Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!moocow.cs.uh.edu!wjin From: wjin@moocow.cs.uh.edu (Woody Jin) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.0 - a status report. Date: 3 Nov 1994 07:35:36 GMT Organization: University of Houston Lines: 51 Message-ID: <39a3s8$n16@masala.cc.uh.edu> References: <38j31l$6nf@agate.berkeley.edu> <38to0m$k6d@fw.novatel.ca> <3937bd$l19@masala.cc.uh.edu> <395qr4$msb@pdq.coe.montana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: moocow.cs.uh.edu In article <395qr4$msb@pdq.coe.montana.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> wrote: > >However, go back and re-read your article. Although your intent may not >have been to 'flame', the tone of the article made it sound like that >the FreeBSD folks didn't care and were spending our time on things that >were unimportant. Well, I read it again, and how did you get this ? Maybe you really didn't care :) :) :) Suppose a FreeBSD user complains that something doesn't work. Would you consider it as an implication that he thinks FreeBSD folks didn't care about the problem and spending their time in ohter unimportant area ? Again, the reason why I asked the question was : I have seen many problem reports about pcfs or wine, but have not seen any solutions. I was just curious about those since nothing was mentioned about them in FreeBSD 2.0 announcement. If you felt bad about it, I apologize. I didn't mean as you said, and I didn't know how to express it better. >The fact of the matter is that to the FreeBSD folks >ibsc2 emulatin is more important than MSDOS FS support. Could you explain why it is so ? No, this is not a flame nor am I trying to investigate FreeBSD core team's internal stuff. Is it more important because there were lots of request (if so, it is strange, since I have never seen such requests) ? Or is it because there is a technical challenge for doing it (if so, why msdos support is not so technically challenging) ? >That isn't >going to change, although it is hoped that the new msdosfs code should >be more stable than the pcfs code in 1.1. This is discouraging and encouraging. Thanks for your work. I know that I am going to be flamed, but if I advocate MS-DOS (not because of the superiority of any OS's perspective views - obviously MS-DOS is one of the worst), it is one of the OSs (with MacOS) which provide us with the environment for reasonably priced software. And I don't think that this will be changed soon. BTW, I plan to buy the Random House's Unabridged Dictionaly CD ROM which has DOS and Windows interface. Has anyone here tried it on msdos emulator in FreeBSD ? Does it work ? Can I install the whole dictionaly contents in HD ? Thanks. -- Woody Jin