Re: LYNX-DEV UNIXish and DOSish software

[Jason F. McBrayer]

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Sokolov <address@hidden> writes:

MS>    Jason F. McBrayer <address@hidden> wrote:

[Direct screen writes are a Bad Thing under OS/2, for various reasons,
mostly having to do with programs not running on the console]

>> On DOS it might be more justified, but I remember looking for ANSI
>> versions of programs like MicroEmacs during my DOS BBS days so that
>> they could run as BBS doors.
   
MS>    If you want XFree86, telnetd, or dial-in access, use UNIX!
MS> That's what it's for!

More Fundamentalism from Mr. Sokolov.

MS> DOS and related OSes are single-user. My opinion is that if a
MS> person deliberately chooses DOS over UNIX (like I do on my
MS> 80386-based IBM PC AT-compatible at home), he/she does NOT want
MS> multi-user capabilities or remote access.

Few people deliberately choose plain DOS over Unix, OS/2, or modern
flavours of Windows.  Rather, they are forced to by their hardware, or
by a combination of their hardware and local policies.

Back when I used DOS (early Win 3.1 era, pre-Linux, pre-OS/2 2.1), I
certainly did want (non-concurrent) multi-user capabilities and remote
access, which is why I ran UUPC among other things.

MS> Such a person wants things to work the DOS single-user local-only
MS> way! My DOS version of Lynx will be targeted exactly for these
MS> people.

It seems to me that your version of Lynx will be targeted exactly for
you, since the targets will be a fundamentalist version of BSD that
doesn't correspond to any real Unix in use today and a True DOS
corresponding to an idealized vision of MS (not PC- or DR-) DOS 3.3.
All of which is fine: for your personal use you can do whatever you
want with the Lynx code, and you don't even have to distribute it,
contrary to Fote's misiniterpretation of the GPL.  But don't expect
the rest of us to jump on your bandwagon, because BSD purity is not
the number-one priority on most of our lists.

All of this notwithstanding, I think DOSSOCKS is a great idea.  It
would have been great to have around 1992--1993, but it could still be
of benefit today to a lot of people for whom DOS-only is still a real
requirement for financial reasons (e.g. elementary schools, developing
countries, starving graduate students).  So _please_ don't make the
development of DOSSOCKS contingent upon the rest of your
fundamentalist agenda!  Use an existing compiler, don't make your True
DPMI a higher priority, just get a working DOSSOCKS out the door as
soon as you can.  Looking at your current plans for development, my
guess is that your DOSSOCKS and True DOS Lynx will never come to be
because of the additional requirements for ritual purity you are
imposing on them.

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jason F. McBrayer              address@hidden |
| The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill   |   
| forever.                   (R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ |