Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> All of the TurboC ports should be deprecated in lieu of OpenWatcom
>> (or, better yet, DJGPP).
> it's not a TurboC port. in 2001 TurboC was the free (as in beer) compiler
> around, and the kernel could only be compiled using TurboC. this
> simply still works.
I didn't mean the kernel here, only some userland utils in "BASE",
etc. Some of them don't even build with the "freeware" TurboC
compilers (which are hidden behind "free" registration and trialware
and can't be further redistributed by us, sadly).
And yes, I know that OW didn't exist until 2003. But even Pat mused
about eventually converting to use GCC instead.
> the kernel was then ported to MSC, later to WatcomC.
> it will not work with any other compiler without *major* work.
> it will never work with DJGPP.
The kernel is a relatively small project, so I'd bet a small group, or
one diligent expert, could convert it in a month, part time.
Seriously, much *much* harder stuff is done every day. I may not be
the best person to do it personally, but even I'd like to take a look
eventually. It's not as hard or impossible as it sounds.
> it's like compiling the linux kernel with Visual Studio, even when
> both can produce 32bit code.
> It's just not going to happen.
"Where there's a will, there's a way."
>>> FreeDOS needs to be "Free".
> says who?
(Sigh.) Is this really something you disagree with?
Pat Villani was the one who contributed the original kernel as GPL. Do
you think that was a mistake? Certainly almost nobody likes software
that becomes closed later on.
Jim Hall is a serious proponent of Free Software. I'm a pretty big fan
myself. He has always recommended OW (Sybase v1, "OSI") and NASM
("BSD" 2-clause). I don't see the need to put obstacles in the path of
future users and contributors. Seriously, it's very hard to improve
software when you can't even easily rebuild it. I've rebuilt a lot of
stuff, and none of it is easy, mostly due to bugs and omissions and
sloppiness. It shouldn't be this hard.
It's almost impossible for FreeDOS to live and breathe and grow as a
project if we don't use Free tools. We've got too many great compilers
at our disposal to give up now. If we're half proprietary, that's
almost as bad as fully proprietary: it's external dependencies on
volatile things that we can't control. Things like MS-DOS and DR-DOS
are dead, no longer supported, no future developments, and hard to
find. We don't want to rot and die off like them.
Do you really think FreeDOS is worse off by being "Free"? Sure,
sometimes it's more work, but sometimes it's better (for practical
reasons) that way.
>>> I know some here
>>> have a hard time accepting this, but we really need to focus on using
>>> Free tools.
> so far this has been decided by those who did the work.
Most subprojects are unmaintained and buggy and hard to rebuild. Some
were just due to lack of time, some due to inexperience, some had no
better choices at the time. But, as it stands, many things could use
heavy improvement.
> you are not in the position if I should use a hammer or a shovel for
> the job to be done.
Some tools have no obvious benefit besides familiarity. It makes no
sense to prefer worse tools if you have a choice.
> port whatever software to whatever free compiler you like, and bragg about
> it once it's done.
I've done some small things, but I can't do everything. We need to be
diligent. We can't ignore every problem as unimportant.
> everybody else may feel free to shut up.
>
> I know some here have a hard time accepting this, but FreeDOS is an
> engineering problem not a religion.
>
> Amen.
Some of it is idealistic, but also a big chunk is pragmatism. Like I
said, it's hard to improve or contribute when you can't even rebuild a
tool. Certainly Free Software itself is no stranger to arcane and
complicated and brittle makefiles and shell scripts. But we don't need
to make things harder than they already are. We should be improving,
not giving up the ghost.
Tom, nobody is trying to force you to do anything. But, at the same
time, FreeDOS is suffering from growing pains. It's very difficult to
get some things to work, moreso than it has to be. Some things really
need fixing. Relying on old, proprietary, or hard-to-build tools is
not a good long-term solution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
