Hi Mike!

On 10/14/2012 04:57 PM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
> I noted that FDNPKG is using WatTCP - I don't see that as a problem.
> While I prefer mTCP and I think it has many advantages (speed, size, bug
> fixes, etc.) WatTCP works well enough and people are comfortable with
> it.  I also have a slight bias, so I am trying to be objective. ; - 0

In total honesty, I do believe that mTCP have big potential. It only 
lacks some, let's say, 'polish' to make it sexy for developers (working 
native compilation, ready to use *.o and *.h files...). But then again, 
I have no idea whether it's worth your time to polish mTCP to make it 
developer-friendly, as the amount of FreeDOS developers is really low 
today (and still falling). :)

> I am also willing to modify
> FDNPKG to use mTCP as an experiment if there is a possibility that it
> might use mTCP long term.)

I'm totally open to accept any patch or code you would contribute! 
Including mTCP into FDNPKG would be great - I'd imagine it as an 
alternative stack (so FDNPKG could use WatTCP or mTCP - this being 
configurable via the FDNPKG config file). I'll send you details on mail.


Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to