Hi, On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Bernd Blaauw <bbla...@home.nl> wrote: > Op 26-7-2011 22:32, Joe Cosentino schreef: >>>> >>>> Or how about fixing something while you're at it? >> >>> This might be a good time to "practice what you preach". > > As useless as EXE2BIN might be, we'll keep it..in BASE even.
it's Jim and Jim alone's decision, he's the boss, and there is nobody else going to change this but him. I'm honestly NOT trying that hard to push this, just thought it seemed fairly obvious that nobody needed it "by default"! I admit it's definitely not up to me and doesn't majorly matter (esp. for 1.1), but since we were recently discussing what belongs where, I thought it was worth mentioning (esp. publicly for discussion). No, of course having it doesn't "hurt", but it's a bit perplexing. I'd be VERY surprised if anybody actively wanted it there (in "BASE"). > I'll admit > to never having used it, same for EDLIN, DEBUG (unless explicitly > instructed), COMP, DISKCOMP, APPEND, ASSIGN, PRINT, MIRROR, RECOVER, > REPLACE, SORT, SUBST/JOIN, UNDELETE, UNFORMAT, VOL. Nevertheless they > were present in DOS flavors we're trying to mimick, so keeping them around. At least all of those are stand-alone and actually useful (in select circumstances). Like I said, you can't actually use EXE2BIN without other tools, so it's worth a lot less than the above, IMO. Heck, a quick check shows that even I included it on my mini-distro (2008). I'm almost positive it was out of respect to "BASE" (at Eric's suggestion) rather than pure technical merit. I mean, it's just so useless there! Ah well. :-/ >> Sorry dude, but I've done more to advance this project in 6 months (not the >> last 6 months, mind you), than you have done in a lifetime. So shove it. Maybe, but I doubt it. No offense, I've seen your work, it's good and useful, I never complained (!), and for sure I don't claim *any* credit for helping FreeDOS, my efforts are almost nil. But there are many people who have done plenty more than either of us. Don't get a big head. Again, if we had to list all the contributors, even only recently, it would be more than just a handful. It's almost mind-boggling, it's just so many. Pat, Tim, Jim, Eric, Aitor, Henrique, Bernd, Jeremy, Bart, Blair, ... now I'm drawing a blank. But for sure it's tons and tons. (Trane, Steffan, Hjort, David, Charles, Loren, Jack, Fritz, Johnson, Laaca, Robert, Khusraw, DOS386, Japheth, Wolf, FAT32 dude [can't remember], Imre, Rene, Ben, Arkady, Lucho, ...) etc. etc. etc. (and that's just from *memory*!). > Both of you have had a considerable influence. You with a lot of basic > tools/programs, Rugxulo managed to keep things up to date, as well as > compiling and porting lots of stuff. See > http://sites.google.com/site/rugxulo/ No influence at all, I'm afraid, only very barely, and probably only then because volunteers are few. I just have a "drive" to work on improving DOS, which basically means (only) FreeDOS these days. I need to focus more instead of starting so many hacks, patches, builds, etc. It's just not easy to focus or plan when life throws so many wrenches at you. > Anyway, bringing stuff up for discussion is fine. Basing an argument on > other missing tools might be a pile of trouble though. I'll update > EXE2BIN if it's indeed present in OpenWatCom. Do you have OW19 installed or should I just e-mail it to you? The old 1.5 version used in "BASE" contains this: exe2b15x.zip: .lsm, .com, 2 .txt, .en exe2b15s.zip: 4 .h, .c, .mak, .asm In other words, it's not a very complex project. I could (should?) grab sources and binaries and package it up for you all from OW19. (But should that all be one .ZIP these days, a la suggested FD 1.1 package format or did I misunderstand?) Are you honestly interested?? > Let's keep things constructive as well. Heated arguments won't help get > an improved FreeDOS released. Could've been nicer about disagreeing. >> Man, I'll bet the rest of you are glad to hear from me again! HA! > > Indeed, nice to see some faces show up again :) No, this wasn't a great way to (re)introduce yourself. But if you can think of other compilers or assemblers (besides MASM) needing EXE2BIN, please mention them (as I can't)! P.S. On a semi-related note, I know of at least one ("old") compiler from 1991, Oberon/M, that didn't include a linker since it assumed MS LINK would be available (oops!). And of course it uses some non-standard OMF record that chokes most linkers (except QLINK /I:OMFIGN just ignores it [!] like MS Link but unlike every other one I tried except TLINK, which I shun because it ain't true "freeware"). In other words, most compilers wisely choose to bundle their own tools. (Okay, CM3/Win32 allegedly relies on MSVC LINK also, why?? Silly. Oh, and I did [miraculously] find M3/PC 1996 for DJGPP v2 recently, woot!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
