DOS ain't dead

Mik's page is now online, there are many updates, download all before it dies again.
http://mik.mkw.ru/dos-stuff/

---
DOS-u-akbar!

> Mik's page is now online, there are many updates, download all before it
> dies again.
> http://mik.mkw.ru/dos-stuff/

Well, the page is available but nothing except p7z461b.zip can be downloaded. It reports error 403.

---
DOS-u-akbar!

> Well, the page is available but nothing except p7z461b.zip can be
> downloaded. It reports error 403.

The same, we are late... Once it will be online it would be good to mirror the page. Is it possible to store it here on BTRR?

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

> > Well, the page is available but nothing except p7z461b.zip can be
> > downloaded. It reports error 403.
>
> The same, we are late... Once it will be online it would be good to mirror
> the page. Is it possible to store it here on BTRR?

I don't think RR is interested, esp. because Michael isn't hosting for our benefit. Besides, I'm not sure he even has all sources online, so it'd be useless if you want to recompile.

> I don't think RR is interested, esp. because Michael isn't hosting for our
> benefit. Besides, I'm not sure he even has all sources online, so it'd be
> useless if you want to recompile.

I don't think that is important for whose benefit is hosting Michael the files, important is that he has valuable files there, which are beneficial per se. He still hasn't all the sources online because he is in a continuous process of reorganizing and rearranging the files, for example compare the actual hosted patches with the previous ones.

---
Glory to God for all things

> > I don't think RR is interested, esp. because Michael isn't hosting for
> our
> > benefit. Besides, I'm not sure he even has all sources online, so it'd
> be
> > useless if you want to recompile.
>
> I don't think that is important for whose benefit is hosting Michael the
> files,

Well, if he isn't doing it for our benefit, it sure will be hard downloading them! Up and down, up and down (anybody else seasick?).

> important is that he has valuable files there, which are beneficial
> per se. He still hasn't all the sources online because he is in a
> continuous process of reorganizing and rearranging the files, for example
> compare the actual hosted patches with the previous ones.

I'm not trying to be mean or in any way discouraging, just that when the next p7zip release comes out, for instance, I still won't know how the heck to rebuild with FSU Pthreads (which apparently has had several complaints over the years and yet never fixed).

> Well, if he isn't doing it for our benefit, it sure will be hard
> downloading them! Up and down, up and down (anybody else seasick?).

I don't understand what happens to his site either. I'm not sure if he
has no choice or if he really doesn't care.

> I'm not trying to be mean or in any way discouraging, just that when the
> next p7zip release comes out, for instance, I still won't know how the
> heck to rebuild with FSU Pthreads (which apparently has had several
> complaints over the years and yet never fixed).

His patches to FSU Pthreads were online some months ago. Sadly, I didn't
download them at the time... Let us hope he will make those patches available again.

---
Glory to God for all things

> > the page. Is it possible to store it here on BTRR?
>
> I don't think RR is interested, esp. because Michael isn't hosting for our
> benefit. Besides, I'm not sure he even has all sources online, so it'd be
> useless if you want to recompile.

I'm interested in hosting complete products. So if Michael gives complete binary, source, and changes packages ...

---
Forum admin

> I'm interested in hosting complete products. So if Michael gives
> complete binary, source, and changes packages ...

Did you ask Michael for the files? In theory you should be more interested than him to host them. I don't think that Michael would see hosting his files here as some sort of a favour done to him. If he would have had the need perhaps he would have made it manifest until now.

---
Glory to God for all things

> > I'm interested in hosting complete products. So if Michael gives
> > complete binary, source, and changes packages ...
>
> Did you ask Michael for the files?

No.

Maybe I shouldn't have written I would be interested. In fact it just would be OK to me to offer some space, although I don't use Michael's binaries.

So if anyone wants to make Mik's file appear on BTTR, please ask Mik for permission and make him giving me access to the files for downloading.

---
Forum admin

> Mik's page is now online, there are many updates

mentioned only

> download all before it dies again.

403 did you get the files ? Please drop them somewhere

> I don't understand what happens to his site either.
> I'm not sure if he has no choice or if he really doesn't care.

Whatever he does with mik.dyndns and mik.mkw is just waste of time, see below.

> Maybe I shouldn't have written I would be interested.

Nice but not new, space at ibiblio has been always available ... if full & exact source is provided. So, now Mik just should contact Jim Hall or rr so the stuff can be uploaded somewhere.

> although I don't use Michael's binaries.

I do. Heavily appreciated.

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

> Nice but not new, space at ibiblio has been always available ... if full
> & exact source is provided. So, now Mik just should contact Jim
> Hall or rr so the stuff can be uploaded somewhere.

