DOS ain't dead

> > Okay, but does this mean you're officially handing him the reins now? Is
> he
> > the sole maintainer now, or will it be developed independently?
>
> Actually, he asked to be the new maintainer and I agreed.

That's no problem, but of course I'm a bit leery of him removing things that existed in previous versions.

> However, he also told me that he "has no interest in FreeDOS" ( which is to
> be blamed of course ) - hence he did ignore my recommendation to
> announce the change of maintainer in the FD user list.

From looking at his webpage, he seems more (historically?) oriented towards PC-DOS. I assume this means he just has other priorities.

I don't expect FreeDOS to "rule them all", of course, but I don't personally have the patience to acquire, install, and play with every other DOS under the sun. (N.B. This is not the same as indifference, I dislike bias and incompatibilities amongst DOS flavors.) I blindly assume he is similarly limited.

> This is not free/libre anymore, hence FreeDOS (and others) totally reject
> this.

Freedom is just a delusion.

> I assume that was the point. I hope it makes him happy.

He gives his useful enhancements away "for free" - that's ok and enough, IMO.

---
MS-DOS forever!

> > Download DEBUG
> 1.29 - source and binary (151KB) - Last updated January 30, 2014
> >
> > NOTE: This is standalone software which is freely available for use
> but
> > should not be included as part of a collection or with any other
> software
> > and should not be redistributed. This applies to DEBUG 1.26 and
> later.
>
>
>
> This is not free/libre anymore, hence FreeDOS (and others) totally reject
> this. I assume that was the point. I hope it makes him happy.

I intend to make changes (hopefully "improvements") to this program. I haven't decided on which release to use as a starting point for my work.

I did not approve of the change from NASM to JW/M-ASM, but I think I can manage.

If the licencing question works out, I think I'll use Vernon Brooks's 1.32b. I intend to make my work available under the same conditions as Paul Vojta did with his original releases.

Note that Brooks says "should" not, but does not explicitly or emphatically prohibit redistribution. It is a kind of gentlemen's agreement, however, and I'm willing to respect it. I would simply ask him, but I don't know how to reach him.

Another issue I want to resolve is the question of what to call the program. "Debug" is obviously not a sufficiently specific name. On my systems, it is called things like "deb98", "deb125", or "deb132b", but these are not good names for a software distribution.

I'm not particularly interested in FreeDOS either, but I do think its existence is a good thing.