OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical > Programming
native mainframe mini-clone
kerravon:
--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on September 10, 2025, 06:09:27 pm ---But I think the BSD license is flexible enough like public domain
--- End quote ---
Try to convince anyone currently using the BSD license to simply make it public domain - no dice. They can apparently see a huge difference.
And if they can see something that they can sue me for (or some other constraint), that they wouldn't be able to do with public domain - that's exactly why I want nothing less than public domain.
If you ever find yourself in court about something that is BSD-licensed, you will need to face the UNDISPUTED copyright holder, with copyright law on his side.
With public domain, the person who put their code into the public domain theoretically at least has nothing at all on their side. There is no law to protect someone who isn't even the copyright holder.
Or at least - that's the best you can do. Make absolutely zero effort to copyright your code, and every effort to make it clear that you are no longer the copyright holder.
That's far from what the BSD people are doing. They know it. I know it. And that's enough for me.
--- Quote ---That will be like an inflection point
--- End quote ---
I consider that the inflection point is already here. You have valid LX executables that have all the tools required to reconstruct not just OS/2, but the entire computer industry. Without needing to use assembler or machine code.
--- Quote ---But I'm sorry if I'm projecting my own hopes for the OS/2 community to have long term future on your PDOS project. I know you must have your own goals. I just dream away from time to time.
--- End quote ---
My goals have always been fairly vague. It wasn't even my intention to create a Windows clone. An 18 year old girl from Slovakia called Alica Okano turned up and did that, amongst other things, and then vanished without a trace. Prior to that I only supported a.out executables, as was native to EMX 0.9d (which I used on OS/2 2.0 in fact).
--- Quote ---An 64-bits version of OS/2 is what would everybody will like, since we are having limitations with the 32bits.
--- End quote ---
What limit do you have with 32-bit? I refused to do 64-bit for a very long time - and I'm still not thrilled about it today other than as a means of abstraction. If you need more than 4 GiB of memory, it's probably time to reevaluate your life choices. :-)
--- Quote ---But users will only use a 64's bit version of OS/2 only if everything that is running on their machines now gets working on the 64bits version of the OS. Similar to the migration of Windows to 64 bits. When Windows XP for 64 bits was released, nobody used until "WoW64" (Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit) was created, so user didn't have all their 32bits software broken.
--- End quote ---
Users can have anything they are willing to pay for.
For free, what you can do is run Virtualbox under Linux or whatever, and then have a 32-bit OS/2 and a 64-bit OS/2 running separately. When you've completed the migration to 64-bit, you can then run it directly on a modern UEFI computer.
Assuming someone does the 64-bit OS/2 for free, anyway. Which may well happen. I'm currently making enquiries about the x64 compiler.
kerravon:
Actually, I have thought of something else you can have.
The way PDOS-generic works, ie under a pseudobios, it can actually run under other OSes. Something similar to Wine under Linux.
I could create an x64 OS/2 that runs under 32-bit OS/2. The executables would all be "64-bit ready", and they are in fact, genuine 64-bit executables, and use x64 instructions too, but when run under 32-bit OS/2 they would only ever have access to 4 GiB of memory.
And I can get those same executables to run under Win64 and have access to more than 4 GiB of memory.
You'll still need an x64 compiler though. But I should be able to get both cc64 and Visual C to do that. But if you use the more robust Visual C, it will need to be cross-compiled. Not sure what gcc is capable of, but I don't have something working properly for x64.
kerravon:
Actually, for it to work, I would need to change modes. I was thinking of the mainframe where that isn't necessary.
And if the pseudobios were to change modes, it would also have access to memory above 4 GiB which OS/2 doesn't use.
Basically the same as a "32-bit DOS extender", except it would be a "64-bit OS/2 extender".
Also, PE32+ format is already defined. Not sure if there is a 64-bit LX format. But even if there is - any reason not to use PE32+ instead? Not sure what the goal is. (not saying I have a goal myself).
kerravon:
--- Quote from: kerravon on September 10, 2025, 07:36:11 pm ---Basically the same as a "32-bit DOS extender", except it would be a "64-bit OS/2 extender".
--- End quote ---
Question - can I have a normal executable (.exe), running at the OS/2 fullscreen prompt, that has the privilege required to disable interrupts and switch from PM32 to LM64? If so, what do I need to do to get such privilege on OS/2?
Martin Iturbide:
--- Quote from: kerravon on September 12, 2025, 05:54:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: kerravon on September 10, 2025, 07:36:11 pm ---Basically the same as a "32-bit DOS extender", except it would be a "64-bit OS/2 extender".
--- End quote ---
Question - can I have a normal executable (.exe), running at the OS/2 fullscreen prompt, that has the privilege required to disable interrupts and switch from PM32 to LM64? If so, what do I need to do to get such privilege on OS/2?
--- End quote ---
This question is outside my knowledge.
I guess it is no, because of the "Protection ring" that OS/2 has. But I prefer that someone with more knowledge answer that.
Regards
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version