You don't understand. From all appearances Michael has no need to have his files hosted anywhere else. If someone is interested to host Michael's files, it is NOT Michael who should ask, but the interested person. So it is rr/Hall who should ask in case they are interested. Personally I had a short E-Mail exchange with Michael last year and I find him amiable, I don't think he would give a negative answer to any polite request. Keep in mind that for me it is indifferent whether Michael's files are hosted at bttr/ibiblio or not. If I would need some of his files (EDIT: and I would need only the patches, I prefer to build myself the binaries, optimized for my systems) and couldn't find where to download, I would directly ask Michael for them.

---
Glory to God for all things

>
> You don't understand. From all appearances Michael has no need to host his
> files anywhere else. If someone is interested to host Michael's files, it
> is NOT Michael who should ask, but the interested person. So it is rr/Hall
> who should ask in case they are interested.

> Personally I had a short E-Mail
> exchange with Michael last year and I find him amiable, I don't think he
> would give a negative answer to any polite request.

Are you suggesting that Michael is another one of those Prima donnas who become very angry if they won't get a bunch of flowers, a kiss on the cheek, and not to forget a strong applause?

If this is true, then I'd like to make you aware that usually one gets nothing but annoyances when dealing with such persons. Ask rr if you don't believe me!

Just keep in mind that neither rr nor Jim Hall get paid for what they do. They offer something for free, just the same what Michael does. So there are no special rules to follow.

---
MS-DOS forever!

> Just keep in mind that neither rr nor Jim Hall get paid for what they do.
> They offer something for free, just the same what Michael does. So there
> are no special rules to follow.

I gave an answer to RayeR's question "Is it possible to store it [Michael's page] here on BTRR?". Whether you consider the condition adequate or not, it's not my business. As long as Michael has no need to have his files hosted at bttr or ibiblio, if rr or Hall need the files, they should ask. No one has any obligation.
EDIT: Take as an example the patch to Mplayer's source code which is hosted at ibiblio without Michael being asked. Not only the patch is obsolete (relative to the Mplayer 1.0 rc2 source code and binaries next side), but it is also seriously incomplete. Why has the pretentious Hall accepted to host such a patch if he wouldn't have needed Michael's Mplayer port? And if he needed it, why he didn't ask Michael in order to receive from him newer/complete diffs?

---
Glory to God for all things

I had uploaded some older large (20MB) collection on my site of his mplayer bins + patches (I don't know if complette because I never tried to recompie it) but I had to remove it because going short of free space on hosting. If someone is interested I can reupload it again. It's older files I remember spring/summer 2008? This is why I asked here for the space I just use limited free hosting.

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

> As long as Michael has no need to
> have his files hosted at bttr or ibiblio, if rr or Hall need the files,
> they should ask. No one has any obligation.

Exactly! I don't need those files. I'm just offering some space here.

---
Forum admin

As I don't code in C I am not interrested in sources. But I love Mik's binaries like MPlayer or Links.
Some recent versions are mirrored on Glenn's page:
http://www.glennmcc.org/download/mik/

---
DOS-u-akbar!

> Exactly! I don't need those files. I'm just offering some space
> here.

That's exactly what I've supposed. But:
1). I don't remember Michael to have asked anyone for storage space.
2). The "complete binary, source, and changes packages" are still publicly unavailable.
As long as you don't have the files your offer is estimable, but it has NO practical value.

---
Glory to God for all things

> > Exactly! I don't need those files. I'm just offering some space
> > here.
>
> That's exactly what I've supposed. But:
> 1). I don't remember Michael to have asked anyone for storage space.

I've already understood that.

> 2). The "complete binary, source, and changes packages" are still publicly
> unavailable.

That's correct.

> As long as you don't have the files your offer is estimable, but it has NO
> practical value.

That's why I wrote: "So if anyone wants to make Mik's file appear on BTTR, please ask Mik for permission and make him giving me access to the files for downloading."

---
Forum admin

Has anyone managed to salvage any of the sources, especially the one for links ? I'd be happy if I could find instructions on how to build the DOS executables from the linux sources.

> Has anyone managed to salvage any of the sources, especially the one for
> links ? I'd be happy if I could find instructions on how to build the
> DOS executables from the linux sources.

I wrote a mail to Michael today. Let's see, what he says.

---
Forum admin

> I wrote a mail to Michael today. Let's see, what he says.

No response.

---
Forum admin

> > I wrote a mail to Michael today. Let's see, what he says.
> No response.

Thanks anyway

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

> Mik's page is now online, there are many updates

Glennmcc and Ron got FFMPEG from 2008-12-25 ... but Theora encoding seems totally broken (PF or GPF), same as in Sherpya's Win32 binaries from 2009-Jan (tested in genuine Windaube XP, in DOS it doesn't work at all - thread / file I/O problems ???)

