OS2 World.Com Forum
2012.02.09, 16:52:45 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: OpenJDK port for Haiku  (Read 8008 times)
lpino
Full Member
***
Posts: 109


View Profile
« on: 2008.01.24, 02:00:50 »

I came across this news (http://openjdk.java.net/projects/haiku-port/) and it only makes me sad. It's incredible how the Haiku project has been able to "recreate" the BeOS from scratch and we are still sitting here winning about IBM not releasing the code. We are way past IBM, people, and we should acknowledge it once and for all, it is time to get behind the wagon of Voyager and osFree and free ourself from the silly belief that IBM is still there somewhere.

Sorry for the blanting

Leonardo Pino
Logged
BigWarpGuy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 2008.01.24, 17:28:51 »

I agree. We know IBM will not open source OS/2. We should support the effort to clone OS/2; Voyager, OSFree or a port of K42.  Cool
Logged
Robert Deed
Full Member
***
Posts: 194



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2008.01.24, 18:07:21 »

I agree. We know IBM will not open source OS/2. We should support the effort to clone OS/2; Voyager, OSFree or a port of K42.  Cool

While I agree Voyager is intriguing..  OSFree is basically dead in the water..   Even if we were to start cloning OS/2 it is a very mature and complete operating system (unlike BeOS) and their are plenty of parts of the system which may be of use for someone attempting to clone it.

Basically comes down to this.. the WPS which is the main reason people want OS/2.  The ability to redefine classes in the interface, to add and subtract features is the hardest part of the system to clone.  Without this you would just have yet another "alternative OS" with no reason to switch to it.  It is the reason BeOS failed in the first place.. an OS with a quirky yet non-functional GUI is useless no matter how "pretty" it is without applications. 

Although in a way this is true of OS/2 as well we have years of applications which to fall back on as long as full compatibility can be assured.  We also need to give people a reason to use Voyager.

I really however disagree with making voyager a "personality" to linux..  I don't think in the long run this would be beneficial.  Even if time would have to be devoted to converting linux apps to voyager I would say it would be important in order to keep consistancy between all the components and not fall into the same pitfall many linux wm's have.
Logged
djcaetano
Full Member
***
Posts: 201


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 2008.01.24, 18:47:19 »

I agree. We know IBM will not open source OS/2. We should support the effort to clone OS/2; Voyager, OSFree or a port of K42.  Cool

  I believe Voyager is the way to go. It can be developed on top of OS/2, but can be easily ported to another plataforms (this is one top priority objective of the project, at least). The objective is to isolate the system look and feel from the base operating system, in a way the user cannot even know what kernel is being used in daily operations.
  This means you could replace top-OS/2 subsystems with a new one that keeps the OS/2 feeling (Voyager) and then use it as a easy-pass to another plataform, keeping the best thing of OS/2 (usability) on a modern kernel with better device driver support from vendors. Note that this doesn't mean this kernel will be Linux one. It can be even Windows' (ReactOS?), Haiku's or MacOS' (MACH?).

   I spent several hours in the last few days reading every piece of document produced by the Voyager project and this small post presents why I believe this is the way to go. It is like recreating the idea of OS/2 for PowerPC's "personalities" ... And with some effort, these ideas can be applied to any kernel, not only uK.

   It *is* important to notice that Voyager is really a *good* concept. If Voyager is implemented on top of Linux kernel, for example, the idea is you'll use Linux kernel but your feeling will be the same as using OS/2 Kernel. This seems to be impossible? Well, spend a time playing with MacOS X and tell me there is a *Un*x inside it. The Voyager experience *shall not* be dependent of the kernel being used. Even using Linux or ReactOS kernel, you'll have a WPS, a CONFIG.SYS (if this is the best way to go... /etc is, for sure, the worst way, though) and your prompt will be like OS/2 CMD.EXE, not that bizarre shells UNIX's users are used to. The way you feel the system will be the same of OS/2. It is the "everything is an object" approach, not the bizarre "everything is a file" approach.

