OS2 World.Com Forum

Subject  :  SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  25 Jun, 2006 on 04:36
What is the status of SVista for using with eComStation 2.0 with eCS as the host operating system? Will it be part of the basic eCS 2.0 GA, part of an application pack, or would a direct purchase of SVista be more applicable in the future?

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  dljone9 dljone9@os2world.com
Date  :  28 Jun, 2006 on 11:29
Good question - I purchased this product, and was somewhat let down by
the fact that it never really appeared to get out of "beta" in terms of it's
usefullness and quality. I find the the older Innotek "Connectix" port to be
more useful and reliable.

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  melf mikaelelf@os2ug.se
Date  :  28 Jun, 2006 on 18:07
I don't know if this brings som clarity to you, but this is the last announcement about SVISTA that Bob St John have done, in sept 2005.
http://www.serenityvirtual.com/forums/showthread.php?s=a0116a9a12738d9a36b83682593b652f&threadid=1713

---
/Mikael

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  30 Jun, 2006 on 20:57
My initial SVista question is meant for proper planning ahead.

For example, I am a bi-vocational minister where most "mandatory software" is now tightly written only to the windows platform either for biblical studies, or from where I pay the bills which is employee benefits & insurance. Here the development race seems to be how can directx & registry be integrated into internet explorer (to be pretend firefox with tabs) and into windows net (to be pretend java).

My interest as a SOHO in SVista is simply to have the ability to turn a still lock-up prone windows operating system into "an application;" to operate from the coming eCS 2.0 as the host workstation which is the primary concept behind eComStation, and; to retain the joy of using our Workplace Shell's extensible & multi-threaded stability.

I have inexpensivly purchased some eBay-sourced IBM VisualAge enterprise & workgroup editions for development such as DB2, Smalltalk, TeamConnection, Java, Domino/Notes 4.6, etc. where they will networked from a separate NT server(s). These apps were accumulated because of their equivalent OS/2 native platforms, and the availabilty of IBM's prolific documentation.

Also, the OS/2 equivilent VisualAge side can be installed into an SVista virtual machine due to its low resources overhead vs. XP, and; some "NT-only available development" can be then replicated over to this OS/2 side.

I put "most of the inspiration blame" on Doug Clark's superb "ODBC on OS/2" series a few years ago in OS/2 eZine. This ODBC article series should be on everybody's OS/2 reading list.

Can you buy the SVista host separately from eCS? => Yes! => and that may be what is done in the end. However, it would be nice to know if an SVista eCS host will somehow be available with the coming eCS 2.0 GA.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  zman zirkle@wizard.net
Date  :  01 Jul, 2006 on 01:33
i was at warpstock in hershey. i spoke to mr st. john. he could not be commital; but, i got a bad feeling about its future. i bought svista and was terribly disappointed with it. it doesn't come anywhere close to virtual pc which is in service here now.

i have to consider other options for my company's network because there are too many other unaddressed problems like: flash v9, new technical documents requiring adobe reader 6 or higher, skype, high definition television, obsolete java, javascript issues.

i just don't see the money to address these problems. while i appreciate innotek's effort, their focus is migration away from os/2. they have not released anything substantive for years.

microsoft released a free version of virtual pc that runs on xp. this "server version" lacks sound support for the guest os. i suspect you should consider restricting os/2 to being a guest os as i am. i'd only use os/2 and firefox to manage the finances online and get email.

i have the vista beta; but, have not had time to play with it. this machine is running ecs2.0beta. if a virtual vm does appear, cost would not allow it to be bundled with ecs2.0. users would doom it by complaining that the price is too high and that computing in the era of the '90s should be just fine. well ... sorry, the '90s as well as the '00s are basically over. i've seen this happen over and over. :{


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  03 Jul, 2006 on 15:52
These Bob St. John thoughts were taken from the SVista Forum link kindly provided by melf...

"Parallels, the developer of SVISTA, was acquired by another company towards the end of last year. Initially, we were assured that SVISTA would be continued."

"Parallels was not interested in an OS/2 host. This host was developed for SSI by eCoSoft with consulting services from Parallels. So, we will continue to develop and support SVISTA/2 with the same team which created it."

"Future releases of SVISTA on other platforms will have to be done by a completely different resource."

"I appreciate that I will start again, except for the SVISTA/2 product."

It would seem at a minimum that the OS/2 SVista Host is still viable. This would be of greatest interest to this fourm's community as there are so few OS/2 Host options after the buyouts of Virtual PC & Parallels by their respective newest current owners.

Hopefully, SSI can continue to develop the other host platforms which overall is good business for them.

It would also appear from looking at some other SVista Forum blogs that there are two areas that needed fine-tuned which is support for USB and sound.

Any other thoughts out there in OS/2 & eCS land?


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  cytan
Date  :  03 Jul, 2006 on 22:07
I have SVista and it has worked ok for me. I have loaded NT in it and usually run Mathematica and M$ office readers in it. It's ok. Peformance in SVista is an issue and so is stability.

There is another virtual machine BOCHS/2 which was released recently (seach os2world) which I did not try. It may be the alternative to SVista.

Personally, I think OS/2 must have a virtual machine since alot of stuff is only available in Windows. Unfortunately ODIN is dead, or else that would have been the best way to go.

cytan


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  23 Jan, 2007 on 05:07
As Simon & Garfinkle once sang, would not this seem to explain some of the "Sounds of Silence?"

Linux-Watch just published the following: "Two leading virtualization companies are one."

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3134981060.html

So, Parallels has not been owned by themsleves for the past year, but had the secret owner, SWsoft, Inc. Just perhaps this Linux host emphasis of Virtuozzo/Parallels complicated matters for eCS-OS/2 virtualization.

My original question is still: Wouldn't it be nice to at least know of the status of SVista in eCS 2.0?

