From:	David Shepherd <des AT inmos DOT com>
Subject:	Re: All this talk about fully-featured DJGPP
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 92 14:54:41 GMT
Status:	O

Kingsley Kerce has said:
> Recent messages on this list, beginning with "why you shouldn't use
> DJGPP", are promoting what I think is an overblown DJGPP.  Perhaps I'm
> missing something, but aren't the multitasking/signals/pipes ideas
> better left up to an operating system?  Granted, MS-DOS is garbage,
> it's extremely popular, and it's the only OS that most people (myself
> included) can afford, but that's not a good enough reason to hack some
> 386-based kludge on top of it to do the things that we want.

??? does OS/2 provide the necessary functionality ???

certainly sounds to be a better OS

> My reasons for using DJGPP are mainly
> portability; I can use gcc at home and school with a minimum of effort
> in coding conditional compilations.
> 
> If we can't wait for GNU OS, etc. then there must be some way to bring
> the cost of the commercial UNIXes down far enough so that even a
> student could afford one of them.  Isn't the demand for these UNIXes
> high enough to bring the costs down?

basically I/we want the best of both worlds ... access to the vast amount
of cheap/free applications for PCs but at the same time have a path to
migrate stuff down from UNIX machines at work to PCs at home etc.

currently gpp fills this gap to an extent though this is limited by
MS-DOS. I hope that OS/2 and the OS/2 gcc port will do this better
in 8 weeks time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des AT inmos DOT co DOT uk or des AT inmos DOT com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                "five,  four,  three,  two,  one,   thunderbirds are go !"

- Raw text -