From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:36:53 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
To: Weiqi Gao <weiqigao AT crl DOT com>
cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] How long will it take ...
In-Reply-To: <199702151455.AA26816@mail.crl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970215104852.1839F-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Weiqi Gao wrote:

> OK now,
> 
> The wish list is established (and growing by the minutes).
> The source is getting ready to be released (in March, right?)
> The mailing list is steaming along at 20 messages a day.
> 
> Isn't it time to make a PLAN?

Sounds like a plan. :o)

> Who's going to be the focal point of all the open development?

Gene Buckle?

> Who's going to do what?

Well, I've pretty much cornered item number [n] allready. :o)
All seriousness aside, we'll need to get some feedback from
Caldera if we want this to work.

We'll have to have discussions about that after some
co-ordination is done.  Ie: Gene posts an official list of goals,
then people sign up for programming a particular thing.

> How long will it take to finish the tasks on the wish list?

Pretty hard to answer that one.

> What sort of development environment is ideal (Win95+DJGPP?)
Win95?????  We are going to improve OpenDOS, because we hate
Win95, so we're going to program OpenDOS using Win95 tools?
No thanks!!!

I cast my vote for doing it in plain ole DOS, and Linux of
course.  Since Caldera plans on tying OpenDOS with Linux, it
makes sense.  I don't see any plans right now for OpenWin95.


> What distribution model are we going to use for OpenDOS software
> (shareware/without source (the old DOS way)? or GNU GPL/LGPL (the Linux
> way)?)

Depends on your definition of "OpenDOS software".  If you mean
the programs that will come with OpenDOS in the future a a part
of the package, then I think that they should follow the "Open"
standard and be subject to the same rules as the rest of the
distribution.

As for just software in general for OpenDOS, I'm sure that we would
all prefer the GPL method, however not everyone will.  Commercial
developers are still very highly unlikely to release sources so
that throws the "Open"ness out of them.  Shareware authors will
probably continue to do it the way that they do now.  I think
that there will be a varied mixture of methods, but I also think
that 90% of the software that will come out will be made by Linux
users, and will more than likely be "free" with source under GPL
or some other free license.

I think that the utilities that come with OpenDOS should be
programmed for the C compiler/Assembler/whatever that Caldera
settles on as a standard.  This is for 16 bit programs ONLY.  I
also feel that a lot of utilities should support DJGPP as well.
In otherwords you should be able to compile OpenDOS and it's
utilities with a 16 bit compiler and optionally with DJGPP.  For
example:  SORT will only sort files < 64k.  With DJGPP it is
limited to 173678461239471236481234 megs.  :o)  Any program that
can seriously benefit from 32bit should be either coded to
conditionally compile to 32bit, or else should be written
entirely in 2 different versions. 

That is my opinion anyway.

A thought just occured: GNUDOS? A 32bit DOS that is free?

Hmmm.



Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |    My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

URL of the day: http://www.sun.com