Text 696, 60 rader
Skriven 2007-05-10 18:32:26 av Mike Luther (1:117/3001.0)
    Kommentar till text 693 av Marc Lewis (1:396/45.0)
Ärende: re: System peculiarities...
===================================
For your note ..

 ML> The main problem, as I noted in another message, was FixPak
 ML> 6 Beta.  It apparently has a number of broken items in it,
 ML> including the OS/2-DOS "copy" command.  I backed it
 ML> out and installed FixPak 5 (full release version) and 
 ML> things have smoothed out substantially.  Copy speed 
 ML> has picked up fairly nicely (from either OS/2 machine 
 ML> to any other machine on the network, which includes 2 
 ML> WinXP units.)  Haven't been able to talk to the Ubuntu 
 ML> machine yet until they come up with an implementation 
 ML> of NetBEUI. <grumble>

Now you have my curiosity raised.  Reason being that the last OS/2 Kernel fix I
got off the Public Testcase drop was Scott's offerings:

  200507808  14.104
    Basically, a re-build of the above from an "official" build machine.
    *This build is safe for Pentium Pros. Note: 486SX CPUs are (and have
    always been) safe ONLY on the W4 kernel.

  200507808  14.104a
    - fixed problem in 14.104 (only) that caused (at least) some VDM
    applications (such as COPY) to fail.

Note that they were released as the same date sequencing.  I've got this
14.104a one on all my MCP2 boxes and have had for a long time now.  Plus to
date I can't see what some have complained about in MCP2 XRC005 as issues with
the PMMERGE.DLL failures which some folks appear to have 'solved' by reverting
to the earlier version of PMMERGE which was there in the XRC004 Fix Pack
release.

Which brings to mind the question.  Could what you see here be the result of
whomever at IBM is now addressing the new 14.105 Kernel in that XRC006 Beta Fix
Pack - having gotten started with the 14.104 code and has it glitched for
something which was added to the 14.104 base or contaminated the code the Scott
fixed when 14.104a was released?  Per my recall, the 14.104a code was released
only a day or a few hours after the 14.104 release.  I recall Scott caught this
one real quick.

It prompted a yet another request question from me toward the Browser crew
about what I've found hard to work with for a long time.  Whomever got this
from the download via a Browser checkin got the same named release via the HTML
process.  And whatever date and time they downloaded it at was what was on that
same named file.  With no way to know what they had gotten unless they read
closely into the README and saw the change between 14.104 and 14.104a release.

So if I had to guess what might be going wrong, it sure might be what Scott was
addressing that day when the last 'official' change we've seen in the generic
outside public folks have to see.

I wonder if Chuck McKinnis is aware of this possibility?


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike @ 1:117/3001

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)