> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:23:43 +0200, Tom Ehlert wrote: >> one last thought: how exactly would make your proposed changes >> FreeDOS worth a change in naming to 2.0 ? >> >> I personally would expect more change then removing APPEND even if >> APPEND has its roots in CP/M and MSDOS 1.0
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Mateusz Viste <mate...@nospam.viste.fr> wrote: > I have to agree with Tom here. I really don't see the point of such move. > We are talking about a legacy system that has no development any more, > beside the occasional bug fix. > > a "2.0" would make sense if there were some major changes... Say, in- > kernel USB support, multitasking and such. Doing a repackaging isn't > really what I would call a major milestone. I assume this is mainly to > attract clicks, but surely there are other ways to do "buzz". It wasn't about "buzz" but I assumed the discussion would uncover ideas that would justify a "2.0" label. If the changes are incremental, "1.3" makes more sense. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