The new open-sourcing of VirtualBox seems to hold some promise for USB & sound & video compatibility for an eCS-OS/2 host.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  23 Jan, 2007 on 15:04
VirtualBox's USB support is terrible in windows hosts, i doubt it will be any good in OS/2 if even supported. On top of that, I ran a few different os's in virtualbox and found it to be far slower (windows host) then the old VPC 5.1 OS/2 host.


Terry (23 Jan, 2007 05:23):
As Simon & Garfinkle once sang, would not this seem to explain some of the "Sounds of Silence?"

Linux-Watch just published the following: "Two leading virtualization companies are one."

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3134981060.html

So, Parallels has not been owned by themsleves for the past year, but had the secret owner, SWsoft, Inc. Just perhaps this Linux host emphasis of Virtuozzo/Parallels complicated matters for eCS-OS/2 virtualization.

My original question is still: Wouldn't it be nice to at least know of the status of SVista in eCS 2.0?

The new open-sourcing of VirtualBox seems to hold some promise for USB & sound & video compatibility for an eCS-OS/2 host.



Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  dljone9 dljone9@os2world.com
Date  :  23 Jan, 2007 on 21:30
>My original question is still: Wouldn't it be nice to at least know of the >status of SVista in eCS 2.0?

Serenity has done little (or nothing) to encourage OS/2 users to
hold out hope for SVista's future - charged the user for a beta,
then failed to deliver a viable product. I still use VPC 5.1 here - I
applaud their efforts and I think it's a shame that their relationship
w/ the developers broke down.

Hopefully something else will emerge as viable in it's place...as
Serenity appears to have given up on virtualization for OS/2...


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  jer jksamphere@yahoo.com
Date  :  25 Jan, 2007 on 02:07
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eComStation/message/72983

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  zman zirkle@wizard.net
Date  :  25 Jan, 2007 on 21:19
the url confirms what i wrote above. even hints that the "business case for desktop os/2" is not strong enough! note the emphasis shift to servers.

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  25 Jan, 2007 on 22:51

jer (25 Jan, 2007 02:07):
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eComStation/message/72983

"jer" - Thank you very much. At least, now we know. I would suggest to anyone viewing here to read the whole response and the rest of the thread's input.

Here's some selected "Bob St. John" from the SVista Forum...

I have not made public statements regarding follow on because it is against my professional policies to discuss "futures" until there are commitments. I don't like producing "vapor" which may cause someone to make decisions. I've been criticized for this "close to the vest" approach and this criticism is likely to continue.

But I will share some information. First, SVISTA as presently constituted cannot continue without the support from Parallels. Regrettable.

In researching a replacement, the organization which best meets the needs of SSI is the group which owns the Win4Lin products. http://www.win4lin.com

What I'm considering is a verstion of eComStation which will include eComStation 2.x. The packaging will include an SVISTA based on Win4Lin with support for eComStation, and a distribution of Linux, possibly Debian.

SO: JUST A COUPLE THINKING OUT LOUD(S)...

[1] Assuming the use of a SVista/win4lin-supported linux host, and it would be Debian, would it not make more sense to use something like Freespire which is Debian-based and with an extremely strong commitment to current multimedia & driver support?

[2] With the purchase of a revamped SVista package, would it not be more feasible to ignore the Innotek eCS OpenOffice offering, and simply download the complimentary Linux version of OpenOffice and offset the additional product cost?

For Example - Is it not true that the Innotek OpenOffice does not have full native OS/2 WPS integration as a windows port? My personal preference is Lotus WordPro & Lotus Approach anyhow, but it would still be nice to have OpenOffice.

[3] Would a win4lin BSD host also be offered as there is now win4BSD from win4lin?

A few years ago there was an I.A.C.T. article about the ease of network compatibility (from UNIX-roots) between OS/2 & FreeBSD (and by default the newer FreeBSD branch of PC-BSD).

QUESTIONS: What are the plus-es and minus-es here? Host vs. Guest? Server vs. Client? Etc.?

P.S.: The more grassroots developmental-specific aspects of eCS-OS/2 virtualization are covered at "Scitech, SNAP and OS/2..." http://www.os2world.com/cgi-bin/ultraboard/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=20&TID=460&P=1#ID460


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  26 Jan, 2007 on 02:00
Mr. St. John also makes the distinction between business decisions and advocacy. The "OS/2 community" wants what all the individuals collectively want for OS/2, but the businesses involved will only do what makes good business sense (profit). So it does not seem necessary to label any of the involved parties as good or bad based on their commitment to "The Cause." In the end, the companies will develop what the consumers pay for, and abandon what they don't, and it is up to the so-called "advocates" to maintain or replace those things that the companies no longer provide, and the community to be supportive.

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  26 Jan, 2007 on 06:30
There is only one path unfortunately, that path is either supply all the drivers which an OS/2 system would need to work natively on hardware which is purchased today, or stop trying to market ecs/os2 and admit defeat. This round and round to virtualization is annoying. If you are going to release a OS which runs in virtualization inside of another OS there is no reason to release it in the first place. This isn't like skyos which is a development beta and as such needs a fresh install each time so it doesn't make sense for it to not be in virtualization. This is an established product.. with an unfortunately dwindling market share. Honestly I doubt Serenity is making anything on OS/2. I think for the most part it is a labor of love.. I wish the actual developers involved were better, and compensated better as well but... I've been looking at alternatives for my OS/2 system for some time.. so far nothing has really peaked my interest.. but with snap development ceased (and still not able to suspend my monitor through dvi which is a terrible nasty bug).. I can't see myself sticking around too much longer (I've probably used OS/2 as long if not longer then most people on here, my uncle (who worked for ibm) brought me home copy of OS/2 1.0beta =) and i've been hooked since. The annoying thing about the os/2 community is you always hear rumors of something great just around the corner.. there was the day of "Win95 support to be included in warp4" Lol.. I remember the betas.. I remember looking for some indication of that coming.. and it never amounted to anything.. I remember "hardware accelerated opengl is in the works" Yeah. Umm. I'm waiting. Yeah If I shell out a couple mil I can get a toolkit to make my driver for it... .. umm.. ok. Oh and all the amazing features they were working on for OS/2 for PowerPC ::sigh:: and more recently flash... more up to date java.. innotek virtualbox (not that i have any interest in it).. Pixel for OS/2 (which I paid for and can never become a real application due to the bugs in OS/2's version of SDL including no HDR support). Openoffice 2.. which is kinda cool.. Antialiased fonts in ALL os/2 applications (I was using innoteks font driver for all apps for a while but was getting tired of the memory leaks), A mediaplayer replacement which works with MOST media (warpvision is great, but it crashes ALOT, doesn't play much, and sometimes refuses to play something which it played 4 mins ago). I could go on.

