Eric Auer schrieb:
> Hi Michael,
> thanks for suggesting an automated compile-and-test-SVN farm
> of test computers, I guess part of the problem is that you
> typically compile DOS in DOS and DOS does not run cronjobs.
> Conceivably a smart Linux DOSEMU solution is possible but in
> that case the test will not be on raw hardware. Other ideas?
- Then a cronjob (TSR) is one of the first things you need.
- You manually tell to create the build.
The coreboot automated testsystem needs also special and expensive
hardware for automatic flashing and such.
There are also videos available and in one of his demonstrations he
talked about all this helper devices.
>>> ...need review beforethat branch can be called stable...
>> Well, you could never make any changes. Because you test it on your
>> computer and it works great, but on another computer it will break
>> (due to BIOS bugs or whatever).
> Exactly - so patches should be tested at least by more than
> one person.
But what to do if you have no more then one person or just a few people?
You must be opportunistic.
> The next part is even more "just my personal opinion"... :-).
>> FreeDOS users count and developers count seams decreasing which
>> is an indicator that the current strategy is not effective.
> I disagree.
Look at the changes in cvs, release dates, mailing list and download
> A friend recently bought a new ASRock mainboard
> and was amused that it comes with a FreeDOS based tool CD.
That's nice but doesn't mean much.
> Even if you can do new cool stuff with DOS now, say using
> Sioux as web server for your PC with 1 TB SATA, people will
> wonder why - said PC almost certainly has more than enough
> RAM to run your web server on for example Linux instead :-).
This is a bad view...
Because different people prefer different solutions.
Linux is confusing, big parts of the community are elitist uppish geeks
and new features get dropped due to over paranoid security issues.
DOS has other sympathetic strikes, DOS just got boring over time and
could not comply with the new requirements.
>> I would like it more like: add new fancy features (with bugs)
> You mean the features are expected to be buggy? :-)
No, but bugs are not end of all days.
>> You could even let the FreeDOS 1.0 stable distribution
>> as it is and focus on beta builds only for a few years
> My personal opinion is that a FreeDOS 1.1 BASE will
> be a big step / update forwards simply because it
> gives you better and more modern versions of dozens
> of already known FreeDOS BASE programs :-). Alas it
> will not be fancy or revolutionary that way but we
> can for example offer more / more open drivers now.
Which more open drivers?
Freedos-user mailing list