Author Topic: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?  (Read 20842 times)

Lars

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 51
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2014, 01:21:35 pm »
About the problems with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP, see:

http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,176.msg1453.html#msg1453

Lars

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 7
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2014, 02:13:23 pm »
About the problems with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP, see:

http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,176.msg1453.html#msg1453

Lars

I am running os/4 kernel with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP  -  never see a problem.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 469
  • -Receive: 95
  • Posts: 2656
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2014, 02:21:59 pm »

Ok, Mensys wants to live - this is normal. But, in fact - they will take this code and will make of it another one "subscription package". So, I will give them a gift - something for sale, nothing else. And Gorbunov will start telling all - what exactly eCS team made it, after long days and nights of heavy researching ;)


This is the beauty of open source. Every time that somebody says something false like "Mensys invented XWorkplace" we all know the truth and it is all documented on the web. The idea is not to care about Mensys/Gorbunov, if you turn QSINIT as copyleft (not only open source), and if Mensys will use it, they possible will patch it and improve it too, and if it is copyleft they will be forced to release the source code, so the efforts of the small developer and big developer will join in the same project and with the same license.

This makes me remember that there used to be a lot of people that liked to recycle and felt good about their contribution to the environment. They separated the garbage and give it to the recycle center that was doing something good for nature but reusing the plastic and aluminum. The company that received this garbage recycled it and start making some money, but they were also supporting the environment with their actions while making profits. When people started to see that recycling was a good business for the recycle center they got "resentment" and questioned why they are doing money? why I still separate the garbage if they are a "evil corporation"? Nobody remembered that in the end they were doing a good deed to the world and only focused on "resentment" against the success of the recycle center.

At the end, people stopped recycling, the recycle center got financial problems and the environment got screwed again.

Let's care about the environment (community/platform) and not about the recycle center (Mensys or any other company).

Resentment will take us the wrong way, will make us waist time on what to do to screw the other, will steal our hours of sleep trying to figure it out how to harm the other.
Resentment does not have to be a motivator never,  only your will to help and contribute. Only the love to this platform will make us work together to create something bigger that will persevere in time.

Regards
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 02:55:51 pm by Martin Iturbide »
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 7
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2014, 02:26:51 pm »
2) from the website, it's completely unobvious of what the latest version is for the OS4 core project. I'd go with the SVN revision numbers but I could never be sure. It's also not clear what version was reasonably stable and what version was not. I would also think it would be a good idea to remove all versions that proved to be too unstable for most testers.

3) it's completely unobvious in how far the QSINIT project relates to the OS4 project. Does QSINIT "overwrite" the OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips ? What would be the benefit to use QSINIT in favor of the OS2LDR that comes with the OS/4 kernel zip ? Is that the same group of developers of these 2 projects ?

4) there is no FAQ that would collect common problems or such. Also there is about no documentation. All the information is contained in the few postings floating around on the os2world website. Who is going to bother and go through the effort to test the OS/4 kernel if he is more or less completely on his own ? Not too many people I would think ...

For me, 2) and 3) and 4) are the most pressing problems

2) latest ver is here http://ru2.halfos.ru/core/downloads/

3) you can use QSINIT instead of OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips

4) if os2word  wants,   it is possible to do a kind of wiki

walking_x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 3
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2014, 04:24:40 pm »
Why was Veit not contacted ?
Veit's PCIBUS.SNP causes problems with QSINIT, not OS/4. Ok, I can contact Veit or fix it in available code. But who will replace current version in ALL eCS installations?

So I just fixed my code to make happy Veit`s code ;) And, may be this is a better idea - because now it simulate IBM OS2LDR in PCI helpers.

Quote
1) do it all yourself
2) don't talk to anybody else
3) keep everything to yourself, not the binaries but the knowledge
4) don't document anything
Loading of kernel is complex task - I may write a small book about  it, but have no time to do this too ;) (we're all need to pay tribute to "real life").

Code is documented, at least QSINIT.
But changing it without understanding - can make consequences far from source point.
QSINIT a less restrictive, but both OS/4 & IBM, who use "real mode COM file" model - is a kind of little nightmare -  for manage, link or update.

