OS/4 kernel development

[walking_x]

Please share your thoughts with us...

In short - too many strange decisions and features. Too hard to negotiate with current part of team.

<sub>* VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT removed (with annoying message ) They promise to restore it later in another way, but this can take ages.
* Some things was broken in the recent past (FAT boot, trap screen).
* Alternative CLOCK/SCREEN/OS4APIC drivers...  Actually - there is no immediate necessity in them, they just created for "we made it". OS4APIC - use MP table and unusable on many PCs (someone wrote about this here). Why this method was choosen?
* They want remove DOS at all
* They were against release kernel build (without kernel debugger). And now this build is practically untested, because nobody cares of it.</sub>

And so on... tired to fight not only with all above, but with many other the same small things. Pasha too, I think
But this is offtopic in this topic, sorry

[dbanet]

Please share your thoughts with us...

In short - too many strange decisions and features. Too hard to negotiate with current part of team.

<sub>* VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT removed (with annoying message ) They promise to restore it later in another way, but this can take ages.
* Some things was broken in the recent past (FAT boot, trap screen).
* Alternative CLOCK/SCREEN/OS4APIC drivers...  Actually - there is no immediate necessity in them, they just created for "we made it". OS4APIC - use MP table and unusable on many PCs (someone wrote about this here). Why this method was choosen?
* They want remove DOS at all
* They were against release kernel build (without kernel debugger). And now this build is practically untested, because nobody cares of it.</sub>

And so on... tired to fight not only with all above, but with many other the same small things. Pasha too, I think
But this is offtopic in this topic, sorry

I agree with all these.

But that's what we have, and the current OS/4 is the only evolving OS/2 kernel.

Also I cannot see any drawbacks of writing new clock, screen, apic and psd drivers. The only drawback now is that we have two stacks: ACPI4.SYS with OS4APIC.PSD, and ACPI.PSD. Someone will have to do something with this...

[Martin Iturbide]

Sorry, I splitted this topic because I wanted to ask more about it (Plus I wanted to test how to split topics on the forum).

I always thought that Pavel and walking_x were the leaders of this development? Can you tell me which is the team of people behind OS/4 Kernel? Who is involved or leading the development?

Regards

[dbanet]

Sorry, I splitted this topic because I wanted to ask more about it (Plus I wanted to test how to split topics on the forum).

I always thought that Pavel and walking_x were the leaders of this development? Can you tell me which is the team of people behind OS/4 Kernel? Who is involved or leading the development?

Regards

Currently (since 3771 AFAIR) AlexT and moveton are involved in the "development".

[dbanet]

And, I think - OS/4 kernel is going into wrong direction now (even if ignore rhis "reverse - engeneering" problem). But, buildable kernel sources still can help in testing and development - in many cases.

Also it is really now making good progress, although there are some regressions and bugs, especially in the latest versions. They should and would be fixed.

If I convince Phoenix to produce a stable retail kernel release, for example, each 200 SVN revisions, I'll really look forward to see OS/4 included in Lewis's OS/2 build.

[dbanet]

By the way, Martin, something has gone wrong with splitting... http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,401.0.html

[walking_x]

Who is involved or leading the development?

Talk to OS4User about kernel
The last thing I've done in kernel - release build and this was one and a half year ago.