Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Martin Iturbide

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104
Article Discussions / Re: ArcaOS Wishlist - 6 months !!
« on: November 23, 2017, 10:15:11 pm »
Hi Sigurd.

I also remember hearing that USB 3.0 was almost ready.

I'm also experiencing some frustration with the time frame of the driver releases. I was expecting to see ArcaOS released (which I don't doubt it was a very hard work) and once that milestone was completed I was hoping that Arca's resources can be focused on releasing new drivers faster since they finished the hard work of putting the whole "installation package" together.

But it has only been 6 months, maybe I have the millennial disease of having things faster. I can not know for sure what is happening inside Arca Noae and with how many full time developers they are operating. Maybe they are trying to consolidate their corporate customers first to ensure their cash flow?

Once with Mensys I started to feel like it only cared about the corporate customers and the community (individuals) using the platform were only the extra change at the end of the month. But with Arca, I had talked to Lewis (Arca Noae) on the past and I also see his commitment with Warpstock (which is mostly an end-user based conference), so I still trust he wants an OS that can be used by both parties (Commercial and individual). So I still want to believe he is trying to sort all the hell of managing a company (money, taxes, personal, etc) and supporting an operating system. 

I think we need to keep pushing forward because there is no magic solution.


Article Discussions / ArcaOS Wishlist - 6 months !!
« on: November 23, 2017, 06:24:05 pm »

ArcaOS was released like 6 months ago (May 15, 2017) and I think it will be a good time to have some discussion about what YOU think about ArcaOS.  I had seen people jumping on other forum threads giving their opinion on what should be a priority and what not. I think it will be better to use this thread to do that.

From my personal point of view I have my wishlist based on my needs and hopes which I complete understand differs from other opinions.

Short Term - Drivers
People still scream for drivers and there are different needs, but my personal needs is in this order:
- Wifi (Listed as Short Term Projects on AN Roadmap)
- USB 3.0 - In my case I need it to install ArcaOS on devices that does not have USB 2.0 ports, CDs or Legacy compatibility for USB. (Listed as Long Term Projects on AN Roadmap)
- GTP : To make it easy to install ArcaOS on HDD if you want dual boot.  (Listed as Long Term Projects on AN Roadmap)
- UEFI : It is where the market is going. There are some Intel PCs that does not have Legacy mode.
- Support for accessing unpartitioned/non-LVM USB sticks (large floppy) greater than 2GB. To make life easier also. (Listed as Long Term Projects on AN Roadmap)

Mid Term - Apps
ArcaOS does not have a roadmap of which software frameworks should be ported to have Apps under the platform. The easy way is to say it is "just and OS" and I don't care what it is running on it, but if you don't have apps, why use the OS on the first place?
It is obvious that they primary goal of ArcaOS was to run OS/2 applications made with OS/2's API (CPI, PM, SOM, WPS, REXX, etc) and I think that goal is accomplished with ArcaOS 5.0. Now what about the present? If someone wants to develop something for ArcaOS what it should use?
1) IBM OS/2 Toolkit was be repackaged and included on RPM, that was good. But maybe it needs more like a facelift to include more samples, and updated documentation on how to compile the samples today on 2017, and maybe even rebrand it with a new name and version to match ArcaOS.
2) ArcaOS Open Toolkit. I think it is worthy to promote that ArcaOS has open source libraries and tool that can be used to also create software under the platform. This should also be seen as an strategic part of the OS that allows developers to create and port software.  (Even if there are people that counts the microseconds comparing a PM app vs. a Qt App, those can keep using the classic OS/2 API)
3) Qt 5 is important to have it as part of the "open toolkit". Let's hope that can happen with Bitwise.
4) More frameworks. I think that there is missing one or two more modern frameworks on the platform, but this is something I didn't set my mind on. I feel like there are very interesting things on GTK and the Node.js frameworks.

Long Term
Maybe six months it is still not enough time to get a long term strategy. This is the hard spot and where everybody will reply to me "Don't fix what it is not broken".

Does the OS/2 platform should have a long term strategy? Or the strategy should be "Will the last person leaving, please turn out the lights"

When you buy ArcaOS you need to pay the "IBM tax" (the cost of the OS/2 license that IBM negotiated with Arca Noae), that is in part what makes ArcaOS expensive (Mainframe guys, please don't compare prices here). Also the soul of OS/2, which I think are CPI, PM, SOM and WPS,  are close source without any possibility to be enhanced, fixed or open sourced.

