OS2 World Community Forum

OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical => Programming => Topic started by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 03:05:53 am

Title: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 03:05:53 am
I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked by this old conflict. There is a old conflict between Eugene, that sells eCS russian software, and some other Russian developer groups.

We are merry and fun community of users :)  ....but sadly I need to reply hard on this issues and try to explain a more philosophical point of view about Open Source to Eugene.

Eugene, it is hard to discuss with you because you don't support the Open Source model, and sometime it is hard to understand your english. (my personal opinion) Money is important, and developers needs to be paid, but that does not mean that it is obligatory to produce close source software and charge for license. To me close source software today is future abandonware... because everybody will leave to be an OS/2 user in one way or other ..... or do you think we are going to leave this life alive? :)

Selling license is a 90's model that is getting close to the end. Selling software in commodities like Operating Systems, Office Suites, Web Application servers and a lot of other software sales are getting complicated because of the options you have in the market.

Eugene, you offer a library that is freeware (not open source), and someday you may change your mind, you may start charging money for it, or even someday you may die (like everybody here) and all your software will became abandonware. Instead the open source software has the possibility to live forever without depending on the developer. Please try to embrace the open source model. Thanks to open source we have firefox, OpenOffice, XWorkplace..... yes, the effort of the developers is important, but if we didn't have Firefox open sourced in the first place today we will not have a browser at all. Money is important, but this is a community, not a marketplace anymore.

Quote
....when you made efforts to collect money for new fraud (port network drivers, etc).
Eugene, it seems that you don't understand that this kind of comments hurts you instead of others. We all know the issues on both sides (eCo Software vs Russian developers) and I'm sick of that. We are not here to define who is good or bad, we only discuss things.  Eugene, if you have problems that hurts your business, please start with legal actions and please stop this.

Returning to open source. Open Source is the only way we have to reduce the #1 issue of this community.
The #1 issue is that this is orphan platform, IBM dumped us, and nobody has OS/2 source code available to keep improving it components. I want to this platform to live forever and evolve in time, while other just want drivers, other just want their things working, other just wants to make money and other just wants their business software running. On which side are you?

Open Source will set the platform free, once we get our freedom, we can turn from a community to market again, and you can sell all your products to get millions. But right now, if we want this platform to endure in long future we need to collaborate, and open source is a formal way to do it with clear rules, and we all need to put the shoulder. 

Or.... we can try to squeeze the last dollar to the 400 (?) OS/2 community users left? Should we turn OS2World under paid subscription? :)     ....oh.. that was what killed WarpCity.... I should stop digging into the past, I may wake a Balrog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balrogs) :)
Title: Re: Re: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 27, 2014, 11:00:03 am
To Martin Iturbide:

* I don't have conflicts with russian developers. We all, all developers of OS/2 shareware applications, all users have conflict with the pirates. And os2world.com moderators have verified this and were protecting us in the past.

* eCo Software supports Open Source model, we have some open source programs.

* Yes, you can sit on a mountain and wait when OS will be opensourced, but what to do today? Today the developers need libraries, the users need tools and applications.

* Do you have examples of applications which were created for OS/2 and then opensourced? XWorkPlace development and opensourcing was paid by eComStation. More examples?

* All this discussions about open source are not actual. When possible, the program is opensourced. You should understand that opensourced program are more expensive than shareware. Somebody should pay full price for the program.

* "Open source" topic is not the most important. Better discuss how to use OS/2 for engineer tasks, for business tasks, .. 

Title: Re: Re: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 27, 2014, 11:19:09 am
To Martin Iturbide:

Article "OpenSource OS/2 / eComStation - fake target"
(russian text) http://ru.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=305


What topic is more important?
"Let's open source  OS/2"
or
* What Solutions to develop, what are the areas of eComStation usage?
* What unique functions to implement in eCS? in user interface, in functionality?
* What libraries and development tools do we have in eCS?
* What applications to develop to attract more users and extend the market?
* How to overcome the "barriers"?
Title: Re: Re: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 27, 2014, 01:36:36 pm
> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked by this old conflict.

Pax in terra !  :)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 03:17:22 pm
Hi

I splited the topic to reply Eugene. I'm going to try again to explain but not necessary for Eugene to understand because I had tried without success on the past. The intention is to try to reply the questions in a straight way:

Quote
I don't have conflicts with russian developers. We all, all developers of OS/2 shareware applications, all users have conflict with the pirates. And os2world.com moderators have verified this and were protecting us in the past.
Yes, but that is no reason to call Pasha and Boris frauds, when they just submited a proposal that OS2world was not able to accept (reason was explained in the forum - timing).  There is not reasson to label people, I don't like it even for you.

Quote
eCo Software supports Open Source model, we have some open source programs.
Please let me know, the one one I know is the Animated mouse pointer derivated work you have. PianoLaunch pad was based in open source, but since it was BSD license, you closed the source code of the derivative works .

Quote
Yes, you can sit on a mountain and wait when OS will be opensourced, but what to do today? Today the developers need libraries, the users need tools and applications.
Who is saying sit on a mountain and wait? I had told in the past that we need to support eComStation, Mensys, Bitwise works, everyone, but that we also need to at the same time have a long term strategy for the platform, and that strategy should be open source the close source components of it. Please everybody, supporting the idea of an open source OS/2 is not just sitting back and relax until it happen, it does not mean stop selling OS/2 to corporate software. It means hard work for everyone, it means chipping in at every level. (Money, code, documentation, help support, etc).

Quote
Do you have examples of applications which were created for OS/2 and then opensourced? XWorkPlace development and opensourcing was paid by eComStation. More examples?
I don't know why you are always wrong with this. XWorkplace was not created by Mensys or Serenity Systems, it was created by "Ulrich Möller", the only attorney on earth that knows WPS programming :)    Serenity and Mensys only paid other developers to fix some bugs and to give support. If Ulrich will not open sourced XWorkplace, it is very possible that we will not have it on eCS today. The same with WarpIn, Airboot, and all the open source software that it is for eComStation.

Without the people that gave his software as open source, we will not have eCS as we have it today. Community efforts was very important on eCS and people will not recognize it.


All this discussions about open source are not actual. When possible, the program is opensourced. You should understand that opensourced program are more expensive than shareware. Somebody should pay full price for the program. (http://All this discussions about open source are not actual. When possible, the program is opensourced. You should understand that opensourced program are more expensive than shareware. Somebody should pay full price for the program.)
Has someone been reading the Microsoft sponsored Forrester report again? Open source reduced the risk of what happened us. IBM dumped us, and we have an orphan platform, with open source that does not happens. If Redhad goes out of business today, someone else can grab the source code and continue Linux. If someone freaks out on the Joomla community and starts selling it for $1M, someone will fork the project and continue with it. Open Source is a way to reduce the risk to get dumped.

Quote
"Open source" topic is not the most important. Better discuss how to use OS/2 for engineer tasks, for business tasks, .. 
Discussing how to use OS/2 for business and engineers is interesting. But when you try to attract them to eComStation, they saw that Mensys does not make any announcement, they hear that Mensys do not have all the OS/2 source code, they see that we lack a lot of drivers, and they see that OS/2 can be dumped again just like IBM did.... plus they see the price tag on a software they will only use to experiment. Does that attract developers and business people?

If we have a plan to open source the platform and we say, we need help on this , and this and show some progress, that will attract more people to the community. (in part)

....to be continued.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 03:22:03 pm
Eugene.

I just want to ask you one thing. What will happen with your software if you get hit by a car tomorrow and die? Who will take charge of you costumers? Who will be running you company? Is the source code of you software in the office of a lawyer that can release if to the public if you go out of business?

With open source I just don't care about that. Anybody can replace me and continue updating the Wiki and Github if I die. Open Source allowed everybody to continue developing XWorkplace, WarpIn when Ulrich left the community. I appreciate a lot the people that had turned their OS/2 software as open source, they preferred to share their efforts and knowledge instead of having the source code in shelf.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 27, 2014, 03:28:18 pm
* XWorkPlace was paid by Serenity Systems. Do you have *more* examples? Do you see the reality? There is no active open source projects  ( we don't talk about ported software).

* It's clear that if source code is published - it's better. But the reality is different. There is no sponsor which goes buy out the source code from the developers of OS/2 applications.

* So all declarations "Open source, open source, .." are empty. And dangerous when Open source fanatics attack the developers of standard OS/2 apps and libraries.

 
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Ian Manners on August 27, 2014, 03:47:00 pm
Eugene,

You talk as if you have been educated by Microsoft, and your words suggest that you have no idea what 'Open Source' software is, or what it is about.
Until you know what you are talking about, you should refrain from commenting.

I will see if I can find some good links to explain it to you, Martin or someone else might beat me to it.

Also, please read and understand what I have posted here :-
http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,481.msg4536.html#msg4536 (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,481.msg4536.html#msg4536)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on August 27, 2014, 04:03:39 pm
A good example for recent published software related to OS/2 that is for me as an end user "free of charge" is the QSLoader. Even if it is not "open sourced" it is software highly appriciated.

The same goes with the Webcam/Stylus/Touch Software and Drivers from Wim Brul, the USB Drivers from Lars Erdmann, the latest and then free release of Emperoar TV and so on.

Xworkplace is well known developed be Ullrich Möller. It is under GPL so far. If Serenity did pay something or not is not important (As fas as I know Ullrich Möller did get no money for this - but the only reliable answer could come from himself) - it is open sourced.

In my opinion:

- Open source clones of OS/2 parts is a good idea, may be the only long shot strategy for OS/2 - but it seems to me a mountain to high to climb. It would need reverse engineering - and the well known problems to WPS Programming

- More realisitc allways seemd to me to be a way to clone the WPS on top of a Linux system, a "OS/2 distribution" - I would guess this would need less work than reprogramming OS/2 but one would get rid of the most driver problems and concentrate on fewer tasks

- ecs.ru want to attract new users what is obvious impossible, other than those having 6 or 7 years old Laptops. And even if it runs on modern hardware - as it works on some - there is not that bunch of application that is needed. I.e. no "Skype" or something like this, no possibility to sync with Phones, Onlinebanking and so on and so on. Sadly it goes the other way round - only a few users are still using OS/2, and even fewer are using it as their daily working system. There is no "new market" for OS/2, it is a fortune that some industrial clients are still there. The most important "SHOWSTOPPER" is the price: as it is not opensource like Linux and because of the licening model it need to cost something. And this is to much. I need just to take a look at my three son:

- today - besides the industry maybe - most or the "usual" customers are not interested in what kind of operating system runs their hardware - it just has to run and has to be as invisible as possible. The applications are more important. If the application is not availiable for this Operating System (something Windows Mobile/Windows Phone has to learn for years now) it can be lightyears better than any other - but the users still switch to the other (Apple, Android - vise versa). And for sure my son would not pay money for an operating system - even if it would make sense in case of stability and so on - when they can get everything for free (even if the pay for it with the Hardware or phone). A good example is STEAM - that is being ported to Linux in the last years.

- the best what could have happen to the OS/2 community was (the best before was switching APCI and so on away from ecs.ru to D. Azariewicz etc. in 2010) the upcoming of Lewis Rosenthals new company working together with bitwise and the developers. That gives me the hope and impression that my OS/2 systems may survive for another five years or so.

Meanwhile I try to build my on DVD - with QSLoader, OS/4 kernel and some more stuff. I will give ACPI from eCS a shot with this combination as well (as well as the one from OS/4), just to see what will happen. It is based on Warp 4.52 and will not contain any eco runtimes or dlls.

I am looking forward to our user meeting in Cologne to discuss with other users in a gentle, realistic and calm way.

So - I stay cool and see in wich way the new companies will surprise me  :D

I am wondering how long one can ride the dead horse...  :D


Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on August 27, 2014, 04:39:52 pm
Eugene,You talk as if you have been educated by Microsoft,

Upps - according to your own rules that sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?  ;) ::)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 04:58:34 pm
Eugene,You talk as if you have been educated by Microsoft,

Upps - according to your own rules that sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?

It does not sound like an insult to me. I have good friends working on Microsoft :)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 05:00:21 pm
I'm sorry Eugene, but you don't seem to get reasons. Just answer "What will happen to your software if you suddenly die ?" - I know it is extreme, but it may happen to you and me.

Thanks for sharing Sigurd

Quote
- Open source clones of OS/2 parts is a good idea, may be the only long shot strategy for OS/2 - but it seems to me a mountain to high to climb. It would need reverse engineering - and the well known problems to WPS Programming

The issue I think is that we don't have a long term strategy, and people that have corporate sponsors also do not have it. I understand the dream is big "AN OPEN SOURCE OS/2 CLONE!!!"... wow that's big.... But a big dream is just made of little efforts that adds up. 

