Arkady V.Belousov schreef:
Arkady, Tom rejected *implementing VCPI by himself* as he did not see the personal(!) need for VCPI.He even rejects idea of adding VCPI some time ago, before you
gets this question into your hands. :(
te> but that is definitively utter bullshit; very close to lying. te> can you give me the reason why you say so ?
Where I lie?! When you was asked about adding VCPI, you answer that you
will not do this, because this is not need for you. Is this was not so?
(Unfortunately, I have no access to group archive, to show you precise
words).
FreeDOS programs can be worked on by multiple people. Tom sometimes improves someone elses program, Eric does the same, and so do you.
The idea of adding VCPI is happily accepted by Tom. He just did not want to implement it by himself. That's his decision.
Luckily, his EMM386/HIMEM programs are opensource, so anyone can contribute (or fork), in theory.
Luckily Michael Devore wanted to implement VCPI himself, whatever his reasons might have been (promoting CauseWay?).
He even managed to succesfully implement it, and now we have a decent usable EMM386 with just a few features missing (like VDS),
and some compatibility programs due to strange programs and undocumented calls.
Maintainers will accept almost any idea, but they won't always implement the idea though.
do you see the difference? maybe language confusion.. please stop the arguing and keep on writing code :)
Bernd
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
