DOS ain't dead

On 19 May 2008 I finished my 32-bit DOS port of Eddie Kohler's Gifsicle version 1.51 using DJGPP version 2.04 beta. Binaries (gifsicle, gifdiff) and plain text manuals are available as gifs151b.zip. Fully configured sources plus some simple instructions on how to rebuild are in gifs151s.zip.

Changes from 1.49 to 1.51:
* gifsicle: '--crop' preserves the logical screen when it can. Reported by Petio Tonev.
* gifsicle, gifview: Refuse to read GIFs from the terminal. Requested by Robert Riebisch.

This time no DOS or DJGPP specific changes were required.

Concerning file naming problems reported by user DOS386 in GIFSICLE 1.50K uploaded DOS (+Win32) port really works now: You can avoid these problems by running gifsicle -e logo.gif --output=logo. That will produce files named logo.000, logo.001, logo.002, ... So I decided not to provide a patch.

---
Forum admin

Thanks for your efforts! I'll have to check it out.

BTW, I found another (not really similar) GIF tool called GIFTRANS (w/ src).

> giftrans converts any GIF file into a GIF89a. Allows for
> setting the transparent or background color, changing
> colors, adding or removing comments. Also code to analyze
> GIF contents.

> Thanks for your efforts! I'll have to check it out.

Gifsicle 1.52 for DOS will be available tomorrow. Eddie released a new version today. I'll post a separate announcement then.

---
Forum admin

> BTW, I found another (not really similar) GIF tool called
> GIFTRANS (w/
> src).

The file giftrans.exe is v1.11, 16-bit DOS.

v1.12.2, 32-bit DOS / emx:
http://uk.geocities.com/software_at_short_stop/dl/giftrans32.zip

Other files:
http://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~Andreas.Ley/source/Local/giftrans-1.13/

Author's page:
http://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~Andreas.Ley/

> Concerning file naming problems reported
...
> avoid these problems by running gifsicle -e
> logo.gif --output=logo. That will produce files named logo.000,
> logo.001, logo.002, ... So I decided not to provide a patch.

There is always a hack confirming that it "works" ... but still:

- Default behavior should be good, not bad
- In DOS (and Win32), GIF images are supposed to carry the file extension ".GIF", not ".000" or so. LXPIC refuses your ".000" or more GIF's.

Thus, it still should be LOGO000.GIF, LOGO001.GIF etc. for DOS

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

> - Default behavior should be good, not bad
> - In DOS (and Win32), GIF images are supposed to carry the file extension
> ".GIF", not ".000" or so. LXPIC refuses your ".000" or more GIF's.

Some readers look at file headers. Get one that does.

> Thus, it still should be LOGO000.GIF, LOGO001.GIF etc. for DOS

Do you know how to rename files? Maybe you could go as far as writing a patch that goes beyond rr's reasonable port of the existing gifsicle.

> Some readers look at file headers. Get one that does.

Point me to all them, please. Plus, opening all files of a directory just to test whether they are supported is a crappy idea wasting huge amount of performance, it's probably fine on your Vista xxx64, but not in DOS

> Do you know how to rename files?

NO.

> Maybe you could go as far as writing a patch that goes

I fixed it in my port, maybe I'll release a new version one day. But you don't need GIF support in DOS anyway, you are just trolling. Write the patch yourself ... a chance for your 1st useful post here

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

> > Some readers look at file headers. Get one that does.
>
> Point me to all them, please.

Start with ths one: ftp://ftp.sac.sk/sac/graph/lwhiz.zip

> Plus, opening all files of a
> directory just to test whether they are supported is a crappy idea wasting
> huge amount of performance, it's probably fine on

> your Vista xxx64, but not in DOS

1) I don't use Vista at all. 2) DOS runs on fast machines (I mention this because you seem to think DOS requires a 286 or older, with no memory).

> > Do you know how to rename files?
>
> NO.

DOS docs are easy to find.

> I fixed it in my port, maybe I'll release a new version one day.

I'm waiting.

> But you don't need GIF support in DOS anyway,

Why not? And if that's true, what are you fussing about?

> Write the patch yourself ... a chance for your 1st useful post here

NO. I'm not the one with the problem.

> > avoid these problems by running gifsicle -e
> > logo.gif --output=logo. That will produce files named logo.000,
> > logo.001, logo.002, ... So I decided not to provide a patch.
>
> There is always a hack confirming that it "works" ... but still:
>
> - Default behavior should be good, not bad

It is good enough for me, because it works on LFN-enabled systems and there's a work around for systems with SFN only.

