Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/06/02:43:06
three questions???
1. What is an IFS (Installable File System)?
2. What is FAT32?
3. What is XFree86?
and just reply to me so the mailing list doesn't get too crowded with
extra stuff. Thanks...
:> paul
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Mark Habersack wrote:
>
> Hey Mark, I've moved this discussion into opendos-developer as
> well. The main list is becoming pretty voluminous (primarily
> because of us. :o)
>
> > > > FAT32 compatability is not an issue, considering that anyone who uses
> > > > OpenDOS will not be using Win95. So why not go for the technically
> > > > superior solution?
> > >
> > > That is not necessarily true (that OpenDOS users wont be running '95),
> > They'll be running XFree86 instead!
>
> Hopefully! I know I will be! (when possible) They'll have to
> write XF for DOS so that you can run W3.1 apps though.
>
> [SNIP about OpenDOS getting an IFS layer]
>
> > > If OpenDOS *DOESN'T* head in this direction right now, then it will be
> > > too late. Sometimes portability must be given up to progress towards
> > > new technology. Look at '95 and NT. Even THEY cant run ALL DOS
> > That's right. After all it's compatibility what kept M$-DOG in the dark ages
> > for so long.
>
amen!!!
> Not just MSDOS though, All commercial OS's suffer to a greater or
> lesser extent from this compatibility issue. I think it is ok to
> break a certain percentage of software between successive OS
> releases, for the sole purpose of improving technology. A lot of
> people may have other views on this, but the way that I see it is
> this:
>
> A 80386 is *STILL* a VERY powerful processor. If that processor
> had a POWERFUL OS to run on it, then we would be using much
> more powerful systems right now. I mean the 386 came out in
> '85 or so and it wasn't for 7 years or so that programs started
> coming out to take advantage of it!
>
> The SAME goes for todays current processors. The only difference
> is that NOW we have LINUX. :o) Linux supports the P-PRO
> allready too! Maybe in 8 years Windows 2005 will support the
> P-Pro natively too. :o)
>
>
> > > programs OR Win 3.1 programs. There had to be a little 'give' to
> > > progress the OS's. When the sources are released, the hacker
> > > community will make DOS into what is most wanted by the masses. I
> > True. And the only problem we should (or shouldn't?) worry about is the DOS
> > distribution size - compatibility costs. And we don't want to follow M$ path
> > with tons of fat software which can be written in a way that it will take
> > only half of the volume.
>
> I agree and disagree. I agree that software should be written in
> a non-code bloat manner. However the distribution size is
> irrelevant. By restricting the distribution size of a program,
> one limits the technological improvements of that program.
> Virtually everyone has a CDROM nowadays and a lot can be fit onto
> a CDROM. Look at the Linux CD sets. $25 for 6 CD's. Cost isn't
> a concern. I think it would be great to buy a CD for $25 or even
> more from Caldera that had several different installs of OpenDOS
> such as:
>
> OD (without Netware)
> ODN (with Netware)
> OD386 (OD for 386+)
> ODN386 (ODN for 386+)
> same for 486 & pentium and PPRO
> Also various other configurations are possible. Perhaps a front
> end picker program could be put on the CD to allow you to chose
> which version you want to install. It could include large
> descriptions of all of the differences so that you were making an
> informed decision.
>
good idea!
> Also, the CD (or CD set) would contain the source code for
> everything (or whatever they release) Also, it could contain
> things like DJGPP, part of the Simtel archives, or even better a
> bunch of software with FREE status ie not shareware.
>
> I know that I personally would buy such a CD for $20 or so. Or a
> CD set for slightly more. I think Caldera could sure have a
> money maker on their hands. The only thing that they could do
> to kill OpenDOS would be to go in a direction that hampers
> technological advancement. ie: not giving users what they want.
> I highly doubt that this is what they will do though. On the
> contrary I think that they will give EVERYONE what they want, and
> by that I mean a CHOICE.
>
amen again!!!
>
> Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
> Computer Consultant | My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
> My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
> mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
>
> Question: Does anyone know how to get talk to work in Linux?
>
>
- Raw text -