Maybe like Lynn H. Maxson said on some Warpstock, we need to progressively open source parts of OS/2. I had been told that  is almost sure that if someone wants to clone PM or SOM, the first version will suck very bad. They tell it to me like if there is no way to improve software over time or like version 1.0 has to be 100% bug free, which is not how the software development cycle works. Since this is a long term strategy I think it will be good to nurture the open source replacement from crappy to something that can work over time, instead of thinking it as a Big bang miss or hit thing.

1) Evolving XWorkplace to try to reduce the dependency on WPS classes until it became a fully parallel desktop workplace object classes running on SOM. (little by little)
2) Hacking PM and CPI to replace and improve some of the API functions (little by little).
3) Revolving SOM by trying to get the leftovers of Netlabs SOM and SOMfree to see if some useful SOM replacement can be generated from it. (little by little)

Why do I still insist on Open Source? Because we already had been dumped three times, one by IBM, second by Serenity Systems and the third by Mensys/XEU. Open source is just a way to reduce the risk in case of a fourth dump and eventually (with a lot of hard work) it will release us from the IBM tax.

So, let's have fun, post your wishlist.


Article Discussions / Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
« on: November 22, 2017, 10:21:17 pm »

Trying to move on there is a new post at OS2VOICE.

It seems to be a good step on answering some of the "well funded" questions about the idea/project. I think think that Qt5 is something we need to support and that Bitwise works has shown the skill to deliver OS/2 projects on the past.

Qt's QtWebEngine seems the way to go to have a Chromium port or any other browser that uses Qt's QtWebEngine. Other ways may be too much time consuming or expensive. But if someone have alternatives it will be great to have the developers to back it up.


Article Discussions / Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
« on: November 22, 2017, 10:15:23 pm »
I welcome every cooperative approach to extend the coexistence of portable software. Unfortunately some people spreading rumours here seem to have their own economic interests. That's not a bad thing at all ...but there's also a category marketplace in this fora most suiteable for mountebanks.

Andreas. I only see one mountebanks that does not want to do anything and just complain that everything is a bad idea. I think you already spoke your mind and you need to move on since you don't have anything constructive to add.

Please cool off and move on. If you have a better idea just post it on some other forum thread for people to discuss it and see if it can gain adoption, funding and developers.


Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: November 22, 2017, 12:21:35 pm »
Can you ask IBM about a obtaining a license to decompile and binary examine their boot, kernel, and driver code?  It would help me immensely.

With my 333 Post I would like to say, please do not take it personal, that this is the best joke I have ever read in this Forum during all the years.

It must be joke, must'nt it? Or...  ;D

No joke.  If someone has a good working relationship with IBM, I would like to obtain a license like Arca Noae did, to legally examine the core OS/2 binary files through various means of reverse-engineering.

I would try to contact them myself, but business eloquence is not my strength.  I would harm my cause through ignorance, inexperience, and saying / writing the wrong things.

Hi Rick.

I'm sorry but I only have found the process to republish publications (print or electronic publications) under permission. I haven't found a way to request IBM permission to release binaries or source code. Also, if the document says in some part "IBM Internal" or "Confidential"  they would give permission.


Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: November 22, 2017, 02:35:55 am »
Unfortunately the words "always" and "free" made the above statement wrong or at least inaccurate. You couldn't download any of the earlier mentioned files at all 20 years ago - a verifiable fact.

Andreas, please cool off. You are right but if you are going to question every little thing on the forum people are going to start to ignore you, and this is not the USENET. You are not forced to reply every post, there is no prize for being the one that post the most on the forums.

If it is worthy I can ask IBM permission to republish those books, if someone is crying over IBM's copyright for having those books posted on a non-profit library.


Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: November 21, 2017, 11:39:21 pm »

I didn't know they existed.

UPDATE:  Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV.

Hi Rick.

Those books were always available for free download at the IBM redbooks site. I don't think that there is something illegal on using those books are references.

