delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/12/03:50:51

From: Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Message-Id: <97Sep12.094338gmt+0100.11690@internet01.amc.de>
Subject: Re: ClosedDOS???
To: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:48:51 +0100
Cc: crough45 AT amc DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <340@mpak.convey.ru> from "-= ArkanoiD =-" at Sep 12, 97 03:53:23 am
Mime-Version: 1.0

-= ArkanoiD =- wrote:

> Not a bad thing but it can't do:
> a good vt100 emulation

If I want it I use vt102.com as a TSR instead of ANSI.SYS.  And there's a
variant with multi-screen VT102 emulation built in.

> www browser

I don't use it.  The variant I use has an 'http' command to fetch individual
files from the web, which is all I need.

> irc

I telnet into an IRC client.  Well, I have done a few times, but never 
found anything where the useful stuff wasn't swamped by inane babble.

> talk

Never use it.  But telnet will do as well.  All of those last three assume
one can afford (a) the time and (b) the phone charges...

> btw Desqview and Desqview/X are [nearly] discontinued by Quarterdeck - i think
> it could be a good idea for Caldera to buy it out for low price..

If the price was reasonable (my standards) I'd buy them myself.  You're right,
Quarterdeck have effectively discontinued both, they aren't selling them.
Which is a great pity, because they are good products.

[PCDOS]

> First,it is not M$.

I don't really care.  They have my money already for 6.22, and aren't 
going to give it back, why should I spend even more money on another
version which may not be fully compatible?  (I'm not saying that PCDOS 
is incompatible, just that I don't know what it's like.)

That it's not M$ might be a reason to recommend it to other people
who don't already have MSDOS (or who have only Win95).

My reason for being interested in OpenDOS was the fact that the source 
was going to be available, so I could fix things and add the features I
wanted.  Any competing system needs to have something to attract me to it
which I don't have at the moment and would be useful.

> Second,it has rexx and some other features..

I have rexx for DOS, three versions (at least two of which are enhanced
compared to the OS/2 version).  I rarely use it, I use awk (and occasionally
Perl) which is compatible with Unix, where most of my effort goes.

I also have 4DOS, which supports aliases based on filename extensions,
so I can have a file called DO-IT.AWK and if I type DO-IT as a command
it will run it using awk.  Similarly with rexx, bash, perl etc.

Which other features does PCDOS have that I don't already have?  Multi-
tasking?  That would be something which could attract me, if it was done
properly.

> Speaking on M$ versions,i'd prefer 5.0 - much better than 6.22..

Why?  I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm interested in what you see as
deficiencies in 6.22.  I upgraded from 5.0, you see, and I saw it as an
upgrade.

(Best continued by email, I suspect).

Chris

- Raw text -


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