On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, ZN wrote: > Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such > feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), > but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get > 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems > with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. Or does it? My vision is: Someone writes a spiffy new [item] and it gets included on that version of SMSQ, because [XYZ] couldn't/wouldn't support it anyway. The feature is now available if people need it, and they can write applications (remember when we used to call them programs?) that can benefit from the feature. Now, your average software author writing for the market can use the feature if he wants to, but wouldn't want to limit his market to that platform alone. This is an *operating system* we're talking about, a way for software to use the hardware. If code running on radically different hardware cannot be modified to take into account features of that specific hardware, that really limits the development of hardware, and of software that runs on it. The notion that all versions should have identical features could be replaced with the notion that all versions should have compatible features, even if the capability is different. EG: an ARM-QL could support 1600x1200 on a CRT, or 2048x1640 on a LCD. With touch screen support. And USB. And ethernet. Things that should be included in a monolithic OS. imvvvho Dave
