Subject: pine for OS/2!

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Coronella)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 22:01:59 GMT

With the new release of OS/2 Warp (3.0), there is (or will be) a significant 
demand for a product such as pine for OS/2.  More and more people will be 
switching to OS/2 in the future, and the only mailers currently available for 
OS/2 are clearly inadequate.  

Please, please please!

Chuck Coronella
Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering Department
University of Nevada, Reno
[email-masked]

---

From: Dieter Simader <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 20:50:45 -0700 (MST)

> University of Nevada, Reno
I doubt that there will be a flud of DOS, Windows or whatever users 
switching to OS/2.
OS/2 has its limitations and there isn't enough support for it out there.
Besides, I believe you can use PC-Pine in a DOS box too.
Maybe ask IBM. Their address for OS/2 is [email-masked]

--
Dieter Simader
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (michael alan dorman)
Date: 29 Nov 1994 14:59:59 GMT

>On Mon, 28 Nov 1994, Chuck Coronella wrote:

First, I'd like to sort of echo Chuck's thoughts, though maybe to
a lesser intensity.
 
>I doubt that there will be a flud of DOS, Windows or whatever users 

OK.  How does your doubt in any way relate to Chuck's posting other
than to merely cast aspersion?

>OS/2 has its limitations and there isn't enough support for it out there.

You could at least append an IMAO to this.  Just what are those limitations
and what do you mean by "isn't enough support"?

>Besides, I believe you can use PC-Pine in a DOS box too.

Why should he limit himself?  Just to conform to your attitudes?

>Maybe ask IBM. Their address for OS/2 is [email-masked]

Your sole suggestion is "Ask IBM because I don't know anything about it?"

Why did you respond to this post, Dieter, since you had nothing of
value to add?  One might think you were trolling, since you spend an
awful lot of time making insubstantial allegations against OS/2?

Were you trolling?

If I were Chuck, I might ask the PINE authors if they've had any experience
using one of the several versions of PINE with IBM's TCP/IP for DOS.  None
of them are explicitly listed as such.  I also have not explored the DOS
Box interface enough to know if it conforms to something standard like
the pktdvr interface, but I suspect it might not.

Mike.
--
Michael Alan Dorman, Unemployed Computer Genius
"You don't know how it feels to be me."

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Loflin)
Date: 29 Nov 1994 10:16:11 -0600

>the pktdvr interface, but I suspect it might not.

Back just before the release of Pine 3.90, Farzad Farid and I were working on
porting Pine to OS/2, console mode.  Actually, he ported 3.89 to OS/2, and
I got the newer C-client library working (including mtest).  We never did
get together & get 3.90 (or 3.91) working under OS/2, but I haven't heard
from him in a while.  Perhaps he's been busy...?  

--Don Loflin
  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Farzad Farid)
Date: 30 Nov 1994 11:19:10 GMT

> from him in a while.  Perhaps he's been busy...?  

 Here I am, back from my trainship at IBM Research :)
I've got a working port of Pine 3.89 under OS/2, I've used it without
any loss of mail for a few months. But the port is not very clean
though and imap has not been tested at all.
 Unfortunately I don't run OS/2 anymore for the moment and I have no
time yet to work on another port. I've got an archive of my pine
sources archived in a zip file I can't even read (HPFS needed). If
anyone wants it, just email me and I'll make it available by FTP.

--
/----------------------------------------------------------\
| Farzad FARID                                             |
| [email-masked]                Ecole Centrale Paris   |
|                                                          |
| There are two major products that come out of Berkeley:  |
| LSD and Unix. We don't believe this to be a coincidence  |
|                                   Jeremy S. Anderson     |
\----------------------------------------------------------/

---

From: [email-masked] (michael alan dorman)
Date: 30 Nov 1994 12:52:53 GMT

>though and imap has not been tested at all.

Um, what compiler were you using?  I use C/Set++, and wouldn't want
to continue this if it meant working with emx/gcc -- not that I have
anything against emx, it's just that I don't have enough diskspace
to keep two compilers around.

Other than that, I'd be interested in trying to fit the changes you
made to 3.89 to 3.91 and generally bringing OS/2 support up to date
(and maybe even into the realm of "supported platform").

However, I have a sinking feeling that it'd require emx...

Mike.