even slimmer, use FreeCOM, but it's not nearly as powerful. I like both (just haven't learned 4DOS yet: todo!).

marcov(R)

14.05.2008, 12:14
(edited by marcov, 14.05.2008, 12:29)

@ sol
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> Oh right, on topic:
>
> 4DOS is bloatware. A shell should be minimalistic and consume as little
> memory as possible since it's required to be running. Too much hogging of
> memory leaves too little for applications.

Hmm, one of the main reasons I started running 4dos in the first place is that it left more conventional memory free than Dos in a shell. This because 4dos swaps itself out when a program is run, later versions of 4dos were pretty extreme in that (less than 10kb resident iirc)

Admitted, this was in Dos 6 times, dunno what the win9x dosses changed for that, since I never used them without 4dos - qemm - hyperdisk

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
10.05.2008, 03:45

@ sol
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> I figured it couldn't last. Forum was nice 'n readable until now.
>
> What's next? Jack will come back?

Both Lucho and Jack do indeed have a lot to offer, and you have to take the good and the bad, not one or the other. We all have flaws, but "lack of forbearance spoils great plans". Is holding a grudge helping any of us? Is it helping improve DOS? Unlikely. Not to sound too glib, but "united we stand, divided we fall." (Okay, enough philosophies ....)

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
10.05.2008, 06:51

@ Rugxulo
 

Learning 4DOS or ...

 

> Okay, enough philosophies ....

That's a good idea. Stop this advertising and instead make yourself familiar with the paranoid view of the world. This subject is ways more interesting than learning 4DOS and you'll also realize that trying to argue or discuss with such guys is a complete waste of time.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

10.05.2008, 15:37

@ Japheth
 

Please stop your personal attacks!

 

The inevitable happened. All my enemies are here now. It's obviously much more important for them to attack someone whom they know is too sensitive (just to enjoy the damage they do to him!) than to offer something constructive. Robert, because of the repeated personal attacks to me and 4DOS, I hereby request that you take some measures against those 3 individuals, as the forum administrator. Their biggest wish is that I leave this forum, but just because of this I won't.

[image]

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 12:20

@ lucho
 

Please stop your personal attacks!

 

> The inevitable happened. All my enemies are here now.

They are not your enemies. They just have different opinions.

> It's obviously much
> more important for them to attack someone whom they know is too sensitive
> (just to enjoy the damage they do to him!) than to offer something
> constructive.

I see. But this also applies to your friend Khusraw, who obviously still lives in this forum's past.

> Robert, because of the repeated personal attacks to me and
> 4DOS, I hereby request that you take some measures against those 3
> individuals, as the forum administrator.

What shall I do? Ban those three? This is still a discussion forum and I see different opinions here, but no personal attacks. But you are right, many recent posts should have been more objective. Therefore I admonish everybody to be more objective!

Nevertheless either choose to clarify wrong statements like sol's "4DOS is bloatware" or ignore these.

> Their biggest wish is that I leave this forum, but just because of this I
> won't.

Glad to hear that. :-) So be wise and ignore them.

lucho

13.05.2008, 13:25

@ rr
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> They are not your enemies. They just have different opinions.

I've attended enough DOS forums (the 3 FreeDOS mailing lists, Udo's board, the 4DOS newsgroup) to say that I never saw anyone with behaviour like theirs there. But, birds of a feather flock together.

Banning them is not a solution - they'll create another forum of theirs.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 13:29

@ lucho
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> > They are not your enemies. They just have different opinions.
>
> I've attended enough DOS forums (the 3 FreeDOS mailing lists, Udo's board,
> the 4DOS newsgroup) to say that I never saw anyone with behaviour like
> theirs there. But, birds of a feather flock together.

Feathers of a bird...?

> Banning them is not a solution - they'll create another forum of theirs.

So what else could I do?

lucho

13.05.2008, 16:17

@ rr
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> > But, birds of a feather flock together.
>
> Feathers of a bird...?

The corresponding Bulgarian proverb is ruder: The scabby donkeys smell each other even over nine hills.

> So what else could I do?

Perhaps lock this thread?

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 17:02

@ lucho
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> > > But, birds of a feather flock together.
> >
> > Feathers of a bird...?
>
> The corresponding Bulgarian proverb is ruder: The scabby donkeys smell
> each other even over nine hills.

I think, you didn't get the point. You wrote "birds of a feather", which seems to be wrong to me. "Feathers of a bird" sounds more reasonably.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
13.05.2008, 17:59

@ rr
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> I think, you didn't get the point. You wrote "birds of a feather", which
> seems to be wrong to me. "Feathers of a bird" sounds more reasonably.

http://www.answers.com/topic/birds-of-a-feather-flock-together

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 21:32

@ Steve
 

Opponents or enemies?

