Message-ID: <371F3884.EF39655D@xoommail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:56:04 -0600
From: Ishpeck <ishpeck AT xoommail DOT com>
Organization: Lunaticnologies
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Another reason for DOS/FreeDOS/DOS32, etc.
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <Pine DOT SOL DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990422085126 DOT 26473B-100000 AT travelers DOT mail DOT cornell DOT edu>
X-Corel-MessageType: EMail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

This message is perfect flame-bait.

I myself like DOS (a lot better than windows) but I'm not sure
if you should be sharing this with humanity---humanity just isn't
ready for such things.

arh14 AT cornell DOT edu wrote:
> 
> Part of what I left out of my short, short message:
> 
> Dos is not secure.
> Dos is not sophisticated (relatively speaking).
> 
> BUT
> 
> Dos is SIMPLE
> Dos is SMALL
> Dos is FAST! (direct hardware access)
> Dos is single-user
> 
> The majority of "normal" computer users don't care about users
> and permissions and security levels and ownership.  They don't need a
> multiuser system.  Windows itself is complex enough.  They just need
> something that makes their computer *work* (not even reliable it appears,
> although the simpler the OS the easier it is to make reliable!).  And
> something that is fast is even better.  By stripping away the features
> that the target audience doesn't care about, one can improve on those
> that they do.  I think there is plenty of room (if not an imperitive) for
> a small, fast, simple OS (preferably 32 bit) that does everything one
> wants it to do and nothing one doesn't need.
> 
> My concern is that while people are pitching Linux and other modern
> hi-tech operating systems as the Windows/DOS alternative, they miss the
> point that some people really *don't* need the included features and
> would *gladly* sacrifice them for performance, size, simplicity, etc.  I
> don't see any player in this field right now.  There is no Windows/DOS
> alternative that is as simple and fast (not to say Windows is that
> fast), not to mention fully backward compatible with all the thousands of
> DOS programs.  Bigger (in feature count, sophistication) is not necessarily
> better.
> 
> Aaron