🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <881886281snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
   john$@wash.demon.co.uk (John Washington) writes:
> On 11 Dec, in article
>      <slrn68ujte.qs4.robm@desade.noc.demon.net> robm@demon.net
>      "Robert Mortimer" wrote:
[snip]
> RM> It has been for a while, and suffers from the slight drawback, as with
> RM> anything compiled by DJGPP, in that it won't run on sub 386's.
> OK, so that's a (dis)advantage of that compiler.  I've not seen
> that source, but is it reasonably std C?  If so, would it be
> a good base to take and add another 'make' file for BCC?

It is "reasonably" standard C, but from discussions on the nos-bbs
mailing list when the idea of moving to a GCC compile for jnos, as has
already happened for tnos, it would seem that changing between BCC and
GCC is far from being a smop.

> No doubt there'd need to be some condit compile, e.g. ksubr.c
> is presumably rather different.  But do people think it would
> be much more than that?

As I say from reports of the person who maintains tnos, the answer is
yes, but I couldn't swear that the same wouldhold true of another
version of KA9Q. On the other hand there are other free compilers that
will compile for syb 386's. /* can't remember the URL off the top of
my head */
 
[snip]
> What is the 'Karn' source?  Is it really by the great man himself,
> and does he still have the time to make a good job of it?

It is by Phil Karn himself, the 16bit version is no longer maintained,
he's still working on the GCC compile version. It does seem to be
quite reasonable, BUT if you can find any documentation for it
especially the new features, like say sound blaster support, you're
doing a much better job than me. I beleive there is a copy on
ftp.demon.co.uk, but I can't remember where.

> Is it responsively maintained, amalgamating best ideas from
> elsewhere?  Or are there other versions around that would be
> better to track?

It his own version, it's got in it what he'd like. There are some good
features in it, by US ecnryption restirctionc prevent them from being
released. Jnos and Tnos are both more actively miantained and used as
far as I can tell.

-- 
RobM
       "Trust the computer The computer is your fiend"
          http://www.ka9q.demon.co.uk/index.html