>>> Well, 170000 lines of Assembly and 5000 of C,
>> It would interest me where he stated these numbers.
> He did not. I just did unzip -p the-sources.zip *.a* | wc :-)

So you don't know how many of that 170000 lines are commentary only or  
blank. This is something I'm interested in, so I wrote me a program that  
counts the total lines of NASM source files, but also showing how many  
lines contained nothing (blank), only a comment (with ";" or as block with  
"%if 0") or actual code (labels or instructions).

>> Who will ever be able to understand and update Georg's host driver?
>> Certainly not anyone except him, since it's closed source.
> The interface is well-documented and you write software
> for Windows, Linux, DOS without reading their source, too.

And if the people that own the Windows source decide to abandon that  
Windows version, you aren't able to understand and update it proper  
either. ("understanding" means to understand the internal working, i.e.  
the source code's operation, because I write in response to your "might  
not understand large project".) My point isn't not to write drivers for  
either software, it's that closed-source software is abandoned if the ones  
having the source don't update and support it. This doesn't affect users  
of the software or using it directly.

>> I'm not interested about that. Even if Georg's drivers are faster,
>> I trust Bret's work more
> Why that?

As mentioned, I looked into some of his work. Plus I'm annoyed at how long  
it took Georg to understand a simple issue of his drivers I asked him to  

>> What do you mean by compatibility?
> Support for most different USB controllers and USB devices.

When Bret's finished with UHCI support, both drivers will support the same  
host controllers. Support for "devices" depends on which drivers are  
available for that host software. I think both currently support  
disks/drives, mice, keyboards and some ports.

> Apart from IRQ support (good idea) the modularity is similar in both.

Are the host controller drivers modular too? This is the part of the host  
driver which interacts with either EHCI, UHCI or OHCI hardware.

> I think the 4DOS case was some sort of misunderstanding which later
> got clarified into a more universal license.

Which didn't contain much of the FreeDOS exception stuff anymore I think.

>>> All of these programs, as well as their documentation and source code,
>>> are freely available to anyone who wants them.
> Maybe add BSD or Artistic license then :-)

BSD doesn't have Copyleft, and it allows turning the program into  
commercial software. Which Bret doesn't want. Please read through the full  
reply and discard inapplicable answers then.

>>> You also cannot distribute the programs, documentation, or
>>> source code and charge (even indirectly) for their distribution.
> Similar to shareware days - do not charge for distribution.

Only that shareware is different - it disallows charging because the  
author wants to sell it, and doesn't want to lose profit by others selling  
his stuff.

> The stack and some of the drivers ARE
> small because they ARE already written in ASM.

I worry that Georg isn't really good in Assembly.

> Just some of the
> examples are in BASIC maybe because that could be easier to read.

BASIC easier to read than Assembly or C? Than both the Assembly and C code  
must be obfuscated a lot first. How could BASIC be easy to read? Note also  
that the low-level calls to the API are almost inline Assembly anyway,  
working with specific registers and interrupts. Linking an external object  
module is much better if Assembly parts are required.


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to