So - getting sources is only for "Now I got these sources" in this part. Ok, Mensys can add kernel patching to loader or nice copyright message - but no real improvements can be done...  This is conservative part of code ;) Or, if you have ideas - tell me.

if you turn QSINIT as copyleft (not only open source), and if Mensys will use it, they possible will patch it and improve it too, and if it is copyleft they will be forced to release the source code, so the efforts of the small developer and big developer will join in the same project and with the same license.
Now I can make these improvements by myself. And - I'm absolutly serious, not every one programmer can make improvements in this part, in most way this will be disasters ;) Of cause, I was much more optimistic too - when started learning this process.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 05:56:27 pm by walking_x »

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 469
  • -Receive: 95
  • Posts: 2656
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2014, 06:32:01 pm »
Now I can make these improvements by myself. And - I'm absolutly serious, not every one programmer can make improvements in this part, in most way this will be disasters ;) Of cause, I was much more optimistic too - when started learning this process.

Just go ahead, you know I'm an open source freak :) ...but just go ahead and let's see how things shapes in the future.
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Lars

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 51
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2014, 08:41:38 pm »
2) from the website, it's completely unobvious of what the latest version is for the OS4 core project. I'd go with the SVN revision numbers but I could never be sure. It's also not clear what version was reasonably stable and what version was not. I would also think it would be a good idea to remove all versions that proved to be too unstable for most testers.

3) it's completely unobvious in how far the QSINIT project relates to the OS4 project. Does QSINIT "overwrite" the OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips ? What would be the benefit to use QSINIT in favor of the OS2LDR that comes with the OS/4 kernel zip ? Is that the same group of developers of these 2 projects ?

4) there is no FAQ that would collect common problems or such. Also there is about no documentation. All the information is contained in the few postings floating around on the os2world website. Who is going to bother and go through the effort to test the OS/4 kernel if he is more or less completely on his own ? Not too many people I would think ...

For me, 2) and 3) and 4) are the most pressing problems

2) latest ver is here http://ru2.halfos.ru/core/downloads/

3) you can use QSINIT instead of OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips

4) if os2word  wants,   it is possible to do a kind of wiki

Why does the QSINIT kernel not become part of OS/4 and replaces the one from the OS/4 package ?


Lars

Lars

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 51
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2014, 08:48:44 pm »
Veit's PCIBUS.SNP causes problems with QSINIT, not OS/4. Ok, I can contact Veit or fix it in available code. But who will replace current version in ALL eCS installations?

I could always address this to Roderick Klein from Mensys. I once wrote a REXX script to patch a (minor) problem in OS2LDR. They took it and eventually ran it against all copies of OS2LDR on the installation CD-ROM. The patched OS2LDR became part of the build tree for the CD-ROM.

For updates of drivers like PCIBUS.SNP: a WPI could be created from it and then installed via the eCS Update utility that was written by Chuck McKinnis. That is exactly what it was created for.


Lars

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 7
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2014, 08:54:57 pm »

Why does the QSINIT kernel not become part of OS/4 and replaces the one from the OS/4 package?

Lars

They are being developed by two different developers.

Doug Bissett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 53
  • Posts: 1312
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2014, 11:23:05 pm »
It seems that this subject is going viral.  :)

There is too much to go through, to make individual replies, so I will comment on some that caught my attention, without quoting:

Mensys is in the game to make money. If they don't, the game is over, because nobody else will be able to do it. Mensys is sub licensed by IBM to distribute OS/2. Without that license, distributing eCS would become a nightmare for anybody who wants to try it. Some still seem to think that everybody should get everything, for free. Sorry, but I don't agree. If that happened, nobody would buy eComStation, and with no sales, comes no development, or any kind of coordination.  I think that Mensys has been more than generous to make available what they do make available, for free. I, for one, am willing to contribute to the project, when I can, and Mensys is free to use whatever I contribute. I am not so sure that I feel that way toward those who don't contribute to the project, and still demand all of the benefits.

Overall, very little is known about the OS/4 project. That is partly because it is being done in private, and in Russian (the language), but it is also because the developers have not been keeping users up to date. It is my impression, that the main focus of OS/4 is to rework the kernel. The loader part probably became necessary to make it possible to load the kernel, but I get the idea that the loader part of OS/4 has become "finished", and is not really being developed any more. QSINIT, while it has it's roots in OS/4, has become a stand alone project. While there is some question about the legality of the OS/4 kernel, there is little doubt that the QSINIT loader is original work.