 

> > I think, you didn't get the point. You wrote "birds of a feather", which
> > seems to be wrong to me. "Feathers of a bird" sounds more reasonably.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/birds-of-a-feather-flock-together

OK, thanks.

sol(R)

13.05.2008, 18:09

@ rr
 

Please stop your personal attacks!

 

> > The inevitable happened. All my enemies are here now.
>
> They are not your enemies. They just have different opinions.

That's the definition of enemy in Soviet Bulgaria! :)

Khusraw

14.05.2008, 13:24

@ rr
 

Please stop your personal attacks!

 

> But this also applies to your friend Khusraw, who obviously still
> lives in this forum's past.

I don't live in the forum's past. I replied to this thread only when the forum began to remind me its glorious past.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
08.05.2008, 10:09

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> Hmm, A. Grech could do that some months ago, but I see, he's a
> "superuser"! :-D

Japheth is a normal user as you are.

lucho

08.05.2008, 13:47

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> Japheth is a normal user as you are.

Yes, but who deleted some posts of his when there was flame war going here? You?

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
08.05.2008, 17:43

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> > Japheth is a normal user as you are.
>
> Yes, but who deleted some posts of his when there was flame war going
> here? You?

I didn't delete any of those postings. And I'm still not sure, that there were postings deleted at all. Usually a user could only delete his own postings. I disabled that after war to dispel all doubts. Now it is only allowed to edit your own postings.

But does this really matter now? I thought, we wanted to let the past behind.

lucho

08.05.2008, 18:40

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> I didn't delete any of those postings. And I'm still not sure, that there
> were postings deleted at all.

I saw this with my own eyes. If the delete function was active, then he did it.

> Usually a user could only delete his own postings. I disabled that after war
> to dispel all doubts. Now it is only allowed to edit your own postings.

Oh, I understand now - thank you for this explanation.

> But does this really matter now? I thought, we wanted to let the past behind.

I agree, and hope so. I'll try to keep low profile here, if not harassed.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
08.05.2008, 10:08

@ lucho
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> It's pointless to argue on those issues here. By the way, how can I delete
> my own posts here?

You can't, because I disabled that for regular users. Only admins (those user names appear in red) can delete postings.

Khusraw

08.05.2008, 22:55

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> You can't, because I disabled that for regular users. Only admins (those
> user names appear in red) can delete postings.

Robert, the problem is this: "why you permited in the past to some people to delete their own posts." This is all about, and my feeling is that you play the stupid part now.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
08.05.2008, 23:13

@ Khusraw
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> > You can't, because I disabled that for regular users. Only admins (those
> > user names appear in red) can delete postings.
>
> Robert, the problem is this: "why you permited in the past to some people
> to delete their own posts."

I didn't permit this intentionally. It just was the default setting for this forum software.

> This is all about, and my feeling is that you
> play the stupid part now.

Feelings often lead you into the wrong direction, but I know for sure what I did or not did.

Khusraw

08.05.2008, 23:28

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> I didn't permit this intentionally. It just was the default setting for
> this forum software.

It was your duty to know how forum software works and which were its problems. It was totally incorrect that someone could delete his own posts, but this WAS possible in this forum!

> Feelings often lead you into the wrong direction, but I know for
> sure what I did or not did.

What do you think about your opinions when you sustain a born-dead rationally speaking point of view?

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
09.05.2008, 04:15

@ Khusraw
 

only 4DOS- or DOS-related talk, please

 

> > I didn't permit this intentionally. It just was the default setting for
> > this forum software.
>
> It was your duty to know how forum software works and which were its
> problems. It was totally incorrect that someone could delete his own
> posts, but this WAS possible in this forum!
>
> > Feelings often lead you into the wrong direction, but I know for
> > sure what I did or not did.
>
> What do you think about your opinions when you sustain a born-dead
> rationally speaking point of view?

None of this talk is related to 4DOS, directly or indirectly. Please try to stay on-topic (4DOS) or close enough (COMMAND.COM, DOS). Nothing good will come from antagonizing either the admin of this forum (who legally is probably allowed to delete / modify whatever he wants) or the current 4DOS maintainer (which is definitely a powerful / useful util for DOS).

Khusraw

09.05.2008, 11:14

@ Rugxulo
 

only 4DOS- or DOS-related talk, please

 

> None of this talk is related to 4DOS, directly or indirectly. Please try
> to stay on-topic (4DOS) or close enough (COMMAND.COM, DOS). Nothing good
> will come from antagonizing either the admin of this forum (who legally is
> probably allowed to delete / modify whatever he wants) or the current 4DOS
> maintainer (which is definitely a powerful / useful util for DOS).

This is a forum where people from different parts of the world can discuss DOS topics and we must thank Robert for this. The problem is that he didn't assume his own mistakes FROM THE PAST. This is all about. I reply to the thread only because of this.

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
09.05.2008, 13:09

@ Khusraw
 

Apology + $

 

> This is a forum where people from different parts of the world can discuss
> DOS topics and we must thank Robert for this. The problem is that he didn't
> assume his own mistakes FROM THE PAST. This is all about. I reply to the
> thread only because of this.

