China DOS Union

Instructions: The above content can be found at:
http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16191&fpage=1

Re autoit:

　　The post of Quick Batch File (De)Compiler is really a waste in the Blog area. Please move it to the "Software Download Area" or the future "Batch Processing & Auto Script Area".

　　In addition, regarding the batch processing compilation and decompilation tools, as far as I know, the Windows platform is not as good as the DOS platform, although they are all very imperfect. Using them to compile most of the programs I wrote cannot run normally. Problems such as support for external commands, identification of special symbols such as pipes and redirections, space problems of environment variables, replacement interpretation problems of variable references such as %0, etc. Therefore, I rarely use such tools. Under Windows, I would rather use WinRAR's "executable compressed package" to achieve similar functions.

　　As for the establishment of the batch processing area, Brother Climbing doesn't know, I support it with both hands, but this seems to be inconsistent with the original version division idea of the forum. Currently, if I have new batch processing ideas or codes, I will post them in the programming area.

I also support the batch processing section, but mainly there are already many existing sections. If we open another section, will it have any bad impact on the allocation of the original sections?

Re Wengier:

　　I also just considered that the addition of the batch processing section conflicts with the original section differentiation idea, which requires adjusting many sections; but the current section division does have certain drawbacks. For example, when many novices ask DOS questions, they often can't tell the difference between "Beginner's Room" and "Answer Room" because they are not divided by application fields like "Multimedia Room" and "Boot Disk Room", but by application level.

Well, that makes sense, especially since now each section generally has thousands or even tens of thousands of posts. It's really not easy to adjust. So in recent years I haven't dared to add or remove sections casually. But if this continues, it will be more and more difficult to adjust in the future, and the existing problems may stay forever. What are some good solutions?

Re Wengier:

The content of this post has deviated a lot from the original topic. It is suggested to split all the content from the 2nd floor down into a new topic and transfer it to "Site Operations Announcements & Moderator Discussions".

Regarding the adjustment of the sections, we have opened new sections according to the new division plan, and at the same time closed the permission to add new topics in the old sections. Then we suggest that users post new posts in the new sections according to the new plan, and we can calmly adjust the old sections, gradually analyze and sort out, discard the rough and keep the essence of the original old topics, and transfer them to the new sections step by step according to the plan.

The key is how to determine the new plan, which is the problem we need to seriously consider. Is it a minor change or a major overhaul? Is it to evenly divide the application areas or to evenly distribute the total number of posts?

Originally posted by willsort at 2005-8-14 07:34 PM:
Re Wengier:

The content of this thread has deviated significantly from the original topic. It is suggested that all content from post 2 onwards be split into a new topic and moved to "Site Operations Announcements & Moderator Discussion".

The splitting and moving have been successfully completed! Now, the post management in the PHP forum is indeed much better than the previous动网论坛 (Discuz!) forum.

How about this...
Open an additional section in the classroom or programming room, "Batch File Programming"

If the forum must be redesigned, it might as well be divided into four sections.

Teaching Section ------ Original and reprinted high-quality articles by the forum moderators. Ordinary users cannot post here but can post replies to discuss.

Application Section ------ Seek answers to problems encountered when using DOS, and share accumulated experience and skills with others, whether advanced or basic, as long as it is related to DOS. For example, DOS installation and uninstallation, Chinese input, boot disk making, network issues, multimedia issues, batch processing issues, etc., are all classified into DOS applications. Some high-quality articles can be transferred to the Teaching Section by moderators.

Download Section ------ Just post if you want to find something or have found something. Application software, boot disks, drivers, DOS materials... everything is available.

Programming Section ------ Discussions related to programming, use of development tools, etc.

In this way, DOS introduction, DOS application, DOS download, and DOS development are all covered.

Plus the Administrative Section, Other Systems Section, Literature Section, and Chit-chat Section, it will be complete. Hehe.

[ Last edited by Michael on 2005-8-15 at 23:40 ]

For example, the only post in today's network media section:
"Urgently seeking ALS007 sound card driver FOR DOS, and MPXPLAY, the download in this section is not possible, urgent, thank you"
If according to my partitioning plan, it will definitely appear correctly in the "Software Request and Download Section".

The top post in the boot sector area: "How to install DOS under NTFS?" will also appear 100% correctly in the DOS installation application area.

The first four posts in today's Chinese system and localization area:
HDDReg 1.41 Simplified Chinese cracked version
CCDOS97R1 is really good, made an automatic registration machine for it ( 1 2 )
Chinese low-level format ( 1 2 )
Help. Who has PCTOOL 9.0啊 ( 1 2 )

Will also appear 100% correctly in the software download area, because that's where software is released, downloaded, and requests for files are made.

