From:	arh14 AT cornell DOT edu
Date:	Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender:	arh14 AT travelers DOT mail DOT cornell DOT edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Another reason for DOS/FreeDOS/DOS32, etc.
In-Reply-To:	<199904220405.AAA16237@delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SOL.3.91.990422085126.26473B-100000@travelers.mail.cornell.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Part of what I left out of my short, short message:

Dos is not secure.
Dos is not sophisticated (relatively speaking).

BUT

Dos is SIMPLE
Dos is SMALL
Dos is FAST! (direct hardware access)
Dos is single-user

The majority of "normal" computer users don't care about users 
and permissions and security levels and ownership.  They don't need a 
multiuser system.  Windows itself is complex enough.  They just need 
something that makes their computer *work* (not even reliable it appears, 
although the simpler the OS the easier it is to make reliable!).  And 
something that is fast is even better.  By stripping away the features 
that the target audience doesn't care about, one can improve on those 
that they do.  I think there is plenty of room (if not an imperitive) for 
a small, fast, simple OS (preferably 32 bit) that does everything one 
wants it to do and nothing one doesn't need.

My concern is that while people are pitching Linux and other modern 
hi-tech operating systems as the Windows/DOS alternative, they miss the 
point that some people really *don't* need the included features and 
would *gladly* sacrifice them for performance, size, simplicity, etc.  I 
don't see any player in this field right now.  There is no Windows/DOS 
alternative that is as simple and fast (not to say Windows is that 
fast), not to mention fully backward compatible with all the thousands of 
DOS programs.  Bigger (in feature count, sophistication) is not necessarily 
better.

Aaron

- Raw text -