Author Topic: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals  (Read 59928 times)

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 01:39:17 am »
This is a very young technology, and begin to support it right now would be a good step ahead of the curve.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4748
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2014, 04:34:54 am »
Hi.

I just want to notify that I only have one bid for the "OS2World Common Fund 2014". 
bww bitwise works GmbH presented a proposal to use the common fund to kickstart the project, but more funding will be required to complete the project.

I'm open to hear the comments and question of the community.

Please let me know your comments.

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

onlineuser2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2014, 11:42:41 pm »
I understand well that we need too many solutions: for developing, for
uptodate hardware, for everydayuse, based on resources available. We
need solutions at hand, not dreams.

In my opinion, if no news about is coming on, I should pay attention to find out a
way  for wireless support.

regards

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4748
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2014, 07:11:07 pm »
Hi

I have another bid for using this funds. Pavel Shtemenko proposed an Network/Wifi BSD driver port project.
The idea is to port the Network/Wifi BSD driver.

The basic idea of this project is:

Stage 1 or Bounty 1:
1. Base network driver
2. Ported from FreeBSD some of DevHlp (this part can also be used for BSD Video driver port too (ATI-NVIDIA) in the future)
3. FreeBSD driver (compiled from source)

Goals: PCI RTL816x driver working
Time: 1.5 Months
Cost: USD $ 1.200.

Stage 2 or Bounty 2:
4. Security subsystem
5. Other Wifi adapters ported
6. Suspend/LowPower support (with ACPI 3.18)

Goals:
- Security system,
- other Wifi adapters (Any WiFi driver which FreeBSD 7.x has to support.r like Atheros WiFi  , some other one)
- Suspend/Low power supported.
Time: 1 Month
Cost: USD $ 800.

Conditions:
- All source code produced most be open source (BSD license)
- The Common Fund and Bounty Rules apply to it.
- Development will be done in the open at sourceforge or github.
- Source code from IBM's DDK can not be used in the project, since it have a restrictive license that does not allow to share the source code or derivate works.
- The driver most works on Warp 4.52 and eComstation 2.1 with their respective kernels.
- He can not accept Paypal, we are trying to see if we can get another alternative.
- Payment will be done after completing each stage.

The idea of this is making it an open development and the source code will be open source for everyone to use.  Since this is an open community and the idea is to have an open conversation about this, please do not send me e-mails in private. Give me you feedback on this forum.

Please state what do you think about this offer.

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

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2014, 08:11:51 pm »
Please state what do you think about this offer.

I support this fully.

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2014, 08:16:50 pm »
Stage 2 or Bounty 2:
4. Security subsystem

I was a bit confused with what exactly that means, so I've asked Pasha in Russian what exactly the mentioned security subsystem is.

I've got a reply this means the support of passworded (WEP, WPA, WPA2) Wi-Fi networks.

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2014, 08:42:01 pm »
Stage 2 or Bounty 2:
4. Security subsystem

I was a bit confused with what exactly that means, so I've asked Pasha in Russian what exactly the mentioned security subsystem is.

I've got a reply this means the support of passworded (WEP, WPA, WPA2) Wi-Fi networks.

And yes, that probably means porting wpa-supplicant once more time (for no reason).

Roderick Klein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Karma: +14/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2014, 10:32:58 pm »
Hi

I have another bid for using this funds. Pavel Shtemenko proposed an Network/Wifi BSD driver port project.
The idea is to port the Network/Wifi BSD driver.

The basic idea of this project is:

Stage 1 or Bounty 1:
1. Base network driver
2. Ported from FreeBSD some of DevHlp (this part can also be used for BSD Video driver port too (ATI-NVIDIA) in the future)
3. FreeBSD driver (compiled from source)

Goals: PCI RTL816x driver working
Time: 1.5 Months
Cost: USD $ 1.200.

Stage 2 or Bounty 2:
4. Security subsystem
5. Other Wifi adapters ported
6. Suspend/LowPower support (with ACPI 3.18)

Goals:
- Security system,
- other Wifi adapters (Any WiFi driver which FreeBSD 7.x has to support.r like Atheros WiFi  , some other one)
- Suspend/Low power supported.
Time: 1 Month
Cost: USD $ 800.

Conditions:
- All source code produced most be open source (BSD license)
- The Common Fund and Bounty Rules apply to it.
- Development will be done in the open at sourceforge or github.
- Source code from IBM's DDK can not be used in the project, since it have a restrictive license that does not allow to share the source code or derivate works.
- The driver most works on Warp 4.52 and eComstation 2.1 with their respective kernels.
- He can not accept Paypal, we are trying to see if we can get another alternative.
- Payment will be done after completing each stage.

The idea of this is making it an open development and the source code will be open source for everyone to use.  Since this is an open community and the idea is to have an open conversation about this, please do not send me e-mails in private. Give me you feedback on this forum.

Please state what do you think about this offer.

Regards

I am a bit puzzled by this proposal ?!

