Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Seeking the middle ground: thinking re flexibility+realibity (Announce)

posted by Arjay, 09.06.2010, 02:29

> > I can see both perspectives and would hope that all parties concerned
> > can aim for some middle ground.
> Also agreed.
 Thanks.

I have briefly familiarized myself today with Bret's work - like Jack's work I can see Bret's code is also well structured and well commented. Good stuff!


I have always liked flexible but reliable solutions. So in the hope of helping to find some diplomacy/middle ground to help resolve this situation which isn't benefiting anyone I thought I would add some personal perspective on some the points raised by way of focusing on "flexibility and reliability".


Firstly concerning flexibility I agree with various points of view that have been raised re supporting TSR loading, particularly when I know (having done this myself many years ago) that it is technically possible to have a loadable CONFIG.SYS device driver (EXE format) which can also be run from the command-line by adding very little extra code. So I agree ad-hoc TSR device driver loading is a good thing as is loading devices early in a PC's start up.

In other words in an ideal world it would be good in terms of "flexibility" if you both implemented your work as combined device driver / loadable TSR's.


Normally unloading TSR's/devices is also a very good thing, however I have reservations about the safe and reliable unloading of low level DISK routines.
That is to say I would question if the unload risks outweigh any flexibility.


On a similar note when it comes to reliability I believe that it is always very dangerous to ASSUME anything with the old ASSUME adage being so often true.

On that basis I believe there have been very valid points raised about media change codes / kernel differences. Indeed I remember issues with the Iomega parallel port DOS drivers with a reboot being the best option. I also vaguely remember various oddities with Stacker on removable floppies (don't ask...!).


Certainly I believe Jack is right to be cautious and I greatly respect that approach with regards to disk routines. However the Pareto principle aka 80:20 rule is also a good guide in that it is impossible (and not worthwhile) to aim for 100% perfection in anything. As programmers we will never think of all possible events but it is important to cover the most likely. So in some ways Jack I would say that you are being over cautious in some ways but not without good reason.

So what might be the middle ground here is to take a flexibility/safety compromise in allowing people to do things that could be dangerous but at the same time giving them very large warnings/prompts before action. e.g. "Yes, you can unload this disk routine and yes I would flush my buffers. But be aware that you do so at your own risk. Are you sure you wish to continue?".


> Why don't we keep BTTR as the best "technical" board, and stop all such
> unneeded items. That, in fact, is why I post here, and not elsewhere.
I think it is important to keep BTTR inclusive. Personally I have seen very few non-worthwhile posts on here. We can all learn off each other. The noise ratio here is also low compared to many other forums as we are mostly sensible with our posts most of the time. Sure occasionally we may all write a longer post than we mean, or might be tired or had too many beers etc, on the whole I would say that this is a very good forum. Thanks RR for hosting!

Indeed I have decided that I will post a DOS USB bug report here for Bret to see simply because I do NOT wish to sign up to yet another forum; sorry Bret!

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22781 Postings in 2123 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum