Hi Alain,
> I think that you are not being polite.
Yes. Yes, I reflected on this and I think you're right. Sorry. I just
don't like how people reply sometimes. I'll try to calm down there.
> You are new here
I've been in contact with Eric and some other people since more than a
year. I would call myself quite competent in most areas of DOS kernel
programming now. You're right when talking about the mailing list, because
compared to the age of the FreeDOS project I'm not long here.
> and you start by wanting to change everything.
No, not exactly. If you've attented the mailing list for the past months,
you'll see I don't want to change everything. The only extension I asked
for was to support FAT+, of course in the "stable" (or "trunk") kernel
branch because "unstable" isn't developed by anyone currently and
developing it would proceed the forking of these branches.
As Udo (Kuhnt, from EDR-DOS) put it, the "unstable" branch was and is seen
only as testing area for features that won't be added to the "stable"
(official) kernel. Yes, I'm criticizing this. I also think many developers
actually see it that way. At least I didn't yet see anything changed in
"stable" which was derived from "unstable", and improvements of "stable"
aren't added to "unstable" either. So it's really not dual development to
test new features and bug fixes in the "unstable" release first. (I think
a key condition for dual development which is not meet by current kernel
development is that no developer works on one of the releases only.)
Effectively "unstable" is forked off. Recent efforts to add some features
of "unstable" back to "stable" (such as COUNTRY.SYS loading) support this:
If the branches were maintained together, or even created from the same
source with IFDEFs, it won't need much effort to add features from the
testing branch to the official one.
Notice that I started working on a different DOS kernel (RxDOS) because I
prefer to write such programs in Assembler. In a way, I want to "change
everything" compared to DOS-C ("The FreeDOS Kernel") which is written in a
high-level language, and that's the reason I choose not to develop it.
Since no one else seems to be interested in RxDOS, I'm working on all
parts of it to eventually release something at all.
> Why don't you start by fixing a few bugs?
Although I'm not exactly interested in developing most of the FreeDOS
programs, I did already point out a few bugs. I'm of course not fixing
them myself (well, at most providing small patches) because I'm in no
position to take over development of these programs.
Regards,
Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
for externally facing server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
Freedos-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
