Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: OpenDOS graphics drivers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970513183742.12576B-100000@gort.canisius.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970513203039.1168C-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 May 1997, randir wrote:

> 	When I started blasting Dos out of memory for most of my programs
> 	[cause I like writing Intel machine code... don't ask me why,
> 	it probably has to do with the sense of power one gets when
> 	they hack binary code without an assembler.] most of my friends
> 	thought I was nuts... you shouldn't do such things they said.

Well, for a game it could actually make sense (if you have a way to bring
DOS back! ;-)) ). I thought once that we could create a "super extender"
that would have a Linux-like BIOS32, FAT drivers and so on... All in
32-bit protected mode, no thunking or whatever!

> 				ummm... long live Dos! :)
> 				[sorry about the rant, I've been porting
> 				from linux -> dos again, and half way
> 				through thought I'd be better off just
> 				writing a new computer language...]

This is a recurrent thought here, but don't surrender to it, since you'll
inevitably fall to the second conclusion: that you'd also be better off
writing a new operating system (and is the hardware architecture all that
good?). ;-))

Pierre Phaneuf