delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/23/02:26:34

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:15:07 -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: jamesl AT albany DOT net
cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
In-Reply-To: <199703210323.WAA12124@keeper.albany.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970323021030.771G-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, James Lefavour wrote:

> > 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>)
> > but could be used with this operating system, Mind you the effort was only
> > halfhearteed, as
> > they left out older machines...
> As I understand it, writing code that would have these "modes" would 
> unnecessarily "bloat" the finished product.  While the source could 
> be set up to compile conditionally one way or the other, not all 
> users will be working from the source level (one must assume that 
> most pc-users will want nothing to do with source, once people really 
> start going after it).
> 
> Therefore, to keep the executable smaller, one version would be 
> compiled for 386 or whatever, and one would be compiled for 
> 286 machines et c. Since 286 machines can't use 386 code, it would be 
> a waste of disk space to have a program on a 286 user's computer that 
> includes all the 386 instructions. It can be done, at startup the 
> program can determine the cpu type, etc. but the question is, just 
> because we can do a thing, does it necessarily follow that we must?
> 
> That is why I believe that there will eventually be two versions, 
> even if they are compiled from the same source tree.

Exactamundo!  2 SEPARATE versions of OD or it's utilities, etc...
must exist.  Mixing the 2 will only cause bloat, incompatibility,
and much confusion.

Suggested name for Opendos 32bit:  OpenDOS 386

This way the 386 part of it is VERY obvious.  Also, I think that
it should be ONE source tree.  Most of the code will only need
simple conditional compilation to port.  (Utils)

A 32 bit kernel on the other hand might need to be completely
separate.  Also, 486, and Pentium specific compiles should be
possible.  What about a DEC Alpha 64 bit port?  Anyone?  :o)


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

URL: Digital Equipment Corp.             http://www.digital.com

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019