To:	mutiny AT hardlink DOT com
Cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT SOL DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970924215348 DOT 18060A-100000 AT hornet>
Message-Id:	<AAy-XAqeV7@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization:	International Brownian Movement
From:	"-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 97 11:24:28 +0300
Subject:	Re: tail dos implementation?
Lines:	24
MIME-Version:	1.0

nuqneH,

> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mutiny <mutiny AT hardlink DOT com>
> X-Sender: mutiny AT hornet
> To: -= ArkanoiD =- <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
> cc: mjs AT prg DOT hannover DOT sgh-net DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: tail dos implementation?

[dd]

> What he probably wants to do is monitor a file (ala /var/syslog in linux)
> for changes but I doubt they would because DOS doesn't multitask like
> Linux does, and never will.

So people do not implement it just because they think so? Too bad :(.
btw Concurrent DOS exists for years and there are things like Desqview etc -
better than nothing,a kind of multitasking... It is not wise to think
"DOS can not multitask so there is no need in -f flag".

--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|

- Raw text -