I would note, that I get the impression that Mensys wants nothing to do with OS/4, because of the legal questions, and the developers don't want to admit what they are really doing. Mensys must have a fully legal product to sell, or they risk law suits. They also need well tested software (which is a major problem for them, because they don't have a large test base), to be able to assure their customers that they are buying a viable product. I am sure that there is also some concern that "spyware" might be included.

QSINIT has recently added some functionality that OS/2 desperately needs (working around UEFI problems, and making it possible to use memory above 4 GB, even if it is only for a RAMDISK). That puts QSINIT into the "must have" category. At the moment, the only major fault, is that ACPI doesn't get along with it. I expect that David A. is far too busy to think about trying to help fix that problem. I would hope that Mensys is smart enough to make sure that it does get fixed, once they get eCS 2.2 out the door, and then take steps to incorporate the new loader (or a sub set of it - Tetris is probably not necessary  :D ) into eCS, in one way, or another. I would also hope that walking_x will work with them to accomplish that. Walking_x also needs to have a way to turn over the source, to somebody (Mensys would be the obvious recipient), if he should decide to quit, or if he should become incapable of doing so (need I mention the proverbial "What bus?"). The first step in doing that would be to license the work, in some way that it will not become a private project, as it is now (we saw what happened with GENMAC). Of course, that also means that the source needs to be made available, although a contract could probably be made, to delay the open source status, until such time as walking_x decided to quit, or became unable to continue. Making the source available doesn't mean that somebody else can pick it up, change it, and use it for their own benefit. That is why the license is required. Of course, there is nothing stopping somebody else from improving the source, or adding new features, as long as they follow the license. If they completely destroy their system while doing so, that is their problem.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 469
  • -Receive: 95
  • Posts: 2656
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2014, 04:04:05 pm »

Yes, for sure Martin. It is a pleasure for me. Please keep in mind that it is about two years old and some things did change i.e. the Airboot Manager.

Best regards,

Sigurd

Thanks, it is done: http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Sigurd_Fastenrath

Remember that you can update that page with your same forum userid and password.

Regards.
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

walking_x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 3
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2014, 05:50:08 pm »
QSINIT has recently added some functionality that OS/2 desperately needs (working around UEFI problems, and making it possible to use memory above 4 GB, even if it is only for a RAMDISK).
There is a chance, that Mensys already working on 512Mb problem. At least, I heared "something" and some monthes ago a strange person tried to get sources of any loader - QSINIT or OS/4, by using different names and addresses ;) A whole detective story ;)

But binary patching of OS2LDR - is not an easy task and they need patch not only 512Mb problem, but "immediate reboot" problem too. This includes two different parts of IBM OS2LDR and looks a bit worst.

Unfortunately, sources can't help them if they selected this method. Ok, I'm not like GENMAC story too... So, may be - I will publish sources under the same license (i.e. freeware for non-commercial) - code will be available, at least, for reference.

But QSINIT is a modular system - it still can be used for anything, just by writing own modules, based on it (yes, tetris - is a nice example ;)).

Doug Bissett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 53
  • Posts: 1312
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2014, 08:40:06 pm »
Quote
There is a chance, that Mensys already working on 512Mb problem

I know that they have looked at it. I doubt if anything was done, other than some initial research (which probably explains your "detective story").

Quote
Ok, I'm not like GENMAC story too... So, may be - I will publish sources under the same license (i.e. freeware for non-commercial) - code will be available, at least, for reference.

GENMAC has proven to be a real problem for us. All development suddenly stopped (well, it was sort of announced), and the source code was not made available. That was not too much of a problem, for a while, but now we are waiting for Multimac to pick up the pieces, because GENMAC just can't do the job any more, and there is no way to fix it. Part of that problem was caused because the OS/2 community couldn't quite wrap their minds around the fact that somebody would do something like that, so they didn't do anything about if for far too long. Multimac should have been started about 3 years earlier, although I have heard that it would not have been possible (in it's current form) at that time.

Even with your best intentions to continue working on QSINIT, there is always the possibility that something bad will happen, and you won't be able to do that. If you don't take steps to release your source code, the OS/2 community will be left with no way to fix what you have done, if it stops working for one reason or another. I am sure that there are a couple of developers who would be able to sort out what you have done, and fix problems, if they have to. I am also sure that they will eventually solve the problems anyway, but you have already done that, and I hate to see those guys wasting their time on a problem that has already been solved. There are too many other problems that need to be solved.