Virtualization is the least of our concerns. We either need to work to keep OS/2 viable as a REAL os. Or just admit the time has come to move on.


obiwan (26 Jan, 2007 02:00):
Mr. St. John also makes the distinction between business decisions and advocacy. The "OS/2 community" wants what all the individuals collectively want for OS/2, but the businesses involved will only do what makes good business sense (profit). So it does not seem necessary to label any of the involved parties as good or bad based on their commitment to "The Cause." In the end, the companies will develop what the consumers pay for, and abandon what they don't, and it is up to the so-called "advocates" to maintain or replace those things that the companies no longer provide, and the community to be supportive.

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  26 Jan, 2007 on 16:03

Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
(...) Honestly I doubt Serenity is making anything on OS/2. I think for the most part it is a labor of love.. (...)

I think you're really wrong about this.
Naturally I can't say anything really about this: only Bob St. John could (if he wanted to), but I really doubt he would keep on with eCS if it wasn't a sensible business choice.
Remember that US and European companies involved with eCS don't like to spread the word. BTW I think mr. StJohn is making more money out of eCS than most of us think.

Bye


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  ecsguy
Date  :  26 Jan, 2007 on 17:21

Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
There is only one path unfortunately, that path is either supply all the drivers which an OS/2 system would need to work natively on hardware which is purchased today

It is impossible to write drivers fast enough. The Linux guys have many factors times more developers and they can not keep up. And you also have the vendors that will not release specs like nVidia.


Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
, or stop trying to market ecs/os2 and admit defeat.

We aren't defeated. In fact we are in a better position than we otherwise would be.

The growth of open source has helped eComStation tremendously.

Virtualization will also provide a big boost.

Both help level the playing field.


Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
This round and round to virtualization is annoying. If you are going to release a OS which runs in virtualization inside of another OS there is no reason to release it in the first place.

Sure there is. There are lots of reasons to continue to use eComStation even if there is another layer under it. Have you noticed that the BIOS chip on new motherboards is 4MB!. When I first started I used to run OS/2 with PM in 4MB. I don't pine about that as wasted space. With OS/2 Warp4 my boot partition used to be 50MB now it is 500MB. But even with the increased resource consumption todays machines are significantly faster. Noticed that Intel and AMD aren't racing each other over the top GHz any more. They topped out on that. It is cpu cores now. Virtualization is a similar thing. The cpu platforms of the future are designed and assume that the main OS and apps will be virtualized.

The tables have turned on Microsoft.

When OS/2 Warp4 and ms win95 were released OS/2 really needed more hardware to run well than win95. But have you seen Microsoft VISTA specs.

To install and run the core functionality of Windows Vista, you need a minimum (for probably for snail slow response):
* An 800 MHz processor
* 512 MB of RAM
* A 20 GB hard drive with 15 GB of free space
To really run VISTA you probably should have:
* A 3GHz processor
* 1GB MB of RAM
* A 40 GB hard drive with 20 GB of free space

Things have changed a lot. A ms win user castoff machine that will not run VISTA well could actually run eComStation faster than the users new VISTA machine. A decent VISTA machine probably will run a virtualized eComStation faster than it will run VISTA.

Virtualization is the future. Even for home desktop users. Virtualization provides additional flexibility and security.

And for eComStation it provides one tool out of the driver trap. We want as many native eCS drivers as the developers can create. But it will be enough. Virtualization has an important place.

Also there has to be a tradeoff. More native drivers or more native apps that really take advantage of WPS. The native WPS apps is the reason to keep using eComStation.

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.echannelline.com/usa/story.cfm?item=21573

Virtualization weakens OS importance

15 January, 2007
By Patricia Pickett


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  26 Jan, 2007 on 18:33
First of all, every device in my pc is supproted, anytime you use an other then mainstream OS you're going to have to be selective about what hardware you choose. There are actually few drivers which we NEED written, better wireless support would be nice, we have cups coming up for printing support, a good replacement for IBMLS is needed (samba in it's current OS/2 port form is FAR FROM, in fact, on my ecs machine I can't even get it to load, though my similarly configured warp4 machine it is working fine). Uniaud supports all audio.. Snap (hopefully will continue to do the same for video) and all we need is uniLAN =) it is inevitable that someone in the linux community will eventually create something to fill this need..

If we cannot write drivers fast enough, and we cannot use OS/2 as AN ACTUAL OPERATING SYSTEM, then it is defeated. OS/2 is not an application, it is an OS. If the only viable way to continue using it is inside of a VM then there is NO POINT TO USE IT. We don't have any killer apps.. we have quick nasty ports. The only thing which makes OS/2 unique is it's resource usage, and overall stability. Put it in a VM and you're adding resource usage, and you might as well USE whater OS the host is because most likely they have a better version of whatever crummy ported software we're trying to use anyway.


Virtualization is the future for SERVERS. To not to be tied of one platform for SERVING makes sense. For a home user, or even an enthusist it makes NO SENSE. Why support more then one OS when ONE does everything anyway. Virtualization isn't for Joe Smith to go to compusa and buy a computer and get 4 os's with his computer. Joe Smith wouldn't even know how to USE 4 os's. It is for IBM to continue using OS/2 for servering 3 customers while they concentrate on Linux for their new customers and not have to have a seperate piece of hardware for OS/2. I think ecsguy you put too much faith in Virtualization, and cris.. you put too much into SSI actually making money on OS/2. Yes, there may be some huge corporations lurking in secret, with huge plans for OS/2 and dumping loads of money into SSI, but it is more likely that they are only supporting it because to this point they haven't LOST money on it. There is no huge boom around the corner. OS/2 isn't going to come back into style because someone wants something to use up one of their 12 processor cores. It isn't going to gain mainstream acceptance.

I will use it as long as it is viable for me, and it WOULD NOT be viable for me virtualized. All it would do, is push me into the inevitable replacement of OS/2 on my machine. I mean hell.. it wouldn't even be on my file server except I haven't found a version of openjfs which can mount an OS/2 formated JFS drive without data loss .. lol.

You can stop posting news articles about it, I've read these things as they are written. People who write technology reviews no more understand the technology then most of the people (trying) to use it. You think I am going to change my mind about something because some reported writes an article about something they think will be important. If that was the case, everyone would actually be USING OS/2, Microsoft would be bankrupt, AMD would have overcome Intel 3 years ago, computers would all fit into cellphones.. and I could go on.

The market is actually making VM's kinda amusing right now, because as you claim their importance is rising, the actual market is dwindling. The opensource and consolidation of vm software is causing poorer and poorer applications to be released. They are making it financially unviable to actually release a vm application. Honestly.. microsoft bought connectix to dump VPC (which was one of the best vm's of its time). They consolidate it into their server software (where it may actually get used) and take it off the market to end users. People don't care about virtualization, all they want is to turn on their computer, have it boot (to an interface they are accustomed to) and work. Running multiple OS's which don't conform to one another, having files and data trapped within virtual machines.. this is all pointless.


ecsguy (26 Jan, 2007 17:21):

Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
There is only one path unfortunately, that path is either supply all the drivers which an OS/2 system would need to work natively on hardware which is purchased today

It is impossible to write drivers fast enough. The Linux guys have many factors times more developers and they can not keep up. And you also have the vendors that will not release specs like nVidia.


Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
, or stop trying to market ecs/os2 and admit defeat.

We aren't defeated. In fact we are in a better position than we otherwise would be.

The growth of open source has helped eComStation tremendously.

Virtualization will also provide a big boost.

Both help level the playing field.


Sebadoh (26 Jan, 2007 06:30):
This round and round to virtualization is annoying. If you are going to release a OS which runs in virtualization inside of another OS there is no reason to release it in the first place.

Sure there is. There are lots of reasons to continue to use eComStation even if there is another layer under it. Have you noticed that the BIOS chip on new motherboards is 4MB!. When I first started I used to run OS/2 with PM in 4MB. I don't pine about that as wasted space. With OS/2 Warp4 my boot partition used to be 50MB now it is 500MB. But even with the increased resource consumption todays machines are significantly faster. Noticed that Intel and AMD aren't racing each other over the top GHz any more. They topped out on that. It is cpu cores now. Virtualization is a similar thing. The cpu platforms of the future are designed and assume that the main OS and apps will be virtualized.

The tables have turned on Microsoft.

When OS/2 Warp4 and ms win95 were released OS/2 really needed more hardware to run well than win95. But have you seen Microsoft VISTA specs.

To install and run the core functionality of Windows Vista, you need a minimum (for probably for snail slow response):
* An 800 MHz processor
* 512 MB of RAM
* A 20 GB hard drive with 15 GB of free space
To really run VISTA you probably should have:
* A 3GHz processor
* 1GB MB of RAM
* A 40 GB hard drive with 20 GB of free space

Things have changed a lot. A ms win user castoff machine that will not run VISTA well could actually run eComStation faster than the users new VISTA machine. A decent VISTA machine probably will run a virtualized eComStation faster than it will run VISTA.

Virtualization is the future. Even for home desktop users. Virtualization provides additional flexibility and security.

And for eComStation it provides one tool out of the driver trap. We want as many native eCS drivers as the developers can create. But it will be enough. Virtualization has an important place.

Also there has to be a tradeoff. More native drivers or more native apps that really take advantage of WPS. The native WPS apps is the reason to keep using eComStation.

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.echannelline.com/usa/story.cfm?item=21573

Virtualization weakens OS importance

15 January, 2007
By Patricia Pickett



Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  27 Jan, 2007 on 02:20
As Terry subtly pointed out, the "Green Eggs and Ham" debate about the establishment of eCS as a virtualized guest has been covered ad nauseam in another thread. I would gently invite all interested to read and re-read that, as all that might be said about it seems to be there already.

Sebadoh is absolutely right that development of eComStation, particularly keeping pace with hardware changes, is hard-going, on account of the small userbase, and there is very little likelihood of the userbase expanding dramatically because it does not have inherent mass appeal, and that is partly because OS/2 lags well behind other platforms in support for popular applications and media. The problem I have with the remarks is that there is nothing new about them. This has been true of OS/2 for at least the past decade, and we all have accepted it. To belabor that now in 2007 is really pointless, bringing no benefit to anyone.

Migration from OS/2 has been IBM's advice since about 1998 iirc, and it is and has been a perfectly viable option for any one of us all of this time.

Clearly OS/2 is highly appealing to some, as evidenced by our all still going to the trouble. If our reasons are invalid, and we can do what we want better on other platforms, than we have only our own foolishness to blame. But if we have good reason, then we have to accept the downsides, because they are real.

