> Here in list.yarn, jstanley@gate.net (John A. Stanley) spake unto us,
> saying:
> >I would describe yarn95 as a DOS95 executable. I.e., it's not a true
> >windows ap with gui, pretty pictures, and icons.
"That happens not to be the case." (Sounds SO much nicer than "bullshit",
doesn't it?) The correct term of art is that it is a "Console mode" app,
and as such it has full access to things such as the network stack and so
on. (Beside the point in Yarn's case, but not in the case of other
programs, hence my desire to keep the record straight.) Kermit-95 is
the same way -- DOS look and feel, but it is fully 32-bit and
multithreaded, and because it has access to Win95 networking, it makes a
killer dialler and telnet.
Yes, there is a DOS7 living "under" Win95; that's why I feel it important
that we not confuse the issue by calling Yarn95 a "DOS95 app." Thank you.
> > If Yarn95 is 32-bit and multithreaded, the rest of that gooey stuff
> would just be extraneous baggage, right? ;-)
That too!