sophisticated (as I'm currently working on, shameless plug) or we take
them out. I would hate if FreeDOS acquired a reputation of coming with
a lot of junk.
yes, I agree, but as 1.4 is upcoming, let it come up first. After this step, I think it would be absolutely necessary to fix the known bugs of FD first of all, and I know a lot. The sourceforge bug report list is a treasure, even if tom will not believe me, but the problem is that there are are a lot of indian chiefs that write a lot, but no indians, that do the job.
two years ago I proposed a google summer of code to fix all those FD related bugs, but nobody understood me and they made my post ridiculous.
Well, now most of the tools around FD are updated, guess why, tom? excel sheet.
--
Gesendet mit der mail.com Mail App
Gesendet mit der mail.com Mail App
Am 17.02.25, 00:14 schrieb Danilo Pecher via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>:
I wouldn't assuime any unwarranted wisdom here, but my impression is
that some programs seem to be included because they are there and
there is no alternative. As a font nerd of sorts, I noticed the
gnuchcp package that Jim even made a video about. It is ridiculously
trivial and not very well programmed. In fact it's just a handful of
Turbo Pascal lines someone belched into a file. It can't even deal
with any scanlines other than 16. which is pointless when you ship
8x14 and 8x18 fonts at the smae time, you just mess up your display.
I would think we either replaxce those packages with something more
sophisticated (as I'm currently working on, shameless plug) or we take
them out. I would hate if FreeDOS acquired a reputation of coming with
a lot of junk.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 00:05, tom ehlert via Freedos-devel
<freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> Hallo Herr Jim Hall via Freedos-devel,
>
> am Sonntag, 16. Februar 2025 um 22:20 schrieben Sie:
>
> > I'm bringing back an item we talked about on the video call this morning.
>
> > Folks have discussed a few times on this email list about dropping the
> > FDTUI program from the distribution. But FDTUI was always "just one
> > item in a long list of other topics" in whatever thread it was brought
> > up in, so FDTUI never really got much discussion.
>
> > FDTUI is only a file manager, but not a very good one. We have other
> > file managers in FreeDOS (like Doszip). The program doesn't really do
> > anything and is buggy. See below for details.
>
> > I think we need to drop FDTUI, and not include it in FreeDOS 1.4.
>
> +1
>
> Which rises the question why it was ever included.
>
> IMO FreeDOS included programs should have both a minimum usefulness and code quality, which FDTUI certainly doesn't.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
