Date:	Sun, 23 Mar 1997 00:53:38 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To:	James Fudge <jfudge AT adams DOT berk DOT net>
cc:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
In-Reply-To:	<199703210151.UAA10572@adams.berk.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970322235456.224N-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, James Fudge wrote:

> I think that if it is possible (nothing is impossible somethings are just
> more difficult)
> a gui should developed that supports 16 + 32 bit machines. It seems to me
> that when developers
> develop ( i don't claim to know the depth and breadth of this) a program,
> they seem to "punish" , so to speak those that use slower machines. No like
> any other good program out there, a gui should be written with MODES , 286
> modes, 386+ modes etc..

I don't think that software is developed to "punish" old computer
users.  A more realistic way of looking at it is:  Software
developers come up with an idea for a program.  They decide on a
platform and architecture for their program.  They begin working
on the program and possibly may change the minimum architecture
based on the demands the program needs.

Let me ask you an honest question.  Should users of NEW computers
be "punished" by being forced to run software or operating
systems that are slow and don't take advantage of the new
features of their computer?

In my opinion, software in general (OS, utilities, applications,
etc...) should ALWAYS STRIVE to take FULL advantage of ALL of the
new features of new technologies.  This helps to make
technologies cheaper, and further research and development.  The
status quo may be good for some people, but there comes an
inevitable point in a developers development cycle when they must
abandon support for older CPU's to put their human resources to
more productive use.

If new programs aren't taking advantage of new technology, then
why bother inventing new technology?  Why not just give everyone
an 8088 and say, "ya it's slow, but tough, if we support the new
processor, we'll be abandoning the 0.0001% of our customers that
still use DEC Rainbows."  :o)

In the real world, commercial software is written for profit.  If
their is no profit in supporting legacy equipment, then it isn't
done.  In the "Free" software world however profit is of no
concern, and since the sources for everything are usually
available, development and improvements on various software tend
to follow the demand for such software.  This means supporting
ALL platforms that are popular.  OpenDOS *AND* Linux will
both follow this route I believe.
 
> how is this done? i don't know . but it would be nice.
> the spirit behind linux was that old hardware needn't be cast into the
> trash, ( i said the L word again <G>)

The theory behind Linux was to create a Minix clone that took
full advantage of the features of the intel 386 processor and 
up, and to make it "a better Minix than Minix itself".  This is
more or less Linus Torvalds words.  Processors and hardware < 286
was never part of the original plan.

> but could be used with this operating system, Mind you the effort was only
> halfhearteed, as they left out older machines...

Well, originally there wasn't much hardware supported, however
there are only so many coders out there, and so much time in the
day.  I don't think calling the Linux project "half-hearted" is a
very fair thing to say.  Linux is a very powerful 32 bit OS that
is completely FREE and comes with the source code.  Also, an
effort is under way to port Linux to 286 processors (maybe even
8088).  I'm not sure how far they've gotten, but I'd bet that a
stable running system is available now.

Does this mean that id Software's game "Quake" was only
programmed in a half-hearted manner because it wont run on a 286?

> > Really, any thoughts? Anyone?
> 
> I have a bunch of theories <g>

I have a theory too.  It's about the brontosaurus.  This is how
it goes.... All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much
thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end.

What do you think?  Have I hit the nail on the head or what?  I
have another theory....

:o)

TTYL

P.S.  In case you're wondering, my "theory" was based on a Monty
Python skit called "Miss Anne Elk".  It's very funny...




Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
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 -