>> It is a little silly to keep talking about a 32 bit kernel on the >> roadmap when such an option does not exist.
> I see your point, however if that attitude was taken during the > initial formative discussions of the existing FreeDOS kernel... it > never would have been made. ;-) At that point the 16-bit FreeDOS > kernel didn't exist yet either, but discussion started, people got > together and with a lot of work, it got made. this way to tell the history of the FreeDOS kernel is as wrong as possible. FreeDOS kernel (or any other part of FreeDOS) was certainly not designed by a committee, but *all* of it (with the likely excreption of command.com) was designed and created by a single person (and later debugged/refined/extended by a dozen other people). I wasn't around in 1995, but not 'discussion started, people got together'. One day Pat Villani appeared out of thin air, and offered his (already existing) DOS-C kernel to the FreeDOS project. even if this had a huge number of bugs and problems, it was designed and created by a single person. He certainly didn't need (or take) advice from some members of an obscure mailing list. note: most software materializes after writing code, not emails. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
