Message-Id: <199703211615.LAA23729@keeper.albany.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
From: "James Lefavour" <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
To: "yeep" <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>, <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 11:12:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist 2.0
Reply-to: jamesl AT albany DOT net
In-reply-to: <199703211330.OAA07535@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>

Please, don't be too hasty -
> > > >12] Make W95 run from OpenDOS
> > > 
> > >         Isn't this a little like getting people to work together to build a
> > > better performing, finely-tuned, economical engine and then saying you
> > > also want to be able to put it in a Chevy Suburban?  Once you have an
[snip]
> > > do for you besides give you access to a lot of bloated, badly-written
> > > programs?
But that is the standard, and until a name is made for OD, microsoft 
will continue to set the standard.  As long as MS is setting the 
standard, we either follow it, or fade away (as far as the DOS line 
is concerned). And, the key words are _A LOT_, there exists a wide 
variety of software for that system, and companies and programmers 
are supporting it, so that's what we have to work with.
> > 
> > I agree somewhat with this statement.  I mean, isn't the point of
> > running OpenDOS to allow DOS to survive?
> > And also to improve it in as many ways as possible? 
> > Doesn't W95's kernel vary drastically from previous DOS kernels?
> > Don't W95 users shy away from DOS anyways?
I don't propose killing DOS. Dos is necessary, even in the 16 bit 
variety. But while we are on the subject, why did Caldera sue MS? 
Because Caldera believed, and proved, that MS was engaging in 
practices that unfairly restricted competition in the OS arena. 
Caldera won the right to the specifications and details necessary to 
produce compatible OS's for the next 10 years.  What's the point of 
this, if Caldera has no intention of following through?

Dos is important, but it isn't the last word.  It is only one part of 
the "community", and if Caldera were to limit themselves to DOS, they 
would lose out on a major portion of the market. Not all DOS users 
are command line gurus - many actually like having a GUI. And the 
popularity of that interface is evidenced by the HUGE amount of 
software available for it - and MS's profits.

I want Caldera to prosper in this, because I want the "Open" model to 
prosper, and continue. Therefore, the following must occur:

Caldera must produce, distribute and support a 16 bit DOS, bug free 
and fully compatible.

Caldera must produce, distribute and support a 32 bit DOS, with long 
filenames, a superior filesystem, and a GUI layer that will run both 
16- and 32- bit windows programs, as well as DOS applications. While 
the implementation can be greatly improved, it must remain 
compatible.

Caldera must continue to compete with MS, until such time that 
Caldera has won enough of the market to SET the standard.

Of course, this is my OPINION, and may or may not fit in with 
Caldera's plans, but it is what I would like to see.

> > 
> > I don't see much point in making W95 run from OpenDOS, in fact I
> > find that that statement doesn't make any sense.  It makes it
> > sound like W95 is an application and not an OS.  (Not that I
> > think it *IS* an OS anyways).  I mean its like saying "Make VMS
> > run from OpenDOS" isn't it?
> > 
> > A much better way of saying it would be to say "Make W95
> > *PROGRAMS* run from OpenDOS".  Then I could see it making more
> > sense.
Precisely - build a GUI layer (similar to the XWindows model) that 
allows Win95/3.1 programs to run under OD, and perform the "32 bit 
PM" and long filename functionality from the kernel (prompt).

> 
> Okay, so it might be stupid.
> But wouldn't it be a killer to have Win95 run from OpenDOS?
> After all Win95 isn't an OS, it's merely a shell running on MS-DOS 7.0,
> regardless of what Micro$oft claims!
> Running Win95 apps from OpenDOS, that'd also be a nice backstab to M$!
> Image the headlines: Forget Windows, Run you Windows applicstions from DOS,
> OpenDOSQQQQ
I am not looking to "stab" MS, although, certainly, MS has done 
enough to many; I simply want to see the end-user get some 
consideration, and a quality product (not a "rush job") for a change.

> 
> 	Yeep
> 
> I'll take the 'run win95' part from my wishlist, though I think it would be
> cool if it was made possible!
Please don't - simply rephrase it?

Jim
 
jamesl AT albany DOT net - http://www.albany.net/~jamesl/