Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/18/06:02:12
Kenton E. Sinner <ksinner AT solaria DOT sol DOT net> wrote:
: Kevin A. Pieckiel (kapieckiel AT Harding DOT edu) wrote:
: > Even if you had a 32-bit DOS, you're just gonna find problems with that,
: > too. There's not a piece of software on this planet that is good enough
: > for anyone.
: It just has to be good enough for me, and I'll use it.
Very nicely said, and I'd enthusiastically add that DJGPP is more than
"good enough for me."
: > There's always something wrong with it. I hope neither DJ
: > nor anyone else DOES write a 32-bit DOS, as I'm certain it will not be
: > accepted in the market.
: Market schmarket. See previous paragraph.
One nice thing about free software is that there are other considerations
besides mass marketing appeal <grin>. Standalone GAS programming may not
have great commercial potential -- I wonder what percentage of users,
especially outside the DJGPP community, have written their first assembly
program in AT&T within an MSDOG environment <grin> -- but variety is the
spice of life.
The most important question, it seems to me, is whether a 32-bit DOS is
the best direction for our efforts -- or, more specifically, for DJ and
the others with the skill to work on it. If this discussion helps them to
decide with the benefit of our feedback and support, then it seems to me
well worthwhile.
Really, a work of art like Emacs is its own justification, regardless of
"market share." Richard M. Stallman and the GNU Project have showed us the
way, and DJ and Eli and the gang have brought us the benefits as DOS
users. Let's consider this calmly and applaud what we have already
accomplished.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
mschulter AT value DOT net
- Raw text -