[Coco] nitros9 level3

[Tim Fadden]

Most likely Level 2 Version 3 would not work with nitros9 any way.  It 
seems to me the only criteria for nitros9 was to make the kernel 
smaller.  Many of the commands were stripped of functionality.  Fast and 
sleek,  but I would rather forgo the speed for return of functionality.
MNSHO  :-)  I in no way want to take away from what the guys did, just 
not the direction I would have taken.

Tim Fadden

On 10/19/2012 8:17 AM, Boisy G. Pitre wrote:
> Getting the new windowing stuff from Level 2 Version 3 has been long discussed but nothing has ever been done.
>
> NitrOS-9 is fully open source.  Go for it.  Get that code in GrfDrv and CoWin and let's have some resizable/movable windows.
>
> I saw an earlier message where you claimed Shell+ was broken in NitrOS-9.  I'm not aware of any problems or missing functionality, but again, the source is there.
>
> It's time for other people to start taking control of the NitrOS-9 Project.  I have less and less time these days and simply cannot do it.
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:38 PM, Stephen H. Fischer <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some of the changes may break existing things, just like NitrOS-9 broke things that were working on OS-9.
>>
>> And there is the case that not everyone is changing anything when changes are made to the current NitrOS9 project.
>>
>> It would be an opportunity to get more people in sync. Tandy would have released a new version but it was killed. That would have put everyone in sync. We need to act like Tandy.
>>
>> If I get some responses then a better case may be able to be made.
>>
>> Gene said:
>>
>>> Sick of being always out of system ram,
>> That to me says if successful it would be a good point. What else does "level 3" mean?
>>
>> And there is the old standing question of MonkoWare.
>>
>> You cannot just keep updating 1.0 without ever saying, this is a new NitrOS-9 system.
>>
>> Every other program keeps putting out named revisions, when would be a better time for 1.0.0.0.1?
>>
>> The question should at least be asked, what should the next version look like and contain.
>>
>> Remember, evolve or die or something like that.
>>
>> SHF
>>
>>
>> "Aaron Wolfe" <aawolfe-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote in message news:CAA6uQZSajraD5jwEH+Qd-eBThd-u1X2zfgXh8JQvZbP_7GUmGQ at mail.gmail.com...
>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Stephen H. Fischer
>>> <SFischer1-mn4gwa5WIIQysxA8WJXlww at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Gene, could this mutate into a new release of NitrOS-9, one that would be as
>>>> good as the OS-9 system I and others had at about the end of Delphi and CIS?
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of good work that did not make it into NitrOS-9.
>>>>
>>>> Changes could be made and people would need to adapt just like if Tandy
>>>> released a new OS-9 Level-II version.
>>>>
>>>> The new Windows I am talking about, four (4) 80 Track 2 Sided disks,
>>>> Shellplus restored back to it's glory (Parts just are not in NitrOS-9 that
>>>> are part of Shellplus) and so many other thing that I see are missing.
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> If anyone thinks that this is a good idea, or have items that you would like
>>>> to see in a new release, please send an e-mail to:
>>>>
>>> Is there a reason to create a new release, rather than contributing
>>> the time and effort to the current NitrOS9 project alongside those who
>>> do so already?
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>