Message-Id: <199703121357.AA17869@mail.crl.com>
From: "Weiqi Gao" <weiqigao AT crl DOT com>
To: <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: [opendos] Re: Dear DOSbodies
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:59:45 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Graeme Cruise <gtc AT ozemail DOT com DOT au> wrote:

>Dear DOSbodies,

>I invite your considered responses, please. My apologies in advance if I
>have chosen the wrong forum.

>I have only just joined this list, but I have read through the available
>archives on Caldera's OD pages, and as many other links as I can find,
>trying to get a feel for what I can expect of OpenDOS in the foreseeable
future.

>I was simultaneously heartened and intrigued to learn via another
>(unrelated) mailing list that Caldera was going to not only revive the
lost
>DR/Novell DOS, but put it into the public domain too (and sue MicroBloat
as
>well for good measure!).

They already filed the suit against Microsoft.  They promised to release
the source code to the internet under a free license, not to the public
domain.  The scope of the source code release will be limited to the pure
DOS portion of the OpenDOS 7.01 product over which Caldera owns the
copyright.

>My own interest in things DOS revolves principally around the need for a
>simple, reliable, supported multi-tasking DOS for business apps which do
>*NOT* need the gigantic overhead of Windoze, both in terms of machine
>resources and perpetual software maintenance. God, I'll even settle for a
>measly *two* swappable tasks -- the enhanced batch language and other
>goodies are simply icing on the cake to me.

That's exactly what OpenDOS will do for you.  And it can do more, e.g.,
with a good TCP/IP stack and a port of Lynx (or even telnet), it could be
used (with cheap Intel/ISA hardware) as public internet terminals, or
replace the funny looking catelog search terminals in libraries.  I also
hope the JavaOS for DOS will run on OpenDOS.

>And I want to actually *pay* for it, as I need it to be supported by a
>recognizable organization, and it will be used in everyday commercial
>operations anyway, so it needs the credibility of a recognizable "brand"
>behind it to be able to sell it to clients and their managements.

"Pay" for support is a delimma for us programmers who knows "how it works"
but have to work in a "mission critical" environment.  Do I know enough of
a product to make a piece of software working? Yes!  Do I want to take on
the risk/responsibility for right hours of down time in a 1000 user
organization? No!  We pay HP/Microsoft/Whoever hundreds of grands to have
them sign on the dotted line.

You need to detemine whether Caldera is a viable company with a line of
product that will generate revenue for them.

>So, to my main concern: release of the source code into the public domain.
>Forgive my apparent ignorance, but will that not invite a zillion
variations
>to flower? Will it not put DOS in a sort of  "feral" category way beyond
the
>problems that beset Unix because of its (comparatively few) recognized
dialects?

Since Caldera retains the copyright of OpenDOS, and they are not giving
away the right to redistribute, this is not likely to happen.

>Or, is it really the plan to let it go feral on the basis that once "it's
>out there" it will survive by constant mutation and natural selection?

>OK, fine, but what are serious commercial app developers to do who really
>want to just stick with a good, solid, supported multi-tasking
>non-MicroBloat DOS?

OpenDOS and IBMDOS are two non-Microsoft DOSes that's available today.

>Kind regards,
>Graeme
>
>PS: I'm enthralled at the depth of knowledge of DOS internals that is
>apparent from trawling your archives. Who said DOS was dead?

--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT crl DOT com