From: "M. Schulter" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: 32bit DOS. Date: 17 Sep 1997 05:10:20 GMT Organization: Value Net Internetwork Services Inc. Lines: 41 Message-ID: <5vnons$2ps$1@vnetnews.value.net> References: <874456398 DOT 792858 AT smyrno DOT sol DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: value.net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Kenton E. Sinner wrote: : Kevin A. Pieckiel (kapieckiel AT Harding DOT edu) wrote: : > Even if you had a 32-bit DOS, you're just gonna find problems with that, : > too. There's not a piece of software on this planet that is good enough : > for anyone. : It just has to be good enough for me, and I'll use it. Very nicely said, and I'd enthusiastically add that DJGPP is more than "good enough for me." : > There's always something wrong with it. I hope neither DJ : > nor anyone else DOES write a 32-bit DOS, as I'm certain it will not be : > accepted in the market. : Market schmarket. See previous paragraph. One nice thing about free software is that there are other considerations besides mass marketing appeal . Standalone GAS programming may not have great commercial potential -- I wonder what percentage of users, especially outside the DJGPP community, have written their first assembly program in AT&T within an MSDOG environment -- but variety is the spice of life. The most important question, it seems to me, is whether a 32-bit DOS is the best direction for our efforts -- or, more specifically, for DJ and the others with the skill to work on it. If this discussion helps them to decide with the benefit of our feedback and support, then it seems to me well worthwhile. Really, a work of art like Emacs is its own justification, regardless of "market share." Richard M. Stallman and the GNU Project have showed us the way, and DJ and Eli and the gang have brought us the benefits as DOS users. Let's consider this calmly and applaud what we have already accomplished. Most respectfully, Margo Schulter mschulter AT value DOT net