From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   muta...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   >On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:19:13 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <88894e43-6c97-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,   
   >> muta...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   >> >On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:00:17 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> >No-one is going to own something so fundamentally   
   >> >> >important as the operating system.   
   >> >   
   >> >> With all due respect, I suggest you double check   
   >> >> your priors.   
   >> >   
   >> >Pardon?   
   >   
   >> >What's the equivalent of PDOS? The other one I know of   
   >> >is Temple OS. Is that what you're referring to?   
   >   
   >> I'm not particularly interested in pursuing this matter, but   
   >> since you asked, what I mean is that this, as a goal, seems   
   >> mostly uninformed and very uninteresting.   
   >   
   >You asked me to check something.   
   >   
   >If the thing to check is "are most people so stupid that   
   >they are happy to let some asshole control something as   
   >important as OSes that the world runs on?" then I already   
   >knew the answer to that.   
      
   Wow.   
      
   >> So apparently someone does own the "fundamentally important"   
   >> operating system, and I don't see a problem with that. Linux,   
   >> for example, runs on literally billions of devices, and the GPL   
   >> has been tested in court. TempleOS and PDOS, on the other hand,   
   >> are toys. PDOS doesn't even appear to have a process   
   >> abstraction, let alone memory protection, both of which are   
   >> requisite for any sort of serious work these days.   
   >   
   >There is no serious work these days except on the mainframe.   
   >   
   >Everyone else is a clown factory.   
      
   Wow.   
      
   >> On the other hand, people _do_ care about being able to use   
   >> their computers to solve real problems. Neither TempleOS nor   
   >> PDOS appear to be particularly useful for that. Consider the   
   >> context of this thread, for example; PDOS apparently can't   
   >> exist without making use of a BIOS or something similar. Well,   
   >> who owns that?   
   >   
   >I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.   
      
   You don't appear to be solving any problems.   
      
   >> So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something   
   >> so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both   
   >> meaningless and untrue.   
   >   
   >If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.   
      
   Well, have fun.   
      
   >> Moreover, the world has moved on from 32-bit operating systems.   
   >   
   >No, clowns have.   
      
   Wow.   
      
   >> I can't imagine why anyone would feel compelled to use PDOS for   
   >> serious work, let alone TempleOS. Goof around with that stuff   
   >> to learn how simple program loaders and the machine works?   
   >> Sure, why not. But as a basis for serious work? Delusions of   
   >> grandeur notwithstanding, that's not going to happen.   
   >   
   >This is the serious work.   
      
   No.   
      
   *Plonk*   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)