We’re open source!

[BigGoofyGuy]

I remember someone trying to make a newer version of OS/2 using L4 as the basis. Is this the L4 that they tried to use? It seems it is open source?
http://sel4.systems/

 

[dbanet]

http://www.osfree.org/

Join and help.

[Martin Iturbide]

Hi BigGoofyGuy.

I also remember that OSFree was based on a L4 kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family)... was it Fiasco the name of that kernel?

Valerius is still coding for OSFree, but this project requires more help to became a full OS. It is also good for everyone to support this project and help.

In my personal opinion I think that all efforts should be focused "first" on producing an open source/clone of an important component of OS/2 and producing a software that can replace the close source component on Warp 4.52/eComStation, like for example Presentation Manager (PM). I had suggested on the past to start with WPS, but since I learned more about the OS/2 basic architecture I was convinced that PM will be a lot more interesting as first project to show a real progress on creating an OS/2 clone.

Regards

[dbanet]

Hi BigGoofyGuy.

I also remember that OSFree was based on a L4 kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family)... was it Fiasco the name of that kernel?

Valerius is still coding for OSFree, but this project requires more help to became a full OS. It is also good for everyone to support this project and help.

In my personal opinion I think that all efforts should be focused "first" on producing an open source/clone of an important component of OS/2 and producing a software that can replace the close source component on Warp 4.52/eComStation, like for example Presentation Manager (PM). I had suggested on the past to start with WPS, but since I learned more about the OS/2 basic architecture I was convinced that PM will be a lot more interesting as first project to show a real progress on creating an OS/2 clone.

Regards

These discussions are good, but neither FreePM, nor SOMFree, nor osFree won't move forward significantly without funding.

Yes we need fresher ports of applications and technologies, but I'm afraid we don't pay enough attention to fundamental works on open source OS/2 software.

Here's what I mean.
Once a port/update of a foreign open source technology or application to OS/2 is sponsored, you get an immediate result and everyone's good with it for some time, until the ported software doesn't get old.

But that doesn't move the platform forward, neither does it qualitatively help it to survive. That just gives it some more time.

Although porting foreign open source software and technologies is mandatory for a platform, I believe some part of available money must be transferred to projects that specialize in cloning and open sourcing native OS/2 technologies, like osFree, FreePM, SOMFree, XWP, et cetera. If I could decide, I'd pick up 30-40 percent.

What do you think? Theoretically?

[Martin Iturbide]

What do you think? Theoretically?

Theorically the idea is good. But currently we have the limitation that we lack a lot of thing.

If I look it from the developer resource that we have from this community we have:
- Right now, Qt, OpenJDK are getting old, and Firefox, SWT-Eclipse and OpenOffice are active (if we talk about Bitwiseworks).
- From the other side we have Alex Taylor which have very good PM skills but it is busy (I guess) building up eCS package (installer, PM apps, etc).
- David,  Steven and Lars are more focused on drivers, and everybody request drivers on this platform.. so drivers may be a never-ending story.

The other active developers (http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Active_Developers) since they are stand alone, it is hard for them to have full focus on development.

But money can make magic. Just like you said, I think that the companies that have paid corporate sponsors should also try to put on the goals to try to clone (open source) close source components for the platform. Why? Because if we don't start today to replicate the base of OS/2, and create a free (as a freedom) clone, in some years the corporate sponsors will migrate to other platforms and it will end the funding.

The companies that have sponsors should also think about this. Making drivers and porting libraries it is a short-term strategy for the platform. Cloning PM and other APIs is long term strategy.... why it has to be Open Source? ...becuase remember that IBM dropped this platform on the past.

[Alex Taylor]

If I look it from the developer resource that we have from this community we have:
- Right now, Qt, OpenJDK are getting old, and Firefox, SWT-Eclipse and OpenOffice are active (if we talk about Bitwiseworks).
- From the other side we have Alex Taylor which have very good PM skills but it is busy (I guess) building up eCS package (installer, PM apps, etc).
- David,  Steven and Lars are more focused on drivers, and everybody request drivers on this platform.. so drivers may be a never-ending story.

My PM skills aren't that great... certainly not a patch on Steven's or most other long-standing OS/2 developers'. I have a few specialized areas of knowledge, that's all (fonts, Unicode, and to a lesser extent printing).

The companies that have sponsors should also think about this. Making drivers and porting libraries it is a short-term strategy for the platform. Cloning PM and other APIs is long term strategy.... why it has to be Open Source? ...becuase remember that IBM dropped this platform on the past.

Agreed.