[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: OS/2 Porting



I just have to respond to all of the OS/2 people saying that an OS/2 port
would be the best thing for ARDI to do...

While I like OS/2, own it (though I'm not currently running it...) and
think that it should be much more widespread than it is. I don't agree
that ARDI should put a priority to porting Executor to OS/2.

Unfortunately my take on situation is IBM is not willing to do the right
job in getting OS/2 out there, and are likely to cut their losses and drop
support of the system altogether.

IF IBM were to somehow give ARDI some financial incentive to develop an
Executor/2, I think that would be great.

And I do indeed agree that OS/2 would be a much more stable platform for a
native port of Executor than Win 95, except that there are much less
people using OS/2 than there are Windows, Windows NT and Windows 95. It's
unfortunate but true...

I would like to see ARDI continue it's efforts to complete the
Executor/DOS, Executor Linux and Executor Next Step (Yes, there is
probably a smaller installed base of NextStep people than OS/2, but ARDI
has a desire to support/respect their roots.) ports.

I think once 2.0 is out, and perhaps even 3.0 (with full Sys7 drop-in
support, Serial Support, Sound, Networking, etc..) and the money is
flowing (hopefully... and deservedly..) then they should scope out the
existing market for native ports.

By that time NT 4.0 will be out, as well as Win 97(?). Also at this point
IBM will either have released OS/2 4.0 or canned it.

Personally, since Executor/DOS runs reasonably well on OS/2, I'd be much
more interested in seeing a BeBox port of Executor..

I hope all the loyal OS/2'ers won't flame me, but I think we all want
Executor and ARDI to succeed, even if some of us don't get everything we
want! (How about Executor Minix! Executor BSD! Executor CP/M-86!
Executor/SCO, Executor System V! ... It could go on forever!)

- Al Hartman, Computer Expressions -


Follow-Ups: References: