DOS should have a stable, pudly Java VM

Ian McFarland imf at
Fri Apr 18 00:15:26 PDT 1997

At 11:54 AM 4/17/97, Joaquin wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Ian McFarland wrote:
>> It's a shame that JavaOS had to be designed by Sun, with all their deep
>> understanding of UI... I wonder if anyone will release a competing
>> No reason that one couldn't. KaffeOS, anyone? BeJava? JavaOS/2? =-)
>How about a NeXT/Mac look and feel by Apple, the people who know about

Now that's something that would make sense! (Especially if there were
NeXT-like devtools for it!)

At 11:25 AM 4/17/97, Joaquin wrote:
>> What about threads?
>There is a thread library within the DJGPP directory.  I do not beleive
>these threads will go across multiple processors, and the threads are not
>at the kernel level. (But then, neither are NT's threads either)  This
>thread library is not the POSIX pThread, but I have encouraged the author
>to go towards that direction.  The author was enthuiastic that people were
>actually interested.

How many people run DOS on MP machines anyway? ;-) (And in fact I don't
think JDK will use multiple processors under Solaris either, because it's
built on Green Threads instead of Solaris threads.) I think a
single-processor-per-Kaffe-process environment is probably ok for a DOS
port, m'self.


(And I too was horrified and amused by the Display Ghostscript idea, but it
took me until today to realize that the potentially most horrific part of
the approach is how much SLOWER it could be made to run as a portable pure
Java environment. What if instead we did a Display HPGL engine? Or did
everything as big dynamically generated, network delivered Acrobat
documents? *<=-)

                            mailto:imf at
tel://+1.415.563.3036/    fax://+1.415.441.3631/
:: Neo Communication ::  Web Development. Period.  :: ::

More information about the kaffe mailing list