Bug/problem with lcc-win

[Serve Lau]

Look, not all companies can afford to spend a fortune on expensive Vista
licenses. We're upgrading to Win98 because the people in our office really
complained about DOS, no one like text-only machines any more, but
probably they just want to be able to play Freecell in their coffee
breaks... and we were able to get a load of Win98 licenses cheaply.

Actually we decided to go with lcc-win because it's free, but it would
really be an advantage if it could compile for DOS as well during the
changeover. No one has yet answered the question whether there's a DOS
version of lcc-win, or if there are any plans to create one?

I dont know if there was one but Im sure there are no plans to create one.
Is the original program going to change btw or will it just stay text based?
If it stays that way try to use the old compiler that you were using....

 

[Serve Lau]

Aha! We are talking about different things, which may explain why we seem
to be disagreeing with each other. I was not intending to claim that
lcc-win should be modified to do what the OP wants (although it *is*
possible, but only at the expense of expanding lcc-win's remit to
incorporate 16-bit code generation, which isn't ever going to happen if
I'm any judge). Rather, I was trying to point out that the OP's overall
objective - that of using direct screen video writing techniques in
programs destined to be executed in a Win98 environment - is achievable,
if he is prepared to migrate to a compiler that supports such techniques.
And such compilers *do* exist.

A long discussion and in the end we are all right. I feel warm and fuzzy
inside now
It's indeed lots easier to use a real dos compiler (although that compiler
might not support that same asm syntax and he will still have to rewrite it
oh noes!) but I'm wondering why he doesnt stay with the old compiler then

 

[Eddie]

Thanks for the reply. Could you explain the technique you mentioned for
accessing video memory on Win 98?

It's a shame if lcc-win refuses to make a DOS version. Of course Vista and
64-bit and the rest of it has all the hype at the moment, but in terms of
userbase there are millions and millions of DOS/16-bit Windows
installations out there, and I think this would be a much better market to
target than the latest fads from Microsoft. Just my $0.02.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Thanks for the reply. Could you explain the technique you mentioned for
accessing video memory on Win 98?

It's a shame if lcc-win refuses to make a DOS version. Of course Vista and
64-bit and the rest of it has all the hype at the moment, but in terms of
userbase there are millions and millions of DOS/16-bit Windows
installations out there, and I think this would be a much better market to
target than the latest fads from Microsoft. Just my $0.02.

[snip]

Please stop top-posting. Read the following:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php

If you want to discuss issues specific to lcc-win, please post to
comp.compilers.lcc or contact jacob navia directly. If you want to
discuss Windows or DOS, please post to an appropriate system-specific
newsgroup.

 

[jacob navia]

Look, not all companies can afford to spend a fortune on expensive
Vista licenses. We're upgrading to Win98 because the people in our
office really complained about DOS, no one like text-only machines
any more, but probably they just want to be able to play Freecell
in their coffee breaks... and we were able to get a load of Win98
licenses cheaply.

Actually we decided to go with lcc-win because it's free,

[snip]

If you're referring to lcc-win32, check again:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/

It's not free for commercial use. As you indicate you're working for a
company, I suspect this may apply to you.

Dave

You remember that song?

LET IT BE.

If I do not protest why should you?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Look, not all companies can afford to spend a fortune on expensive
Vista licenses. We're upgrading to Win98 because the people in our
office really complained about DOS, no one like text-only machines
any more, but probably they just want to be able to play Freecell
in their coffee breaks... and we were able to get a load of Win98
licenses cheaply.

Actually we decided to go with lcc-win because it's free,

[snip]
If you're referring to lcc-win32, check again:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
It's not free for commercial use. As you indicate you're working
for a company, I suspect this may apply to you.
Dave

You remember that song?

LET IT BE.

If I do not protest why should you?

I saw no "protest".

Eddie apparently thought that lcc-win is "free". David provided him
with some additional information, namely that it's not entirely free.
Why on Earth would you have a problem with that?

 

[Walter Roberson]

You remember that song?

LET IT BE.

If I do not protest why should you?

Although it is not always -obvious- in clc, there are those here
who also earn their living (directly or indirectly) based upon
software licensing fees.

That includes fees that might vary depending upon the commercial vs
non-commercial use. For example, the organization I work for sometimes
has reduced fees for academic use; such is not uncommon when one is
funded by research grants, and we often collaborate with universities,
gaining technology from them in return for sharing our efforts.

But since we do at least partly earn our living from license fees,
we are harmed if the general public starts assuming that free to
one target group means free to everyone, and thus goes ahead and
commercially uses software that is not free for commercial use.

It is of course up to you as to how much (if anything) you ask Eddie to
pay for his commercial use of your product, but it is not good for
the industry if you say "If I do not protest why should you?": that
tends to encourage people to use software beyond the license terms
to the extent that they can "get away with it". And you have to be
careful: if you willingly "turn a blind eye" to a commercial company
using your licensed product without paying, then you could find that
you have lost your rights to enforce your contract terms, just the
same way that trademark holders can lose their rights to their
trademarks if they do not actively enforce ownership.

I would thus suggest that it would be better, both generally and
specifically, if you were to remind Eddie that the software is *not*
free for non-commercial use, and that his business needs to enter
into negotiation with you about its usage of your product. You might
choose to allow his business to not pay you any money for the use
of the product, but you should (IMHO) enter into a written agreement
with Eddie as to the limits of that no-cost use. For example, if
Eddie were to give -me- a copy of lcc-win, could I then use it for
commercial purposes? If he does not recognize the commercial usage
restrictions, then he could, after all, sub-license it to me; presumably
you do not wish to allow that kind of thing.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

I saw no "protest".

Eddie apparently thought that lcc-win is "free". David provided him
with some additional information, namely that it's not entirely free.
Why on Earth would you have a problem with that?

I understood Jacob's message to be one of resignation. He accepts that
the way of the world is that there will be dishonest people who download
his software and use it commercially without buying a license.

Given that Eddie works for a company that's so cheap-skate that it buys
old Windows 98 licenses to save money, would there really be any point
in trying to enforce lcc-win's license and squeeze some cash out of
them? If it came to that, they'd probably just move to another compiler
that /is/ free.

 

[Walter Roberson]

Given that Eddie works for a company that's so cheap-skate that it buys
old Windows 98 licenses to save money, would there really be any point
in trying to enforce lcc-win's license and squeeze some cash out of
them? If it came to that, they'd probably just move to another compiler
that /is/ free.

In a legal sense, Yes, there would be a point. Even if the amount
agreed upon was a token $1 for 5 years of unlimited use within the
company, the attempt to enforce the right -does- make a difference
to future rights enforcement.

 

[jacob navia]

Although it is not always -obvious- in clc, there are those here
who also earn their living (directly or indirectly) based upon
software licensing fees.

That includes fees that might vary depending upon the commercial vs
non-commercial use. For example, the organization I work for sometimes
has reduced fees for academic use; such is not uncommon when one is
funded by research grants, and we often collaborate with universities,
gaining technology from them in return for sharing our efforts.

But since we do at least partly earn our living from license fees,
we are harmed if the general public starts assuming that free to
one target group means free to everyone, and thus goes ahead and
commercially uses software that is not free for commercial use.

This is correct and if I had a big organization I would
pursue Eddie. But I haven't. And it is a matter of being
practical. As Mr Twink said, if they are trying to buy
cheap licenses of 98 to spare money of buying an XP license,
I do not think they would hesitate a second to drop my
compiler if I would ask them even a token amount.

It is of course up to you as to how much (if anything) you ask Eddie to
pay for his commercial use of your product, but it is not good for
the industry if you say "If I do not protest why should you?": that
tends to encourage people to use software beyond the license terms
to the extent that they can "get away with it". And you have to be
careful: if you willingly "turn a blind eye" to a commercial company
using your licensed product without paying, then you could find that
you have lost your rights to enforce your contract terms, just the
same way that trademark holders can lose their rights to their
trademarks if they do not actively enforce ownership.

I would thus suggest that it would be better, both generally and
specifically, if you were to remind Eddie that the software is *not*
free for non-commercial use, and that his business needs to enter
into negotiation with you about its usage of your product. You might
choose to allow his business to not pay you any money for the use
of the product, but you should (IMHO) enter into a written agreement
with Eddie as to the limits of that no-cost use. For example, if
Eddie were to give -me- a copy of lcc-win, could I then use it for
commercial purposes? If he does not recognize the commercial usage
restrictions, then he could, after all, sub-license it to me; presumably
you do not wish to allow that kind of thing.

In principle you are right. Practically I can't pursue Eddie,
and even I helped him out in his efforts.

 

[Eddie]

Jacob,

Please don't drag my name through the mud. Your compiler was recommended
to me as a free alternative to Microsoft, and I downloaded it for free
from your website - I hadn't read the license closely enough to realize
that it wasn't just pure freeware.

