Author Topic: Porting AbiWord  (Read 8317 times)

melf

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #15 on: 2011.05.17, 09:53:34 »
Although I can't judge the technicalities I think it's fantastic that Demetrious take on the challenge to build a 3D video driver for eCS. Even if his efforts shouldn't reach the whole way, I'm sure it will bring us closer to the goal. To help him, constructive support and encouragement is the better way.
/Mikael

Sigurd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #16 on: 2011.05.17, 13:44:02 »
Hi,

full agree with Melf! I am wondering - is there no way to get these two (Demetrious/Rudi) together to join their experiences? Rudi wrote such a usefull software like Emperoar TV and helped me out in many situations with his deep technical knowledge. Demetrious effort here seems to me - as am not technical skilled at all - a good way to do something to overcome this Driverproblem. I really like the idea and I do appreciate his work!

Well, in the past I was involved in some "hard discussions" as some may know, regarding eCS 2 and so on. But I have to admit - in the end it lead to nothing if it just came to bashing each other. And I have to admit as well that I was at least as "guilty" about this as the others involved there.

As I can understand that Demetrious is sensible on his project and Rudi might want to get deeper information about it - in the end it should not lead to such a kind of discussion. Personally I will give eCS 2.1 a try on my modern Hardware as well - without any reservations - why not ?  And if it runs good I will use it and replace "my version" of OS/2 Merlin, and I will make some more videos about it on youtube.

There are only a few OS/2 - eCS people left. Do not let us going on to separate ourselves more and more.

I wish the WebCam driver for OS/2 would work today so that there might be the chance to talk "face to face" to each other - alike Skype. I guess this would calm down these kind of discussions and one could answer in "real time".

I'd really like the idea both of you could join your knowledge!


warpcafe

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
  • Failure is not an option.
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #17 on: 2011.05.17, 14:49:45 »
Hi all,

in order to go even more OT ... ;) Sigurd, what about Uwe Hinz: His USB experimental board (and his experience of course!) can perhaps help to find out more on the USB webcam stuff? Basically, we just need a reference model of a USB webcam. Maybe one that runs on a "commonly used" USB chipset?

Cheers,
Thomas
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that"
- G.H. Hardy

jep

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #18 on: 2011.05.17, 15:00:44 »
Hello,

As mentioned by Sigurd, it seem as if Rudi is interested in your work Demetrious and if it affect they way his software can display TV broadcasts to the screen in a similar fashion to the present or if it has to be redesigned. Both of you have knowledge in each field and your combined efforts to bring us improvements are very welcome. Demetrious, you seem to have a very good overview of how you intend to design it. To me, GRADD seemed to expose a stable and mature interface that wouldn't change to the software depending on hardware. Is it possible to get a design that let software do things as before or do we need to recompile/redesign them to use with GL/2? What software may be affected and what preparations do we need to make?

Demetrious, your work has inspired me to see if I can try something out with OpenGL.
Hmm, it's quite easy to use the examples on the net with OpenWatcom + GLUT + 3D OpenGL, whish I had more knowledge how to write something real and large, like the 3D modelling tool I've looked for. OW doesn't have the required lib files for those "new" opengl,glut and raster.dl1, raster.dl2 & raster.dl3 files that come with eCS 2.x

//Jan-Erik

warpcafe

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
  • Failure is not an option.
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #19 on: 2011.05.17, 15:12:10 »
HOLY CRAP!!
I just read the thread from the start and my conclusion is... STOP IT!

Rudi, Dee, please stop argueing. You make we wanna cry!!
You two are one of the handful of developers and tech savvy folks that we still have around, for god's sake.
If that discussion leads to both of you being upset and perhaps demotivate both of you I will personally come over your both places to stick some magic tape around your heads! ;)

Why can't we all just sit and wait to see how Dee is doing? Heck. Instead, we waste time talking about "what could be"...
I mean: Assuming nothing happens at all if it wasn't for Dee's work... then why bother him? If there wasn't him working on it there would be no one working on it - we have nothing to lose! And if he works on it but doesn't succeed for whatever reason: Nothing lost either compared to what we have now.

The point is: We can only "win" if we let him work on the stuff. And the same is true for Rudi.

The scaring part here is that for once it's not the users bashing on developers (like what happens usually).. but it's the developers argueing amongst each others. This is something we can't afford. If we lose 2 developers that's almost like losing 10% of all remaining developers for OS/2 and eCS. And looking at the more technical focus of what you 2 guys are doing it's like losing ALL remaining developers in that area. So please: BE FRIENDS AGAIN! :))

Cheers,
Thomas
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that"
- G.H. Hardy

rudi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #20 on: 2011.05.18, 07:21:19 »
Why can't we all just sit and wait to see how Dee is doing? Heck. Instead, we waste time talking about "what could be"...
I mean: Assuming nothing happens at all if it wasn't for Dee's work... then why bother him? If there wasn't him working on it there would be no one working on it - we have nothing to lose! And if he works on it but doesn't succeed for whatever reason: Nothing lost either compared to what we have now.

O.K, O.K, I shut up. I fully agree with Mr. Sharpe in the statement "The last thing we need is a project that raises up people's hopes, & then dies out". He did a sufficiently good job in the first part to capture my attention. The answers now have lowered my interest level to zero. So nothing is lost. I hope the project will produce something useful before part 2 takes place.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.


Sigurd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
OT Webcam - was: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #21 on: 2011.05.18, 07:34:25 »
Hi all,

in order to go even more OT ... ;) Sigurd, what about Uwe Hinz: His USB experimental board (and his experience of course!) can perhaps help to find out more on the USB webcam stuff? Basically, we just need a reference model of a USB webcam. Maybe one that runs on a "commonly used" USB chipset?

Cheers,
Thomas

OT regarding Webcam:

The driver is under construction and makes good progress. But I am not involved in the current stage. Some information is given here http://svn.netlabs.org/usb/timeline

I may take part again later, if the developers want me to.

I guess it really looks promising!

demetrioussharpe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #22 on: 2011.05.18, 10:26:15 »
Hello,

As mentioned by Sigurd, it seem as if Rudi is interested in your work Demetrious and if it affect they way his software can display TV broadcasts to the screen in a similar fashion to the present or if it has to be redesigned. Both of you have knowledge in each field and your combined efforts to bring us improvements are very welcome. Demetrious, you seem to have a very good overview of how you intend to design it. To me, GRADD seemed to expose a stable and mature interface that wouldn't change to the software depending on hardware. Is it possible to get a design that let software do things as before or do we need to recompile/redesign them to use with GL/2? What software may be affected and what preparations do we need to make?

I would love for him to be interested in my work. However, it seemed as though he was more interested in attacking me & trying to discredit me instead. This really was an argument that I would've rather not have been a part of, but I'm not the kind of person who takes very kindly to such attacks, especially when I'm trying to accomplish something that's not been attempted before & being completely open about my approach & what I'm doing. To me, he seemed to be quite a bit hypocritical.

As for GRADD, I have many reasons for dropping it as a fundamental part of my framework. Sure, it provides an abstraction that doesn't change regardless of which hardware is installed into the system. But the same can also be said for SNAP & Panorama. The fact of the matter is that there are quite a few gains from dropping support for GRADD & going to a full 3d framework. I'll list a few of them:

1). No synchronization issues between the 2d & 3d components.
2). 2d can be implemented quite easily by using 3d primitives.
3). GRADD isn't open sourced, so the implementation is basically frozen; we get a new start with GL/2.
4). It's not easy (or recommended) to attempt to shoehorn an implementation into a framework that wasn't originally designed to handle it.

And that's just off the top of my head.

My plan is for GL/2 to be largely non-invasive. You should not have to change any of your software or do nothing to prepare for it. The framework should just plug into OS/2 without causing too much of a disturbance.

Quote
Demetrious, your work has inspired me to see if I can try something out with OpenGL.
Hmm, it's quite easy to use the examples on the net with OpenWatcom + GLUT + 3D OpenGL, whish I had more knowledge how to write something real and large, like the 3D modelling tool I've looked for. OW doesn't have the required lib files for those "new" opengl,glut and raster.dl1, raster.dl2 & raster.dl3 files that come with eCS 2.x

Don't stress yourself out, you have plenty of time. GL/2 probably won't be feature complete until sometime next year (I hope!). If you really want to build something large, then you'll have plenty of time to work your way up to it. I'm sure that there will be quite a few things that will need to catch up with the latest version of eCS. There are lots of things that OW needs to catch up on, but I'm sure that OW will progress the way we need it to. I'm not sure what's necessary for the raster.dll files, but the opengl & glut dlls should eventually be replaced with GL/2's versions & when that happens, I'll be sure to release the .lib files for them. If I don't, then it means that I probably forgot & need to be reminded.
The difference between what COULD be achieved & what IS achieved
is directly relational to what you COULD be doing & what you ARE doing!

demetrioussharpe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #23 on: 2011.05.18, 10:31:58 »
Why can't we all just sit and wait to see how Dee is doing? Heck. Instead, we waste time talking about "what could be"...
I mean: Assuming nothing happens at all if it wasn't for Dee's work... then why bother him? If there wasn't him working on it there would be no one working on it - we have nothing to lose! And if he works on it but doesn't succeed for whatever reason: Nothing lost either compared to what we have now.

O.K, O.K, I shut up. I fully agree with Mr. Sharpe in the statement "The last thing we need is a project that raises up people's hopes, & then dies out". He did a sufficiently good job in the first part to capture my attention. The answers now have lowered my interest level to zero. So nothing is lost. I hope the project will produce something useful before part 2 takes place.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.

I wasn't trying to run you off or drop your interest in the project. I just wanted you to stop bashing me. What I'm trying to do isn't easy. Attempting to tear me down isn't going to make it any easier. If you think I'm on the wrong path, then fine, I can accept that with no problems. But there's no reason for us to be at each other's throats & there's plenty of room in the OS/2 community for both of us. At this point, I think that the only way I'll be able to prove to you that my approach is solid is for me to continue working towards the intended outcome & perhaps you'll be able to see it with your own eyes.
The difference between what COULD be achieved & what IS achieved
is directly relational to what you COULD be doing & what you ARE doing!

osw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #24 on: 2011.05.18, 11:22:18 »
Hi guys!

Snap is dead, panorama is crapp. What else did gradd gave us? (please, please don't mention here any ancient drivers for ancient video cards like matrox - it's 2011 - and I won't collect garbage to assemble my next pc.... but rather will go to shop to buy some 3d accelerator instead (there are nice 3d games out there, fullHD videos and support for gpu acceleration in major browsers as you might know already...)
So give me one reason to vote for gradd.
The solution proposed by Demetrious - 3d accelerated driver for os/2 - may give us some cool possibilities -  3d api, compositing manager, alpha compostiting (you know - even smartphones have it now) - so new look and performance to os/2.
So, again - give me one reason to bother with gradd? Nostalgia? Dos sessions? Win-OS/2 sessions? (rotfl)

cheers

Doodle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #25 on: 2011.05.18, 12:04:46 »

Hi boys,

I wouldn't like to move the flame forward, but I just can't keep it to myself.

So give me one reason to vote for gradd.
The solution proposed by Demetrious - 3d accelerated driver for os/2 - may give us some cool possibilities -  3d api, compositing manager, alpha compostiting (you know - even smartphones have it now) - so new look and performance to os/2.
So, again - give me one reason to bother with gradd? Nostalgia? Dos sessions? Win-OS/2 sessions? (rotfl)

Please note that I'm following GL/2 with great hopes, and I'm absolutely not against its chosen directions, I just simply don't understand why would one want to throw out GRADD.

GRADD is a general Graphics Adapter Device Driver architecture, which was designed with an exceptional extensibility in mind, meaning that it was (it is) prepared for every existing and future feature of a graphics card. Even more, one can create filters to modify how an old GRADD device driver works.
Adding 3D capabilities to an existing OS/2 system which uses a GRADD-based video driver would just mean one more GRADD module/driver to be installed. So, a 3D driver would nicely fit into the modular GRADD architecture.

The bigger problem I see is the fact that the OS/2 Presentation Manager and all the graphical OS/2 applications use the GPI API to draw something on the screen. If an application asks for a circle to be drawn, it has to be boiled down to the graphics card somehow, right?
Now, when IBM decided to throw out the old video driver architecture, and introduced the much more clear GRADD architecture instead, they have written the "transition layer" which connects the GPI API with the GRADD drivers (gre2vman.dll, anyone?), so the old OS/2 PM applications did not have to be changed, they ran without modifications on the new video driver architecture.

I'd just like to point out that, in case the whole GRADD architecture is going to be thrown out, somebody will have to write a new transition layer, which will be quite a huge work, including a lot of gray and undocumented areas of the OS/2 PM API. Combining this with my non-understanding why GRADD does not fit for GL/2, I just don't see why was this path chosen.

Again, I'm absolutely not against GL/2's current plans and directional decisions (anyway, who I am to be?), these are just my thoughts on the case.

And please let me have one more sentence: as I understood Rudi's posts, I think he was also quite interested in GL/2, and tried to understand some of the decisions (having similar problems like me) to be able to help... too bad that some misunderstanding or miscommunication or whatever came into the picture...

Doodle

Ben

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • What is really important?
    • View Profile
    • The Self Wrighting Network
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #26 on: 2011.05.18, 17:02:05 »

Everyone that has ever used the Internet knows that text is a crappy means of communication and is highly subject to interpretation. And there is not a person using the internet that has not misinterpreted a message, sometimes grossly... the latter of which I am not saying has happened here... I merely point out that this is a common occurrence in all things textual and online.

Writing as a means of communication, is also highly influenced by one's mood at any given point... whether they are having sex regularly, and depending on how good a mood their significant other is in, are both contributing factors, but hardly singular influences.  :D

If everyone could write exactly what they were thinking, thus ensuring complete and perfect communications, then we all would be professional writers.

But fact of the matter is, very few here are professional writers.

Throw into this mix the fact that most people just skim through any given post, skipping 1/4-3/4 of the words thus further slurring the tone and intention of the writer. Understandably, we all have limited time to spend, and reading on a monitor is difficult under the best of circumstances... which seldom occurs.

Plus, tone of voice, body language, intonation and inflection are not transmitted at all. Period. This is a large part of any real-life conversation and cannot be omitted without undue, unwelcomed, and undesirable, consequences.

I think every single human being that has OS/2 and is following this thread, wants a new video subsystem for OS/2 or at the least, some major improvements to the existing one, that would ease the ability to use, (and help the development of), new video cards.

I offer as a suggestion, (since it is not my position to say or suppose more), a reset -- a jump backwards into the previous flow of things-- munificently laying aside any accidental, miscommunication and proceeding ahead with good intent and a best hopes for everyone... simply ignoring previous irrelevancies, pointing no fingers, (except to scratch one's head in deep thought), and moving this project forward...

...for not one, single person here would not benefit from such a step, Dee, Rudi and those of us around the periphery who are sending good vibes, yet cannot actively participate due to the wrong skill set, and/or not being directly, (potentially or otherwise), involved.

I understand that I am stating the obvious, but sometimes apocatastatis, (look it up you lazy bastards! 8) ), is required, and the dust blown off so that a certain thing can shine clearly and be correctly perceived.

If this expedition fails to reach the summit, let it not be said that it died the death of... one cut... but that it died the death of  one thousand!

« Last Edit: 2011.05.18, 17:05:37 by Ben »

demetrioussharpe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #27 on: 2011.05.18, 21:10:20 »
Please note that I'm following GL/2 with great hopes, and I'm absolutely not against its chosen directions, I just simply don't understand why would one want to throw out GRADD.

GRADD is a general Graphics Adapter Device Driver architecture, which was designed with an exceptional extensibility in mind, meaning that it was (it is) prepared for every existing and future feature of a graphics card. Even more, one can create filters to modify how an old GRADD device driver works.
Adding 3D capabilities to an existing OS/2 system which uses a GRADD-based video driver would just mean one more GRADD module/driver to be installed. So, a 3D driver would nicely fit into the modular GRADD architecture.

I think that the number one thing that most people are missing is the fact that I'm throwing out ALL 2d drivers, not just GRADD. Quite frankly, their services will no longer be required. Sure, frameworks like SNAP & GRADD were great in their heyday. However, things have changed quite a bit. By throwing them out, not only do we get to bypass some possibly nasty issues concerning having a 2d component & a 3d component both attempting to render their data to the screen; we also don't have to worry about compatibility & variable levels of support for the 2d driver. That one 2d driver that will come with GL/2 in it's final implementation should be the last 2d driver ever written for OS/2. Most modern video cards have started getting rid of the 2d portions & rendering it all with 3d anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point. Creating 2d drivers for these devices will be pretty much just as complicated as writing a 3d driver anyway, so we all might as well get ready for the switch.

Quote
The bigger problem I see is the fact that the OS/2 Presentation Manager and all the graphical OS/2 applications use the GPI API to draw something on the screen. If an application asks for a circle to be drawn, it has to be boiled down to the graphics card somehow, right?
Now, when IBM decided to throw out the old video driver architecture, and introduced the much more clear GRADD architecture instead, they have written the "transition layer" which connects the GPI API with the GRADD drivers (gre2vman.dll, anyone?), so the old OS/2 PM applications did not have to be changed, they ran without modifications on the new video driver architecture.

The pure fact that gre2vman.dll exists gives a hint to what's really going on. Basically, all you really have to do is implement what gre expects you to & everything's fine. At the very least, implement the mandatory functions & return the rest back to the gre to be simulated until you're able to provide them yourself. Nothing really changes from the PM's point of view, because the PM only knows about the gre & the gre is expecting to talk to a driver. It doesn't really care if the driver is GRADD, SNAP, or a chubby chick sitting on the moon eating graham crackers, just as long as those functions are implemented.

Quote
I'd just like to point out that, in case the whole GRADD architecture is going to be thrown out, somebody will have to write a new transition layer, which will be quite a huge work, including a lot of gray and undocumented areas of the OS/2 PM API. Combining this with my non-understanding why GRADD does not fit for GL/2, I just don't see why was this path chosen.

GRADD needed transition layers. All GL/2 needs is one 2d->opengl driver.

Quote
And please let me have one more sentence: as I understood Rudi's posts, I think he was also quite interested in GL/2, and tried to understand some of the decisions (having similar problems like me) to be able to help... too bad that some misunderstanding or miscommunication or whatever came into the picture...

It's quite possible that I've over reacted to his post & read into it things that may not have been there. I could be wrong & he might actually have been interested in GL/2. Either way, I've apologized to him & I hope this incident doesn't run him away. As for everyone else, I also apologize you. This has, undoubtedly, been a huge distraction & was really completely OT, as this is a thread about porting Abiword. Hopefully, we all can move forword & focus on the true goals of this community -keeping OS/2 alive & growing the community.
The difference between what COULD be achieved & what IS achieved
is directly relational to what you COULD be doing & what you ARE doing!

Mike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Porting AbiWord
« Reply #28 on: 2011.05.18, 21:39:29 »

I wouldn't like to move the flame forward, but I just can't keep it to myself.


hello doodle,
you are welcome. We are here to discuss different kind of topics, thats why NOBODY should get crazy or rought in case different views come up. Enlightened people can comment their point of view here. First of all GRADD is not a driver its an architecture, IBM switched to GRADD to implement graphics drivers in a more easy way. We are all happy that demetrioussharpe started the GL/2 project ... to be continued.