> > On 2/6/2023 5:40 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> > > Would you prefer an article on Pascal? I know you (also) are a fan of
> > > it. An article from your experience there might be useful.
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 9:49 PM Ralf Quint <freedos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, kind of programming language agnostic, with examples in BASIC, Turbo
> > Pascal, C and assembler. As mentioned, it will be about programming in
> > DOS for DOS.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:34 PM Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a caveat: I think they want only "open source" tools. And,
> although they list OSI approved licenses, I would be surprised if they
> were sympathetic to OpenWatcom (Sybase v1).
I've written a few articles for Opensource.com that use OpenWatcom on
FreeDOS. For example, the "conio" article used OpenWatcom.
That said, any other articles I write about conio will probably use TK
Chia's IA-16 libi86. But that's just because I love the work on IA-16
GCC.
[..]
> In other words, you probably can't talk about "Turbo Pascal" proper,
> only the dialect as used in either GPC or FPC or p2c. They don't want
> you promoting or pointing people to proprietary software.
Correct, you shouldn't write about proprietary software for
Opensource.com. One exception is if you're writing about "open source
alternatives to proprietary software." So writing a "(Free)DOS
programming with Pascal" article that uses FreePascal is great; a
Pascal article that uses TurboPascal would probably get rejected.
("Open source alternatives" is always a popular topic, by the way. If
anyone wants to write an article about "Open source alternatives to
proprietary DOS software that you can run on FreeDOS in 2023," I'm
pretty sure the editors would go for that. My example is a very long
title; the editors can help you with the title.)
[..]
> I don't think they are sympathetic to the history of QB, PDS, VBDOS.
> (Steve Nikolas is the resident BASIC expert around here.)
"History of programming" articles can be okay, but I'd guess the
editors would look for the article to turn to open source options.
That's what I'd look for, if I read the article. For example, an
article about the history of BASIC might highlight a few variants like
AppleSoft BASIC, BASICA, GW-BASIC, QuickBASIC/QBASIC, and FreeBASIC.
Most of those are proprietary; GW-BASIC was made open source a few
years ago, and FreeBASIC is GNU GPL. As a suggestion: You might make
the focus into something like "[most] programs written for an earlier
BASIC should work fine on a later BASIC, and that's the cool thing
about BASIC backwards compatibility .. it's just BASIC." Or something
like that. I am not an editor on the site, but my guess is they would
like that. You can always email the editors to ask them.
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
