Author Topic: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???  (Read 8888 times)

Roderick Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2018, 06:48:24 pm »
Well if you would read the readme file of Firefox for OS/2 it says the RPM package is downloadable via your ArcaOS subscription.

Anyway if you know how to do it  better outline your plan or call BWW to provide vast quanties of sponsorship.
Otherwhise stop distributing BS if you do not know what your talking about and leave this forum.

Saldy most OS/2 and eCS versions published are indeed what you can use them for, for retro computing. Such as on a T42 laptop. It works for you that is great. Otherwhise good luck booting eCS 2.1 on new Thinkpad T540d.

Sorry about that blund response. But it clearly seems you have not educated yourself properly as to why BWW introduced YUM/RPM. When you write that you expect for "Firefox for OS/2"  then why not make a big payment to BWW to make it happen ? BWW has make clear they need funding, they are underfunded and understaffed.  BWW makes MAYOR contributions to supporting the RPM and GCC enviroment on OS/2 and they all publish the results free of charge. Hence the reason they ask for sponsorunits.

With BWW its efforts we would have not a somewhat more modern browser. 

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #76 on: July 26, 2018, 07:37:06 pm »
Roderick,

...Sorry about that blund response...When you write that you expect for "Firefox for OS/2"  then why not make a big payment to BWW to make it happen ? BWW has make clear they need funding, they are underfunded and understaffed...

You are absolutely right on the money here. It can get pretty frustrating dealing with wanting the NEW releases and yet trying to make them all work on the original/GA OS/2 architecture. I have been there, 'done that, talked the talk and walked the walk', so I can certainly appreciate the sentiment on both sides.

Truth of the matter is that our platform is barely alive. This drives the decision making process a certain way and well, due to lack of other competitive driving forces (small platform, huge costs, etc) we all have no choice but to accept things.

Put it this way, even when you go down the RPM/YUM road it is not exactly like you have a sunny day every day. Packages are routinely not updated in a timely manner, tickets take a very long time to get worked on, or sometimes never at all. All of this frustrates the everyday use, and I am one of them. But, again, it is the way-of-life on the OS/2 platform and there realistically isn't much we can do about it.

Yes, I agree, it all sounds "defeatist" but one must be a realist as well. There have been numerous times where I felt like simply tossing my hands up in the air, shutting things OFF and walking away. My brother did exactly that some years ago, he now lives in the Linux world, happy enough, occsionally poking at me as I share my trials and tribulations with him. The love of OS/2 keeps me here and so I work with the limitations we have.

If there is one thing that I wish would get addressed it is the seemingly steep slope to building a DEV environment. I tried this, got stuck numerous times and still am stuck. Maybe if we could put $$$ into that task first and foremost we might be able to develop more grass-roots type activity, which I think would allow us to deal better with the other limitations.

Ian Manners

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 36
  • -Receive: 24
  • Posts: 292
  • I am the computer, it is me.
    • View Profile
    • ComKal Networks Australia
Cheers
Ian B Manners

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 319
  • -Receive: 60
  • Posts: 2072
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #78 on: July 26, 2018, 10:34:47 pm »
Hi

Sadly the frustration exists. There is no longer an OS war going on, Operating Systems are no longer a market when everybody is keen to give money. For example I dislike the FHS (the file structure) but I understand that to for Bitwise to port things with the limited resources there are (skills and money) it is the optimal thing to work with. Otherwise it will take more efforts (time and money) to port Linux software to OS/2.

And sometimes (just sometimes  :D ), I think that money is not always the problem, even if we throw a truckload of money to a company to develop for OS/2, where are they going to find the skilled people? or how long we will have to wait and how much money will need to be spent for the learning curve to be adopted for new OS/2 developers?

Everybody is welcome to put their effort to try to create, port or transforms things the way one like it, but we need to understand we can not force other people to do some things outside their likes and priorities (specially without the truckload of money). We can suggest, open tickets, try to find some other people with a common goal, try to raise money, discuss our point of view but we can not let the frustration turn into personal attacks or people labeling.

Regards

« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 10:47:22 pm by Martin Iturbide »
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Roderick Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #79 on: July 26, 2018, 10:49:38 pm »
https://os2ports.smedley.id.au/index.php?page=BuildEnvDVD

If you mean Paul Smedley offers this enviroment for free ? That is true. the GCC/LIBC enviroment on OS/2 is maintained by a  volenteers and and BWW. Paul works on the GCC compiler free of charge (small sponsor amount). 

Currently BWW maintains 266 DLL (the statics Silvan/Dmitry mentioned in the presentations they gave at Warpstock Europe. See http://articles.os2voice.org/  What paragraph: 
BWW does in the background when working on major ports" for details.

The big issue that is projects like Firefox and QT are I guess just about to big for the small team that works on these tools to work on. David Yeo provides his compiles for Thunderbird and Seamonkey, but I think he recently stated he would not be able to compile new version of Seamonkey/Thunderbird without the work of BWW.



Roderick

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 9
  • -Receive: 112
  • Posts: 1644
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2018, 12:09:32 am »
Well if you would read the readme file of Firefox for OS/2 it says the RPM package is downloadable via your ArcaOS subscription.

It isn't currently and I don't think the first RPM is generally available. Seems there was a Firefox testing list where it was released to.

Andi B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 402
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2018, 08:14:48 am »
Quote
.... not updated in a timely manner, tickets take a very long time to get worked on, or sometimes never at all. ..... and there realistically isn't much we can do about it
For this point of your post I've a slightly different POV. Luckily all BWW projects talked about in this thread are open software and freely available. In contrary to OS/2 components and some AN projects. BWW stuff is usually easy to build and sufficiently documented. You can fix bugs if you're skilled enough relatively easy. A big difference IMHO.

Silvan Scherrer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 7
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2018, 11:49:12 am »
Put it this way, even when you go down the RPM/YUM road it is not exactly like you have a sunny day every day. Packages are routinely not updated in a timely manner, tickets take a very long time to get worked on, or sometimes never at all. All of this frustrates the everyday use, and I am one of them. But, again, it is the way-of-life on the OS/2 platform and there realistically isn't much we can do about it.
Could you get a bit more precis about that? As we update ports relatively regularly. And tickets should not stay forever as long as we can reproduce them. I just looked (briefly) at tickets and didn't see any open ones from you. Nor any request.

Quote
If there is one thing that I wish would get addressed it is the seemingly steep slope to building a DEV environment. I tried this, got stuck numerous times and still am stuck. Maybe if we could put $$$ into that task first and foremost we might be able to develop more grass-roots type activity, which I think would allow us to deal better with the other limitations.
With rpm in place a DEV env is relatively easy. We could tell/write all steps. Even on netlabs are already some written (small) articles about that. And of course if one puts $$$ in it we will help even faster. Using a rpm DEV env doesn't mean you need to build rpm enabled ports. It just helps you to install the DEV env.
kind regards
Silvan
CTO bww bitwise works GmbH

Please help us with donations, so we can further work on OS/2 based projects. Our Shop is at https://www.bitwiseworks.com/shop/index.php

Neil Waldhauer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 7
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
    • Blonde Guy
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2018, 03:46:57 pm »
If there is one thing that I wish would get addressed it is the seemingly steep slope to building a DEV environment. I tried this, got stuck numerous times and still am stuck. Maybe if we could put $$$ into that task first and foremost we might be able to develop more grass-roots type activity, which I think would allow us to deal better with the other limitations.
With rpm in place a DEV env is relatively easy. We could tell/write all steps. Even on netlabs are already some written (small) articles about that. And of course if one puts $$$ in it we will help even faster. Using a rpm DEV env doesn't mean you need to build rpm enabled ports. It just helps you to install the DEV env.

I asked Yuri last year at Warpstock, but I didn't really get anything useful. We need someone to provide some guidance. At this point, though, it's better to come in as a Linux developer. Nothing I've got from setting up the legacy OS/2 development environments really helps to set up an rpm DEV environment.

Last year at Warpstock, Andy Willis showed how to make RPM, but we lack a public way to qualify NetLabs builds. How do we submit a build for the experimental repository, or eventually to release repository?

It would be excellent if someone who wants a Dev environment would document the steps to create one and present that in September. I can accept remote or prerecorded presentations.
Expert consulting for ArcaOS, OS/2 and eComStation
http://www.blondeguy.com

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2018, 04:05:10 pm »
Hi Silvan,

Put it this way, even when you go down the RPM/YUM road it is not exactly like you have a sunny day every day...
Could you get a bit more precis about that? As we update ports relatively regularly. And tickets should not stay forever as long as we can reproduce them. I just looked (briefly) at tickets and didn't see any open ones from you. Nor any request.

Oh now now, you and I have exchanged some pretty heated words in the past on this subject, so I won't go there again. My move from self-managed DLL to RPM/YUM was a nightmare, in some cases caused by unforeseen issues (such as previous Python install), so in an already existing OS/2 deployment, some of which are results of years of updates and ugprades at best, it's not 'pretty'.

I have no doubt that the team is trying, but at best, you guys are pretty tight on resources and the reality is that what we have today is simply not enough. All this creates stress and when the 'stars' aren't aligned just right to debug the problem quickly it makes the existing issues into even bigger problems.

