On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:59, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > >> FWIW, this means you can write 16 bit DOS > > >> applications in Linux. > > > > > > Uhmm, why would anyone want to do that? > > > Good riddance to that stuff. > > > > Nostalgia maybe :-) > > Nostalgia is acceptable. I still have an Apple ][ somwhere... though no > copy of my apple floppies on something safe. > > But that compiler sounded like it was intended for writing 16 bit > applications for a 1979 OS with 8.3 filename acronyms, when we're well > into the 3rd millennium where 64 bit is very old (10 years?) and the 8 > acronym has been overcome, albeit not the .3 part of it. Not by MS and > Apple, and by assimilation, Linux (ff and oo and pretty much anything > else fails to make use of it). It's always fun to program in a language > or environment which is as featureless as possible; just not for getting > anything useful done.
Actually, there's a lot of nostalgia going on. Part of that nostalgia is in self-defense, of course - history has never been a topic of much interest or use to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA, let alone the dweebs who patent software. But if something touted as "New! Improved! Innovative!" happens to be the rehashed left-overs of someone's dog's breakfast of the eighties, having people who can do something with that dog's breakfast, means that it's more likely to be seen to be that dog's breakfast. Which means we may not have to swallow it. ;) Wesley Parish > > Volker -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ------------- Mau ki ana, he aha te mea nui? You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku ki ana, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." ------------- notcatweazle.wordpress.com - Some unmagical musings