> - In DOS (and Win32), GIF images are supposed to carry the file extension
> ".GIF", not ".000" or so. LXPIC refuses your ".000" or more GIF's.

Then LXPIC is stupid. A software should never rely on a file extension. That's why signatures exist in file format specifications.

> Thus, it still should be LOGO000.GIF, LOGO001.GIF etc. for DOS

I don't think so. But it's open source. So feel free to continue your own port doing "all things better".

---
Forum admin

> It is good enough for me, because it works on LFN-enabled systems

Your 2000 Professional (SP4) system

> there's a work around for systems with SFN only.

But that's the (DGJPP-typical) wrong approach ...

> Then LXPIC is stupid.

Obviously, since LXPIC author didn't make $$$ 50'000'000'000 $$$ with it ...

> A software should never rely on a file extension.

Your 4-core CPU + SATA-III HD PC has the performance "needed" to comply ...

> That's why signatures exist in file format specifications.

Good ... but they still don't make extensions obsolete

> feel free to continue your own port doing "all things better".

I will

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

> > It is good enough for me, because it works on LFN-enabled systems
>
> Your 2000 Professional (SP4) system

Did you ever hear about DOSLFN?

> > there's a work around for systems with SFN only.
>
> But that's the (DGJPP-typical) wrong approach ...

This is nonsense without a statement of reasons.

> > Then LXPIC is stupid.
>
> Obviously, since LXPIC author didn't make $$$ 50'000'000'000 $$$ with it
> ...

Where's the relation?

> > A software should never rely on a file extension.
>
> Your 4-core CPU + SATA-III HD PC has the performance "needed" to comply
> ...

That's far beyond from my computer's specs.

> > That's why signatures exist in file format specifications.
>
> Good ... but they still don't make extensions obsolete

Sure. File extensions are good for visualization to users.

> > feel free to continue your own port doing "all things better".
>
> I will

Good luck!

---
Forum admin

> Did you ever hear about DOSLFN?

Did you ever hear about trouble with it, from crosslinking 2 files up to "total" data loss ?

> File extensions are good for visualization to users.

GIF image -> .GIF ... plus for applications allowing them to pick supported files by extensions, without the need of brute-force walking through the directory and opening all files

PS: reportedly some "OS'es" (not applications ) do exist not only pre-opening all files for the purpose of checking the signature, but also reading and decoding all data of all files for creating previews ... just in case you find out to be in the wrong directory anyway

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

> GIF image -> .GIF ... plus for applications allowing them to pick
> supported files by extensions, without the need of brute-force walking
> through the directory and opening all files

Not always useful, on account of the many GIF formats. A viewer can save work by checking headers before trying to open what it actually doesn't know how to.

> PS: reportedly some "OS'es" (not applications ) do exist not only
> pre-opening all files for the purpose of checking the signature, but also
> reading and decoding all data of all files for creating
> previews ... just in case you find out to be in the wrong directory anyway

What OSes? All files on disk, regardless of disk size?

> A viewer can save work by checking headers before trying to open

WRONG - it must open the file before it can read the header at all

> What OSes?

Check your PC's

> All files on disk

In directory.

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

> > A viewer can save work by checking headers before trying to open
>
> WRONG - it must open the file before it can read the header
> at all

I meant "before trying to read whole file and display..."

> > What OSes?
>
> Check your PC's

I don't know how. Tell me.

> > > What OSes?
> >
> > Check your PC's
>
> I don't know how. Tell me.

He's probably talking about "Thumbnail View" on Windows.

---
Forum admin

> BTW, I found another (not really similar) GIF tool called
> GIFTRANS (w/
> src).

Another one is gif4web (source code + DJGPP binary) by Herbert Kleebauer.

---
Forum admin

> Another one is
> gif4web
> (source code + DJGPP binary) by Herbert Kleebauer.

Doesn't show anything (for me, at least).

> Doesn't show anything (for me, at least).

Please be more specific!

---
Forum admin

> > Doesn't show anything (for me, at least).
>
> Please be more specific!

The website either doesn't load or doesn't show anything.

> > > Doesn't show anything (for me, at least).
> >
> > Please be more specific!
>
> The website either doesn't load or doesn't show anything.

Yesterday evening it also didn't work for me, but currently it works.

---
Forum admin

> > The website either doesn't load or doesn't show anything.
>
> Yesterday evening it also didn't work for me, but currently it works.

Okay, it works now.