X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to opendos-bounces using -f
From: shadow AT shadowgard DOT com
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:59 -0800
Subject: Re: FreeDos, twenty four years later...
Message-ID: <3FFF5A0B.7033.4572838@localhost>
In-reply-to: <3FFFD7F6.393BD45@hypertech.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a)
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 10 Jan 2004 at 2:46, Day Brown wrote:

> shadow AT shadowgard DOT com wrote:
>  
> > > The main reason I subscribe to the OpenDOS
> > > newsgroup is that, for me, the old DOS was both easy to learn and also
> > > very *simple* to manage. One only has to play around with one of the
> > > current flavours of UNIX/Linux for, say, twenty minutes, before one
> > > realizes one isn't in Kansas anymore. UNIX makes some very simple things
> > > a lot more complicated!
> > 
> > Oh?
> Linux is simple enough if you're satisfied with what the distro you have
> offers. But trying to add or change anything can lead to endless threads
> such as we see in the Linux lists. The unintended consequences are
> considerably larger because Linux has so much more power.
>  
> > > I'm not a psychic, but if Gary Kildall was alive today, I suspect he'd
> > > have taken our OpenDOS to new territories. Unfortunately, he is no
> > > longer with us so we will have to imagine what kind of operating system
> > > he would now be showing us (probably a hybrid of DOS, Netware,
> > > DESQview/X, and EOS). As for computer languages, maybe we should follow
> > > UNIX and simply standardize on plain C?
> > 
> > C is a problem language. It tends to encourage
> > certain *bad* programming practices. Like unchecked
> > type casting.
> I never cared for it either. In dos, anything you want to do has already
> been written, and if not, you'll ed up using batch and/or assy to solve
> the problem.
> 
> Why dont the print screen key work in Linux? cause it was designed by
> and for system administrators, who dont need a hard copy nearly as often
> as the home user, who has his printer next to him, whereas a network
> printer can be anywhere on earth. Linux is terrific for business, with
> very stable networks the users cannot screw up. But home users get
> annoyed being told they dont have 'permission'.

Besides, redurecting output works just fine.  

And when it comes to permissions, you have to 
realizre that I'm running a Netware server at home. 
I actually *like* being able to have the system 
that's doing uucp & Fidonet mail *not* be able to 
access a lot of the drives and directories.



--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at krypton dot rain dot com