Hello, Roger!

I am just commenting some things that you wrote. I have no intention of
starting a flame. I got a private message from Marcus Bennett, and this
thread seems destined to be dying.

> Fact is, that this is comp.os.cpm and DR-DOS is not a CP/M. You won't be
> able to use the DR-DOS BIOS to understand CP/M-86 Plus because it is a
> DOS BIOS, not a CP/M BIOS.

Here, I am of a completely different opinion, since I disassembled the BIOS
of CP/M-86 Plus... and it is the same as the BIOS of DOS Plus (which has
just an additional module (whose name I don't remember, right now) providing
all MS-DOS Version 2 system calls to EXE files).

> > 2) In my message, it was relevant, since I am a CP/M fan, so I am
interested
> > in how DR-DOS used to "surf the Internet" (as far as I know, DR-DOS is
dead)
> > since DR-DOS runs on the same hardware than CP/M-86 Plus.
>
> The way DR-DOS used to "surf the Internet" is not relevant to CP/M. If
> you want to discuss that sort of thing, you might try comp.os.msdos.

I think that it is relevant, because I have seen several Internet browsers
fitting on a single 1.44MB 3.5" floppy. So, if it was possible with MS-DOS,
I simply don't see why it would not be possible with CP/M-86 Plus (which has
4 background tasks available for I/O transfers) or, even better, Concurrent
CP/M (which was on par with any Unix implementation that had been done when
it was done (1983)).

> Nevertheless, you might look at
http://www.arachne.cz/index.php?clanekid=176
> which talks about the Arachne browser. This was picked up by Caldera to
> become whatever spider-related name they gave it.

Several years ago, I had tried Arachne under DR-DOS 7.03, but was not
impressed with it.

> You might be better off looking at the KA9Q stuff. I once heard rumors
> that there was a CP/M port, but never tracked it down.

Yes, indeed, this could be interesting.

> > 3) How many persons have written a WS4-to-HTML File Converter?
>
> I have done both WS4-to-HTML and WS4-to-RTF; I even used the latter to
> develop Windows help files. Since WS4 is no longer my primary editor, that
> sort of thing is no longer useful to me.

I note that you never (during the 10 years that I have read the comp.os.cpm
Newsgroup) ever mentioned those programs, or provided them. What is the
purpose of a program if you are the only one to use it? Have you needs so
special that nobody else could be interested in the tool that you built? Me,
when I feel the need for a program, I write it and explain it so that
everybody can use it. I don't think that I am special. If I feel a need for
an utility, that means that anybody else using the same system will feel the
same need. I am a programmer: I am interested in how to solve some needs
using programming languages. In my experience, there is always something
that I don't foresee, and that someone else spot instantly. That's another
reason why it is better to publish programs, so they can be improved (for
free!). The IBM Clown, with the so-called "ShareWare" killed this spirit,
that is found in all the volumes of the CP/M Software Library. Linux is also
incredibly commercial. And the Mac is the most expensive system.

> Also, in answer to another of your questions (about Linux running on a
> 64K Z80), try this: http://www.cpmclub.de/zeitung/seite5.htm It's not
> Linux, but is Unix.

In my humble opinion, MP/M-II is much more impressive than UZI (which is not
really Unix Version 7 compatible). Anyway, you are comparing Apples with
Oranges, since MP/M-II is totally COMPATIBLE with any program written for
CP/M, while Unix is totally INCOMPATIBLE with any program written for
another Disk Operating System, since there is no single-user single-task
version of Unix...

(You will also note that Unix never got the portability of CP/M COMmand
files, able to run under any implementation of CP/M -- claimed to have been
more than 3,000 different hardware... Find one single Unix program that has
been as portable since Unix exists! I am always amazed, when I read the
source code of CP/M utilities written in PL/M, to see the number of versions
of CP/M under which they ran, without change. C is several orders of
magnitude below this technical performance. I could not believe my eyes when
I saw that Intel was dropping PL/M. They really don't understand software.)

This will be all (I hope).

Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France