Re: Beta vs. Stable

Eric Auer wrote:

>Hi, I disagree...
>MEM works just fine. We should not aim to be command-switch compatible to
>everything, as long as we offer the same features. 
>
I entirely disagree here, sorry. I admit I just forgot about it, now 
that Bart mentioned it.
I am strongly for parameter compatibility in MEM, otherwise I (one) 
have/has to be learning the new syntax all the time.

>The only exception are
>commands that get used in batch files (okay, you can run MEM in a batch
>file, but I meant "commonly used"). A user will be happy with the features
>of MEM and recognize that MEM can do what MS MEM can do.
>
If this person knows nothing about MEM and just runs the script, can't 
figure out what's going on. Ok, a extreme case, but still...

>What kernel interrupts are still missing for MS DOS 5.0 compatibility?
>
Could I mention (I guess it isn't yet implemented):
INT 21h/6602h "SET CODEPAGE"
which is the one that the internal CHCP triggers?

> This list is "too short to be true", what else do we have?

Now that I think of it, every time I open the kernel bugtrack, I see 
tones of comments saying "this program will not run with FreeDOS xxx". 
Maybe that's a good place to look at what isn't working.

Aitor