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

> Mik's page is now online, there are many updates, download all before it dies

Again: http://mik.mkw.ru/tmp/




There is a hidden tmp directory (ask Ron how he found it , not me), and there is non-DOS stuff (FFMPEG for Linux), OS-independent stuff (cool panorama's ), and DOS stuff.

Note that you can download all files except the DOS stuff.

Obsolete buggy FFMPEG: http://freefile.kristopherw.us/uploads/temp/ffmik.zi7 from 2009-01-10 and 2008-12-25 (3.6 MiB)

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

> > Mik's page is now online, there are many updates, download all before it
> dies
>
> Again: http://mik.mkw.ru/tmp/

Almost nothing there, we should ALL give up on Mik's page ever working again, IMHO.

/sparc/libz.a                   21-May-2009 15:26               92744
/sparc/zconf.h                  21-May-2009 15:26                9544
/sparc/zlib.h                   18-Jul-2005 02:26               66188
clang-llvm.tbz                  22-May-2009 12:15            14292831
ffmpeg.exe                      22-May-2009 22:24             3236576

And no, I didn't bother trying to download any of it. (The guy obviously is not interested in hosting anything.)

> And no, I didn't bother trying to download any of it. (The guy obviously
> is not interested in hosting anything.)

But in the past why he was solicitous? Are you convinced that there were no stupid E-Mails he received that changed his attitude?

---
Glory to God for all things

> > And no, I didn't bother trying to download any of it. (The guy obviously
> > is not interested in hosting anything.)
>
> But in the past why he was solicitous? Are you convinced that there were
> no stupid E-Mails he received that changed his attitude?

He was never officially anything, AFAICT, and never intended to be. And he never said otherwise to me or others. I don't think e-mails had anything to do with it (strange conspiracy theory, or do you know something I don't?).

> He was never officially anything, AFAICT, and never intended to be. And he
> never said otherwise to me or others. I don't think e-mails had anything to
> do with it (strange conspiracy theory, or do you know something I don't?).

In the past that guy provided files, answered questions etc. and he had the intention to put all the patches on his page, as I know from no other than himself, a process which he even had started. Whilst the support he received for his interesting contribution was void, he got instead a lot of e-mails obsessively asking for his patches and some people we both know even officially announced his projects when he was still far from being prepared for that. We have to consider the things as they are, patience is a virtue a lot of people lack today. Consequently he changed his attitude and now he shows he doesn't care about you, so what? Feel free to take up his projects, I know you are used to DJGPP and have contributions, and you seem to have also a lot of spare time, being very active on forums and discussion boards.

Edit: In case you accept suggestions and have available a working Linux DJGPP cross-compiler, I advise you to start with ffmpeg, as Michael's DJGPP patches have been already merged into the official ffmpeg svn package.

---
Glory to God for all things

> In the past that guy provided files, answered questions etc. and he had
> the intention to put all the patches on his page, as I know from no other
> than himself, a process which he even had started.

You make him sound like a saint.

> Whilst the support he
> received for his interesting contribution was void, he got instead a lot
> of e-mails obsessively asking for his patches and some people we both know
> even officially announced his projects when he was still far from being
> prepared for that.

Now you make him sound like a martyr.

> We have to consider the things as they are, patience is
> a virtue a lot of people lack today. Consequently he changed his attitude
> and now he shows he doesn't care about you, so what?

You have to admit, it's frustrating when people run away from ports they once were involved in.

> Feel free to take up
> his projects, I know you are used to DJGPP and have contributions, and you
> seem to have also a lot of spare time, being very active on forums and
> discussion boards.

If I was more skilled, I would've done more. But sadly I'm limited more by that than motivation.

> Edit: In case you accept suggestions and have available a working Linux
> DJGPP cross-compiler, I advise you to start with ffmpeg, as Michael's
> DJGPP patches have been already merged into the official ffmpeg svn
> package.

ffmpeg doesn't interest me at all, sorry. (Besides, why not just compile it natively?) Besides, things like that are often difficult to build.

>> (...)
> You make him sound like a saint.

>> (...)
> Now you make him sound like a martyr.

If you had problems with him and don't like the guy, that's your business. But keep in mind that you are too subjective and other people (me, for example) had a much better experience with him. Perhaps your lack of success is thoroughly explicable considering that sometimes you sound very bumptious, which personally I don't like at all.

> If I was more skilled, I would've done more. But sadly I'm limited more by
> that than motivation.

I really appreciate your bare sincerity.

> ffmpeg doesn't interest me at all, sorry. (Besides, why not just compile
> it natively?) Besides, things like that are often difficult to build.

