🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41uga1$ki0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> scott goehring,
sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <FAT.95Aug29130102@fat.cnit.nsk.su>,
>Dmitry V. Irtegov <fat@cnit.nsk.su> wrote:
>
>>1. Provide entire DOS code in VDM for programs hacking it,
>
>screw 'em.
>
>>2. Provide entire DOS data segment for programs messing with it, 
>
>screw them too.
>
>>3. Fake internal filesystem structure for programs using Int 25/26, 
>
>them too!
>
>>4. Fake switching to real mode for DPMI, 
>
>guess what?
>
>>5. Fake direct access to all hardware including first megabyte of RAM, 
>>DMA channels and real-time clock,
>
>ditto.
>
>>and even then some DOS programs will choke and Joe user will scream:
>>"Your emulation is shit!". 
>
>tough shit.

This is really STUPID attitude. Look, suppose you are designing an 
artificial heart. Designing the pump is trivial---the hard part is 
getting it to work with human bio-chemistry. But if you don't get it to 
work with human bio-chemisty, what's the point?
Same thing with DOS emulation under Windows, and same point with Mac 
backward compatibility. If the users WANTED to switch OSs they would have 
done so already. Clearly they don't want to switch.
Your comany doesn't last very long if it's based on the idea "I'll 
produce what I want, and ignore what the user wants."

Maynard Handley
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.