WebSite Information > Article Discussions
Preview: eComStation 2.2 Beta, the legacy of OS/2 lives on
Roderick Klein:
--- Quote from: Sigurd Fastenrath on February 27, 2013, 11:10:03 pm ---Hi Martin,
My intention is to tell people what is possible and what not. If you use google translater I would like you to follow some discussions at os2.org about the following topics regarding ecomstation I did not mention:
- No response from Mensys if asked for support
- No response for postings at bugtracker
And that leads me to the old, so often (so often that I am tired of writing it but it is sadly proved so often...)written facts:
If there would have been the decission to concentrate on selected hardware (at least since 2006) what have lead to:
- a full supported selected hardware
- less hardware problems
- less questions
- less support needed
- less bugtracker entries
- less frustrated users
........
But -yes - lets be happy for waiting for the new release, but do not let people with no knowledge of this OS to expect that it will run out of the box and could compete with Linux or Windows - this will lead to much more frustrated users and bad press and will loose the last credit of what is left of OS/2............
--- End quote ---
Let me first address this item that I have seen before on forums that we point a selected subset of hardware.
I will type it again. The suggestion is not and will never have worked. Let me explain you why it is flawed and not a 100%
proper strategy.
In theory it sounds nice but in practice here are some of the pitfalls of sticking to specific models/brands of computers.
1. Not every hardware vendor has the same model on sale everywhere around the world. I can mention one example we needed an HP workstation for a large customer.
It had different part numbers and different models world wide. Or some PC brands are not even for sale worldwide!
2. Some companies Mensys does business with has a preferred brand they want to use for example Dell. Such a list would then not work.
3. if we focus on a subset of hardware its still not going to safe us. Because how long will hardware be for sale and what happens if the vendor brings out a new BIOS with an ACPI in the BIOS that is suddenly broken. Years back I once had it with a T42 that had APM suspend/resume problems and another T42 did not. Turned out it was a BIOS revision problem...
As for support missing ? What tickets are outstanding in the bugtracker. I have given you access to eCS beta's in the past for testing to see if things where fixed.
Thanks,
Roderick
Roderick Klein:
--- Quote from: Eirik Romstad on February 28, 2013, 12:28:47 pm ---Thanks Sigurd for a thoughtful response.
You bring up a very interesting point: the strategy choices for the development for eCS. Here, I agree with you that a clear strategy choice has not been made, and that one can make a lot of damage to oneself by overselling (it works on all modern software when in reality it does not), and by not sticking to time tables.
On proper beta testing: with the small eCS community, it would be difficult to test all new computers. Some of this is probably not even the fault of eCS but of computer producers who fail to document the hardware that make up their computers. This is a problem not only for eCS -- Linux developers face many of the same problems. As indicated by my previous posting, things work on my workplace because the computer and network department document things. Hence, odd guys like me know which solutions to look for.
So, there have two challenges:
* Proper documentation by hardware producers
* A clear development strategy for eCS, followed by proper documentation on which hardware that works. And then this documentation needs to be more detailed: several computer models come in multiple editions, and one needs to be clear on which edition = which hardwareWhen I buy new hardware, I try to get as exact info. as possible. Drivers is a huge challenge. The ongoing ACPI development will solve some of that, but not all as some computer producers neither adhere to standards nor document what's in their box. PCI produces this documentation once you have bought a computer, but for most of us, that is a bit late.
Eirik
--- End quote ---
I commented on selecting certain hardware for eCS and making a list public for that. From my point of view it won't really work.
Infact to make the specific point even more clear. Most companies that contact us say simply "he I have this peace of hardware, make it work with eCS".
Most companies don't ask us "what hardware is supported".
Also with not all equipment being sold by suppliers for a long time its not always possible to say use model X from manufacturer Y.
We had it with a very big OS/2 customer from Europe. They just knocked on the door and said "he want this HP workstation to work". We got it to work and 2 months later it was off the market.
Then again some computer vendors do have business models that are sold longer so companies can plan.
See my other posting for some of the issue's with sticking to a small sub list of hardware.
Roderick
Sigurd Fastenrath:
--- Quote from: Roderick Klein on March 01, 2013, 02:02:40 am ---
As for support missing ? What tickets are outstanding in the bugtracker. I have given you access to eCS beta's in the past for testing to see if things where fixed.