Because the latest DJGPP bash port has problems with ffmpeg's configure script, and I have no idea how to edit it. As I have already informed, I'm not used to GNU tools' script syntax and I have no time to learn it now. With a Linux DJGPP cross-compiler a simple "configure" followed by "make" would be enough (I don't know, I just suppose ). WT* do you find difficult here?

---
Glory to God for all things

> >> (...)
> > You make him sound like a saint.
>
> >> (...)
> > Now you make him sound like a martyr.
>
> If you had problems with him and don't like the guy, that's your business.

I've never had enough contact with him to decide anything ... except that he is completely disconnected, i.e. not helpful at all. (No guilt or anger is implied there, I just have 0% hope of ever hearing from him again.) I mentioned my troubles with GNU pth (re: p7zip), and he literally said, "Use GDB", nothing more or less. Sorry if I find that less than satisfying.

> But keep in mind that you are too subjective and other people (me, for
> example) had a much better experience with him. Perhaps your lack of
> success is thoroughly explicable considering that sometimes you sound very
> bumptious, which personally I don't like at all.

I have my quirks, but I've never intentionally insulted anyone for lack of cooperation or disgreements in patching / porting / etc. He has no reason to be upset with me (or anyone, AFAICT). I think he's more than likely just too busy, disinterested, etc. Which is fine, just frustrating.

> > If I was more skilled, I would've done more. But sadly I'm limited more
> by
> > that than motivation.
>
> I really appreciate your bare sincerity.

I think it's no secret that I am no great coder. But I hack away on little projects as my interest permits.

> > ffmpeg doesn't interest me at all, sorry. (Besides, why not just
> compile
> > it natively?) Besides, things like that are often difficult to build.
>
> Because the latest DJGPP bash port has problems with ffmpeg's configure
> script, and I have no idea how to edit it.

You say "latest" when I assume you mean either 2.04r2 or 2.05. rr probably could help more as he's more in love with Bash than I am. Or you could ask on news://comp.os.msdos.djgpp (specifically for Andris or Juan although Eli frequents again too).

> As I have already informed, I'm
> not used to GNU tools' script syntax and I have no time to learn it now.
> With a Linux DJGPP cross-compiler a simple "configure" followed by "make"
> would be enough (I don't know, I just suppose ). WT* do you find
> difficult here?

I doubt it. Anyways, I've never cross-compiled for DJGPP from Linux before (which I don't actively use, BTW, just dabbled in booting a few liveCDs here and there). In case you haven't noticed (and I did refresh my memory just now rebuilding BinUtils 2.19.1 "for fun"), GNU tools use a ridiculously complicated build process, and most Linux stuff is no different.

> You say "latest" when I assume you mean either 2.04r2 or 2.05. rr
> probably could help more as he's more in love with Bash than I am. Or you
> could ask on news://comp.os.msdos.djgpp (specifically for Andris or Juan
> although Eli frequents again too).

The bash I have says "bash-2.05b". I have really no need to ask. If I had such a need perhaps I would have known what to ask and whom to ask.

> I doubt it. Anyways, I've never cross-compiled for DJGPP from Linux before
> (which I don't actively use, BTW, just dabbled in booting a few liveCDs
> here and there). In case you haven't noticed (and I did refresh my memory
> just now rebuilding BinUtils 2.19.1 "for fun"), GNU tools use a
> ridiculously complicated build process, and most Linux stuff is no
> different.

Try it before expressing doubts. Re: GNU tools, sadly I have no knowledge about their syntax, but I don't think their syntax is really so complicated, getting used to it requires instead some time which unfortunately I don't have available. In the times when I did some DOS programming there were no GNU tools .

---
Glory to God for all things

> > Because the latest DJGPP bash port has problems with ffmpeg's configure
> > script, and I have no idea how to edit it.
>
> You say "latest" when I assume you mean either 2.04r2 or 2.05. rr
> probably could help more as he's more in love with Bash than I am.

I don't love Bash and I'm no Bash expert. If I have questions about Bash I always ask Juan.

A good starting point is to understand djgpp/config.bat, config.sed, and config.site from existing DJGPP ports. ind2210s.zip or grep254s.zip for example.

---
Forum admin

Kostylev is one of the few GNU tools expert who cares about DOS. Sadly that his contribution was not appreciated as it should have been.

---
Glory to God for all things

> Kostylev is one of the few GNU tools expert who cares about DOS.

That might be true, but I wish he would also care about other DOS users, who sent mails to him.

This fruitless thread will be locked soon, because all has been said already.

---
Forum admin

> That might be true, but I wish he would also care about other DOS users,
> who sent mails to him.

I also have such a wish.

> This fruitless thread will be locked soon, because all has been said
> already.

There is no need for you to lock the thread, as I feel it is already "consumed".

---
Glory to God for all things