Date:	Thu, 8 May 1997 18:06:42 -0400 (EDT)
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:	yeep <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>
cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: EXT2 filesystem information
In-Reply-To:	<199705080026.CAA02118@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970508180328.451Y-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 8 May 1997, yeep wrote:

> > Gosh, yes.  I can really see OpenDOS smashing MS into the ground.  
> > Whatever Noorda says, OpenDOS is not an 'exciting new alternative' to 
> > MS.  It is a PC operating system for those who don't need the extra 
> > features of Win95 or NT or Linux or VMS.  There's nothing 
> > particularly exciting (or even original) about it.
> 
> Yet!
> We are trying to make better than any other OS aren't we?

I don't think that is what we're trying to do at all.  I think we
are trying to bring DOS into this century if anything, and to
possibly put it's foot solidly into the future of computing.

As much as I like OD, and the idea of OD, it is hardly going to
be better than any other OS.  Each OS has it's strong points and
it's weak points.  No OS will EVER do everything better than any
other OS, and to strive for that is rediculous.  Multiple tools
for multiple jobs.  If someone gave me a hammer with a built in
screwdriver and said "this does everything, and does it best".  I
would still use my trusty separate hammer, and separate
screwdriver.  Do you see my analogy?

TTYL

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
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address

Want to know how to let people connect to your computer over the internet?

- Raw text -