What is the point of an OS/2 user ranting against OS/2? To make sure all OS/2 users drop it at the same time?

The developers who are releasing OS/2 software for us to use, and those who host these sites for collaboration and downloads, deserve a lot more credit.

Virtualization is neither the salvation nor the deathblow of OS/2.

And no, companies do not develop software at a loss because they love it. They simply develop as much as the income permits them, and no more.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  27 Jan, 2007 on 16:53
But I disagree. I advocate OS/2. In fact, while I posted that message I was helping someone install it onto their system. However, if the decision is made to more or less cease development of drivers for a virtualzation path where you just need drivers for the vm, then I do think it is the last hurrah as far as OS/2 goes. OS/2 has managed to avoid obsoletion on many occasions. There have been press about it no longer being.. err "alive" (if this is possible for an Operating System) since the early 90's. But as I point out, the problem of making it more or less dependent on a vm is the problem that the vm inherently has another operating system layer below it, and this OS obviously would have to have better hardware support. So, how long would it take before you weren't even using OS/2 at all? The WPS is great.. few operating systems even try to mimic it's functionality, but the wps is only as functional as the apps on it. I don't think that if you take the 4-5 people who are working on drivers that we're going to see a huge increase of great wps enabled apps. Also, alot of device driver development is cumulative. Like ACPI.. once they get it functioning correctly, it will most likely not require any development effort. GenMac isn't even a REAL driver, it's just a wrapper for windows ndis drivers... again, adding support for newer cards shouldn't take took much effort. Admittedly we'd need someone to take over development of snap and make a deal with whomever purchases it. Uniaud is "good enough" keeping it up to date with the newer alsa ports shouldn't be too taxing. Then what do you have? USB? We have decent support for USB right now, better then alot of other non-windows OS. However it could get better, but again this is a static target, once it is done, it is done. Hard drives? Ok... I have had decent support with dani and sata... sure it doesn't support raid.. but REALLY, does OS/2 NEED RAID? File access read/write on this system using a 350gig SATA 7200RPM drive with JFS on all partitions (bootable jfs in ecs beta 2a3) kills my windows machine which has a sataII raid on two of the same drive.

I hate to disagree because mostly I do agree with you obiwan and I don't want to get into the argument of vm's with ecsguy again because obviously we disagree but there is the inevitable fact that one thing will eventually be the undoing of the ecs/os2 community.. and I really do believe that would be tossing OS/2 in a virtual session on top of ANY other OS.. because what really is the encouragement for someone to wait another 30-50seconds to use an operating system which hasn't had a major update since the early 90's?

I appreciate the work the developers do.. it truly is them that has kept OS/2 a viable option for a long time. I am not saying there should be a mass exodus. I am just point out that we will only remain viable as long as we actually support the product. ecsguy whining about how much time developing drivers takes and if it wasn't for that we'd have more/better applications.. it is an important balance. Until great progress is made with voyager (which i am still mixed about but I can see that it could be a interesting project) which is planning to be platform neutral and run ontop of another OS (NOT IN VIRTUALIZATION) OS/2 has to remain a viable OS to install on your hardware. Most people aren't going to shell out 160 dollars for something if you tell them you need to install it on top of something else =) Especially if you tell them why their 160 dollar investment can't do those things itself.

BTW.. I didn't say SSI was supporting eCS for the "love" of it, I said it was a labor of love.. meaning that the net gains for them are negliable. Basically the same thing you're saying.. they support it as much as the income would allow. They are not making truck loads of cash.. nor are they blindly throwing it away. The idea that there is some great amount of financial backing behind it is ludacris.

Anyway.. I'm gonna go back into lurking mode


obiwan (27 Jan, 2007 07:32):
As Terry subtly pointed out, the "Green Eggs and Ham" debate about the establishment of eCS as a virtualized guest has been covered ad nauseam in another thread. I would gently invite all interested to read and re-read that, as all that might be said about it seems to be there already.

Sebadoh is absolutely right that development of eComStation, particularly keeping pace with hardware changes, is hard-going, on account of the small userbase, and there is very little likelihood of the userbase expanding dramatically because it does not have inherent mass appeal, and that is partly because OS/2 lags well behind other platforms in support for popular applications and media. The problem I have with the remarks is that there is nothing new about them. This has been true of OS/2 for at least the past decade, and we all have accepted it. To belabor that now in 2007 is really pointless, bringing no benefit to anyone.

Migration from OS/2 has been IBM's advice since about 1998 iirc, and it is and has been a perfectly viable option for any one of us all of this time.

Clearly OS/2 is highly appealing to some, as evidenced by our all still going to the trouble. If our reasons are invalid, and we can do what we want better on other platforms, than we have only our own foolishness to blame. But if we have good reason, then we have to accept the downsides, because they are real.

What is the point of an OS/2 user ranting against OS/2? To make sure all OS/2 users drop it at the same time?

The developers who are releasing OS/2 software for us to use, and those who host these sites for collaboration and downloads, deserve a lot more credit.

Virtualization is neither the salvation nor the deathblow of OS/2.

And no, companies do not develop software at a loss because they love it. They simply develop as much as the income permits them, and no more.



Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  27 Jan, 2007 on 21:03

Terry (25 Jan, 2007 23:03):
[1] Assuming the use of a SVista/win4lin-supported linux host, and it would be Debian, would it not make more sense to use something like Freespire which is Debian-based and with an extremely strong commitment to current multimedia & driver support?

As I understand the post, it would seem the idea is to set up a minimal Linux base as transparent as possible. Debian seems a suitable starting point to assemble just what is needed for a host. Whether it borrows from Linspire or Ubuntu, the description of "Debian-based" is still valid. I don't think he means that the distributed Linux host OS would be a complete and supported desktop. Though of course I don't know.