  In fact, nothing will prevent that someone creates a clone of OS/2 for PowerPC Kernel... and this could be used as Voyager kernel (the kernel part of the project is not defined!). OS/2 for PowerPC would be, for sure, a lot better than OS/2 for Intel kernel, which is very outdated in several aspects. But the problem remains the same: which device driver model to use in this kernel? Not OS/2's model, for sure: nobody wants to write hacked device drivers forever. The best would be Windows model, since Linux model is somewhat limited. But even if every hardware vendor builds Windows' drivers, this model is a moving target, since Microsoft mess with it at each Windows release.

  This is the big question that needs an answer, but the point is: it has not to be answered now! Since we do not have a working and portable WPS, there is no reason to define what device driver model will be used on the kernel. Since this is a very complex question (and the answer may change until a working WPS clone is ready), Voyager decided to start from the top layer, the one which is the most important for the users: the WPS. Until we have a working WPS clone, there is a lot of time to discuss kernel issues, models and so on.
  What was the error of the past (osFree)? Discuss moving targets in the beginning of the project (Kernel, Device Drivers etc) and forgetting about the "fixed targets", like WPS.

  OS/2 Kernel for Intel will not survive forever without *really big* updates. And even if I wish IBM could release the source code for some parts of OS/2, I really doubt it. And this is even more difficult in the case of the Kernel (even OS/2 for PowerPC's one, I believe. Most parts of OS/2 for PowerPC were simply *ported* from Intel, AFAIK... All documents I read said that IBM have "enhanced" MACH kernel, and I believe this was done with patented OS/2 code). Even if Voyager project do not succeed in producing a new operating system with "OS/2 feeling", it can succeed in producing a working, portable WPS... in that case, it would be at least less painful to migrate to another OS, something we all will need to do some time from now.

  The point is: we do not need "yet another operating system". We need to keep the "OS/2 way of use a computer" built on modern technologies and able to run on modern hardware. And this is "less difficult" to achieve than building a new operating system from scratch (which is a far more complex task than we are capable to accomplish with the man-power available into this community ).

  Well, these are my thoughts.
  My kindest regards!

PS: OpenBeOS clone could not use BeOS original code, *but* I was informed that some of OBOS developers had been able to peek in the original source code, besides the fact the inner works of BeOS are a lot more well documented that OS/2 internals (or so I was told). These are very important facts to take into account when comparing the speed of development of a new BeOS versus the development of a new OS/2.
« Last Edit: 2008.01.24, 18:50:49 by djcaetano » Logged
BigWarpGuy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 2008.01.24, 18:49:14 »

http://frepm.sourceforge.net  This one seems like it is also 'dead in the water', too.

http://www.osfree.org  It seems they are having trouble with the site. The forum there is inaccesable but the site seems to be coming back.

http://voyager.netlabs.org  Is there any news about the Voyager project? With no news, it too seems 'dead in the water'.

http://k42.os2ecs.org (IIRC on the URL but it is at http://www.os2ecs.org) With no access to the site (unless one joins), it also seems 'dead in the water'. Is there any news about Voyager?

Are there any other projects to clone OS/2 Warp?  Huh
Logged
miturbide
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 962



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2008.01.24, 18:59:46 »

Leonardo, I had just read the news and I agreed with you.
It is good to see how other projects evolve and what can we learn from it.

But the sit and whinnying state is over. Well possible I'm still whinnying about it but not sited.
I complete support Voyager and osFree.

I have the following Idea that I will like to brainstorm.

1) While we support the "reacreation from scrath" with osFree and Voyager, why we don't we start a top to down ripping of OS/2. Let's try to replace every binary file with an open source replacement. For example, lets dump view.exe and use newview.exe. Lets try to find some open source replacement for DLL's that may work the same way.

Let's make a list of which closed source .exe .dll that can be replace with the currently available open source projects we have available. What do everybody thinks about it ?

I have a list of OS/2 open source software on my wiki, but I haven't been very sharp adding the "replace" fields of the list.
http://www.os2world.com/components/com_mambowiki/index.php/Open_Source_OS/2-eCS_Software

2) What about OpenJDK and Haiku, what we can use of it to also have a port of OpenJDK to OS/2 ? I'm not updated about OpenJDK status. Is is a functional JDK/JRE replacement or still have a lot of stuff missing ?

Regards
Logged

Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com
djcaetano
Full Member
***
Posts: 201


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 2008.01.24, 19:08:38 »

http://voyager.netlabs.org  Is there any news about the Voyager project? With no news, it too seems 'dead in the water'.
Is there any news about Voyager?