Thanks,
Roderick
--- End quote ---
Just to proof my words:
http://bugs.ecomstation.nl/view.php?id=3006 - No response at all
http://bugs.ecomstation.nl/view.php?id=2785 - Response from other user, No Response from Mensys at all
http://bugs.ecomstation.nl/view.php?id=3007 - Some response, but was more or less adressed as "OS/2 related", but eCS 2.1 failed even worse - No response to eCS
...
Some time I gave up there as a logical result. Main errors like "Destroying Hardware Layout" I did not mention there as I thought that this was so obvious....
I recieved two Betas, one from 5/2012 I would consider it to be an Alpha, one in December (as far as I remember).
I would like to consider all the 2.0 RCs from 2007 to 2010 as betas as well, but there have had some more people access... At least this long period of fails did show that you choose the wrong track, just look at the ACPI development then with ecomstation.ru - I guess the biggest fail in eCS history.
--- Quote from: Roderick Klein on March 01, 2013, 02:02:40 am ---
In theory it sounds nice but in practice here are some of the pitfalls of sticking to specific models/brands of computers.
1. Not every hardware vendor has the same model on sale everywhere around the world. I can mention one example we needed an HP workstation for a large customer.
It had different part numbers and different models world wide. Or some PC brands are not even for sale worldwide!
2. Some companies Mensys does business with has a preferred brand they want to use for example Dell. Such a list would then not work.
3. if we focus on a subset of hardware its still not going to safe us. Because how long will hardware be for sale and what happens if the vendor brings out a new BIOS with an ACPI in the BIOS that is suddenly broken. Years back I once had it with a T42 that had APM suspend/resume problems and another T42 did not. Turned out it was a BIOS revision problem...
--- End quote ---
To answer in short terms: "Using that Theory" must be the reason why Apple failed during the last years, I guess..... :o
It is at least a bit easier as you allways try to explain:
You tell yourself that each Brand has a variety of different models with different internas.
I.e. there have been T models from IBM some equipped with Intel WLAN, some with Atheros or something like this.
Why not saying: Yes, we fully support this T Modell, but please do take a look that the Intel card is inside. That is something much easier to follow - as i.e. IBM/Lenovo models are quite well documented, the have differnt model numbers for this.
When some day eCS 2.2 will arrive I will use UPDATECD to update the OS/2 Warp 4 MCP2 with all the new drivers, kernels and stuff and burn a new DVD with this and then one more movie will be made, possibly - "OS/2 in 2013" or something like this.
And finally (if you believe it or not) that was the result of my testing on several modern hardware with eCs from 2. RC up to 2.2 during the last 8 years:
The most stable, fastest and best version was OS/2 Warp 4 MCP2 SMP with AHCI as it is shown during the last minutes of my best video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HhfPhxCGjQ
Even though, that answer was just to proof my ealier comments and thats it. It is not my intention to pursade you as it was obvious to me that this would not work. I will leave the field of eComStation as stated (and will in addition do not answer emails related to this anymore, especially when other OS/2 useres are considered to tell 'farytailes' of what I can proof that those have been right), and wish all the users luck and success and a good time, most important health! I would like to thank at least all the friendly helpers and developers who have been so kind to help me in the past, especially for their patience!
Auf Wiedersehen! 8)
Remy:
I just get the demo ecomstation 2.2 CD and tried to install it under virtual box like I did for 2.1
The installation fail reading a file for network adapter while I configured the machine like the 2.1 working one !
RD
eirik:
Dear all,
Roderick's comments on the difficulties with different models is to the point for eCS in the sense that it is difficult to keep abreast on all developments of all vendors. I also think he is spot-on regarding testing schedules vs. voluntary testing. For me eCS is my production system, and I upgrade my eCS when I think the new version is stable for the system I have. And the threshold for upgrading is not that big: we expect (and have good reasons to do so) that upgrades will make life better, not worse.
When that is said, as Mensys' tests are conducted, I think it would be wise to be open and clear = tested on this product (which conducts this hardware), and works. Those of us who have different systems will look through our own specs. and see if it is worth while to upgrade. If we conclude yes, and upgrade, it would be easy for us to submit a small report on what worked and what did not work, that would be quite specific. For this to work, we need some sort of reporting system that makes this task easy. With that in place, we would have much more reliable reports on working systems, which would expand the eCS market. In turn, we would all benefit: larger market, more resources for development etc.
Along the same line, and as Sigurd has remarked: if Mensys had been better at sharing their strategy with users, and this strategy is one we can believe in, it would also be easier to attract committed ("production")users. Please note that it is much easier to commit oneself if one knows the other party is committed too. A first step to create more committed users is therefore for Mensys to more clearly signal which users are their targets.
Eirik
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version