Public Discussions > General Discussion
ES/2, the open source OS/2
David Graser:
Hi Rick
What has made OS/2 so appealing to a lot of us users is the Workplace Shell. Windows and Linux have nothing like it. It is one of the reasons I have remained with versions of OS/2 all these years. So long as WPS works on top of your kernal, I would be happy. I look forward to seeing what you can accomplish. Be sure and do away with the SIQ in your version. Thanks again.
David
RickCHodgin:
--- Quote from: David Graser on October 24, 2018, 09:48:11 pm ---What has made OS/2 so appealing to a lot of us users is the Workplace Shell. Windows and Linux have nothing like it. It is one of the reasons I have remained with versions of OS/2 all these years. So long as WPS works on top of your kernal, I would be happy. I look forward to seeing what you can accomplish.
--- End quote ---
Outwardly, it will be identical. Under the hood, it will be open source. On the whole, my goal is to compete with Linux, Windows, and Mac OS ... and yes, I am serious. I want to produce the best product this world has seen, and I want people to come and help me do it.
--- Quote ---Be sure and do away with the SIQ in your version. Thanks again.
--- End quote ---
Yes. It's only natural. Done. :-)
roberto:
--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on October 14, 2018, 07:04:52 pm --- little by little replace DOSCALL1.DLL...
--- End quote ---
With reference to the doscall1.dll it occurs to me that it could be interesting simply and without modifying anything, recompiling it in a mono processor computer and see if it works better than the current one or not. It would not be a lot of work and the difference could be considerable, or a waste of time.
I have many sys3170, from doscall1.dll in my popuplog.os2, when the browser is closed without warning.
saludos
Dave Yeo:
--- Quote from: roberto on October 24, 2018, 11:11:15 pm ---
--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on October 14, 2018, 07:04:52 pm --- little by little replace DOSCALL1.DLL...
--- End quote ---
With reference to the doscall1.dll it occurs to me that it could be interesting simply and without modifying anything, recompiling it in a mono processor computer and see if it works better than the current one or not. It would not be a lot of work and the difference could be considerable, or a waste of time.
I have many sys3170, from doscall1.dll in my popuplog.os2, when the browser is closed without warning.
saludos
--- End quote ---
There are 2 versions of doscall1.dll, an SMP one and a UNI one. See x:\os2\install\smp and x:\os2\install\W4. These need to match the type of kernel installed, hopefully you haven't got the wrong one installed :) I don't seem to have any sys3170's in DOSCALL1 caused by the browser.
Mathias:
Dear Rick,
in general I DO like opensource and also the way everybody can contribute/participate in creating a cewl product.
On the other hand though, I see many many forks are being created. Developer power is being "wasted" to do the same thing, just in another project, to "reinvent the bicycle" again.
This is not too much of a big deal in the Linux world, as there are enough functional distributions around. But for OS/2, there is only ONE product left, that is being maintained and looked after, which is ArcaOS. In my opinion all developers with the ability to help this project should concentrate their work force and knowledge to that one product.
By forking OS/2 again, lots of developer power is needed for the other project as well, two or more people working on the same problem in a different project. This is quite inefficient, especially when you see that OS/2 is a dinosaur that has already died out almost, and now comes back to life slowly.
You asked for our opinions, so I will tell you mine: If I had the power and knowledge to actively develop for the core operating system and its features, I would rather go and help ArcaNoae out, but start my own thing. Not only that ArcaNoae already has the knowledge and sources, so developers can jump right into work, they also have the IBM/Microsoft licenses, lawyers and all the necessary stuff, that could get in your way later, when developing "your own thing".
There always is a gap between what's allowed and what could be done.. - So developing stuff is not the only thing, but also to legally create something. Else you might run into lawyers that could take your thing away later on.
Another aspect are drivers and support for hard- & software. Will your forked product be 100% compatible to OS/2? Also in later stages, people might develop software for your forked version, that might maybe not run under native OS/2. The users might end up with two OS/2ish operating systems, where only one of these can run their favourite software... and therefore they would need both of them to be able to run all their stuff.
This does not only sound complicated, it actually is. In the end, users might come to think "Nah.. OS/2 is too complicated and nothing works, always need two versions of them", which might hurt the big scope dream about an up2date OS/2 being liked by its users.
Then this would require even more developer power to write wrappers or to generally make the two OS/2ish operating systems compatible... .... a never ending story.
Meanwhile all developers, that are able to produce nice OS/2 applications, could also have concentrated their time and efforts onto one operating system, that already exists, to make that one even better than it ever was..
Just my thoughts..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version