NOTE: dates are in latin format: dd/mm/yyyy

  Voyager Discussion was updated 05/01/2008:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Voyager_Discussion&action=history

  Voyager FAQ was updated 08/12/2007
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Voyager_FAQ&action=history

  The desktop class list was updated in 01/11/2007:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Desktop_class_list&action=history
  Several things on Netlabs Object Model were edited in November also:
http://svn.netlabs.org/v_nom/browser/trunk
  And a presentation was uploaded in the docs svn in November:
http://svn.netlabs.org/v_doc/browser

  But most updates are from august 2007.

  I can't say it's "dead in the water". Things are in a stage there is
not much to show. As far as I could read, they are trying to prototype
what they had already described. Nothing much useful yet.
« Last Edit: 2008.01.24, 19:10:22 by djcaetano » Logged
BigWarpGuy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 2008.01.24, 20:58:51 »

I am glad there is something being done with Voyager.

There was mention that a port of K42 would be good since the future is multiproccosors.  Cool
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/k42.index.html
Is there anyone considereing or doing a port of K42?
Logged
Saijin_Naib
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1357


Birdie Num-Nums


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: 2008.01.25, 00:41:16 »

If Voyager intends to use a windows kernel, let it please use a real one, not ReactOS. ReactOS is far from functional :\
Logged

El Vato
Guest
« Reply #9 on: 2008.01.25, 00:49:11 »

[...] and free ourself from the silly belief that IBM is still there somewhere.


Yes, Leonardo, the pretty girl is still there ...she is simply being kept inside a locked and dark room with the hope that she will be forgotten.  Her family needs a more convincing argument, like what do you plan to do with her? Or, Will she be aligned with her family's interests? And, if so, is the dowry offered to her family sufficient to offset the expense of setting her free?

Now that word has leaked into the wild of the Internet that someone cares about her (due, of course, to her family's public denial), we have had the visits of some open sourcers who might not have visited this forum otherwise.  Although their comments might not have fallen in line with current expectations, those are to be taken in their appropriate context, i.e., written by rugged individualists --of which the Debian crowd are famously known for.


Sorry for the blanting


Error while looking up definition

No definitions found for 'Blanting'
« Last Edit: 2008.01.25, 20:08:48 by El Vato » Logged
Saijin_Naib
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1357


Birdie Num-Nums


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2008.01.25, 01:58:43 »

Id venture that blanting is ranting, but bluntly? But in any case, Im not sure if badgering IBM is going to get us anywhere. The obviously dont respect us as a community, and as such, we hold no sway with them.
Logged

El Vato
Guest
« Reply #11 on: 2008.01.25, 02:21:15 »

[...]
 The obviously dont respect us as a community, and as such, we hold no sway with them.

 If any atheist can stake his soul for a wager against such an inexhaustible disproportion, let him never hereafter accuse others of credulity.
 --Bentley.
 [1913 Webster]

...besides, the pretty girl is the hardest to get  Wink.
Logged
BigWarpGuy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 2008.01.25, 20:05:50 »

If Voyager intends to use a windows kernel, let it please use a real one, not ReactOS. ReactOS is far from functional :\

There was talk of  creating an OS/2 subsystem for ReactOS at their forum. http://www.reactos.org/forum

I have read that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to 'port' (use the source code of) ROS to (as a basis for) OS/2.
Logged
Saijin_Naib
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1357


Birdie Num-Nums


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2008.01.25, 20:20:04 »

Hmmm. That would be interesting. I think ReactOS is a great project, dont take my comment as saying its not good, its just that if Voyager intends to possibly use  a Windows kernel, I suggest it use one thats real, because they work really well. The xbox uses Windows 2000 Pro of some service pack level, I think its SP4. The Xbox360 uses WMCE (2005?) as its core, and if you have used either system, you can attest to how you would have NO idea that they were backed by the NT kernel.
« Last Edit: 2008.01.25, 21:14:02 by Saijin_Naib » Logged

BigWarpGuy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 2008.01.25, 21:30:30 »

At Netlabs, there was a project to create an OS/2 'face' for Linux.  Huh  Does anyone know more about it? Would it be a viable base for an OS/2 clone?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.14 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!