Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: philba: have bambi refuse to run on this alien OS ..

  • Subject: Re: philba: have bambi refuse to run on this alien OS ..
  • From: "amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:35:12 -0500
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Usenet Monster - http://www.usenetmonster.com
  • References: <esc7d2$3p6$1@news.datemas.de> <15639867.ADCn64dhGW@schestowitz.com>
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:500231
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:15639867.ADCn64dhGW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Saturday 03 March 2007 16:12 \__
>
>> From: chukst Sun Sep 29 17:16:46 1991
>> To: mikedr; philba; scottq
>> Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0
>> Date: Sun Sep 29 17:16:39 1991
>>
>> I tracked down a serious incompatibility with DR-DOS 6 - They don't use
>> the 'normal' device driver interface for > 32M partitions. Instead of
>> setting the regular START SECTOR field to 0ffffh and then using a brand
>> new 32-bit field the way MS-DOS has always done, they simply extend the
>> start sector field by 16 bits.
>>
>> ..
>>
>> I've patched a version of Bambi to work with DRD6, and it seems to run
>> Win 3.1 without difficulty. This same problem may have caused other
>> problems with Win 3.1 and the swapfile under DRD6.
>>
>> It is possible to make Bambi work, assuming we can come up with a
>> reasonably safe method for detecting DRD6.
>> ..
>>
>> What do you think? Should we test further with the patched Bambi to see
>> if there are any more incompatibilities?
>>
>> From: philba Mon Sep 30 08:15:02 1991
>> To: bradsi
>> Cc: davidcol
>> Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0
>> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 91 07:57:50 PDT
>>
>> hey, hey, hey ....
>>
>> my proposal is to have bambi refuse to run on this alien OS, comments?
>>
>> http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_0981.pdf
>
> That's the part of the Iowa plaintif's collection that fits under the
> "technical sabotage" category. If you can'y beat them, break them 
> (quietly).
>
I think you are misinterpreting this incident.  Whatever "bambi" is, it is 
not compatible with DR-DOS and the question is being asked as to whether or 
not to patch the Microsoft code to make it work.  In order to do that, it 
seems that some detection for DR-DOS has to be added to the Microsoft code. 
It would be a lot more informative if you were to post the answer to this 
mail.

This certainly doesn't demonstrate any attempt by Microsoft to sabotage 
DR-DOS at all.  Rather it shows that they are investigating how to make it 
work.  You people do not seem to have a very good technical understanding of 
all this. 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index