home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- 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 -
-
-