home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a3431
- From: Neklan_Brozensky@mindlink.bc.ca (Neklan Brozensky)
- Subject: Re: Packaging Linux
- Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:31:09 GMT
- Message-ID: <17612@mindlink.bc.ca>
- Sender: news@deep.rsoft.bc.ca (Usenet)
- Lines: 34
-
- > Eric Matthews writes:
- >
- > Msg-ID: <1992Nov16.051435.5763@cs.hope.edu>
- > Posted: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:14:3
- >
- > Org. : Hope College
- >
- >
- > I second your notion about packaging LINUX. I have shown LINUX to
- > many
- > DOS users and they were impressed. Thanks to WINDOWS and OS-2 many DOS
- > users
- > now are familiar with multi-tasking, virtual memory, and graphical user
- > environments. Stepping up to a unix-like OS isn't such a scarry
- > proposition.
- > If LINUX were packaged with a GUI in the same manner as the SLS
- > distribution,
- > LINUX would be competing with OS-2 and WINDOWS NT. LINUX, being free and
- > having
- > a large software base, would be very competitive.
- >
-
- Are you saying that right now it has a large software base?
-
- It doesn't have a large software base when you are positioning it to take on
- WIN-NT and OS/2. But it *could* *if* there was a way of running DOS and
- precompiled 386 sysV 4.2 programs... (running win 3.1 would be nice too..)
-
- IBM learnt their lesson when they marketed OS/2 for 5 years with-out decent
- DOS support. Any future desktop operating system has to have it.
-
- BTW I'm a new linux user, and like the original poster of this thread, I
- agree that A simple prepackaged Xwindow linux could really make some noise on
- the desktop, but *only* when it has DOS compatibility.
-