You still want examples? OK...take the PSI IM client appliation, I'll use an example of what I would classify as in one case crappy and on the other hand a pretty good response:

1) PSI v0.16-dev-20150213 - crashes when entering IM message (http://trac.netlabs.org/qtapps/ticket/120)

Ticket opened Apr-8th, 1st response May-21st, potential fix identified May-24th...unfortunately given the time it took for anyone to work the ticket I had actually stopped usign the app since it was unusable.

2) PSI v.016-2018-07-16 produces a THEME error (http://trac.netlabs.org/qtapps/ticket/123)

Ticket opened Jul-19th, 1st response Jul-23rd, potential fix/workaround confirmed Jul-26th...wow, fantastic and seriously speedy resolution!

Here is an example of an unresolved ticket altogether:

1) Lucide 1.40 GA - crashes with large PDF files (http://trac.netlabs.org/lucide/ticket/355)

Ticket opened Apr-6th, 1st response Apr-9th, potential workaround only identified on Apr-17th and confirmed that the ticket will not be worked on due to lack of resources...and so it sits out there today despite the fact that it is probably the only native PDF viewer we have. So I go back to my GSView until I can one day (hopefully) run Lucide again.

...
Quote
If there is one thing that I wish would get addressed it is the seemingly steep slope to building a DEV environment...
With rpm in place a DEV env is relatively easy. We could tell/write all steps. Even on netlabs are already some written (small) articles about that. And of course if one puts $$$ in it we will help even faster. Using a rpm DEV env doesn't mean you need to build rpm enabled ports. It just helps you to install the DEV env.
...

You see, a statement like "...With rpm in place a DEV env is relatively easy..." is what may be part of the problem. The truth of the matter is that this is simply not true. I went down that path (please take a look at my threads in the Programming forum), could hardly get the native OS/2 stuff up and running, relied mostly on my previously installed VAC++ and EMX stuff instead. Only after many tedious hours and some forum feedback from the few who have actually ventured down this path, was I able to at least do basic GCC compiles. I am still stuck on a simple task of building a multi-threaded app (pthread) and certainly nowhere near being able to actually attempt a platform migration, let alone trying to help out in supporting various tickets.

So yes, you are absolutely right on the money regarding the documentation aspect. There simply seem to be too many pieces of this puzzle floating around, people like myself who tried to crack that nut, and anyone else who comes after them has seemingly no choice but to re-do all of that which hopefully results in a working install. On top of this, what may have worked some time ago no longer works today, the environment changes, part of that being due to the necessity driven course changes as we get nearer and neared to the Linux way of doing DEV. Sure, it makes sense, it's the only way for us to continue to have a viable way of sourcing new software, but my God, for someone knew to this 'game' it's like trying to shoot the arrow through that apple on someone's head while I'm on the back of the wagon that's rolling over some pretty bumpy roads...just ain't gonna happen!!!

I am going to venture a guess and say that this too often proves to be an insurmountable obstacle to growing the grass-roots DEV team.

Silvan Scherrer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 7
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #85 on: July 30, 2018, 11:04:29 am »
If there is one thing that I wish would get addressed it is the seemingly steep slope to building a DEV environment. I tried this, got stuck numerous times and still am stuck. Maybe if we could put $$$ into that task first and foremost we might be able to develop more grass-roots type activity, which I think would allow us to deal better with the other limitations.
With rpm in place a DEV env is relatively easy. We could tell/write all steps. Even on netlabs are already some written (small) articles about that. And of course if one puts $$$ in it we will help even faster. Using a rpm DEV env doesn't mean you need to build rpm enabled ports. It just helps you to install the DEV env.

I asked Yuri last year at Warpstock, but I didn't really get anything useful. We need someone to provide some guidance. At this point, though, it's better to come in as a Linux developer. Nothing I've got from setting up the legacy OS/2 development environments really helps to set up an rpm DEV environment.

Last year at Warpstock, Andy Willis showed how to make RPM, but we lack a public way to qualify NetLabs builds. How do we submit a build for the experimental repository, or eventually to release repository?

It would be excellent if someone who wants a Dev environment would document the steps to create one and present that in September. I can accept remote or prerecorded presentations.
I someone steps up and want to install a yum/rpm based dev env we can help. As all our dev use such an env. And if people believe it or not it's not hard to have a working setup. Some parts are documented and some need a brush up. So it's easiest if someone installs a brand new ArcaOS and we go from there. And of course this person should then document all our missing parts as well.
kind regards
Silvan
CTO bww bitwise works GmbH

Please help us with donations, so we can further work on OS/2 based projects. Our Shop is at https://www.bitwiseworks.com/shop/index.php

Silvan Scherrer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 7
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #86 on: July 30, 2018, 11:21:26 am »
1) PSI v0.16-dev-20150213 - crashes when entering IM message (http://trac.netlabs.org/qtapps/ticket/120)

Ticket opened Apr-8th, 1st response May-21st, potential fix identified May-24th...unfortunately given the time it took for anyone to work the ticket I had actually stopped usign the app since it was unusable.
If you think that's long I tend to disagree. As I do those things in my sparetime as long as there is no pricatag added. If one steps up and says "Hey for this fix I would donate ... USD/€" all would be done faster. As then I could do it in my normal business hours.
And yes in the end all is money driven. If people like it or not, that how it works here. And no, we don't get rich at all. As sponsors/donators are rarely these days. And of course people which sponsored/donated already some USD/€ get faster responses. That's also normal I guess.
I could go a lot deeper in this regard, but I will not, as it doesn't belong in here. If some people want/need more information they have to sned me private e-mails.

