Dapple ][ is an emulator for the Apple ][, ][+, and //e computers (and to some extent the //c) supporting from 48-3136 K RAM, parallel ports, 2 Disk ][ drives, and a real 1.40 MB floppy drive. It is written in gcc and nasm (the nasm component is not currently source-available). It supersedes Dapple, which has many of the same features.
Re: IBM PC did not run CP/M
> The issue that fired this off is VB on
> Linux. The IBM PC and QDOS did not
> support CP/M.
Arguable; the PC did in fact support CP/M-86 and CP/M-86 was an option. Expensive, though; that's why PC DOS (=M$-DOS) at 1/10 the price took hold.
> What they provided was an
> easy migration path from CP/M. Linux
> should not have a VB implementation,
> Linux should have a translation system
> which turns VB scripts into Python, Ruby
> or whatever. It will be crappy Python
> (Ruby, or whatever) but it will not be
> VB script.
Forget Vi$ual Ba$ió, it's another MFTL, not the way to go. People need to learn *real* programming languages like C or Perl if they ever hope to compete in the real world.
> Let's put it together this way:
> What the beancounters are interested in
> is ``can we run our stuff on this system
> with minimal effort (cost) and get
> better results (benefit)?''
> What Linux, if it can be
> anthropomorphised for the sake of
> discussion, is interested in is being
> all things to all men so that it may
> spread and achieve world domination
Not Linux per se, but the distros, certainly.
> One area that Microsoft have had big
> wins in is allowing easy migration from
> other systems and meanwhile making it
> hard to migrate to other systems
> What programmers are interested in is
> creating something new and interesting
> What purists are interested in is
> migrating people not so much to Linux as
> to better systems
> What managers are interested in is not
> so much a better-faster-cheaper VB as a
> way to make their systems more
> manageable, predictable, debuggable
> Now, the obvious answer follows. Write a
> translator that eats VB and spits decent
> languages (you are permitted to define a
> ``decent language'' as anything you're
> prepared to write a back-end for. The
> front end has already been done by the
> ASP2PHP project. I say give the T-Shirt
> to Mr Naken!). Use Microsoft's own
> tactics against them, and let's see if
> they complain. (-:
> But wait! There's more!
> Microsoft are promoting .NET, which is
> basically just the MS rendition of Sun's
> Java run-anywhere idea. Microsoft, being
> Microsoft, will fsck it up on the first
> try and spend the rest of their
> corporate life layering on the bandaids
> - but that doesn't matter.
> Say for the sake of discussion (again)
> that we choose Python as a backend for
> this translater. Not only do we
> Instantlyhave run-anywhere -
Even, BTW, to Messy Dog!
Re: The demise of Linux, part 2
> Because I agree that things should be
> done the right way, I must agree with
> Naiciagam, and say that Linux has died a
> very bloody and painful death. At the
> heart of this argument is the fact that
> the GUIs have won, secondly, the fact
> that money has corrupted the heart of
> the Linux movement, and finally that
> there's nothing to do to save the
> The first flaw in the Linux world is
> that the GUIs have won. If you sit and
> watch several newsgroups related to
> Linux, you will see many, many, many
> problems with GUIs such as Gnome and
> KDE. The underlying problem here is NOT
> that GUIs are bad, far from it, but they
> are the wrong solution to an old
> problem, a problem of how to get new
> users to learn to use the computer.
> many of you know, the movement in the
> past five or so years has been to teach
> new users to the computer using an GUI
> as a way to &quot;ease&quot;
> them into &quot;serious&quot;
> computer usage (many times, using
> Microsoft Windows). However, in doing
> this, we have wrongly led these people
> to believe that the GUI is the silver
> bullet for the computer. Pretty soon,
> they wonder why DOS even existed, or
> even what DOS is. Our problem is that
> we expect new computer users to do too
> little, learn even less, and think even
> less than that.
One should learn IMHO the command line and migrate to the GUI afterwards (as I have - learned DOS/BASIC on ProDOS 8 1.11 in '84 and migrated to the GUI of ProDOS 16 1.3 in '88, or PC DOS 2.1 in 1992 and migrated to Losedoze 3.10 in '95).
> Back to the original
> point though, GUIs have destroyed the
> Linux environment. When I learned
> Linux, and computers in general, I
> learned at the command line. I learned
> what goes on behind the scenes, and I
> learned that there's more to the
> computer than the pretty programs that
> do everything for you. I learned what a
> pipe was, and what it was good for. I
> learned how to use one command to
> &quot;feed&quot; another, to
> &quot;feed&quot; another, and
> then send the result to a file, or to
> the printer, or to the screen, or to the
> network, etc. That's what Linux was
> meant to be. A UNIX clone. Something
> that a user could sit down at a simple
> command prompt and get some work done,
> without the interruption of a GUI or
> anything else. I am NOT a GUI basher.
Me neither, but as they say, if you want Windoze or MacOS, you know where to find it.
> If you want, use a GUI, but understand
> the underlying philosophy of the
> operating system and where it comes
> Money has warped our desires as well.
> Case in point, Red Hat. Red Hat started
> as just another distribution of Linux,
> but then it grew, and grew, and grew,
> and grew, and now it's &quot;The
> Microsoft Of The Linux World&quot;.
> It's the dummy distribution. It's also
> the worst distribution IMHO. If anybody
> here is looking for the people to port
> VB over, I guarantee that Red Hat will
> either fund it or take credit for it, or
> do it themselves. The prime motivator
> for Red Hat is money. Pure and simple.
> They have sold out. I'm sure I'm not
> the first person to make this argument.
> The underlying philosophy for Red Hat
> used to be quality, but now it's
> &quot;converting&quot; new users
> from Windows, making a profit, and
> making their stock rise. One can now
> run Linux, and have it use the look and
> feel of Windows programs, thanks to Red
> Hat and crew. I applaud you for being a
> nail in the coffin for Linux. Linus
> himself cautioned against Linux being an
> emulation platform, a comment which Red
> Hat must have ignored.
Hence, the name "Hed Rat".
> The movement is over. Every revolution
> has a counter-revolution, every movement
> has a counter-movement, in this case,
> the belief that closed-source software
> will run everywhere it says it will and
> easily. One could argue that Linux was
> crushed by their counter-movement.
> Linux tried to become more like Windows;
Distros did. Linux didn't.
> the only problem with this is that each
> vendor tried DIFFERENT ways of doing it.
> This in and of itself was a burden, but
> EVEN worse, when we got a
> vendor-independent way of doing it
> (Gnome or KDE, pick your poison) it
> became bloated. I can install Windows
> 95 in 50 Megs on my hard drive. I can't
> install Linux + Gnome in that space
> because Gnome alone eats up about twice
> that amount. When the average Joe sees
> that, he's going to think,
> &quot;Microsoft has done it cheaper
> and quicker, therefore it must be
> 'right'&quot;. Unfortunatly, Linux
> is trying to overcome that mentality,
> but they're fighting the wrong battle.
> They should worry more about how to
> compete based on merits than look,
> however, we've given up that battle.
The Apple IIgs had a nice, Mac-like GUI in 800K with room to spare.
Can't this be done on the PC?