Att: Rugxulo 


> Patience, young padawan. 

I had to look that padawan up on wOOkipedia (not a typo!)  :=)

> Things like this take time and thought (and
research and testing).

Accepted. I've passed the message, now letting things ripen (and tone down) as 

> 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.

I'm afraid no patch to FreeCOM is likely will be coming from me, for reasons 
already stated and rehashed. 

Should OTOH you (and the FreeDOS project at large) wish to offer the 
free XBDA mover as a supplement/alternative to FreeDOS's internal, I'll 
contact you for arranging the mirroring. It's a simple, robust and
tiny DOS device driver coded in ASM, a few hundred bytes altogether. 

>> 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 :-)
>> Give him the benefit of the doubt, as he is one of the resident
experts around here who has contributed a lot. 

I think I did give the, whatever, benefit - but maybe it was not apparent ? 

> But even the smartest
> person in the world gets tired, too busy with "real life", or just
> forgets some minor details from years ago.

Sure. but the smartest person in the world won't convince me s/he 
cannot discard 100 K of temporary code/data and do some memory resizing,
move part of itself out of the way if need be - before allocating memory.

It's not exactly a beginning programmer's task, nor is it rocket science either.


>> 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
> replace:

I /love/ 4DOS - been using it for 20 years - used to be NDOS. 
For internal use, it must be OK, right ? 
The question wrt to licensing was rather whether 4DOS.COM could be legally 
envisaged to become FreeCOM as FreeDOS official, or "alternate 
official?" shell. 


> 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. 

Having never written a line in C makes it a no-no for myself, and no programmer 
on their small team will take  an interest in what is outside 
the realm of the project.

> (It's definitely what
> I would call slightly annoying, but it's definitely not impossible to
> rebuild either.)

Rebuilding is one thing, patching and debugging properly is another. 
This task takes a motivated, seasoned C programmer, who preferably were 
familiar already with FreeCOM. All I can do is try to argue it, knowing 
well it's a possibility that no one will be convinced and undertake it.

On the other hand, if FreeCOM hasn't been revised since 2001, maybe it's 
not to early for 'someone' to give the old code a look and some fresh 



This email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to