I very much appreciate Michael's suggestion. The fewer sections the better, otherwise it will only make people at a loss. In fact, sections like the teaching room and the answering room should originally be one section (难道要 separate teaching and asking questions?), just as willsort said, sections should be divided according to a unified standard, and not some divided by level and some by application.

As for myself, I generally only stay in the "Answering Room". I am generally not interested in the boot disk or programming area. In addition, I don't go to the teaching room either, because I think the answering room can replace it.

So the sections should be as streamlined as possible, preferably making people clear at a glance and also easy to manage (and there is no need to set up so many honorary moderators who are only listed but rarely participate in forum management).

[ Last edited by Climbing on 2005-8-19 at 09:34 ]

Although I appreciate everyone's various opinions, there are also some problems that need to be solved first:

1: If the DOS version is really only divided into four sections: DOS Introduction, DOS Applications, DOS Downloads, and DOS Development. Among them, the DOS Applications section includes DOS installation and uninstallation, Chinese input, boot disk making, network issues, multimedia issues, and batch processing issues. Then, it is恐怕 that the posts in this section will far exceed those in other DOS sections, thus possibly causing serious unevenness in the number of posts and some management problems.

2: I remember that Climbing said in the book catalog that the catalog should not be made like a "compendium, manual," etc., otherwise it will not attract people. Instead, there should be some characteristic sections or more attractive special sections, such as DOS Boot Disk Research, Chinese DOS Technology, etc. Therefore, some existing application-based sections can be said to be exactly this kind of special section. However, the four sections "DOS Introduction, DOS Applications, DOS Downloads, DOS Development" may exactly have the problem that the theme is too mundane and it is difficult to attract people, and it is also difficult to highlight the key points.

The above are my personal opinions for your reference.

Michael's point is quite reasonable, but I think Wengier's proposal is better. Classifying them more precisely is better.

It is completely possible to separate teaching and answering.

But can the order of items be changed?

People entering this forum generally browse the first project first, which naturally causes many people to post teaching content.

I hope to put the answers at the top and teaching next.

Then the moderators can often organize the answered posts, and appropriately edit and modify the content to be placed as original content in teaching in the forum.

Many posts actually don't need to be stored for too long, and can be deleted.

A side note...
Climbing said "There's no need to set up so many moderators who just eat but don't work".
I think this statement goes too far. There are many moderators, such as mys.Roy, ko, cn_archer, etc., who have contributed a lot to the forum. How can you say they just eat but don't work?
And I remember I even asked Climbing if he wanted to be a moderator. Maybe you said you didn't want to. Then why don't you come and be a moderator now and let everyone see your achievements?

It is quite necessary to set up a teaching room. There should be the most basic conceptual questions of DOS here, or the primary questions often raised by netizens, classic questions. For example, the installation steps of DOS, the use of vfloppy, etc. Because I find that there are too many posts asking how to install DOS. Why not let the moderator write a detailed article and post it in the teaching room?

Also, since the forum is called a forum, it should focus on communication, not deliberately build it as a knowledge treasury. Dividing the sections more finely is conducive to querying and will also make us browse with purpose and selectivity, but there is also a premise that the topics of different contents are indeed posted in their appropriate places. But is our forum like this now? No. Hehe, in a hurry to eat, ask without choosing the place. There are only a few people online in each section. Of course, primary netizens have the impulse to post repeatedly in various sections. Having an application area avoids this phenomenon (for example, it doesn't make sense to post application problems in the download area, and the moderator can definitely move them). This will also increase the reply rate of posts, because a master who is enthusiastic about making DOS boot disks may very well solve the Chinese system problems raised by novices.

I found that there are many posts about Chinese systems in the boot disk area, but why don't these posts appear in the Chinese systems and localization area? Because the poster originally wanted his boot disk to support Chinese, and this is also like a boot disk problem.

I think the reason why our forum has the contradiction of division or integration is fundamentally that we don't have a decent website. We want the forum to play the roles of both a website and an exchange area.

If we have a decent website, we can carefully classify various articles and let the website play the role of its knowledge base, which is the most convenient for netizens to query and browse. And the forum will continue to be a place where everyone's thoughts collide, and the sparks colliding can naturally be selected and included in the website. In this way, the teaching room is no longer necessary. The website is used for teaching, and the forum is used for communication. The good software that appears in the software exchange area can naturally enter the software download column of the website. And the problems in software use, netizens can enter the application area to ask and discuss. Each section complements each other, which is like a virtuous cycle. Hehe.

Moreover, I found that each major forum has the hottest sections, and the number of topics in different sections differs by tens or even hundreds of times. I think this is also normal.

I read the post by Wengier upstairs again. Interestingly, Wengier thinks that a coarse classification is like a directory, and I think a fine classification is like a directory. Hehe, really interesting.

[ Last edited by Michael on 2005-8-16 at 22:15 ]