WebSite Information > Article Discussions

Arca Noae progress report: ArcaOS on UEFI-only hardware

<< < (3/4) > >>

David Graser:
I remember seeing this years ago.  This was the wish list back in 2004. It is interesting to see what was desired back then.

http://os2news.warpstock.org/OS2Wishlist.html

Doug Bissett:

--- Quote ---I never understood the "No Time" Reason, as it may take only a few minutes a day or even once a week to monitor what is happening there).
--- End quote ---

No, it takes much more time than that. It also takes a LOT of time to try to explain to those who don't want to know, why it all takes so long, and fend off the swords (not to mention debunk the FUD, which helps nobody). They just don't need the hassles, and they can spend their time in more productive ways (including sleeping). Those of us who are on the test team do keep them informed, when there is something worth passing on. In fact, they seem to be ahead of most of the discussion here. That is one of the reasons why they do brief news reports.


--- Quote ---Has lowest priority for ArcaNoae as the money is to be earned in the industrial sector.
--- End quote ---

Not entirely true, but the sales contract does demand that they support the contract terms. We all need whatever the industrial sector needs, so there is a lot of overlap. They pay for the service, so they expect to get the service. Any user can buy the "full service" version of ArcaOS, but everybody seems to want it all for free. It ain't going to happen (IBM still wants their pound of flesh, and somebody needs to support those who are doing the work). Personally, I think that Arca Noae has struck a pretty good balance, and they are managing the whole project very well. Certainly it could be better, but it could also be a whole lot worse.

ivan:
No matter what anyone says, the use of OS/2/ArcaOS is going to end-up on the ability to actually install it on modern hardware and that includes AMD processors because of the people in industry having been bitten by the Intel meltdown and spectre CPU bugs.

Martin Iturbide:
Ohh, the eternal discussion... Enterprise or End Consumer.  The trick here is how do you keep the balls on the air to support both and trying to align the outcome, so when you do something for one, it will also benefit the other.

Sadly OS/2 is not free (as in beer and as in freedom). Money, enterprise agreements, IBM tax, customer and paid employee are required on this case. I don't think that Arca Noae is not hearing the community and only focusing on the industrial customers. I think that they have a lot of work to produce ArcaOS 5.1 and the local translations, compared to the money flow they may be getting. I don't think that Arca Noae's stockholders are getting rich with this business, like some communist may think.


--- Quote ---Personally, I think that Arca Noae has struck a pretty good balance, and they are managing the whole project very well. Certainly it could be better, but it could also be a whole lot worse.
--- End quote ---

I agree with Doug's statement and I also have some criticism for Arca Noae and the platform, but if I look back in time and remember that ArcaOS 5.0.0 was just released on May 15, 2017, I noticed that it is not "a lot" of time to consolidate completely an operating system (or even a Linux distro). I'm holding my criticism until May 15, 2019  ;D ;D

Regards

Dariusz Piatkowski:
I think Doug made a couple of excellent points. True, this forum does not get regular updates from the AN folks...however, the information does trickle in through those who participate in the testing activities.

Regarding the commercial over personal use focus by AN team...hmm, I am actually of quite the opposite opinion. To be very frank, it has been nothing but impressive to have multiple reported issues acknowledged and worked on, with resolutions being provided to nearly all of them...and yet here i am, a lowly "individual" right?

Thw weakness I see today is the seemingly very steep hill one needs to climb in order to join the development efforts. I know this may seem a bit like beating a dead horse, but I have tried this on my own and while many folks have pointed me "here and there", the fact remains that nowhere is there a single and CURRENT solution (a full build environment) available that we can pick up, set up, start producing things and stay in-sync with the toolsets and libraries the main parties (BWW and AN) are using.

If that is too hard to overcome we could always focus on converting whatever software is currently out there into RPM packages. This might go a long way towards standardizing the distribution stream and possibly might allow us to avoid some of the "it works here but fails there" type of situations. Standardization in this way would bring consistency.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page