[2] With the purchase of a revamped SVista package, would it not be more feasible to ignore the Innotek eCS OpenOffice offering, and simply download the complimentary Linux version of OpenOffice and offset the additional product cost?

Maybe. Depends how well that works on the desktop, and whether the OpenOffice port develops more OS/2-specific features.


[3] Would a win4lin BSD host also be offered as there is now win4BSD from win4lin?

I doubt that multiple host bases would be developed by SSI as a marketed and sold product, but the potential is there.


QUESTIONS: What are the plus-es and minus-es here? Host vs. Guest? Server vs. Client? Etc.?

I wonder about the marketability of such a product in any form. As others have pointed out here, virtualization is a funny game, with profitability being sucked out of it. With the strong opinions of OS/2 users, it would not seem that the market for eComStation would be anywhere close to the same as a guest OS, even with a "transparent" host. I would rather see other OS's features "grafted" into eComStation. I get the impression Mr. St. John would rather do that too, but wants to keep options open as development resources are scarce and users' needs are diverse. I think most of us would enjoy using a revamped SVISTA on eCS to run other OS's as a guest for various purposes. I can't speak to the topic of virtualized servers. I generally prefer using other platforms than OS/2 for servers these days.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  El Vato
Date  :  28 Jan, 2007 on 08:17

obiwan (27 Jan, 2007 21:03):

Terry (25 Jan, 2007 23:03):
[1] Assuming the use of a SVista/win4lin-supported linux host, and it would be Debian, would it not make more sense to use something like Freespire which is Debian-based and with an extremely strong commitment to current multimedia & driver support?

As I understand the post, it would seem the idea is to set up a minimal Linux base as transparent as possible. Debian seems a suitable starting point to assemble just what is needed for a host. Whether it borrows from Linspire or Ubuntu, the description of "Debian-based" is still valid. I don't think he means that the distributed Linux host OS would be a complete and supported desktop. Though of course I don't know.


...as I read this thread, an old Star Trek episode comes to mind. I can not recall the episode name nor the exact plot --only the essence of the story:

Against the "prime directive" of not interfering on the natural course of life in the Universe (I think), the Enterprise beams up a "primitive" tribe into the holographic section of the ship. The tribe's original planet habitat was about to be destroyed in the context of evolutionary phenomena interaction --if one is to believe Darwin and his followers' dogma, of course.

Once in the holographic area, the tribe is guided by one(some) of the crew members to another "local" territory where they will be "safe" --unbeknownst to the tribe that in effect they had been migrated to a different planet in the Universe!

If SSI's intention is to coax OS/2ers to swallow the "migration to a different OS" pill, they are surely coating it with honey to make it easy to swallow.

Why go to such extremes and not simply select an Unix/Linux open and free (or relatively free) kernel and wrap/build OS/2 specific functionality around it

Through my own window in my ship, I have witnessed events that attest to my suggestion above. For instance: an Open Solaris kernel with a Debian wrapping, 64-bit ready, easier native Java implementation, ZFS file system, and the possibility of virtual containers.

The project above started life in 2005 and is currently at Beta 6 (read: errors). Undoubtedly because of that, it took an extremely long time to install in VPC/2 and the networking aspect had to be tinkered to make it connect.


obiwan (27 Jan, 2007 21:03):

Terry (25 Jan, 2007 23:03):[2] With the purchase of a revamped SVista package, would it not be more feasible to ignore the Innotek eCS OpenOffice offering, and simply download the complimentary Linux version of OpenOffice and offset the additional product cost?

Maybe. Depends how well that works on the desktop, and whether the OpenOffice port develops more OS/2-specific features.

[...]


It may also be added that the overall relevance of the OpenOffice suite is dependent on whether sufficient contradictions are submitted by Feb. 05, 2007 by the local standards bodies around the world. The Open Document Format (ODF) --natively supported by OpenOffice and one of its prominent properties-- will be history if MS imposes its pseudo open alternative over that of ODF.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com
Date  :  28 Jan, 2007 on 16:05

El Vato (28 Jan, 2007 08:17):
Why go to such extremes and not simply select an Unix/Linux open and free (or relatively free) kernel and wrap/build OS/2 specific functionality around it

Through my own window in my ship, I have witnessed events that attest to my suggestion above. For instance: an Open Solaris kernel with a Debian wrapping, 64-bit ready, easier native Java implementation, ZFS file system, and the possibility of virtual containers.

The project above started life in 2005 and is currently at Beta 6 (read: errors). Undoubtedly because of that, it took an extremely long time to install in VPC/2 and the networking aspect had to be tinkered to make it connect.



El Vato, check out http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php/Voyager_Discussion

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Shai robin.haberkorn@googlemail.com
Date  :  28 Jan, 2007 on 16:06

El Vato (28 Jan, 2007 08:17):
...as I read this thread, an old Star Trek episode comes to mind. I can not recall the episode name nor the exact plot --only the essence of the story:

Against the "prime directive" of not interfering on the natural course of life in the Universe (I think), the Enterprise beams up a "primitive" tribe into the holographic section of the ship. The tribe's original planet habitat was about to be destroyed in the context of evolutionary phenomena interaction --if one is to believe Darwin and his followers' dogma, of course.

Once in the holographic area, the tribe is guided by one(some) of the crew members to another "local" territory where they will be "safe" --unbeknownst to the tribe that in effect they had been migrated to a different planet in the Universe!



Sorry El Vato, despite that I have no idea what the current discussion in this thread is about, I can tell you that this was definitely not in The Old Series - there was no holodeck - except in The Animated Series (holographic recreation room or something like this). I do think the episode you mentioned was a Voyager one, or maybe it was from The Next Generation but I'm not so sure about this, too. So I had to be a know-it-all, sorry...

Greetings, Robin


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com
Date  :  28 Jan, 2007 on 17:51

Shai (28 Jan, 2007 16:06):

El Vato (28 Jan, 2007 08:17):
...as I read this thread, an old Star Trek episode comes to mind. I can not recall the episode name nor the exact plot --only the essence of the story:

Against the "prime directive" of not interfering on the natural course of life in the Universe (I think), the Enterprise beams up a "primitive" tribe into the holographic section of the ship. The tribe's original planet habitat was about to be destroyed in the context of evolutionary phenomena interaction --if one is to believe Darwin and his followers' dogma, of course.

Once in the holographic area, the tribe is guided by one(some) of the crew members to another "local" territory where they will be "safe" --unbeknownst to the tribe that in effect they had been migrated to a different planet in the Universe!



Sorry El Vato, despite that I have no idea what the current discussion in this thread is about, I can tell you that this was definitely not in The Old Series - there was no holodeck - except in The Animated Series (holographic recreation room or something like this). I do think the episode you mentioned was a Voyager one, or maybe it was from The Next Generation but I'm not so sure about this, too. So I had to be a know-it-all, sorry...

Greetings, Robin



It is a Next Generation episode. I don't recall how they came to "bend" the Prime Directive now. I just remember them walking for a long long time on the holodeck as they traveled at Warp speeds to a new planet.

Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  Terry tgindy@yahoo.com
Date  :  29 Jan, 2007 on 17:36
"Homeward" (Stardate: 47423.9) is the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode referred to above by El Vato. IMDB has a review that sums it up pretty well...

http://imdb.com/title/tt0708731/

The analogy of the Prime Directive is that every Federation citizen, who really does understand the Prime Directive by heart, although having differing opinions, are looking out for the good of the Boraalins as a whole, and do focus on the ultimate goal of the least amount of cultural contamination to the Boraalin community.

To simplify all of this analogy - Virtualization would allow the many cultures to co-exist and work together without one culture, the Borg of Redmond, to Lord it over everyone else for personal gain, as has been well-documented by past behavior.

SO: Now that we know the potential status of a <= SUPPORTED VIRTUALIZATION => solution for eCS-OS/2.

Let's look at the vision here - avoiding the lure of immersing ourselves in an esoteric discussion, like the Linux KDE vs. Linux Gnome debate, since eComStation is already a combination of co-mingled proprietary & open-source solutions...

I'm wondering how transparent the SSI/eCS/Win4lin boot-up could be:

[1] Would it kick into the eComStation Workplace Shell upon boot-up, but take just a little longer for system loading as eCS would be a piggy-back load after a Linux initial load?

[2] eCS-native WPS session visibly loaded, Linux session loaded seamlessly in the background - OS/2-kernel 32-bit apps ready to load?

[3] And as now, with java, odin 32-bit, win 16-bit, and dos 16-bit programs waiting to be called upon?

If it is this transparent, the "Win4lin thin-layered Debian-based Linux" does make sense.

The eCS vision, the ultimate goal, is to retain eComStation as the primary workstation. My original thread question refers to the vision behind a supported virtualization solution for eComStation.

The other open-source virtualization solutions will still move forward in development, but; the Win4lin virtualization would seem to be a quick direction to get moving.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  29 Jan, 2007 on 22:12

Shai (28 Jan, 2007 16:06):

El Vato (28 Jan, 2007 08:17):
...as I read this thread, an old Star Trek episode comes to mind. I can not recall the episode name nor the exact plot --only the essence of the story:

Against the "prime directive" of not interfering on the natural course of life in the Universe (I think), the Enterprise beams up a "primitive" tribe into the holographic section of the ship. The tribe's original planet habitat was about to be destroyed in the context of evolutionary phenomena interaction --if one is to believe Darwin and his followers' dogma, of course.

Once in the holographic area, the tribe is guided by one(some) of the crew members to another "local" territory where they will be "safe" --unbeknownst to the tribe that in effect they had been migrated to a different planet in the Universe!



Sorry El Vato, despite that I have no idea what the current discussion in this thread is about, I can tell you that this was definitely not in The Old Series - there was no holodeck - except in The Animated Series (holographic recreation room or something like this). I do think the episode you mentioned was a Voyager one, or maybe it was from The Next Generation but I'm not so sure about this, too. So I had to be a know-it-all, sorry...

Greetings, Robin



I think it was a Star Trek; The Next Generation movie. They try to get them to move to a different planet by beaming them onto a ship with a holodek. They were going to do it without the planets residence knowing it was done. Actually the group planning it just wanted to get the people off the planet. It might not be the episode in question but it is very close.

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Communications
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user
http://www.os2ecs.org


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  29 Jan, 2007 on 22:14

abwillis (28 Jan, 2007 16:05):

El Vato (28 Jan, 2007 08:17):
Why go to such extremes and not simply select an Unix/Linux open and free (or relatively free) kernel and wrap/build OS/2 specific functionality around it

Through my own window in my ship, I have witnessed events that attest to my suggestion above. For instance: an Open Solaris kernel with a Debian wrapping, 64-bit ready, easier native Java implementation, ZFS file system, and the possibility of virtual containers.

The project above started life in 2005 and is currently at Beta 6 (read: errors). Undoubtedly because of that, it took an extremely long time to install in VPC/2 and the networking aspect had to be tinkered to make it connect.



El Vato, check out http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php/Voyager_Discussion[/quote]


There is also the OSFree project. They need developers.
http://www.osfree.org

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Communications
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user
http://www.os2ecs.org


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  El Vato
Date  :  29 Jan, 2007 on 23:58

Terry (29 Jan, 2007 17:36):
"Homeward" (Stardate: 47423.9) is the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode referred to above by El Vato. IMDB has a review that sums it up pretty well...

http://imdb.com/title/tt0708731/

The analogy of the Prime Directive is that every Federation citizen, who really does understand the Prime Directive by heart, although having differing opinions, are looking out for the good of the Boraalins as a whole, and do focus on the ultimate goal of the least amount of cultural contamination to the Boraalin community.


