ES/2 will be renamed e/OS2

[Martin Iturbide]

ES/2 uses quantum slipstream drive:

http://www.libsf.org/images/es2.png

Even that the trademark of "Operating System/2" seems to be "dead", I don't know how the law operates on that way. Maybe you should not use "Operating System/2".

And if we get completely strict maybe the ArcaOS web page should say at the bottom that *OS/2 and Windows trademarks belong to the respective owners.  But I think this is as much as a I can comment on this subject since I'm not a copyright/trademark expert.

Regards

[RickCHodgin]

I think I'll keep referring to them as ES/1 and ES/2 during development.  Those names are pretty well established.

I do like e/OS1 and e/OS2.  Maybe if someone knows someone at IBM they could ask?

[Martin Iturbide]

Hi Rick

I would not worry about the name right now, it is more important the functionality of the software and that it gets open source so it can have a future

Regards

[RickCHodgin]

Hi Rick

I would not worry about the name right now, it is more important the functionality of the software and that it gets open source so it can have a future

Regards

I think the name is important.  I'm effectively building a new community here.  Calling it, "Name To Be Later Determined" is not a good thing.  We need to know where we are.  Where we are going.  And why.

I've always liked ES/1 and ES/2.  Maybe I'll ultimately keep those.  But, they need names to establish and preserve their identity.

[Andi B.]

IMHO every name which includes / is far from good. People often talked ridiculously about OS/2 as being only half of an operating system ( /2 ). Moreover for the casual user input to search engines with / in a name gives all but proper results. 

Another annoying thing is that on non US keyboards / isn't that easy to type as the Americans are used to. But of course it's your name and you have to like it and live with it :-)

[RickCHodgin]

IMHO every name which includes / is far from good. People often talked ridiculously about OS/2 as being only half of an operating system ( /2 ). Moreover for the casual user input to search engines with / in a name gives all but proper results. 

Another annoying thing is that on non US keyboards / isn't that easy to type as the Americans are used to. But of course it's your name and you have to like it and live with it :-)

What about the / on Linux for the file paths?  It could be \ instead.  ES\1 and ES\2 work.  How about ES^1 and ES^2.  Exponential increases.  Imagine the follow-on ES^3. :-)

What if we didn't call it an "operating system" and instead something more like what it is, such as "system executive"?

e\SE1, e\SE2.  I like those, short for: Exodus System Executive 1 and Exodus System Executive 2.

Part of my desire to have the / in there is because my original kernel from the early/mid 90s was q/OS.  It's how I started, and it's been ingrained into me.

[xynixme]

ES\1 and ES\2 work.  How about ES^1 and ES^2.  Exponential increases.

Better than making it look like a combination of eCS and IBM's OS/2, let's say assuming it will be a commercial success somehow.

But I'm not sure "mum" will know what you are talking about, she may not understand the meaning of the ^-smileys, and she may like the fact that you're quite close to "EaSI".

With some keyboard the \ is harder to type than the /, so that is no perfect standard.

Yet another disadvantage is that v2 of e.g. ES^2 doesn't look good. OS/2 Warp was already better than OS/2 4. Unless you are targetting engineers loving and recognizing exponential formulas, obviously. "Mum" ain't no certified engineer...

[RickCHodgin]

In the midst of the confusion I'll keep them as ES/1 and ES/2.  Plenty of time for names later.  Maybe I'll call it Taligent, but with four Ms and a silent Q. :-)

[xynixme]

four Ms :-)

Dunno... Looks like "for Microsoft" to me... ;-)

I'm not going to suggest alternatives, even if /2 still suggests the 32 bits of OS/2 and /1 may be its even older 16 bits version. It's your baby, and all we've got is a name.

[Bogdan]

Will this ES/1 run on my old IBM Series/1 machine or only in conjunction with an Personal System/1 programmable workstation? Which support of DL/1 and PL/1 will be supplied?

IBM's OS/2 was designed for the Personal System/2 (PS/2). It runs also on XT286 and AT machines, so the label was quite misleading. Microsoft simply renamed OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT and raised the revision number by one. And now they're using simply the Windows or Windows Server brand for versions later than 6.x.

You should better use an acronym like EBICP/SE (Extended Binary Incompatible Control Program/System Extension). Everybody likes PCMCIA, DFDSM, DISOSS or EHLLAPI. Short acronyms like APAR or RACF are not popular and should be avoided.

[RickCHodgin]

four Ms :-)

Dunno... Looks like "for Microsoft" to me... ;-)

That's a reference to a Monty Python skit called "The Book Shop" IIRC.  It's John Cleese's character getting upset over the man requesting books with alternate spellings, like "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dikkens (the well-known Dutch author), and so on.  Finally, Cleese's character says, "Or even 'Stickwick Stapers' by Farles Wickens with four M's and a silent Q!!  Why don't you try W.H. Smith's?"  "Funny.  They sent me here."  "Did they?"

Very funny.

UPDATE:  I just remembered on the way in to work that it was "A Christmas Karol" (with a K) by Edmund Wells (the well-known Dutch author).  The reference to Charles Dikkens was for "David Kopperfield".  I think.  I haven't heard that skit in many years.  Pulling it from memory. :-)

I'm not going to suggest alternatives, even if /2 still suggests the 32 bits of OS/2 and /1 may be its even older 16 bits version. It's your baby, and all we've got is a name.

How about SuperOS! :-)  Or HeroOS!  I remember "Hiro" from a Thomas the Train episode.  Maybe HiroOS! :-)

I know ... I know there's a name ... out there ... somewhere.  We just have to find it.

[RickCHodgin]

Will this ES/1 run on my old IBM Series/1 machine or only in conjunction with an Personal System/1 programmable workstation? Which support of DL/1 and PL/1 will be supplied?

It will run on any traditional BIOS machine with VESA video support, CHS or LBA disk access, and PS/2 mouse/keyboard ports or emulation through BIOS, giving a DOS-like environment, but instead of text-based console windows it will be graphical console windows and a true 32-bit programming environment.  It will also offer a limited version of a type of Presentation Manager for traditional graphics apps, but very lightweight.  I do want the desktop to have a similar feel to OS/2, so it will be familiar to OS/2 users.

IBM's OS/2 was designed for the Personal System/2 (PS/2). It runs also on XT286 and AT machines, so the label was quite misleading. Microsoft simply renamed OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT and raised the revision number by one. And now they're using simply the Windows or Windows Server brand for versions later than 6.x.

You should better use an acronym like EBICP/SE (Extended Binary Incompatible Control Program/System Extension). Everybody likes PCMCIA, DFDSM, DISOSS or EHLLAPI. Short acronyms like APAR or RACF are not popular and should be avoided.

:-)  I know there's a name out there.  I'll stumble across it.  For now, I'll keep the ES/1 and ES/2 as they're just codenames for the work I suppose.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to proceed because I ran into that 640 KB barrier very quickly.  A few paths ahead, most of them difficult. :-)