What no DOS

Hey why not a DOS version of REBOL. With the small footprint of REBOl core I could dust off and make use of my old 486PC. And REBOl is way easier than Qbasic.

rick falls wrote:

> > Hey why not a DOS version of REBOL. With the small footprint of REBOl > core I could dust off and make use of my old 486PC. And REBOl is way > easier than Qbasic.

rick falls wrote:

> Hey why not a DOS version of REBOL. With the small footprint of REBOl core I > could dust off and make use of my old 486PC. And REBOl is way easier than > Qbasic.

I think DOS has a small footprint because it lacks features that would allow REBOL to run, like a reliable network stack and multitasking. Shake the dust off the PC and run linux on it, it should be fine. I ran linux for years on a 486 w/ 16MB and a 250 MB hd. Hey, but what about this old Kaypro? How about a CP/M version? ;-) On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Petr Krenzelok wrote:

> > rick falls wrote: > > > Hey why not a DOS version of REBOL. With the small footprint of REBOl core I > > could dust off and make use of my old 486PC. And REBOl is way easier than > > Qbasic.

Heh. I don't think a DOS version of View would be necessary at all. I mean, while I love Windows (that's right, you heard me: I LOVE Windows!!), sometimes I just feel at home in a console. Course, I've been using various personal computers for about 18 years now (and I'm only 24..), since the Commodore Vic20. I still don't like Linux much, but I DO like QNX RTP 6 - but it's a real-time OS with, uh, no real memory cache, so it doesn't really run on a 486 (among other reasons). However, what I *have* done is to install CygWin, which is quite yummy I think. Too bad there's no /core for it, though ;) **** rick falls wrote:

> Hey why not a DOS version of REBOL. With the small footprint of REBOl core I > could dust off and make use of my old 486PC. And REBOl is way easier than > Qbasic.

Ok...OK.. It's just that there is a lot of people who know DOS and have access to it, MS-DOS or FreeDOS.I can't seem tp find my CP/M disks ;-)

Yeah, but who really develops for DOS anymore anyways? No networking, 16-bit environment, 8.3 filenames, no threading...? And beware most Linux distributions these days anyways. They LIKE to install a LOT of stuff now. I'm not looking for a debate here - I'm just talking from personal experience. In '93, I installed Slackware, and .. well, the installation was slow and annoying, I had to keep flipping through floppies because of a lack of HD space, and I had to cautiously select each little piece I wanted. A couple years ago I installed Mandrake, using their own installation program, and.. well, good luck installing it without a GUI! It kept forcing me to install a ton of crap I didn't need/want at all. Ended up with >1GB of space taken up :( Mostly from selecting this thing, and being told that it needed 50 other 'dependencies'... *shrugs* Just warning. **** Ok...OK.. It's just that there is a lot of people who know DOS and have access to it, MS-DOS or FreeDOS.I can't seem tp find my CP/M disks ;-)

>From: Brian Wilson <[bwilson--ihpva--org]> >Reply-To: [rebol-list--rebol--com] >[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the >subject, without the quotes.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, [chalz--earthlink--net] wrote:

> And beware most Linux distributions these days anyways. They LIKE > to install a LOT of stuff now. I'm not looking for a debate here -

Brian Wilson wrote:

> To set up a tiny REBOL system, it would be easiest to start with a tiny > distribution, like one designed for embedded systems or the LRP (Linux > Router Project).