Hi Diego,
I think Jim is just trying to encourage FDBOX to add features :-)
Tom is right that FDBOX as it is now is not yet really useful.
Why does it matter whether FreeCOM or FDBOX run on Windows,
Linux or Apple? You can run DOS on all of them, using either
a DOS emulator or a virtual PC which can boot FreeDOS :-)
Also, you can run powerful shells such as BASH on Windows,
Linux or Apple and each of the operating system already
ship with more powerful shells and file managers etc.
So if it is important for you that FDBOX runs on all major
operating systems, you suddenly get a lot more competition.
Powerful open source file managers and shells already have
been ported to the big operating systems, so it usually is
the DOS version which they are missing, not the Windows app.
This means there is less competition when it comes to cool
modern open source apps for DOS, while Windows users already
have everything they like.
As DJGPP already is one of the compilers you use, you may
want to write a DOS port of existing cool Linux apps. The
new MPXPLAY update would not exist without all the fancy
codec libraries from the Windows Linux open source world :-)
I appreciate that the code follows valgrind and clang :-)
As you already use cool busybox concepts, how about making
a DOS port of a recent version of busybox or minibox? :-)
If you love continous integration (automated compiles and
compatibility checks for each change upload) then you may
like contibuting to the DOSEMU2 project. The use that and
cross-compilation from Linux etc.
It has (will?) a better command line editor, history searching like
bash.
How well does it compete against 4DOS and, well, BASH?
You can pass arguments for commands after the file name ("del /f *.txt"
vs
"del *.txt /f"), you can add several files to all commands ("del 1.txt
2.txt *.tx1"). The "type" command can also print line numbers. The
"del"
command has the same functionality of "deltree". "copy" will display
progress on large commands. "ren" and "move" are effectively aliases on
this shell.
Sounds like reasonable additions to backport to FreeCOM under
the condition that it does not break MS DOS batch file syntax
compatibility. Some things may already be supported by FreeCOM
that you were not yet aware of? It tends to do more than MS DOS.
I don't understand, there is new software written for MSDOS/FreeDOS
and you are unhappy? ;-)
Developers for DOS are rare, so Tom may prefer improvements for
existing DOS software instead of first investing in the overhead
of creating completely new apps with similar target audiences?
Regards, Eric
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
