From:	Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Message-Id:	<97Sep11.091906gmt+0100.11657@internet01.amc.de>
Subject:	Re: ClosedDOS???
To:	ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su, opendos AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:24:15 +0100
Mime-Version:	1.0

Arkady V.Belousov wrote:

>  > And what's wrong with DOS extender if it is free?
> 
>      You think - this is wise? DOS utilities and kernel itself with external
> DOS extender? Only for 386+? How many memory additionaly this requires? How
> many time to initialize this requires? How many stability and compatability
> this add?

DJGPP does not have an external DOS extender, necessarily, it is
normally bound into the utilities.  All they need is a DPMI server
(one that works!).  Yes, they are 386+, which means that one of the
main target areas for OpenDOS (low-end 8086 and 286 machines) is
not possible.

>  > BTW i always wonder *why* there is no GNU compiler for 16-bit DOS..
> 
>      Some think, this because no one (!), capable to port gcc, interesting
> by this. :(

Plenty of people are capable, no-one is interested in putting in the work.
If someone wanted to pay me for doing it I'd be willing, but it would
have to be at my full commercial rate because I don't have time to do
it in my "spare time".  From what I've seen, the maintainers of DJGPP
are already putting in long hours on the main product and don't have
time left over to do something which is seen as a not very important
product.

The sources are available, if anyone who really wants a 16-bit version
wants to port it they can do it.  If they either don't want to make the
effort themselves, or if they can't do it and aren't willing to reimburse
someone to do it for them, they should stop complaining.  (Or in other
words, "put up or shut up".)

Chris C

- Raw text -