> Most attractive to average users (rough guess): > > Mpxplay > Bret's USB > CuteMouse > mTCP + common packet drivers > Arachne > WGET > Mined > GNU Emacs > Perl > Python > OpenGem > OpenWatcom + NASM > FreeDoom + Eternity Engine > HXRT + HXGUI > p7zip > DJGPP (GCC + GPP + Watt-32) > UIDE + XMGR + RDISK + SHCDX33E > DOSLFN > Odi's LFNtools > LTOOLS > TestDisk + PhotoRec > xpdf (or Ghostscript?) > Doszip (or DN/2?) > 4DOS (or Bash?) > Keyb + CPI (+ mode + nlsfunc), etc. etc.
While I'm glad to see enthusiasm for what the next FreeDOS distro should include, and you've got a lot of interesting stuff above, I'll point out that this is a classic example of "scope creep". Testing, configuration, etc gets much harder the more packages you add to the distro. I'd prefer not to expand the list of packages fro FreeDOS 1.1 at this late stage. We've done some cleanup on the software list and moved a few packages between package groups on the 1.1-test distro already. If we started building a list of all the cool programs that FreeDOS 1.1 should also include, we will never get there. I think we should have a discussion about what FreeDOS 2.0 should include, and I think "2.0" is the right time to completely redefine what "DOS" should look like. What would DOS systems look like today if they remained the dominant platform? What should a "modern DOS" look like in 2011 or 2012? After 1.1 is out, I'd like to see a good, strong discussion thread on the mailing list with lots of comments about what "2.0" should include, what packages belong "in" and "out", what package groups we should have. But please, let's keep that until *after* we get FreeDOS 1.1 out. I'd like "1.1" to basically be an update to "1.0": a *few* new packages & features, more up-to-date packages, a new installer. > Jim has been pretty open to people making their own distros. So far > not many have bothered. It's tedious, that's probably why. The only > thing worse than that is annoying bugs or stuff that constantly gets > updated (which means upgrading ad nauseum). Perfectionism doesn't help > either (not that anything is every perfect). :-/ Yup, I've been very open to anyone making their own FreeDOS distro. And there have been a few, GNU/DOS was one example. This is basically the same concept as people making their own Linux distro: you get lots of experiments, and the very strong distros become popular. At first, you only had MCC Linux, TAMU Linux, and SLS Linux - but then you had Slackware, Debian, RedHat ... Fedora, Ubuntu, etc - and lots of other distros along the way. I'm totally okay with someone taking the FreeDOS Kernel and utilities, and trying their own spin on FreeDOS to do something really interesting or cool. I'd just ask that they avoid using the label "FreeDOS", and name it something unique. Again, "GNU/DOS" was a good example. -jh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