It's true that my company is a low-cost operation - that's what lets us
keep our premiums low for our customers - but we take our legal
responsibilies seriously. Could you confirm that your messages in this
thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
charge?

Actually, a DOS version of your compiler would be very helpful to my
company, so we'd be prepared to fund its development. We'd pay up to $50
per license if you make a DOS version as close as possible to the Windows
version (initially we'd want two licenses, with the possibility of a third
to follow).

 

[Eddie]

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.
Microsoft or Borland would never ignore customer feedback like lcc-win
seems to - there's still been no clear answer about licensing arrangements
or the possibility of a DOS version of lcc-win.

 

[Keith Thompson]

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.
Microsoft or Borland would never ignore customer feedback like lcc-win
seems to - there's still been no clear answer about licensing arrangements
or the possibility of a DOS version of lcc-win.

Have you tried contacting jacob navia, the maintainer, directly?

BTW, please don't top-post. See:
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php

 

[Paul Hsieh]

Just to piss people off I am going to top post a pre-amble here.
There have been a *LOT* of wrong things said in this "off-topic"
thread. So I thought I might chime in.

jacob navia said:

Some of what you said is correct, and some of what you said is incorrect
(for example: "It is NOT possible under win32 to access video memory in
the old DOS way!" is incorrect as stated, because it *is* possible - maybe
not in the way you envisage, but it *can* be done, either via an emulation
layer or through using a sufficiently old version of win32, such as
Win98).

Win32 is an execution mode invented by Microsoft in the late 80s or
early 90s. It *CANNOT* execute 16-bit code, and it does not emulate
the screen as a VGA interface. You are confusing it with v86 mode
which is a 16 bit DOS (and sometimes DPMI) emulation mode (which does
emulate a VGA interface as well). The two program environment modes
are distinguished at program-load time by the format of the
executable.

Where you have been correct, I have agreed with you. Where you have been
incorrect, I have disagreed with you.

Sort of. You've said a few incorrect things as well.

[...] If you would like to learn
something, therefore, I suggest that you read the parts of this discussion
where I disagreed with you.

You have to be kidding me. Who writes a Win32 compiler and is
unfamiliar with the basic execution modes of Windows? Do you really
think you said something jacob is not aware of? At *best* you guys
are having a communications breakdown. But more likely you see this
and are constructing this contrary point of view out of thin air as
part of some vendetta you have against him.

Let us actually try to help to OP (Eddie):

1. To compile and execute 16 assembly code in the manner you wish, you
need a 16-bit DOS compiler, of which there are many to choose from:
Turbo-C, a very old Microsoft C or "Quick C", Watcom C, Pacific C and
you need to run in a DOS compatible environment (such as MSDOS,
FreeDOS, Win 9X, Win3.1X, Win NT/XP32). lcc-win32, as the name
suggests does not produce 16 bit DOS compatible code.

2. It is possible to port your code to 32-bit DPMI assembly. The
interrupt *pattern* has a direct correspondence with the 16-bit
assembly code you wrote, but its got a lot of extra wrapper overhead.
If you do so, through a very complicated process, you *CAN* use a
win32 compiler (likely even lcc-win32 -- I don't know if it supports
in-line assembly or if its object format is OMF or some other
recognized standard) so long as you *LINK* it with a linker that can
produce a DOS-extended 32 bit application. The only linker I am aware
of that is that powerful and generic is the one that comes with Watcom
C/C++. I think they have retained this capability in "Open Watcom".
But if you are going to go to this much trouble, you might as well
just use the 32-bit DOS compiler that Watcom comes with in the first
place.

3. What Jacob is alluding to with the Vista 64 comment is the fact
that all of the 64-bit flavors of Windows (XP64, Vista64 and
Server2008/64 off the top of my head) do not natively support 16-bit
DOS except by special emulation (via VMWare, Virtual PC, or Hyper/V).
Similarly, you can do so with WINE under Linux. But this is all
besides the point.

4. If all you want to do is to be able to write text on a free
compiler with special colors, you can probably use lcc-win32 with the
standard Windows libraries. There is a console API for Windows
(though I am not familiar with it) and there is the API that Jacob is
suggesting that works in lcc-win32. Heck, there are even ways of
doing this using Direct X which you can program in either Win32 or
AMD64.

