On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Bertho Grandpied <y31415926...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> I must say, though, the reception which I got from Herr Ehlert on this list
> is making me wonder whether spontaneous contributions made in
> good faith are welcome and / or opportune.
Patience, young padawan. Things like this take time and thought (and
research and testing).
If you draw up a patch and it isn't accepted upstream into SVN, I can
still mirror it somewhere (e.g. iBiblio) for you.
Or you can do almost anything with it anyways, it's free/libre. There
can be no one stopping you from contributing (somewhere, somehow).
>> maybe Tom does not have the patience to explain you
>> why there are good reasons why FreeDOS does things
>> the way they are done, but you can trust him :-)
> As in, I should /trust/ someone blindly who /starts/ interacting by affirming
> that I /do not understand/ the point ?
Give him the benefit of the doubt, as he is one of the resident
experts around here who has contributed a lot. But even the smartest
person in the world gets tired, too busy with "real life", or just
forgets some minor details from years ago.
> Further to stating that I Czerno "do not understand", and that he Tom
> "does not care" about your users, I have yet to read Herr Ehlert's
> statement of why it would be (dangerous? unwelcome?) for Freecom
> to allocate the master environment block in low memory using "first fit".
> I'm open and ready to accept sound reasons, which must be FreeCOM specific
> just not the "you wouldn't be happy" stance ! Am I bizarre ?
Yes, of course, technical explanations (or how to test for
correctness) would be ideal, but he may not have time for that nor
remember the details.
> Well... the project which I keep mentionning won't include a "COMMAND"
> processor in the final distribution as self sufficient bootable images for a
> floppy or USB key. The final user may want to add one and we certainly
> want a command shell during project building. I'll be recommending 4DOS
> for internal use - license allowing.
4DOS is ambiguously licensed. I don't really recommend it, though
there aren't a lot of "full" shell replacements available. If you can
avoid some (most?) .BAT internal stuff, you may find it easier to
> In case a future version of FreeCOM finally can be persuaded to locate
> the ENV low, like MS and all other Command.com flavours rightly do,
> shall we reconsider.
Again, I take this to mean that (admittedly) FreeCOM is too hard to
rebuild (preferably with TurboC). If you need help with this, feel
free to try and ask specifically for assistance. (It's definitely what
I would call slightly annoying, but it's definitely not impossible to
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
Freedos-user mailing list