Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Why should anyone subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > if they are against seeing Arachne develop in Linux? The Linux version > is emphasized in the subscribe blurb for [EMAIL PROTECTED] > as can be seen at http://arachne.browser.org/lists.shtml in the > penultimate paragraph.
Arachne can stay backward compatible with DOS, but Arachne development must continue in Linux for pure practical reasons. For example, when DOS program crashes, you are often left without any idea what happened. If Linux program crashes, file called "core" is generated, and by typing "gdb arachne core" (for binray called "arachne", it's an example...), you are told exactly the line number and source code module filename, which caused the crash. All bugs fixed while using and debugging Arachne in Linux will naturaly find its way also to DOS version, but DOS itself doesn't have enough powerful tools to continue Arachne development. Another example is CPU usage: in DOS, I can only guess, if my code is optimal, but in multitasking Linux, I can run system monitor and immediately see, that my code is consuming excessive amount of CPU time - this is important even in single tasking OS, because components like TCP/IP stack, filesystem, etc. are running more or less like "separate tasks" anyway, even in DOS... So DOS Arachne users users don't necessarily have to switch, but at least Arachne developers should switch, for many practical reasons...
