Date:	Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:12:24 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Rolf Campbell <moscoop AT NortelNetworks DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: allegro
In-Reply-To:	<3895959C.7BECD1BC@NortelNetworks.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000131190709.2604G-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Rolf Campbell wrote:

> > So, yes, DOS supports networking.
> 
>     These are programs written for DOS that support networking.  What I
> said was that DOS doesn't support networking, not that you couldn't
> write a program for DOS that used networking.  Using your logic, I could
> say that DOS supports running programs in a multi-tasking Linux manner,
> because there are DOS loaders for Linux available.

It is really meaningless to argue about this, because no OS supports 
networking.  Networking, in any reasonable OS, is implemented in a module 
that is not part of the kernel.  The only difference between DOS and 
Windows in this aspect is that DOS doesn't come with this module, so you 
need third party software to have it.

And yes, DOS ``supports'' multi-tasking as well: every TSR, such as 
PRINT.COM, multitasks.  I was using an editor DOS for many years that
could launch a program and still let me edit while thr pogram was running.
This is software: you can do anything, given enough time and motivation.
It is not meaningful to argue along these lines.

- Raw text -