Why work on such a skeleton if we already have something that such as Multimac. Its not to port FreeBSD drivers but it is to port Linux drivers:
http://svn.ecomstation.nl/multimac/browser/trunk

The stage 1 of the bounty:
Ported from FreeBSD some of DevHlp (this part can also be used for BSD Video driver port too (ATI-NVIDIA) in the future)
http://svn.ecomstation.nl/multimac/browser/trunk/Porting.txt

While its true it requires a DDK to work on this. How is that going to work the video drivers ?!

Next to that I do not know what is ment to implement "security  subsystem"?
Is that the API for a something like WPA supplicant and and XWLAN widget ?

Apart from that I do not know how mature the current version of the software is. The Multimac skeleton David has written has already provided support for the current Realtek gigabit and Intel gigabit driver. New drivers for Broadcom wired are in the pipeline. While the Mutlimac project has still not provided a wireless driver why with such little human resources reinvent the wheel again if we already have Multimac. And of course its going to take time to get the bugs out of the code...

Roderick


dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2014, 10:56:47 pm »
Why work on such a skeleton if we already have something that such as Multimac. Its not to port FreeBSD drivers but it is to port Linux drivers:
http://svn.ecomstation.nl/multimac/browser/trunk
David has written has already provided support for the current Realtek gigabit and Intel gigabit driver. New drivers for Broadcom wired are in the pipeline. While the Mutlimac project has still not provided a wireless driver why with such little human resources reinvent the wheel again if we already have Multimac. And of course its going to take time to get the bugs out of the code...

Well...

The mentioned NIC drivers are not usable in a 1000 Mbps network because they fail in a short amount of time. Also, how much time have been already spent on Multimac and how many chips do now work reasonably?

I've missed also, is Multimac going to provide ATI and NVIDIA video drivers for all the chips that are supported by FreeBSD video drivers? I think it's not.

While its true it requires a DDK to work on this.

Huh? Martin talks about the source code included in the DDK. Please, read:

- Source code from IBM's DDK can not be used in the project

The source code provided with the DDK is not going to be used.

Next to that I do not know what is ment to implement "security  subsystem"?
Is that the API for a something like WPA supplicant and and XWLAN widget ?

Yes, "something like".

Apart from that I do not know how mature the current version of the software is.

What's the difference? Pasha has never got a coin for that, so what do you expect?

There already is a working alpha of Unimac, but it has never got published (that's exactly what "alpha" means).
walking_x, known as the author of QSINIT and as a former participant of Phoenix the OS/4 development team, uses an old version of Unimac Pasha has authored a long time ago.

How is that going to work the video drivers ?!

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you please rephrase yourself?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 11:01:50 pm by Boris »

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2014, 11:20:30 pm »
I've consulted with Pasha a bit, and here's the thing:

Pasha's project aims to write a FreeBSD drivers wrapper. It means that there's no need to port each driver to OS/2 at the source level.
When Multimac aims to ease rewriting of each Linux driver (decrease the amount of places that should be rewritten to make it work), the subject project aims to run the given FreeBSD driver in OS/2 environment.

It means that in case of Multimac a Linux driver should be rewritten in 16-bit C, but in case of Unimac a FreeBSD driver should be just compiled with Watcom C compiler (anyway some work should be done, just because BSD drivers are compiled with gcc not Watcom). One wrapper for each device driver class.

It means also that it will be possible to run NVIDIA video drivers, which are partly supplyed in binary form (a static library).

Pasha has also told me that he doesn't need DDK at all.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 11:30:07 pm by Boris »

Roderick Klein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Karma: +14/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2014, 11:25:55 pm »
Of the 1 GB drivers are not useable on a LAN then open a bug. I think its better then to completely reinvent the wheel with a new driver skeleton.
So far Mulitimac provided a proper working Gigabit Realtek and Intel driver. And it has also provided updated driver.
The Nvidia driver was also updated.

No Multimac will not provide this video support. But how will this project do that without the DDK as vast portions of the DDK are needed to my knowledge to get it done.
Or is this somehow going to be a GRADD plugin ? Some more details would certainly be interesting.

Its not the point that Pasha got paid for it. Its the question what makes sense.
Reinvent the wheel or use Multimac driver skeleton ?

What I ment with the video driver stuff. How would it work ? How does it hook in the video sub system ? A new screen01.sys etc ?


Roderick

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2014, 11:50:13 pm »
Of the 1 GB drivers are not useable on a LAN then open a bug. I think its better then to completely reinvent the wheel with a new driver skeleton.
So far Mulitimac provided a proper working Gigabit Realtek and Intel driver. And it has also provided updated driver.
The Nvidia driver was also updated.

Please contact with Pasha, he has got a lot stuff to say.

No Multimac will not provide this video support.

Uh-huh. So what's there with "reinventing the wheel"?

But how will this project do that without the DDK as vast portions of the DDK are needed to my knowledge to get it done.
Or is this somehow going to be a GRADD plugin ? Some more details would certainly be interesting.

Well, maybe, not enough knowledge. How exactly is Pasha going to write a GRADD driver you will know if he gets hired.

