Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck
From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Trouble compiling flip with TurboC 1.5
Message-ID: <4997@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 89 00:21:42 GMT
References: <1571@mtunb.ATT.COM> <1153@unocss.UUCP>
Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 24

In article <1153@unocss.UUCP> ho@fergvax.unl.edu writes:
>From article <1571@mtunb.ATT.COM>, by dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman):

>can understand your reasoning.  But it would still be unfair to expect MS-
>DOS to cater to Unix's whims, while not expecting the Unix to bow to MS-DOS
>(if that is the case).

There is no question of either operating system "catering" to each
other in some sort of personified sense. Operating systems have only
the personality human programmers give them. So too for compilers. The
question is ultimately, how sensitive are the authors of a given piece
of software to real life convenience issues.

I suspect that in a year or so, compatability in terms of files and
libraries will be a testing requirement for C compilers. A few years
ago, indeed, even a year ago, one would rarely see mention of **IX in
PeeCee oriented magazines. Now, one gets an article or two per month in
such mags.

Several factors will contribute to this: the proliferation of 386/486
machines (running MSDOS on such machines is rather like having an Indy
500 car but only gravel roads to drive on); the proliferation of **IX
machines as file servers for MSDOS machines; the (belated) recognition
that OS-II is a bummer.