On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:30:34 -0500, you wrote:
Sorry for my limited ability of English language, I hope I didn't
interpreted your meaning in a wrong way.
><that should never have been publicly reposted>
Jack did a TECHNICAL reply to Eric's wrong interpretation of QHIMEM,
what's wrong? We didn't SELL QHIMEM nor ask the other to quit FD-HIMEM
and FD-EMM386, for what reason we need to keep it private? I don't
understand why you overreacted.
>What I suggest you reflect upon, Mr. Lam, are your personal reasons for
>posting this entire private e-mail to the public list. It serves little
>purpose here other than to incite more anger and hurtful retaliatory
I want to introduce a good alternative memory manager to the others,
helping the users to solve problems, WHO start complaining this and
that, and speak of "suspicious", "advocate"?
I'm trying to be polite, tolerate and avoid conflicts, but someone
just want these. I'm really tired of the non-constructive email of
some "human emotional" discussions without solid technical reasons.
I didn't hate Eric, sometimes he did say something wrong, then I think
we need to "correct" this, towards the specific matter, not toward the
person, purely subjective.
>remarks. The action follows on the heels of your sidetracking a technical
>support request into an exercise in unrelated memory manager advocacy. In
>short, your recent behavior demonstrates a serious failure of judgement in
>how to positively contribute to an open-source project.
This is your point of view, not the whole Open-Source community,
everyone contribute their parts, not attacking the others because of
the emotional reason such as "I don't like it".
>Apparently you feel uniquely justified in your efforts to topple stable and
>well-tested drivers in favor of the output of a single individual you hold
>in unimpeachable regard. Directly or by proxy, you denigrate the sum of
>thousands of hours of testing, development, and support hours contributed
>by hundreds of FreeDOS users and developers. Project team effort is all to
Many users or contributors REALLY become CD-ROM (read-only) to avoided
the "human social trouble" here, but I can't shut up simply because
Eric or someone making wrong assumptions. We speak the truth base on
>be swept away by the single unsung genius. For you, the presumed raw
>talent of one person trumps all other aspects of development and the
>talents contained therein. And finally, although the new driver is at
>least three years too late to enter the official FreeDOS memory manager
>race this close to the 1.0 release goal line, it seems it still must be
>crowned the best mostly by virtue of -- as near as can tell -- abuse
>towards the unenlightened.
I see no conflict here, users will pick the best software of their
own, because they're not quest for a GANG style, maybe I should say a
"nationalism" like collections of programs, they just want something
works best on their computers.
>Who you like and what you think of their work is strictly your
>business. The rest is not.
Jack and I just want to make FreeDOS better, and "a few people" not
appreciate his hard work, and turn against him. I really don't know
what kind of world it is, I don't want to scare away other users here,
if you don't mind, please return our discussion to technical issue.
I didn't include Jack reply this time, because his reply really speak
the whole truth, too exciting ... truth is always the hardest thing to
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
Freedos-user mailing list