Re: encapsulating directory operations

"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:Bw2XP.723747$ujgb.472396@fx15.iad...

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

On 20/05/2025 15:47, Paul Edwards wrote:

>

Well, in the 1990s I had some work colleagues who were
incensed that I had converted some K&R C code to C90,
and called it "nancy C". I pointed out that Ritchie himself
had endorsed the standard, and they still didn't budge,
saying that he had become deranged or something like that.
>

>
They were justified in thinking that "Richie himself endorsed the
standard" is a totally irrelevant argument.  They would be wrong if they
said he had "become deranged".

>
David, it's not particularly productive to continue to feed the trolls.

Your definition of "troll" appears to be "anyone who disagrees
with your lies".

Mr. Edwards also believes that MS-DOS is the be-all and end-all of

operating

systems.

That's a complete and utter lie.

I said no such thing about any operating system at all, including my own.
I've actually said the exact opposite about my own OS - "PDOS isn't
meant to be the last word on operating systems - it is meant to make
available a minimal, public domain, C90, 'starter system'".

I don't use either MSDOS or PDOS for my daily work. I use Windows 2000
and Windows 10.

I occasionally fire up all of MSDOS, Freedos, Kylin Linux, ArcaOS
in a VM to run some tests.

Also PDOS/386 gets exercised when I do a new release, which gets
run under qemu (using emulation, so takes about 30 minutes). I don't
actually use it unless you count typing in "misc\final" and "poweroff",
as I don't have that automated (and I need to see the final screen to
see that it doesn't say "error" too).

BFN. Paul.