I even found on that is still online on the IBM site:


Hardware / Re: Hardware Reports / Reviews - More - MORE !!!!
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:53:15 pm »
If you ... can provide me the HardwareID (of the USB devices), it will be great.

If USB.IDS's Either Hand is not a generic vendor with a misleading name, then the information of the USB Device Monitor (and/or USB.IDS) is not reliable and all relevant details (mainly USB 2.0 and older) were already included.

I had posted both on the wiki:

- Philips Snow Edition USB 2.0 Flash Drive
- Philips Urban Edition USB 2.0 Flash Drive

André, just post the hardwareID code. If USB.ids is wrong just give me the code that "lsusb" command provides for that flash drives.


Hardware / Re: Hardware Reports / Reviews - More - MORE !!!!
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:41:43 pm »
When it comes to USB flash drives, it might be better to collect non-working modules as in my experience, they all work once set up correctly.

Hi Dave

I agreed that it may not be as important to collect USB Flash storage devices because they are supposedly to work, but I don't think I will be getting a massive amount of devices of people reporting.  So I don't care to if I post the ones that works and the ones that does not work.

So keep posting the hardwareID please.


Hardware / Re: Preparing an USB Flash drive with FAT32 with DFSee
« on: November 18, 2017, 02:47:57 pm »

For the moment I had used DFSee's Script called "Make FAT32 Data (USB) disk" to destruct the partition, format it as FAT32 and make it usable under ArcaOS.

About the second alternative that will be to "add the LVM info". I was lost first because I needed to change the DFsee US to "Expert Mode". After that, I found the " File->open object to work with->Partition->" but it only list the partition of the HDD and does not show the Flash Drive. I'm also not sure where is the "add the LVM info" function on the DFsee UI.

About the "large floppy stick" how does one produce it? Does it depends on the hardware of the stick?


Article Discussions / Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
« on: November 18, 2017, 12:17:51 pm »
Developing drivers dies not automatically lead to closed source. I.e. I asked Lars Erdmann regarding USB 3.0.

That is interesting, you are right, there can be open source drivers on OS/2, but the temptation to use IBM DDK code (which is incompatible with open source) is high since it will help developers to make drivers faster.

Lar's drivers are not open source and can not be turn open source because they are based on the IBM DDK source code (AFAIK). But he uses a workaround, he turned his project into a collaborative project under netlabs, so even if it is not open source another member of netlabs can continue the project in the future. That was the only legal solution I know for IBM DDK source code drivers.

Under my experience on this platform, close source software is future abandonware. It would be better to invest in open source drivers even if those will cost more by not using IBM DDK code.


Hardware / Re: Hardware Reports / Reviews - More - MORE !!!!
« on: November 18, 2017, 03:52:06 am »
Hi André

If you have those around and you can provide me the HardwareID (of the USB devices), it will be great.


Hardware / Re: Hardware Reports / Reviews - More - MORE !!!!
« on: November 18, 2017, 03:11:17 am »
Hi Roberto.

I just added both:
- Brother MFC-6490CW (Scanner)
- Brother MFC-J5330DW (Scanner)


Article Discussions / Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
« on: November 18, 2017, 02:44:21 am »
So, in my opinion, Money would be needed to Support current Hardware Features, like USB 3, WLAN (so many years missed now...) UNIAUD or what else - so desperatly needed keep the current Hardware for some years. So: to develop Drivers.

Hi Sigurd

I'm complete against to use community raised money to generate close source drivers contaminated with the IBM DDK license which is incompatible with any open source license. (In case someone think that is the plan).

Drivers maybe necessary but are "short term" needs, in the long term you will require newer drivers and more updated drivers. In my opinion it is better to use money on things that will help the keep the platform current and with working applications in a middle-long term. If we don't have working applications that you want to use on OS/2, there not even need for drivers.

Sigurd, this does not mean it has to be black or white. This just look to me like a fundraising you don't want to support because you want drivers first. Maybe you will have to skip this one and focus on support some other driver projects.


Article Discussions / Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
« on: November 17, 2017, 09:22:02 pm »
I welcome people there input in a forum. In my opinion ....

Roderick, please put any negative and non constructive comment to rest and focus on the important things. You are not forced to reply to every post. 

Let's move on. I think that it will be better to update us on the fund raising and to know if there had been any talks with Bitwise works about the project.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104