I fully agree with Khusrow. Robert, don't play the stupid and apologize! Furthermore, to prove your good will, I think it's appropriate to pay each user 100,- EUR. That won't make you poor but all your users happy!

---
MS-DOS forever!

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
09.05.2008, 14:44

@ Japheth
 

Apology + $

 

> Furthermore, to prove your good will, I think it's appropriate to pay each
> user 100,- EUR.

I like this part - it's a lot more in US$.

Khusraw

09.05.2008, 20:51

@ Japheth
 

Apology + $

 

> I fully agree with Khusrow. Robert, don't play the stupid and apologize!
> Furthermore, to prove your good will, I think it's appropriate to pay each
> user 100,- EUR. That won't make you poor but all your users happy!

100,- EUR is not enough considering the moral prejudices caused. Robert, have a nice lawyer!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 11:50

@ Khusraw
 

Apology + $

 

> 100,- EUR is not enough considering the moral prejudices caused. Robert,
> have a nice lawyer!

Is this an invitation to get banned?

lucho

13.05.2008, 12:13

@ rr
 

Apology + $

 

> > 100,- EUR is not enough considering the moral prejudices caused. Robert,
> > have a nice lawyer!
>
> Is this an invitation to get banned?

Didn't you understand that he was joking?

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 12:24

@ lucho
 

Apology + $

 

> > > 100,- EUR is not enough considering the moral prejudices caused.
> Robert,
> > > have a nice lawyer!
> >
> > Is this an invitation to get banned?
>
> Didn't you understand that he was joking?

Are you really sure about that? What was Khusraw's last nice posting? I don't remember.

Khusraw

14.05.2008, 12:49

@ rr
 

Apology + $

 

> > Didn't you understand that he was joking?
>
> Are you really sure about that? What was Khusraw's last nice posting? I
> don't remember.

I was joking and you didn't understand the joke because perhaps you lack this kind of humour. OTOH I still consider all posters to have the same rights and obligations.

Regarding the second part, I am very busy in this period of time. So it is not about "nice" posting, but posting generally speaking.

DOS386(R)

11.05.2008, 12:44

@ Japheth
 

Apology + $

 

> it's appropriate to pay each user 100,- EUR.

Better idea: for attack victims: 100 EUR per attack passed with rr failing to shoot the offender ... we'll see who gets most money at the end :lol3:

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
09.05.2008, 15:16

@ Khusraw
 

only 4DOS- or DOS-related talk, please

 

> This is a forum where people from different parts of the world can discuss
> DOS topics and we must thank Robert for this. The problem is that he didn't
> assume his own mistakes FROM THE PAST. This is all about. I reply to the
> thread only because of this.

I don't dwell on all that (don't even remember it, actually, or want to). The past is gone, let's make the board "BeTTeR" than before. :-D Let's not hold grudges, we can be more productive (and beneficial for other DOS users) by testing, porting, discussing, etc.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 11:48

@ Khusraw
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> > I didn't permit this intentionally. It just was the default setting for
> > this forum software.
>
> It was your duty to know how forum software works and which were its
> problems.

Yes, you're right. I apologize for that. And I'm really glad to know, that you never make any mistakes...
Maybe I should close down this forum then to prevent further mistakes. Is it that, what you really want?

> It was totally incorrect that someone could delete his own
> posts, but this WAS possible in this forum!

Why? It never hurt anyone until Jack and Lucho appeared here. So it can't be wrong in general.

> > Feelings often lead you into the wrong direction, but I know for
> > sure what I did or not did.
>
> What do you think about your opinions when you sustain a born-dead
> rationally speaking point of view?

:confused:

lucho

13.05.2008, 11:56

@ rr
 

Predators and prey; minimum required skin thickness

 

> It never hurt anyone until Jack and Lucho appeared here.

This is the same as saying: The 3 lions never hurt anyone until the 2 antelopes appeared before them. I think that the forum requirements must include a minimal skin thickness of, say, 10 cm.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
13.05.2008, 13:46

@ lucho
 

Predators and prey; minimum required skin thickness

 

> > It never hurt anyone until Jack and Lucho appeared here.
>
> This is the same as saying: The 3 lions never hurt anyone until the 2
> antelopes appeared before them. I think that the forum requirements must
> include a minimal skin thickness of, say, 10 cm.

Wear layers of leather when you read the messages.

DOS386(R)

09.05.2008, 07:40

@ rr
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> because I disabled that for regular users. Only admins (those
> user names appear in red) can delete postings.

This one did the complete job with all his posts :clap:

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
13.05.2008, 11:39

@ DOS386
 

Delete my own posts?!

 

> This one did
> the complete job with all his posts :clap:

Nope. Michal never wrote any post. He's in read-only mode, because lack of time.

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
15108 Postings in 1358 Threads, 246 registered users, 9 users online (1 registered, 8 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum