To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: A few FS notions
Message-ID: <19970519.171257.5183.4.chambersb@juno.com>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970517085944 DOT 276B-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
From: chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:15:28 EDT
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 17 May 1997 09:05:12 -0400 (EDT) "Mike A. Harris"
<mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca> writes:
>On Sat, 10 May 1997, John Fremlin wrote:
>> >> I want an OpenDos that is 100% MS-DOS (v6+) compatible, and 

Then use MS-DOS v6.

>beyond
>> >> that I'm not going to fuss too much. Any added features are 
>useful
>> >> but not *absolutely* necessary.
>> Wonderful! I can't wait for a 32-bit DPMI (v1.0) OpenDOS version.
>
>I agree.  This will be fantastic!
>
I REFUSE to go 'Me Three'!  (Even though I want to :)

>> A modern OS? What are you talking about? DOS is IMHO hardly
>> material for a modern OS.
Why?
I prefer command line anyways - when I do anything substantial in
Windows, I almost always have to pop open a DOS box every 5-10 seconds...

>> I think OpenDOS should concentrate on a *customizable* OS - give
>> people the a choice of many shells, filesystems etc. with
>> networking capabilities.

Sounds good - I want the shell they used in JPark (he he)

...Chambers