Hi Mike!
On 10/14/2012 04:57 PM, Michael B. Brutman wrote: > I noted that FDNPKG is using WatTCP - I don't see that as a problem. > While I prefer mTCP and I think it has many advantages (speed, size, bug > fixes, etc.) WatTCP works well enough and people are comfortable with > it. I also have a slight bias, so I am trying to be objective. ; - 0 In total honesty, I do believe that mTCP have big potential. It only lacks some, let's say, 'polish' to make it sexy for developers (working native compilation, ready to use *.o and *.h files...). But then again, I have no idea whether it's worth your time to polish mTCP to make it developer-friendly, as the amount of FreeDOS developers is really low today (and still falling). :) > I am also willing to modify > FDNPKG to use mTCP as an experiment if there is a possibility that it > might use mTCP long term.) I'm totally open to accept any patch or code you would contribute! Including mTCP into FDNPKG would be great - I'd imagine it as an alternative stack (so FDNPKG could use WatTCP or mTCP - this being configurable via the FDNPKG config file). I'll send you details on mail. cheers, Mateusz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
