[kerravon86]

I am the main author of PDOS. I am not claiming to "know better" (or even know what that means). And I don't recognize your description of "PCs ought" as an accurate description of my views. Or even understand what that means either. If you ask a specific question I'll try to give an answer, based on my current understanding, but note that all my beliefs are tentative.

[lproven]

My screen name here is my real name and the same name I used on the old Hercules list.

Your posts were the main reason I left that list, in fact.

I tried very hard to explain stuff to you, and offer what I hoped would be some useful guidance, information, history, code to read about, etc.

You dismissed it all, and everything that everyone else on the list offered or said.

I couldn't stand the constant negativity, and in the end, I left. If nothing else, as someone who's worked with Free Software and Open Source for this entire century so far and made it my career, your total misunderstanding of it and passionate unreasonable antipathy to it was extremely tiresome.

I am happy for you that you've got this far, and I wish you no ill. All possible luck with the project. I will not be getting involved with it again, though.

[kerravon86]

I dismissed "everything" that "everyone" said? What nonsense. Some people on the list made extremely valuable contributions. Some even provided extremely valuable code. Whatever this stuff was that I allegedly unreasonably dismissed, it apparently didn't stop getting PDOS working. Note that that was predominantly a mainframe list, and PDOS now works on real z/Arch hardware. And accesses 4 GiB of memory instead of being limited to 2 GiB. On real hardware. Despite being almost entirely S/370 code (generated by a slightly modified GCC 3.2.3).

[skissane]

I've interacted with kerravon86 in the past. I even contributed a little bit of the code in PDOS. After a while I lost interest in it though. One reason was that I'm used to developing software under macos/Linux using Make or whatever – even on Windows I tend to use Cygwin/MSYS2/etc – PDOS (at least when I was working on it) had a build system based on DOS/Windows batch files. kerravon might find that a pleasant developer experience, but the majority wouldn't.

I remember when I wanted to add a tiny bit of C99 compatibility to PDOS or PDPCLIB (I think it was just stdint.h and stdbool.h headers, or something like that) and (from memory) got the reply "no, C90 only". I mean it is his project, he can run it how he likes, but a strict insistence on C90-only doesn't really appeal to me (or I imagine most contemporary C programmers). I think part of his reason was wanting to support old pre-C99 compilers; but, while that might be a reason to avoid some of the more advanced C99 features (e.g. _Generic), there's nothing about stdint or stdbool which can't be done under C90. So that's another reason why I lost interest. kerravon, I feel like you've got some unusual views which you don't want to budge on. (To be fair, I do too, but less so on technical topics.) Which is fine, but maybe have a think about how other people will experience that?

I also subscribed to some of the Hercules lists, I think hercules-os380 too. I have read some of kerravon's posts. I remember some tendency to go off-topic, and start talking about religion (the Muʿtazilah branch of Islamic theology) and politics (NATO)–which some people can experience as off-putting. But, I'll be honest, a lot of the technical discussions there went over my head. I'd be interested in any examples of what you are talking about.