Hopefully I don't rant too much...

I rarely post on the list at all but I think that
there has been a trend recently to add features to
FreeDOS but skip over the fact that it's supposed to
reproduce DOS as faithfully as possible. I wasn't all
that happy with FD 1.0 and still use my custom install
of beta-9 rc5.

--- Florian Xaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jim, I all!
> *Using 4DOS as standard command tool, and Bash or
> freecom as choice.

Why? I've had no problem with FreeCOM as it is what
it's supposed to do: be a clone of COMMAND.COM. Bash
should NOT be an option because this is DOS, if I
wanted a *nix I'd use it instead of DOS. Plus, if
people wanted bash they'd also need to install a bunch
of *nix utilities to use it (since all bash scripts
require ls, rm, etc. which are not, and should not be
part of a default DOS installation IMO).

> *PythonD as modern script language

Why Python and not Perl or any other scripting
language? Should we give preference to one at all? DOS
predates Python by long enough that I would just find
it strange to see included by default. I'd expect
something like BASIC or REXX as the scripting language
for a DOS. If I wanted Python/Perl/etc. I would
install it myself. Although, I find it strange that
you'd suggest Python over REXX since you want 4DOS
included which allows you to use REXX code in .BAT

> *Using an Editor which supports large files (like

So long as they reproduce the features of the original
default editors for DOS they shouldn't be that bad but
the current ones are fine.

> *One standard file manager (my choice would be FW or
> NDN)

I don't like this idea since I don't use either. If a
user wants a file manager they'd install one that
they'd like which might not be either of those. No one
expects DOS to come with a file manager and I think
giving preference to one project over another isn't a
good thing.

> *No more 386- support

This I think is a horrible idea since the whole
purpose of FreeDOS is to have an open-source clone of
DOS that can work on old machines.

> I also think, that it shouldn't be a BIG collection
> of all free DOS programs.
> The distribution should contain less, but powerful
> programs. (Download
> via WGET for additional tools could be possible.) If
> there are more
> than one (like file managers) we could make a poll
> at freedos.org
> where user and developer can choose them.

I do agree here and think that FreeDOS is straying too
much from DOS feature wise while leaving certain
compatibility holes open.

> Network: Latest Arachne (a much more advanced
> version should be
> distributed soon) is a ''must", also tools like
> WGET. And one big
> problem still exists: a driver. So there should be a
> note at the
> installer, which points to FreeDOS Wiki or another
> site, where a good
> documentation exists ( about installing such a
> driver).

What do you mean by "a driver"? Also, while I love
Arachne, this runs counter to what you said above with
wanting FreeDOS to not be a large collection of free
DOS programs.

> And the GUI? I would say OZONE :-))))))
> Even with the drag'n'drop-bug it has many features
> and developing of
> programs isn't difficult.

Why not Windows? :-) Having a default GUI is bad since
there are competing projects and, again, I dislike
giving preference to one project over another when the
projects are equal. Plus, DOS didn't come with a GUI
and people used to pay for different ones. Also, I
would not choose Ozone (although it's nice) for a DOS
GUI anyways (I personally prefer OpenGEM).

 a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 

This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to