Michael Devore escribi�:
At 10:49 AM 7/28/2004 +0200, Aitor wrote:
Hi,
Well, I tend to be concerned about MS compatibility, but your arguments are convincing. I was just thinking if it is sensible (I don't know, opinions wellcome) to call the option /NOALTBOOT instead, so that those that use this option get not confused.
(well, my option would be compatibility so do not include by default, unless you include /ALTBOOT, but that's your call).
This is pretty cosmetic stuff and really,
sure :)
EMM386 has been acting like ALTBOOT from the beginning.
And you are creating an option to not behave like this.
I'm open to reversing it after the mythical FreeDOS 1.0 release, but reversing things from the way they've always been right now doesn't seem to make a lot of sense and could potentially bring out a lot of immediate incompatibilities that have grown up around the way EMM386 has worked until now.
On the other hand, MS-DOS experienced users could all the same bring out a lot of incompatibilities because they were using ALTBOOT to make their programs happy and now this way it does not work.
I like using ALTBOOT's name because it directly corresponds to MS's option
well, it directly corresponds to OPPOSITE MS's option.
and reversed or re-reversed, it's what's out there and literally is the option desired. What would you do with the newly renamed option after any later 180 degree swap? It would a useless orphan.
Well, in this case you'd use the MS-compatible /ALTBOOT
One of the main items scheduled after 1.0 release is a big MS compatibility cleanup. In my opinion that's when ALTBOOT's case should be argued as to whether it needs to be spun around or not.
Also for perspective, notice the reasons why this concrete option (and others) is left post-1.0: we mentioned that EMM386 does the essential, that other options are to be implemented with users's needs.Michael Devore escribi�: At 02:51 PM 7/28/2004 -0500, Jim Hall wrote:
Ok.
Since it's already been released, if it stayed as-is for now BUT IS CLEARLY DOCUMENTED POST-1.0 when the option changed definition, that should be fine for the end-users.
Well, this is quite ok for options with certain degree of complexity (such as Weitek coprocessor support, or at least it seems so), but if hypothetically I knew that this option has had been needed to make one user's happy and I had known what it was for (I admit I didn't have a clue about it), I would have set it as 1.0. And the reason for this is that, as you said, it doesn't seem to be very sensible that the option (ALTBOOT or NOALTBOOT) has one meaning now, and changes meaning after 1.0.
Of course, in this all, this is just my opinion and suggestion, but it is your call.
Aitor
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
