> > What would be helpful to me would be more feedback about what would be
> > nice to have on tomsrtbt to make it better integrate with and support
> > Mandrake. I wasn't contacted when it was added to some versions, nor when
>
> Ah bon ? humm i'm sure i send you an email about this for our 6.0
> version (last year) and you was agree.
I'm not referring to email like "may we use tomsrtbt", to which I of
course dash off a quick "of course!".
I'm referring to contact of the form, "Ah, tomsrtbt, useful, and, it might
be perfect if we could (A, B, C) and the behaviour of (D, E, F) is wrong,
and is it possible for us to customize (G, H, I) for our distribution?
For example, the point was raised that some don't want to include an
extended format floppy. Now, I am the one that can point out that in the
settings.s file are the lines:
FD=/dev/fd0u1722
FN="b 2 60"
DZ=3444
HE=2
SE=21
CY=82
Allowing you to easily create a 1.44 tomsrtbt, just whack a couple of
frills such as emacs - ce (an obsolete editor, not needed as tomsrtbt
include vi - elvis), dmsdos.o (for Stacker/DoubleSpace, most won't miss
it) and such. If this kind of dialog had taken place, Mandrake might
have been able to leverage some of the strengths of tomsrtbt into a
drakrtbt, or maybe mdrkrtbt if that is too many vowels.
But it seems the paradigm is more, just grab what is out there, rather
than a bidirectional engagement?
-Tom
