Or:
Free source code for all parts of what your talking about are avail in
various older versions of DOS-based applications and GNU versions of
UNIX OS.
The issue is not whether building it can be done. The issue is IF anyone
can build a viable company doing it. Will it truly be a "Field of Dreams
= build it any folks will show it..."
My personal experience is "community-based" projects are dependent on
one or two people's (or a very small group) willingness to bust their
ass for no pay. Which SUCKS when trying to justify to your bill
collectors and family.
I am not saying it can't be done - I am simply saying that the
marketplace has not proven itself to be willing to purchase anything for
DOS-internet projects. I can assure you that neither David Colston
(Net-tamer) nor Michael Pollack (Arachne) have gotten wealthy doing what
they are doing...
Twenty years ago in the USA there was a TV advertisement for Wendy's
HAmburgers (American fast food joint) and a 75 year old woman was asking
the guy behind the counter "where's the beef?!?" That applies to the
willingness of the survivor DOS-PC marketplace to support a real
fully-functional product for internet access...
In the auto racing industry there is a saying "when the checkered flag
drops the bullshit stops". Do you think the Survivor DOS-PC market will
pay for a quality product?? IF you believe they will, are you willing to
become the marketing manager and get paid commission only for working on
the project 80 hours per week for six months?
That is my weekend opinion which is subject to change when a client
brings in their sack of coin of the realm and wants us to build it for
them :)
John O
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 03:33:19 +0000
From: Or Botton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS internet suite
On 25 Aug 99 at 19:53, Eko Priono wrote:
>
> I've added ANSI.SYS to my CONFIG.SYS, yup that works nice...
> (still have enough UMB space, so it's not that bulky). The
> text mode layout looks good. It might work that way, but
> since the program is multitasking, I think you'll need
> process tabs somewhere -- for easy active process selection,
> like Win9x/NT taskbar.
I was afraid of that.. There is a taskbar in the drawing, but you
cannot see it with the 'type' command. Its in the most upper line,
and you cannot see it because 'type' goes down one extra line to
show the DOS prompt. Thats why I prefer a viewer.. less trouble to
see the entire thing. The DSHELL.ANS file is a drawing of only the
taskbar. You can see how it looks like from there, or better:
get a viewer!! ;) (i've found several in simtel. They all go down
one line as well, but you can go back using the 'up' arrow key.)
> > Obviously. Look at Arachne and NetTamer. Are they wide-
> > spread? Another good "full internet suite" cant hurt.
>
> Won't hurt from user's side for sure <g> I meant from
> developer's side. Say if the project started as shareware from
> scratch, will the registrations cover the _working_time_ (read:
> initial costs) invested?
Again, ask Michael. He just returned from a buisness trip in the US.
He seemed to get several deals from large companies. They will never
admit it, but they all are looking for cheap internet solutions.
DOS internet suites are just the ticket. (that, and linux.)
Also, lets not forget the small companies with DOS-based networks,
who do not see the point on 'upgrading' to Windows 95 or changing to
Linux, due to having to port or write all their software to another
platform..
> I doubt the project will suceed if started as pure public domain
> or freeware. Many previous DOS browser projects arranged this
> way either doomed or never leave dreamboat (search the list
> archive). Quite understandable, since the participans usually
> put freebie projects like this in the very bottom of their
> priority "to do" list.
I think that Arachne worked because it was made as a 'company product'
and not a 'freeware product'. The fact that you own a company and
that this is one of your main products gives you quite a push to
work on it.
> Depends... Boanne once told me that she started using Arachne
> after saw it mentioned on TV (that's in the US off course). So
> what make it so good that worth published on TV? ;)
hmm.. havent tried TV shows. We got about 2 computer TV shows here.
Worth a try.
> Nettamer -- it's basically a nagware, and have an awkward user
> interface too, yet, it did widespread and supported by a lot of
> dedicated fans.
>
> Why? What makes these two so special compared to another DOS
> internet apps available, or even Windows? I think we'll have
> to find out the answers first before decided to start another
> project in such scale (especially in these years, when MSDOS
> widely considered as Dead Operating System).
Here are the facts that I know:
(i'll concentrate on Arachne because I am not really experienced
with NetTamer. Please fill me up in the NetTamer part.)
As far as I know of Arachne and NetTamer, both are:
1)Small browsers that do not take lots of space.
2)Both of them 'do the impossible'. (give you almost full internet
accessability under DOS).
3)They are extendable (APMs. But I dont know about NetTamer.)
4)And it doesnt cost alot to register for it.. I'll admit that
Arachne was so far the only shareware that I
ever -wanted- to register.
Having a small browser that works on DOS saved me several times,
last time was when my P350 had the disk crash. I am now writing
this on my 486. Thanks to these utilities, I can keep on what
I do on the internet even though i'm "stuck" with the 486 that I
built some time ago as a hobby.
Or Botton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
-----------------------------
http://members.xoom.com/dsdp/
------------------------------
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