A couple of issues come to mind:

1) How many OS/2ers--of those who "discover" the whole scheme-- are expendable? Remember him who came out of the holographic area in the episode that you so well know? How many will not swallow the "migration pill" --even if coated (marketed) with honey

2) The protection afforded by incubation inside the virtual resources of a host is finite. It makes sense from an (old) business model to continue to extract gain from the OS/2 WITHOUT having to invest significantly into ACTUAL development improvements of the OS/2 platform.

In the long run, howsoever complex and painful, the cross-pollination ( what you referred to as "cultural contamination") of the OS/2 code/components with resources existing in the raw Web (Universe) environment is a NECESSARY process if the OS/2 is to survive on its own. Of course, many users will head towards Zarathustra's cave, unable to cope. Notwithstanding, those strong ones who remain commited will nurture the operating system as an self-sustaining entity --or else...

The latter might be viewed as a justification of the "prime directive" --if we were to continue within the Star Trek episode mentioned above. In other words, the Prime Directive embodies the notion that entities, if they are worthy of "life" and of individual characteristics, survive on their own creative resourcefulness --not by being taken into a holographic environment ad infinitum.

The argument, of course, might be made about this incubation period being only ephemeral in nature, until another "suitable" kernel (planet) is "found" to use as a base. However, if that were the case, why did they wait until the last minute? That is, why did they wait until now that IBM is not providing the heavy code lifting

Needless to say, if the intention were to benefit the OS/2 by a guiding strategy that ultimately would produce a self-sustaining OS, those --who are now suggesting a virtualization path-- would not have waited until the very end of support of the OS/2. They would have an EXISTING and transitional virtual solution ready NOW that Big Blue is not committed anymore.

Again as I have expressed in the past, Golden Code Development showed seriousness by developing native solutions for the OS/2 --the others' approach appear to be simply for the near term profit while another "gig" comes along.


Terry (29 Jan, 2007 17:36):
To simplify all of this analogy - Virtualization would allow the many cultures to co-exist and work together without one culture, the Borg of Redmond, to Lord it over everyone else for personal gain, as has been well-documented by past behavior.

[...]

...they [Borg] are already "scanning" the proposed host for vulnerabilities as is implicit in their deal with Novell. Notwithstanding, that may be viewed as another argument for a self-sustaining OS/2 rather than a parasyte requiring another entity's resources to survive --howsoever "transparent" those may be.


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  ecsguy
Date  :  30 Jan, 2007 on 01:41

El Vato (29 Jan, 2007 23:5:
The argument, of course, might be made about this incubation period being only ephemeral in nature, until another "suitable" kernel (planet) is "found" to use as a base. However, if that were the case, why did they wait until the last minute? That is, why did they wait until now that IBM is not providing the heavy code lifting


Virtualization has been a part of the overall eComStation plan since 2001. Serenity was involved in the Connectix/Innotek VirtualPC project.

If Microsoft had not bought VPC things would be much more advanced right now. For eComStation none of the current products have caught up to VPC's flexibility and stability


Subject  :  Re:SVista host status for eCS 2.0
Author  :  El Vato
Date  :  30 Jan, 2007 on 06:23

ecsguy (30 Jan, 2007 01:41):

El Vato (29 Jan, 2007 23:5:
The argument, of course, might be made about this incubation period being only ephemeral in nature, until another "suitable" kernel (planet) is "found" to use as a base. However, if that were the case, why did they wait until the last minute? That is, why did they wait until now that IBM is not providing the heavy code lifting


Virtualization has been a part of the overall eComStation plan since 2001. Serenity was involved in the Connectix/Innotek VirtualPC project.

If Microsoft had not bought VPC things would be much more advanced right now. For eComStation none of the current products have caught up to VPC's flexibility and stability


...I would appreciate if you did not quote me out of the focused context in which I direct my inquiry. It is one thing to be "involved" in virtualization --as you have evangelized elsewhere in your posts; and another quite different notion for virtualization to be used as a temporary container vehicle --as I have anticipated the issue might be raised by a marketing type as justification for migration instead of SUBSTANTIVE OS/2 development efforts.

Moroever, Connectix was acquired by MS in 2004. If there had been a roadmap (by those who now admonish an OS/2 consuming "transparent" resources) for a subsequent path to another OS/2 kernel --which undoubtedly would have been 64-bit-- it is certainly not there to be referenced.

...about "stability" of VPC/2 --obviously you only run a single instance of VPC. The Odin layer between the WinXX application and the OS/2 starts diminishing its performance as more is required of the guest OS until it crawls, or in certain arbitrary cases, locks the OS/2 environment.

It is no wonder then, that virtualization technology like XEN is more effective (read: performance) when it (para)virtualizes Linux where XEN is a "native" implementation and the Linux flavour guest "knows" that it is being virtualized than, say, another operating system with a different design composition.

And there the advantage of virtualization in data centers where Novell's Linux is gaining traction and possibly the strategy of MS by "partnering" with Novell and XENsource. In the manner expounded priorly --i.e., XEN on server Linux (para)virtualizing Linux (data center) servers, virtualization is totally different than client virtualization as is used by an ordinary home/office user. If it were the same, why do you think that MS discontinued supporting OS/2 as a host (hint: It knows that OS/2 relegated as a mere guest does not represent a threat. Likewise, MS possible strategy is to demote Linux to guest status in the data center --thus undermining Linux (host) painfully gained achievements in the enterprise environment.)


Best regards.


Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <www.ub2k.com>