Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:54:24 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mutiny <mutiny AT hardlink DOT com>
To:	-= ArkanoiD =- <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: tail dos implementation?
In-Reply-To:	<AAy-XAqeV7@mpak.convey.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SOL.3.95.970925145317.25531A-100000@hornet>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote:

> 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 |_||_||_|
> 

I never said that DOS cannot multitask, I said that DOS never could, and
never will, be able to multitask like Linux!  It isn't just the
multitasking, its things like the file system, too.

	Craig
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2

mQBtAzQONsIAAAEDAMvQK81eIGOQCcRiNdTBsT80bfnmZCBC8tskIXihXYE3aZC4
rB2C4XrN5Qbgrr28mrziN623QOFW4Q1kzIPPpzvjqiWMNWtz/ievFOUuTPs6/CAg
QPCsx22ukjgErWf0eQAFEbQhQ3JhaWcgQ2FsZWYgPG11dGlueUBoYXJkbGluay5j
b20+
=c6X+
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

- Raw text -