Quote
1) Lucide 1.40 GA - crashes with large PDF files (http://trac.netlabs.org/lucide/ticket/355)

Ticket opened Apr-6th, 1st response Apr-9th, potential workaround only identified on Apr-17th and confirmed that the ticket will not be worked on due to lack of resources...and so it sits out there today despite the fact that it is probably the only native PDF viewer we have. So I go back to my GSView until I can one day (hopefully) run Lucide again.
We are not maintaining that since very long. But anyway a workaround was shown very fast. And agein here as well. Putting some buck in some peoples hand might help.
kind regards
Silvan
CTO bww bitwise works GmbH

Please help us with donations, so we can further work on OS/2 based projects. Our Shop is at https://www.bitwiseworks.com/shop/index.php

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2018, 05:41:13 pm »
Hi Silvan,

...If you think that's long I tend to disagree. As I do those things in my sparetime as long as there is no pricatag added...

Please look at the bigger picture and the overall context here. While you are focusing on all the reasons (AFAIK all of them being very fair and reasonable) why the proverbial SLA on the OS/2 platform is what it is, I am talking about the bigger picture where our platform experience pales in comparison to other community supported projects. Anyways, further argument here is pointless because I think we are both saying the same thing: we can not be any faster on OS/2 platform due to current challenges.

...If one steps up and says "Hey for this fix I would donate ... USD/€" all would be done faster... we don't get rich at all. As sponsors/donators are rarely these days. And of course people which sponsored/donated already some USD/€ get faster responses. That's also normal I guess.

I'm glad you brought the money aspect up, I firmly believe in the "put your money where your mouth is" approach to things, so to that end here is a brief summary of what I specifically contributed to most recently. I would be thrilled to see what others have done, for all I know I may indeed be very lacking in providing $$$ support...LOL?

1) multiple years of $49 USD for AN 'OS/2 & eCS Drivers & Software Subscription'
2) $15 USD for 'OS/2 ports and applications by Andrey Vasilkin'
3) $50 USD for '2 x VOICE sponsoring', I think this was PMMail?
4) $25 USD for 'FreeRDP port by Andrey Vasilkin', specific to his RDP Client project
5) $25 USD for 'OS/2 ports by Paul Smedley', hoping Paul would take a stab at porting Python 3.x

These are just the most recent couple of years. Of course there have been others such as the OpenOffice license, numerous applications (PMView, NetDrive, etc), and of course as much as possible I participate in and provide feedback on individual projects (be it something like the lSwitcher, or the bigger AN OS).

My point being: money is not the sole answer here, and thinking that this aspect alone will somehow improve the situation is wishfull thinking. Therefore, when you say something like "...And of course people which sponsored/donated already some USD/€ get faster responses..." I can't help but literally ask: what sort of sponsorship are we talking about here???

My personal feeling is that if I contribute more than the occasional $25/50 here and there I might as well be spending the money on a real platform (read => mainstream/commercial) with the bigger consumer audience and professional support teams (with real corporate SLAs).

Quote
1) Lucide 1.40 GA - crashes with large PDF files (http://trac.netlabs.org/lucide/ticket/355)
We are not maintaining that since very long. But anyway a workaround was shown very fast. And agein here as well. Putting some buck in some peoples hand might help.

But Silvan, you did not digest the full content of that ticket, the workaround simply does not work, it's a catch-22 where the workaround itself creates another problem which must itself be addressed through yet another workaround, is that metric seriously accepted as meeting the SLA???

Paul Smedley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #88 on: August 05, 2018, 03:55:17 am »
Hey Ian,


https://os2ports.smedley.id.au/index.php?page=BuildEnvDVD

Personally, I think people are likely better off with rpm these days, although why they stick with GCC 4.9.2 is beyond me....

Paul Smedley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« Reply #89 on: August 05, 2018, 03:59:46 am »
Hi Dariusz,

5) $25 USD for 'OS/2 ports by Paul Smedley', hoping Paul would take a stab at porting Python 3.x

Note that this is still on the radar - looks like Samba 4.10 might need Python 3 for building...

Cheers,

Paul