One other reason to license your work, is to prevent others from stealing it, and using it for their own gain (I am not talking about Mensys). If it is not licensed, they could license it, and you would have no way to do anything about it.

I also urge you to think about what you mean by "freeware for non-commercial". That could mean that no business could use your work, ever. Or, it could mean that Mensys could not include your work in eCS distributions. Or both (possibly other things too). I would suggest that neither one of them would work to your advantage. What you need to do, is contract with Mensys, to include QSINIT (perhaps just a subset to load the OS/2 kernel), for all of their customers (including business customers), and pay you a small royalty for each one sold. They would probably put it on their store too, for those who need it for other purposes (like a RAMDISK, use with older versions of OS/2, or to play Tetris   ;)  ). I know that other programs have been done that way, and some closed source has been turned over to Mensys, to be released under certain conditions (like the death of the author, or if Mensys quits doing eCS). It is all in the contract that you make with Mensys. Another option would be to just sell the source to Mensys, and make a contract to maintain the source as part of the deal. There are many options, and most of them will work to your advantage, but trying to restrict what it can be used for, is really not a good idea. I would suggest that doing any of this will not make you rich, but it would probably cover your costs, plus a bit.

Boris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2014, 10:07:13 pm »
What you need to do, is contract with Mensys, to include QSINIT (perhaps just a subset to load the OS/2 kernel), for all of their customers (including business customers), and pay you a small royalty for each one sold. They would probably put it on their store too, for those who need it for other purposes (like a RAMDISK, use with older versions of OS/2, or to play Tetris   ;)  ). I know that other programs have been done that way, and some closed source has been turned over to Mensys, to be released under certain conditions (like the death of the author, or if Mensys quits doing eCS). It is all in the contract that you make with Mensys. Another option would be to just sell the source to Mensys, and make a contract to maintain the source as part of the deal. There are many options, and most of them will work to your advantage, but trying to restrict what it can be used for, is really not a good idea. I would suggest that doing any of this will not make you rich, but it would probably cover your costs, plus a bit.

W-w-w-wait a minute.
Do you mean then I will be unable to get QSINIT for free?

Then, if I find a bug, who then should I contact with bugreport? Mensys?

I think that is unacceptable, and the current situation with QSINIT is way better.
The loader is regulary updated, the author is easily available for contact with bugreports or wishes.

Also consider that I can use the Tetris bootloader even with Warp 3, and I don't need to buy eComStation to use the bootloader. I don't really want to mess with Mensys this way.
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: this is how I understand and what I know, I may be highly inaccurate, or even completely wrong! There are no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of my posts. Think on your own!

Doug Bissett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 53
  • Posts: 1312
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2014, 04:18:13 am »
Quote
Do you mean then I will be unable to get QSINIT for free?

No, I don't mean that. Mensys has contracted to use Air-Boot. They even rewrote it to (IMO) work better than the original, but you can still get Air-Boot from the original sources.

Quote
Then, if I find a bug, who then should I contact with bugreport? Mensys?

Absolutely, if you are using their version (whether they have modified it, or not). If you are not using their version, you need to go to whoever you got it from, if they still exist.

Quote
I think that is unacceptable, and the current situation with QSINIT is way better.

I don't. There are too many ways that the project could simply disappear, and we don't have access to the source. At least if Mensys has the source (which they seem to have learned is a necessary thing), even if it is in a sealed envelope, with restrictions on when it can be opened, the project is not likely to drop dead (if the Russian government decides to close it down, for instance). Mensys has a number of things like that, and they have, legally, made it a requirement that all of that stuff is to be made available, within the restrictions of the contracts, if they (or somebody else) decide(s) that they need to get out of the business. I am suggesting that QSINIT would fit nicely into that group of programs. Mensys has also made source code available, when the original owner allows it, or when they pay for the development (ACPI, Multimac). Walking_x seems to be reluctant to do that, so the deal can be a little more restrictive, if required. The form that it takes, is up to him, but at the moment, if his home burns to the ground, there is probably no way to recover his work, unless he can recreate it, and is able to do the work (he may, or may not, have offsite backups).

As with Air-Boot, QSINIT could go on for years, as it is, but there is currently no guarantee that it won't disappear tomorrow. Mensys is the "go to" organization for future OS/2 development, in the form of eCS, so it only makes sense that they should be the ones who walking_x makes a deal with, for a way to keep his work alive, even if he is unable to continue, for any number of reasons.