Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JTA

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Internet / Re: Mypal68: A possible alternative browser?
« on: March 15, 2026, 07:46:02 pm »
"I've been in discussion with winflector about partnering with them to offer the hosted solution, and also talked to them about making a native client software for os/2, but it seems they are not interested:
  "I'm afraid it's not so easy. To engage in software development for a niche environment, you need hardware, software, and application development tools. In addition, you need to learn a new, unfamiliar environment, and above all, you need to distract the team from the ongoing work of maintaining and developing the core versions of our software. It's probably safe to assume that a dedicated client for OS/2 won't be created, but you can try using the browser version, assuming there are modern versions of Opera, Chrome, or Firefox that work on OS/2." "

Winflector is a commercial company, with proprietary software/code. But, the above still seems like it's possible, it just needs:
1. a free ArcaOS license (possibly two ... I've offered to buy this for them)
2. an OS/2 (emx?) build VM ... we should be able to get this detailed and built for them
3. an OS/2 developer ... (without "distracting" their existing devs)

The last one is on us ... Winflector just need to bend a little. Sign up Paul S., or KOMH, or anyone else (with a non-disclosure and other legalese), and now they have a dev dedicated to the effort (of just porting the linux 32-bit to an OS/2 native). If it's not these two, and there could be plenty of reasons why not, then we need to find/develop others, starting with detailed "here's a build environment" (emx, gcc, whatever) plans.

All are big asks ... Winflector has to bend (open up that piece of software), existing devs have to participate (or we grow more of them), AN could help by revealing "seat count" data, if not restricted in some way (their business practices, IBM, etc.) ... we all have to help with $$$ (I have offered $$$, in licensing terms, and could offer other help).

A native Winflector OS/2 client is the last piece of the AToF puzzle for me ... the HTML5 client (Firefox v45) gets me 95% of the way, and everything works. But ... the OS/2 native client would be the finishing touch!




2
Programming / Re: cross-os2emx
« on: March 15, 2026, 05:58:18 pm »
KO ... thanks for this emx effort!

If I may further impose upon you, how hard would it be to provide some details of your compiler/dev environment (and I assume you are running OS/2 on physical machine(s))? If such a thread exists, can you point me at it?

I would like to replicate your build environment in a VM, under my AToF scheme, and see if I can push compiling limits further away from causing us grief (VAL = xxxx, for example). I see these limits in other threads, and it seems like we can push past them with virtualization, with multiple os/2 vm's, and so on ... it just needs to be detailed out for new devs, I would think.

Is it possible for you to document your dev environment for us?

Again, thanks so much for all that you do for OS/2!

3
Internet / Re: Mypal68: A possible alternative browser?
« on: March 14, 2026, 01:06:42 am »
That last bit from Winflector is interesting, because I offered to buy them an ArcaOS seat & such (afaik, the only $$$ part of a dev machine's software, as all else seems to be free or open source?).

I'm not sure, but I thought that an existing Winflector 32-bit linux client would mean a fairly easy port to OS/2.

So, the bigger problem is that they think OS/2 is too "niche". Unless AN gets involved, it may be hard to dissuade them from this view ... if there are no seat numbers, there's no way to judge interest.

How do we get AN, EComStation, and OS/2 Warp seat count? I can see potential seat numbers in the thread view counts on OS2World ... other sources?

4
I'm not sure, but it seems like it takes time for everyone to find a thread ... if you go by thread view counts, some stay low, and some surge into the 10's of 1000's.

Also not sure of the actual user base (seat) count ... I'd think Arca Noae has a handle on how many seats they've sold, and perhaps someone from EComStation time frame has rough seat numbers for their OS. Finally, it seems like OS/2 Warp (4.xx) had quite a few seats, and can benefit from Winflector solutions.
 
All told, my estimates are about 25k to 100k, but I have no way to nail it down ... it would possibly be useful to nail it down, and pass it to Winflector folks, to build up interest for an OS/2 client.

Certainly, there are still millions of 32-bit OS users out there (windows 7 and XP, linux distros, etc). If OS/2 is a better windows than most windows variants, some of these seats could possibly be brought into the fold?

How to get hold of any of those seats, other than by marketing? Perhaps with AN (you would think that they might participate, for their customers), with BlondGuy and others, and elsewhere. Build it, and they might come ...

5
Another innovative use of Winflector, to solve OS/2 problems (no native modern browser, no 64-bit apps, etc) ... nice!

Please keep us posted on your efforts ... they are appreciated!

I use Winflector natively, everything on a single physical box, but perhaps your solution offers benefits to those in need of cloud versions of Winflector, Windows, etc. in an OS/2 environment.

Again, very innovative use of all the tools in the toolbox ...

6
Internet / Re: Mypal68: A possible alternative browser?
« on: March 13, 2026, 03:34:22 pm »
"the 4GB/32Bit limit is pretty much a ticking time bomb"

"Why do you think about winflector? Isn't this another remote access software where the real program runs on another hardware on another OS and only the screen output is mirrored to your machine?"

Both of these comments are currently "problems" with OS/2, but they are not showstoppers in any way. The whole point of "ArcaOS - Thrusters on Full" (AToF ... over in the virtualization subforum) is to solve these and other problems such that you can be very productive in OS/2, and *not experience* any of these problems. For example:

AToF runs on one machine (your desktop, your laptop), and utilizes all the reources of that machine (ssd's, 32 or 64gb ram, cpu's w/ multiple cores ... and makes all of these resources available to OS/2. It does this magic with a stripped down version of win10, such that the OS is a slave to OS/2's need ... win10 doesn't steal your data, it doesn't do anything other than provide resources to multiple OS/2 vm's on one box.

Multiple OS/2 vm's free us all up from nearly every single os/2 problem that this forum is full of:
- can't compile a massive app in one OS/2 vm? dedicate an OS/2 vm to compiling, or throw multiple vm's at it ... problem solved.
- can't access the occasional windows app? winflector, running on the win10 hostOS, is there to give any OS/2 vm a windowed win app, 64-bit, running on your os/2 desktop ... problem solved.
- can't access a piece of hardware, as there are no native OS/2 device drivers? win10 hostOS provides this, and makes everything available to the OS/2 vm's running ... all of them, all on one machine ... problem solved.

There's plenty more, just not enough room in a thread reply to show off all the features ... I demo'd this at Warpstock 2023, and wrote all of the AToF threads in the virtualization subforum, all with the goal of just using tools in the toolbox to solve all of OS/2's problems. Nothing magical, other than thinking outside of the box, and stringing tools together (win10 ameliorated, virtualbox, winflector, etc.) to ensure that OS/2's insurmountable limts aren't really a problem. These limits (4gb ram, 32-bit, no modern browser, never enough native device drivers, etc.) are likely to never go away, but it turns out that we don't need to worry about them anyway.

We can run 32-bit OS/2 forever, and get at any 64-bit feature we want ... just assemble those tools in the fashion that *you choose* ... if you choose not to, that's OK as well. It doesn't change the fact that OS/2 is not limited.

Just take one inexpensive box (my $200 ebay 2018 dell laptop, i7, 32gb ram, ssd), AToF it, and I can run multiple OS/2 vm's, on one physical machine. It isn't Windows, even though win10 is my hostOS (could also be linux, etc.) ... it's OS/2 (ArcaOS) all the way! I don't see the hostOS, I don't think about it at all, but Windows is slaved to OS/2 (the way it should be), and I get to keep using OS/2's very unique features ... forever!

Anyone else can, if they choose to ...

NOTE: we need to get ArcaOS and Winflector folks together, to produce an OS/2 native winflector client, which is a port of the linux 32-bit native client to OS/2. I've done much to request this, but it's been "crickets" from both parties. Everyone else should pile on as well, repeatedly, until these two sides finally get together to get it done.


7
Not trying to convince you to run windows ... the host os can be either windows or linux. The host os, if windows, is stripped of everything that MS does to it to make it objectionable ... at this point, it's more of a service. If host os is linux, it's like running a "server" version, so it's also stripped down.

These days, even mac is linux, so there's no reason it can't be the host os. And yes, I believe folks have used mac versions of virtualization to run ArcaOS. The goal is to bypass OS/2 limitations on modern hardware, where said limitations just won't go away.

Again, many folks live with all the problems of OS/2 or ArcaOS natively on modern hardware, with OS/2 pulling that modern hardware back into the past, or not supporting it to much of a degree. Nothing wrong with that, if the limitations are acceptable ...

When you have time (and if you haven't done so allready), you'll enjoy all the threads where folks try to envision 64-bit OS/2, or such ... the barriers are formidable, the numbers (of users) are small (I think more folks are using WinXP thru Win7 than will ever use OS/2 variants), and dev is most likely reducing down (perhaps to zero).

I do my best to help fight this tide with AToF, which could feasibly help turn that tide ...

In any case, best of luck with however you choose to run OS/2!


8
WRT Sabon's many recent comments and thread posting, and specifically to "where now, OS/2?":

Current OS?2 problems:
  - platform ... it's 32-bit, and this won't easily change
  - hardware (running os/2 native), device drivers (wifi, etc.), and so on ...
  - software ... little to no new native apps, but much porting of unix/linux apps to os/2

and much more. Searching this and other forums points out the many problems with OS/2. That said, there is still much that can be done with it, and I think it will last quite some time.

What I do to solve all the above problems, is:
  - run a host os (Win10) ... solves all 64-bit, device driver, etc. type of problems
  - run virtualbox on this host os ... run any os in a vm, and more than one ... test anything, forever
  - run one or more OS/2 (ArcaOS) in vm's ... solves many os/2 ram, fs, wifi, etc. (guest additions)
  - run Winflector on host os ... 64-bit apps on host os are delivered into OS/2, in a window.

My original notes on all this are in the virtualization subforum ... AToF threads ... this should carry us on OS/2 long into the future. Perhaps it will give us time to get some form of OS?2 to 64-bits.

Specifically for developers, you can run multiple OS/2 vm's, perhaps one that is compiling, while your main OS/2 desktop is serving up your desktop of daily stuff. Host OS is running in the background, doing everything else on your 64-bit machine ... yep, Win10 is in effect, slaved to OS/2 and doing things for OS/2.

If you (or anyone) think there is some problem that AToF can't solve, or that doesn't have a modern workaround, please let me know (in a new thread, in the virtualization sub-forum).

I use AToF daily, finally getting the most out of my 64-bit, 64gb ram, and SSD's machine, running OS/2 (ArcaOS). I test all kinds of weird OS's ... from early dos, win, os/2 version, thru linux/unix, on up to mainframe os's ... all of them in vm's under the host os, and it all just works. None of the OS's know that they aren't running natively, but they have access to the modern world.

Many on this forum want to run OS/2 (ArcaOS) natively, as the host os ... nothing wrong with that, other than it is very problematic. Arca Noae's efforts are huge in this area, and we get a version of OS/2 that will carry us far, if you can work around or look past those problems.

ArcaOS works very well for me in a vm. But, I can't run natively, so a host os, virtualbox, winflector, and everything else in one or more vm's is my answer to every single one of OS/2's problems, as described in this forum. This will carry me way into the future, and OS/2 will continue to do everything I need it to do, via the AToF system.

Hope this helps ...

9
Applications / Re: qemu and ARCAOS 5.1
« on: September 29, 2025, 10:52:21 pm »
Without knowing exactly what the host os and version is, and what the QEMU version is, I'd say to make sure these are at the latest versions available. I saw notes to the effect that a fix was put in to later versions of qemu to help OS/2 Warp and ArcaOS.

With QEMU, we typically get our Windows binaries from a german developer who builds the released code, and makes it available to all (for win versions only) ... the dev's website is pointed at from the QEMU site.

On the startup string, I'd start adjusting each (one at a time), and seeing what happens; adjust from your working 5.0.6 set, or from one of the sources I suggested.

For example:
  - bump the ram to 4096, and retest ... see if amount of ram is an issue.
  - change the vga line, to look more like the other examples, and see if that helps

Always just one change at a time, and revert back to your baseline for the next change.

Did ArcaOS offer any help with QEMU ... as in, a startup string that they like?

Hope this helps ...


10
Events / Re: Warpstock 2025 - Nov 7-9
« on: September 29, 2025, 08:24:29 pm »
If the mission statement includes "an annual technology conference", then presumably, you want folks to actually attend, in person and remotely. I would think you'd want more to attend this year than last year.

All of my threads are full of ideas ... but I've written enough ... time for others to chime in. Perhaps you need a new thread, with the board (even if all volunteer) deciding (leading) on how to approach it, either on this forum, or on the Warpstock site.

If everyone is very happy with the status quo, then by all means, leave it alone and continue chugging towards whatever the end state is.

I've given the conference two shots ... one in person, and one remotely. If something changes conference-wise, maybe I can look forward to it in 2026. I won't be there this year with any presentations, as for too many reasons to list it's just no longer a viable venue to push new ideas.

I'm looking for that other venue ...

11
Events / Re: Warpstock 2025 - Nov 7-9
« on: September 29, 2025, 04:59:49 pm »
I'm looking at numbers (attendance, views, etc.) for where to put my "presentation ideas", and at fewer than 20 people or so attending warpstock (in person and remote), and the YT videos from said yearly events in the 50 - 200 views range, there isn't a lot there to make the expense of presenting worth it.

On this forum, an idea can have views of multiple 1000's ... implying lots of folks out there want to do something with OS/2. But, this Warpstock board doesn't seem to want to capitalize on that.

So, I'm having to look elsewhere to get my ideas out in front of the public. My presentations in 2023 showed me that Warpstock may not be the right venue, and my remote attendance in 2024 showed that the board isn't really interested in promoting Warpstock (a great brand name). I won't be presenting in this year's warpstock, and I can't see what effort the board will put into next year's ...

It's your conference ... if the board can't get in front of this, and tackle promoting (website, conference, presentations) and remote attendance (new and improved, to increase viewership), I don't know who can, as none of the rest of us have ownership (in Warpstock).

If you want to change Warpstock up, then perhaps you can draw new folks into the process ... new website, new ideas, more new folks, fundraising, etc. If it's just a call for volunteers, to perpetuate more of the same old same old, and end up with even less attendees/views than last year, I'll pass. That feels more like a small club of set members, with the rest of us looking in and wondering what's going on.

Again, I'm looking for where to place my ideas, and apparently, Warpstock isn't it ...

Good luck with your conference ...

12
Events / Re: Warpstock 2025 - Nov 7-9
« on: September 28, 2025, 04:29:51 pm »
Looking at earlier threads, I note that for the 1st 6 months of the year after Warpstock 2024, there wasn't much signs of life on the Warpstock site ... this is not a good start to building an exciting list of presentations and Warpstock 2025 interest. Now, we are one month and a week out ...

You can ask individuals for "ideas for presentations", but that seems to put the burden for any change upon those from whom you ask ... whereas, I believe the burden is on the Warpstock board to come up a new method of developing the presentation effort, starting with day 1 right after Warpstock 2025.

Or, continue with the old method of a generic and simple "ask", midway thru the year or thereabouts ...

The former, if the board can come up with a new way to build up interest into presentation ideas and support for Warpstock attendance, in-person *AND* remote, might pull folks back in again. This is 2026 effort ...

The latter (the old method) ... sigh ...

13
Applications / Re: qemu and ARCAOS 5.1
« on: September 28, 2025, 01:17:36 am »
Can you share your ArcaOS 5.1.x start string for qemu, version of qemu, and host os you are using?

These are not mine, but here's some start strings found around the web, for versions of OS/2:
  - ecomstation 2.x:
qemu-system-x86_64 -m 2048 -device vmware-svga,vgamem_mb=4 -device pcnet,mac=6E:C0:E6:AA:6B:BD,netdev=net0 -netdev user,id=net0 -drive file=ecomstation21.qcow2 -device ac97 -rtc base=localtime -cdrom ecs21_cd1_en_us.iso  -boot d

  - ArcaOS 5.0.x:
qemu-system-x86_64 -m 8192 -device VGA,vgamem_mb=4 -device pcnet,mac=6E:C0:E6:AA:6B:BD,netdev=net0 -netdev user,id=net0 -drive file=arcaos50.qcow2 -device ac97 -rtc base=localtime -cdrom ArcaOS-5.0.iso  -boot d

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/qemu_kvm/comments/1gek98d/install_and_run_ecomstation_21_and_arcaos_50_in/

Other resources:
  os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Installing_ArcaOS_on_QEMU_with_Windows_10_Host

ArcaOS 5.1.0 was first version to support UEFI? So, perhaps some UEFI investigation, to fallback to CSM or something else, for QEMU? Or, as you are running a licensed 5.1.0, perhaps open a ticket with ArcaNoae?

Hope this helps ...

14
Events / Re: Warpstock 2025 - Nov 7-9
« on: September 23, 2025, 11:17:58 pm »
I had problems with last year's event, where the IRC toolset just didn't give me parity with being there in person. I would type away in the tool (asking q's, mentioning ideas, etc.), and nobody noticed at the other end, and nothing of what I typed seemed to get onto the radar of the folks presenting or managing the conference. I did not feel the parity in attending as if I was there in person.

Look at the 2024 thread where I and others mentioned wanting a better remote conferencing tool, and we were even willing to pay for it, but it didn't seem to garner in support from the board, or even attention. No mention of what can, or could, be done for remote attending folks for this year ... so, no need to attend.

On the presentation side, Warpstock (corp) doesn't seem to drive interest in presentations and being there at the conference, either in person or remote ... the Warpstock site is woefully out of date, and there is no advertising of presentations.. I even get an "access denied" when trying to visit the current list of presentations (event pages link) ...

Perhaps for next year, start asking for ideas on day 1 after this year's conference (or, as the last session of this year), and constantly promote, advertise, and otherwise build an exciting list of presentations for the next event such that more folks are drawn in. Maybe there is even time enough to get it done for this year, with a tad less than two months.

To recap:
  - If no better tool to access the conference than IRC, I can't get excited about attending this year's conference, remotely.
  - If the presentations aren't better developed and promoted, I can't get excited about attending ...

OS/2 could be more (new ways to use it, alternatives to difficulties using it, problem-solving with it) ... Warpstock could be more (modern/updated website, relevant information, exciting event details, more articles) ...

15
Setup & Installation / Re: Extremely slow Warp 4.52 installation.
« on: September 05, 2025, 04:01:11 pm »
This is a really old system, and I believe you are trying to boot a really old OS (if it's 4.52 stock) ... both of these are most likely out of sync with what you installed on it back in the day (warp 3, 4?).

If you were able to get 3 or 4 (or something) on it back then, then perhaps check to see if that can be repeated today, and then look into the upgrade processes to finally get to 4.52 plus fixes. This gets you to a known starting point. Save that image (for reload), and test in other directions ...

I'd think you need a more modern boot CD, such as in the links provided ... this is the only way I can think of to get all the fixes into place that have occurred over the years, for the installer routines. Even then, it's a gamble, given the weird combinations of hardware & bios, not the least of which is IDE issues, master/slave, installer switches, etc.

Only other thing I can offer is to possibly try a HDD-based install (and get the CD drive off the bus), where you put all the installation files into a mount-point, and arrange to kick off the install from that directory with some boot diskettes. There are instructions that can be searched for on the 'net, if you feel like gathering all the modern pieces, creating an install dir, and giving it a shot. This would possibly bypass much IDE (CD Drive?) grief ... certainly another data point.

If you have a real love for the old hardware, and are willing to keep trying, you'll eventually hit on a winning combination. It will take time, but it's why we explore all the old stuff in the first place ...

If you just wanted to see OS/2 running, and explore it a bit, consider virtualization. I run OS/2 in a VM (ArcaOS, 4.52, etc. all the way down to 1.xx) ... it's much easier to try out combinations, at virtual/vm speeds ... no hardware issues, no browser issues (see the virtualization subfolder on this forum).

Hope this helps ...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7