No; I was speaking more generally about some potential reasons that software wouldn't be kept in a low-debt state. The same concepts could apply to Dosbox with some remapping.
What company? The Dosbox project itself.
What management? The devs making overall decisions for the direction of the project.
What customers? Anyone requesting new features and fixes in the software.
What features? Built-in support for Munt, new networking support, support for more varieties of peripheral hardware...
It made sense to me to give a more general explanation, since this thread started off with a question about what technical debt is in the first place. I also did my best to address Dosbox's specific reasons by posting the interview with their devs and providing my own interpretation of it.
What company? The Dosbox project itself.
What management? The devs making overall decisions for the direction of the project.
What customers? Anyone requesting new features and fixes in the software.
What features? Built-in support for Munt, new networking support, support for more varieties of peripheral hardware...
It made sense to me to give a more general explanation, since this thread started off with a question about what technical debt is in the first place. I also did my best to address Dosbox's specific reasons by posting the interview with their devs and providing my own interpretation of it.