Hey Nancy!

> Especially mine, which is FROM the good ol' less bloated days

Yep.  Definetly a throwback on a throwback.  ;-)

> Dunno about the unix world, but I know that I keep hearing about
> qedit here in the Fido world.

Lean and mean.  Extremely functional too for it's size.  The version I used
was ~60k but couldn't handle filesizes much greater than 500k which was
never an issue.  Still isn't despite the bloated editors these days.

> but I know I've heard others talk about using it with their
> setups, still

No surprise here.  If there was a Unix version I'd probably be using it.

> genealogy programs, and bbs'ing and BlueWave, and a music
> writing program, etc, which came along as we went.

Interesting.

> Can't you use DOSbox?

Not sure.  I did use dosemu briefly on the first linux install on ye ol'
486 while I got back into the swing of using a Unix based box again after
about a hiatus from that world of about 5 years.  It wasn't that much of a
hiatus given that I was using a c compiler on dos to get it to
'emulate' Unix but it wasn't actually a Unix system so I call it a hiatus.
DOS emulation lasted about a week or two.  I haven't been tempted since.
Now that I am doing EVERYTHING 64 bit I doubt very much I could even if I
wanted to.  I think it would be wiser to keep everything native and just
output compatible files for the rest of the world that still hasn't wised
up.  ;-)

> I hear people discussing using that, that are using linux
> linux systems

The heathen bastards!!!

> as well as the ones with the more modern Windows bloatware

At least they have a good excuse.

> and they are all telnet, not dialup

With hacked zmodem capabilties.

> only use telnet.

Which telnet?  None of the unix based ones use zmodem.  Never did, probably
never will.

Anyhow I still haven't tried the zmodem here but definetly would need to
hack telnet or use the perl scripting idea to weazle it in.  I have yet to
see the usual telnet suspects work with any DOS based protocols without
hacking.

> By the time DOS is set to die,

The last person to say that to me was around five years ago and my response
to him was, "simply ghosts who have yet to recongnize their own
demise."  How new is your newest application on that box and how old
is that box?  I would be willing to bet that you couldn't get that to run
on a modern box.

> We aren't into upgrading for the sake of upgrading

Excellent plan.

> I've got some things on the computer to view jpg, gif, even pdf
> files, so I can even look at the pretty pictures on websites if
> I'm so inclined after all

Same here except I didn't bother with gif.  No gui either.  All pure 64 bit
apps running on a pure 64 bit system.  Editting this reply which will be
read on your 16 bit DOS.  A pure 64 bit compiler as well to take care of
any other issues that might come up in the future.

> What more do I need...?

Absolutely nothing.  However if and when the time comes my OS will install
and run on machines yet to be built as well as ones that are already built.
 Also I do have a 32 bit version of the same so it could easily run on a
486 albiet a heck of alot more slowly and not much promise of a future.  I
doubt you can make the same claim.

> The death of BBSing has been touted for years, but it's still
> chugging along

Somewhat.  I still prefer them and will keep using them if it is possible to.

> and I've noticed some oldtimers returning

I saw that too.  Seems to happen in cycles although the peaks are lower and
lower with each successive repeat.

 MK> Hm.  Why am I doing any of this?  I seem to have forgotten.

> Because it's there?

Something like that.  I think it is more that I am a real sucker for punishment.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag