WebSite Information > Article Discussions
Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
André Heldoorn:
--- Quote from: guzzi on November 18, 2017, 09:55:37 pm ---when I take into account the number of bugreports in the firefox bug tracker by the main complainants I get the strong impression that complaining or even trolling is more important to some than actually helping getting bugs fixed.
--- End quote ---
Names, please. For example, people with your type of arguments tend to overlook that I'm not even really using FF for "OS/2", that I don't tend to provide personal data to create accounts to report bugs, that a bug tracker is the developer's system instead of mine, that I'm a happy user of an older version of SM, that I've never complained about Yeo's efforts regarding FF/SM/his standards, that I've guessed frame rate numbers quite frequently, that I've invested quite a lot of time in upgrades and matching downgrades, and so on. I've been critized frequently, even over here by a programmer of FF, while I'm not even using their latest non-OS/2 version of FF. I've stated frequently that efforts to keep up to date with FF's Agile are impressive. I've stated fequently that authors of ports tend to reduce the size of the OS/2 community, without recalling any serious comment that I was wrong (serious: not counting the author of FF, one of his main arguments was that RPM solved language difficulties of users of OS/2). I've stated that the author of FF for "OS/2" is allowed to release a Pentium 4 version for a 80386 OS, and so on. If I would actually use FF, then I have no reason to believe that all of my latest issues with FF for "OS/2" cannot by reproduced by a $10 Pentium III test install. The author of FF for "OS/2" has offered solutions for unreported bug over here, which just show that reporting some broken components is 100% useless: use an OS with a foreign language users may not understand (DE/EN), and buy matching new hardware. I already know that was the reply to unreported bugs, which also explains why I'm not even using nor funding their work, and I didn't need dmik's silly arguments (a.o. "I'm Russian") to presume such a "solution". And so on. Which part of "I'm not really using FF, SM is my browser" isn't always clear?
Hence the question: names (plural), please? Why are you even using a bug tracker to check people? How do you know that I wasn't a bug tracker's (virtual) "user1235"? Why are you insulting anonymous people with your troll remarks? What's your definition of a troll? I, for one, would suggest the use of a better benchmark than a system of a developer of a product I'm not using, with a CTO who first described that ignoring (potential) customers, in public, is a "great feeling" and next asks (potential) customers to send more money. An unqualified amateur. If something is broken now, then it's your benchmark. And, granted, sometimes one's initial attitude of a classic engineer.
A complicated, interesting fact is that public bug trackers do promote and support the underlying problems of commercial ICT methodes, including but not limited to Mozilla's rapid release cycle. There's no direct link, I'm not expecting an eCS 3.0 anymore. There is a reason why e.g. Agile ignores experts and why e.g. ITIL has to define that customers are satisfied. Satisfied by definition, not by solutions nor actual provided services. Users of active, public bug trackers are a part of a broken system, including but not limited to users having to donate their commercial or private data to a service provider of the author.
In a nutshell: sometimes I actually do "like" to complain about Microsoft, so according to a biased or non-evidence based point of view like yours I'm not a troll when I report everything I don't like about their supported products to Microsoft, by using Microsoft's bug tracking system with a Microsoft account, while not using or really wanting to use Microsoft's dominating products at all. Go figure...
André Heldoorn:
--- Quote from: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 12:36:38 pm ---I don't know what's going on here? UNIX' directory structure was adopted back in the days of DOS version 2.
--- End quote ---
You're smarter than that and know what I mean, without having to require users to always be technically accurate. This is not an Unix forum, while perhaps appriciating a more accurate report of both Unix and the history of MS-DOS. If I want an Unix directory structure with an own root, including but not limited to solutions like RPM, then I'll start using Unix. I won't.
I could have installed such a (full) structure while smiling and not noticing it, while installing eCS 2.x DE/EN or AOS EN. But DE nor EN still isn't the prefered foreign language of the OS over here, and the developers of eCs 2.x and/or couldn't be arsed to produce an official directory structure-related upgrade for OS/2 and eCS. Different products, smaller user base. Most of the non-DE/EN community of IBM's has already left us, often without telling us.
Thanks for explsainig what Mensys did, but it's quite obvious that resources are limited. The reduced number of eCS 1.x and 2.x languages, compared to Warp 4 FixPaxk 0, has reduced the size of the community too. That's nothing but a fact. Of life. I'm not demanding all files in one directory, but I'm often pointing out that such a change can, and should be avoided. FF45 is just an example of an important product "we" aren't using anymore, and so is an updated silly Qt-based game or most of the un-OS/2'ified GCC port. If I want most of Unix, then I'll start using Unix.
Andreas Kohl:
--- Quote from: André Heldoorn on November 20, 2017, 01:39:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 12:36:38 pm ---I don't know what's going on here? UNIX' directory structure was adopted back in the days of DOS version 2.
--- End quote ---
You're smarter than that and know what I mean, without having to require users to always be technically accurate. This is not an Unix forum, while perhaps appriciating a more accurate report of both Unix and the history of MS-DOS. If I want an Unix directory structure with an own root, including but not limited to solutions like RPM, then I'll start using Unix. I won't.
--- End quote ---
Every OS/2 system has an "Unix directory structure" even when IPLed from floppy or network. And for sure every user who's posting here from an OS/2 (or NT) networked station is also using a BSD-derived IP stack. It's not a good idea to mix different topics namely directory structure, file system and UNIX. Only a simple example/question for porting trivial stuff: How about a shell script that handles "compress"ed UNIX files *.Z and also "pack"ed UNIX files *.z?
--- Quote ---I could have installed such a (full) structure while smiling and not noticing it, while installing eCS 2.x DE/EN or AOS EN. But DE nor EN still isn't the prefered foreign language of the OS over here, and the developers of eCs 2.x and/or couldn't be arsed to produce an official directory structure-related upgrade for OS/2 and eCS. Different products, smaller user base. Most of the non-DE/EN community of IBM's has already left us, often without telling us.
--- End quote ---
For economical reasons only German counts for large remaining OS/2 deployments. There were two groups of people in the U.S. forced to learn German: DEA's dog handlers and IBM's OS/2 kernel developers. ;)
--- Quote ---Thanks for explsainig what Mensys did, but it's quite obvious that resources are limited. The reduced number of eCS 1.x and 2.x languages, compared to Warp 4 FixPaxk 0, has reduced the size of the community too.
--- End quote ---
Warp 4 fixpak 0 (XR_M000) was only available in American language AFAIK. No convincing argument.
--- Quote ---That's nothing but a fact. Of life. I'm not demanding all files in one directory, but I'm often pointing out that such a change can, and should be avoided. FF45 is just an example of an important product "we" aren't using anymore, and so is an updated silly Qt-based game or most of the un-OS/2'ified GCC port. If I want most of Unix, then I'll start using Unix.
--- End quote ---
It's not fair to blame Unix for the chaotic YUM/RPM situation under OS/2-based systems. The current partly ported RPM features (from an quite outdated release) unfortunately leads to misconceptions in this area. Unix is about small tools that make a great environment. The GNUish bloatware around is not UNIX. To make it clear I don't want to blame FSF here. And so-called open source software existed even before. There are quite good examples for portable software. But also wrong assumptions which will cause trouble under OS/2 targets sometimes torturing end-users with wrong documentation, non-working national language support or other issues. It's a effortless regurgitation to write bug reports for recurrent disturbances.
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.
Martin Iturbide:
--- Quote from: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 08:39:25 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Regards
Martin Iturbide:
Hi
Trying to move on there is a new post at OS2VOICE.
http://articles.os2voice.org/
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.
Regards
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version