Tyler, I agree that a working TCP stack is not the problem. I see the "DOS user base" issue quite differently, though. I'm not talking about people who actually run their PC with DOS as its O/S, but embedded systems that can very nicely (and efficiently, cost-effectively, etc) run from a DOS-type environment (both software and hardware) in devices where the O/S is not even visible (or a concern) to the user.... read "Internet Appliance" (set-top-box, etc etc etc). This IS in our future (see www.aplio.com for just one example), and to simply equate it to ancient DOS machines is missing the implications of this picture. Not all interesting/useful "networking" or "messaging" apps require 32-bit machines (and Windows and graphics and O/S's and OVERHEAD) to work effectively. Heck, I've done TCP/IP in an 8-bit micro w/o ANY O/S! How I'd love to have REBOL (or a compiled version of a rebol application) in there too :) Russ -------- At 11:13 AM 10/26/99 -0800, you wrote: > >> Well, how robust are the existing TCP/IP stacks for the intel-based >> DOS? (I hate just calling it 'DOS', because my machine has a DOS, but >> no relation to that other one...) > >A tcp stack isn't too hard to find. You can find them in proprietary >network packages like the netware >ip client. >> If the stacks are there, then the >> REBOL/core should be easy to do as it doesn't really do any fancy >> windowing magic beyond simple console stuff. REBOL really doesn't do >> multitasking by itself, if a TSR stack exists and works, then REBOL >> should be useable on a MS/PC/DR/FREE/etc-DOS box. >the problem isnt the multitasking, DOS is a 16 bit OS and REBOL will >only work on a 32bit or higher machine. I dont believe the DOS user > base is large enough to bother with >porting a 16bit version. > > >-Tyler Booth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >"your problem lies between the chair & the keyboard" > > >
