At 01.09.2000 13:13:00, you wrote:
>There is a small problem here:
>When I think about a DOS that is nativly 32-bit, multitasking, and
>can handle most of the bells and whistles, people tend to ask me
>why I cant just move to Linux "because its exactly what you're
>describing". Well, its not. I tried, and after I failed I even tried
>to force myself, but Linux is absolutly what i'm not expecting from that
>system. No, i'm not bashing it - its good. Its just not the thing i'm
>describing.
>
Please, why did you failed with Linux? Discrib a bit more. For the future
I can see no other thing then Unix -right it is not new, not written for
only one CPU like the MacOS (-but there was NeXt that was fast and Unix :)
BeOS -do not know, AmigaOS? win2000? OS2? A modern DOS would look like that.
Or SF like Oberon or... What is a OS? What is a computer?
regards, Joerg
