To:	patv AT iop DOT com
Cc:	fd-dev AT list DOT freedos DOT org, opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<34A3A1C4 DOT 167E AT iop DOT com>
Message-Id:	<AFdaHfqeC4@belous.munic.msk.su>
From:	"Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date:	Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:05:11 +0300 (MSK)
Organization:	Locus
Reply-To:	ark AT mos DOT ru
Subject:	Re: Kernel status (was interesting phenomenon and Super Improved
	Freedos?)
Lines:	27
MIME-Version:	1.0

X-Comment-To: Pat Villani

Hi!

26-δΕΛ-97 07:23 patv AT iop DOT com (Pat Villani) wrote to ark AT mos DOT ru:

 > Arkady V.Belousov wrote:

 > >      As result, I must say: DOS is bad in terms of _expansion_ becuase
 > > 16-bit model and ugly design. I think, redesigned DOS be (and must?) have a
 > > likeness with original Unixes (like Linux, may be). But, if we talk about
 > > current state, then DOS (as I say before) can cover most specialists
 > > requirements, so they state must be present in sources as is (for
 > > compatability reason) before going to next projects, and _first_ step must
 > > be development of develompent ;) tools. B-|
 > > [...]
 > > P.S. I recently look at listing from BC++ and think - what about "addon",
 > > which optimizes code through listing or .OBJ? What you think about? ;)
 > Are you volunteering?

     We now already discuss such addon.

P.S. I itself alone can't write such addon: I not sure, my knowledge of asm
and .obj format is sufficient. Moreover, my productivity in terms of "useful
_new_ code per time" is very low. :(

P.S. Little later I present some DOS utilities "in one package".

- Raw text -