5. There are a few more choices amongst "free compilers" available to
you if you wish to program in Win32. Namely: Open Watcom, gcc, and
Microsoft Visual Studio Express. Open Watcom has the advantage that
it supports 16-bit DOS, 32-bit DOS and 32-bit Windows. Unfortunately,
it does not yet support 64-bit Windows as far as I know (but it sounds
like you are not concerned about that.) lcc-win32's main advantage,
as I understand it, is that it apparently comes with a very rich set
of extensions to the core C language.

 

[Walter Roberson]

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.
Microsoft or Borland would never ignore customer feedback like lcc-win
seems to - there's still been no clear answer about licensing arrangements
or the possibility of a DOS version of lcc-win.

You posted your proposal to pay for DOS lcc-win development on
what would have been late Friday afternoon in Jacob's timezone.
It is presently late Monday afternoon in Jacob's timezone -- only
about one working day later. There are many large "professional"
companies (including some that you have named) that take much longer
to make decisions and give responses than you have allowed Jacob.

 

[jacob navia]

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.
Microsoft or Borland would never ignore customer feedback like lcc-win
seems to - there's still been no clear answer about licensing arrangements
or the possibility of a DOS version of lcc-win.

Sorry if I missed one post.

I have been incredibly busy with the 64 bit version.

1) Developing a DOS version of lcc-win is around 1 year of work.
It is not feasible to do this for one client.
2) You can use lcc-win professionally if you buy the professional
version for around 30 euros. Not a big deal really.

Excuse me for missing your post, but I do not check this group every
day.

If you have other questions just mail me at my
email address below.

Thanks for your interest in lcc-win

 

[Eddie]

Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a DOS
version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be developed
within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use licenses for both
DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could also sell licenses to
other customers too (my guess is that the DOS version would have a market
of several thousand companies - I don't think there'll be much slowdown in
the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15 years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

 

[Serve Lau]

Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a DOS
version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be developed
within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use licenses for both
DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could also sell licenses to
other customers too (my guess is that the DOS version would have a market
of several thousand companies - I don't think there'll be much slowdown in
the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15 years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

I hope food prices are low where jacob lives 500$ to build a DOS
compiler, IDE and debugger gogogo.

 

[Nick Keighley]

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

so stealing from people who can't prevent you is morally acceptable?
wow.

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.

!!

"you won't support your product the way I want you to, so I'll
stop stealing it from you"

maybe if there were less people like you then Mr Navia would
be able to support his compiler more fully...

 

[Keith Thompson]

so stealing from people who can't prevent you is morally acceptable?
wow.

He didn't say that. Look back at the history of this thread.

In the article with message-id
<[email protected]>, David Tiktin
pointed out that lcc-win32 is not free, as Eddie had assumed it was.

jacob's response, message-id <[email protected]>, was:

| You remember that song?
|
| LET IT BE.
|
| If I do not protest why should you?

At that point, jacob said nothing about not being able to prevent
Eddie from stealing. It was not unreasonable for Eddit to conclude
*from that specific followup* that jacob didn't care. (I'm at a loss
to understand why jacob wrote this.)

| Jacob,
|
| Please don't drag my name through the mud. Your compiler was recommended
| to me as a free alternative to Microsoft, and I downloaded it for free
| from your website - I hadn't read the license closely enough to realize
| that it wasn't just pure freeware.
|
| It's true that my company is a low-cost operation - that's what lets us
| keep our premiums low for our customers - but we take our legal
| responsibilies seriously. Could you confirm that your messages in this
| thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
| charge?
|
| Actually, a DOS version of your compiler would be very helpful to my
| company, so we'd be prepared to fund its development. We'd pay up to $50
| per license if you make a DOS version as close as possible to the Windows
| version (initially we'd want two licenses, with the possibility of a third
| to follow).

!!

"you won't support your product the way I want you to, so I'll
stop stealing it from you"

maybe if there were less people like you then Mr Navia would
be able to support his compiler more fully...

It appears that Eddie honestly (and mistakenly) thought that lcc-win
was free for commercial use. (Yes, he should have read the license
more carefully.) When it was brought to his attention that it isn't,
he immediately took steps to correct the situation. He (not
unreasonably, IMHO) took jacob's bizarre and terse "LET IT BE"
response as implied permission to use it without paying for it, *but*
he took the time to verify that.

As for being personally annoyed with jacob, he's hardly the first.
You're assuming Eddie was referring only to jacob's behavior in this
thread.

You've called Eddie a thief in spite of abundant evidence to the
contrary.

[snip]