Message-ID: <33447C5F.DFD@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:58:23 -0800
From: Pedro Giffuni <pgiffuni AT fps DOT biblos DOT unal DOT edu DOT co>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul W Brannan <brannanp AT musc DOT edu>
CC: alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk, opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: The compiling tools
References: <Pine DOT ULT DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970403150919 DOT 8725B-100000 AT atrium DOT musc DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul W Brannan wrote:
> 
> > I don't think we should extend MS-DOS. Microsoft doesn't care about us,
> > we shouldn't care about them either.
> 
> The reason for supplying LFN extensions to MS-DOS is so that we will gain
> support for OpenDOS. That's how IBM became successful in the PC market.
Do you really believe IBM was successful in the PC market ? :-). AFAIK
everyone cloned Compaqs not IBMs!
OK, I do see reasons to support M$-DOS in some way, but some things,
probably the best, won't be supported because we would need a deeper
access to the kernel. An example of this is multitasking.
IMO OpenDOS is cool enough, already, as to replace M$ DOS (at least
until version 6). The issues here are fixing the bugs and having it
interact well with W95 and UNIX without having to reinstall everything.
Let's be realistic, first things first. Ahh..we shouldn't even discuss
this without the code in hand.

Pedro.

> 
> Paul