Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS need clean up!

[Johnson L. <jo...@tm...>]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:44:30 +0200, you wrote:

Tom,

>Arkady spend a lot of time to remove any excess code.
>Unfortunately he also introduced a couple of bugs.
>So the naming is probably correct.

What a waste, I guess no one pick up the job, correct?

>> Slow disk access, FreeDOS is the slowest among EDR-DOS and PTS-DOS ...
>WHAT 'slow disk access' (other then Lucho reporting this) ?

His test result have problem?
Or you found out he did a wrong test?

>FWIW FreeDOS has read access to files close enough to theoretical
>throughput.

Only read?

>> etc.
>did I ever tell you that I HATE 'etc.'

Sorry, I don't know it's your taboo.

I hate NOT WORKING either, but I can't make that da_n program work on
=46reeDOS.

>mentions 'some DOS extender', 'some program' (don't expect us to know
>'Han Chinese System'), has some sort of bug (what sort of bug) (which =
you
>never reported before) and generalizes this to 'FreeDOS usually not =
work'

Okay! You win I lose.
I know 'I'm not logic enough, and I'd never get to 100% accuracy,
shoot me.

>I take the right to call this bullshit.

No problem when we're just "talking", but when coming to "working" it
must be accurate.

Always require 100% correct make me like robot, I do have relax a bit
when talking, I don't want to test everything and come back years
later.

>If these people are happy with DOSBOX, why would I want to change that

If FreeDOS proved "not as good" as DOSBOX, any meaning of that?

Actually I don't mind, not my project and I'm just a da_n fu_king
small potato around, but I feel sorry for those spent their time
coding for FreeDOS.


Rgds,
Johnson.