To: patv AT iop DOT com Cc: fd-dev AT list DOT freedos DOT org, opendos AT delorie DOT com References: <34A3A1C4 DOT 167E AT iop DOT com> Message-Id: From: "Arkady V.Belousov" Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:05:11 +0300 (MSK) Organization: Locus Reply-To: ark AT mos DOT ru Subject: Re: Kernel status (was interesting phenomenon and Super Improved Freedos?) Lines: 27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk X-Comment-To: Pat Villani Hi! 26-δΕΛ-97 07:23 patv AT iop DOT com (Pat Villani) wrote to ark AT mos DOT ru: > Arkady V.Belousov wrote: > > As result, I must say: DOS is bad in terms of _expansion_ becuase > > 16-bit model and ugly design. I think, redesigned DOS be (and must?) have a > > likeness with original Unixes (like Linux, may be). But, if we talk about > > current state, then DOS (as I say before) can cover most specialists > > requirements, so they state must be present in sources as is (for > > compatability reason) before going to next projects, and _first_ step must > > be development of develompent ;) tools. B-| > > [...] > > P.S. I recently look at listing from BC++ and think - what about "addon", > > which optimizes code through listing or .OBJ? What you think about? ;) > Are you volunteering? We now already discuss such addon. P.S. I itself alone can't write such addon: I not sure, my knowledge of asm and .obj format is sufficient. Moreover, my productivity in terms of "useful _new_ code per time" is very low. :( P.S. Little later I present some DOS utilities "in one package".