The driver source code provided with DDK is 16-bit. We're talking about 32-bit code.

What I ment with the video driver stuff. How would it work ? How does it hook in the video sub system ? A new screen01.sys etc ?
Reinvent the wheel or use Multimac driver skeleton ?

Lol you are mixing lots of stuff really hard.

It has nothing to do with a new screen01.sys.

Unimac is very different compared to Multimac. An ideological mistake had been made in it: in case of Multimac, every driver must be modified to work with OS/2 subsystems, while Pasha's going to emulate FreeBSD subsystems, so the only thing left is to make a given driver compile and run; no need to modify the driver's logic and its interfacing code.

Its not the point that Pasha got paid for it. Its the question what makes sense.

It seems you misunderstand.

I always thought that making an open source! hardware-accelerated video driver with 3D support is what makes sense. I'm quite disappointed that a person from Mensys disagrees with me and wants to roll back to multimac...

Again: BSD drivers are made able to run on OS/2, so everything that was working on BSD system, will work on OS/2.

P. S. Ah, and, where are the sources?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 11:58:45 pm by Boris »

pasha

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2014, 12:07:00 am »
Of the 1 GB drivers are not useable on a LAN then open a bug. I think its better then to completely reinvent the wheel with a new driver skeleton.
So far Mulitimac provided a proper working Gigabit Realtek and Intel driver. And it has also provided updated driver.
The Nvidia driver was also updated.

No Multimac will not provide this video support. But how will this project do that without the DDK as vast portions of the DDK are needed to my knowledge to get it done.
Or is this somehow going to be a GRADD plugin ? Some more details would certainly be interesting.

Its not the point that Pasha got paid for it. Its the question what makes sense.
Reinvent the wheel or use Multimac driver skeleton ?

What I ment with the video driver stuff. How would it work ? How does it hook in the video sub system ? A new screen01.sys etc ?

 About 1Gb LAN:
1Gb Realtek 816x has bug. But HW has this bug. Therefore, you can not fix the driver for RTL816x. If 1Gb Intel not work with 1Gb LAN, here you can fix it, because the problem in your driver(Multimac). About nVidia LAN I have' information now.

About DDK:
  I have no need in DDK: all of my drivers are 32-bit. DDK drivers are 16-bit. I need the Toolkit only, and not the whole of it, but os2386.lib only. And this is solvable too: I can rewrite the library. So everything I need is Open Watcom.

About: Reinvent the wheel or use Multimac driver skeleton ?
 My Unimac is 32 bit. Your Multimac is 16 bit. My Unimac features hardware autodetection. Yours does not. Adding support of new hardware to Unimac means compiling the driver's source with wcc32, plus adding some IDs to the supported hardware table. Adding support of new hardware to Multimac means complete rewrite of the original source in 16-bit C, and then redebugging it again, but in OS/2.  Roderick, are you sure, that reinventing the wheel, I do not you.

About video driver:
 Video driver will be in GRADD model. With hardware autodetection as usual.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 12:34:23 am by Pavel Shtemenko »

Roderick Klein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Karma: +14/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2014, 12:19:26 am »
Then put in the bugtracker where it belongs. If Pasha has a lot to say.

"Well, maybe, not enough knowledge. How exactly is Pasha going to write a GRADD driver you will know if he gets hired."
You know if something can offer something in the future is the argument to not use Multimac it should be made more clearly in the offer.
Not after you hire somebody.

Thats why I ask. And without further details how this driver frame work can provide video support without DDK/GRADD support I would like to know how this works and I asked.

Boris wrote:
"I always thought that making an open source! hardware-accelerated video driver with 3D support is what makes sense. I'm quite disappointed that a person from Mensys disagrees with me and wants to roll back to multimac..."

I am not against accelerated drivers. But I certainly do not see the benefit of 3D accelerated drivers for PM.

Apart from that David has been working on Multimac more updates can be expected in the next few weeks. Less rewrites on the code from Linux shoudl be needed.
But if Pasha needs 2 months to write the 8169 driver and then move to Wifi driver and then implement security.

Then the scope of this project should also describe how that video support might be provided. The scope if the project is to write a Wifi driver.
And without further details how the video support would be done. This is reinventing the wheel...

And if Pasha has so much information to tell then let him put that in tickets to enhance Multimac.

Roderick 

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: OS2World Common Fund 2014 - Open for Proposals
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2014, 12:42:01 am »
This is reinventing the wheel...

Are you insane?

Multimac:
  • A couple of rewritten Linux drivers
  • 16-bit
  • Wired only
  • Complete rewrite of a driver for each new HW
  • Closed source
  • Bugs...

Unimac:
  • Dozens of NIC drivers
  • Wired and wireless
  • Dozens of video drivers with hardware acceleration and hardware OpenGL
  • Emulated environment makes adding support of new HW very easy
  • HW autodetection
  • Open source

Reinventing the wheel? Seriously?

Do you understand what exactly do you compare?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 12:47:22 am by Boris »