It will be as nice to start with PM (Dreaming in Technicolor) following a process like this:
- "ok, let's make an open source of PM". .... (wow that is too much...Big dream)
- "Here are the components of PM API" .... link (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/OS2_API:PMI) ... (wow there are too many components)
- "uhmmm I think that "Window_Functions" API compoment may be a good place to start" ....link (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/OS2_API:PMI#Window_Functions) ..... (wow... that is still too much)
- "I'm going to start cloning WinInitialize()"..... link (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/OS2_API:WinInitialize).... (that seems to be more manageable)

If WinInitialize() is cloned (maybe it had been done already on the past, I just grab it as example), and the source code shared,  it will a little step, maybe useless right now, but it will be an step. The sum of little steps can pull a big dream. And maybe that little sum of small steps can inspire other people to join to make the little steps move faster.

Quote
-More realisitc allways seemd to me to be a way to clone the WPS on top of a Linux system, a "OS/2 distribution" - I would guess this would need less work than reprogramming OS/2 but one would get of the most driver problems and concentrate on fewer tasks

I also thought first about WPS. The best idea will be to extend the XWorkplace project and convert that project with the goal of replacing the WPS classes one by one with open source code. But after reading more about the OS/2 architecture, WPS is builded over SOM, and SOM/WPS runs over PM.

I got to the conclusion (I don't know if I'm complete right) that the base of OS/2 GUI applications is PM. The API that constructs how the OS/2 GUI looks is part of PM and it far more important that SOM/WPS. (personal opinion).
I got to that conclusion to see the quantity of WPS based applications that it exists. (link (http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Workplace_Shell_based_Applications)) . Compared to the PM applications that runs without SOM/WPS, the WPS applications quantity is very small. The soul of running OS/2 GUI application is in fact PM.

What it will be incredible is to start cloning PM, and that IBM's OS/2 SOM and WPS keep running over it. SOM/WPS may be important for the OS/2's desktop, icons and  but PM is real thing that has the OS/2 GUI soul. In final words (sorry I drift too much) PM is OS/2 GUI, WPS is the desktop shell and SOM is the OO framework on which WPS was constructed.

So, cloning WPS over linux may be able to produce a similar OS/2 desktop on Linux, but PM applications (The majority of GUI OS/2 apps) will be incompatible. PM is the the real thing, but to be honestly I will prefer to have a PM open source clone running over OS/2-ecs first, and if someone wants to port it over Linux, he is welcome to do it.

But is someone will like to start with WPS open source clone, I will also support that project !!  I will support and help (in whatever I can) to anyone that produces a open source DLL and EXE that can replace any IBM close source component of OS/2.

Quote
I am looking forward to our user meeting in Cologne to discuss with other users in a gentle, realistic and calm way.

....but there is no problem also discussing here, I try to be always calm :)   Sometime the discussion may not be complete realistic, but I had found out that it is good to "dream big" and after that you start something small, but the "big dream" gives you the goal.

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 05:24:03 pm
Quote
I am wondering how long one can ride the dead horse...

Wow a missed that one.. in my case, how long can you have a hobbie? Months? Years? a Lifetime?

I started to think that time is not important for the ones that are here for fun and do not have a business model with OS/2. This is a community site, while it remains fun we are going to still hang out here :)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 27, 2014, 05:35:51 pm
To Martin Iturbide:

* XWorkPlace.. As I remember, there was XFile WPS extender (XFolder + WarpEnhancer + XPager). and XWorkPlace was developed with the support of Serenity Systems. It was impossible develop this project without this investments. There was D-Day, there was collaboration with eCS developers, short terms to complete the project. This is the example of open sourced program ordered and supported by the commercial company.

* OK, AirBoot - good example, WarpIn - good example. It's impossible sell this programs, so it's normal that this apps were open sourced.

* Do you have more examples of apps developed in OS/2 and open sourced from the beginning?

* Piano Launchpad doesn't use GPL or other code. It was developed by our professional WPS developer. Of course, we have read the examples from hobbes.

* "What will happen to your software if you suddenly die " - closed source doesn't mean that the source code is stored in the Tower and nobody can see it. Other *Professional* OS/2 developers get access to our source code by request. If an accident happens, then the developers which have access to this code and have part of rights will make the decision what to do with this modules.

* One more time: we all agree that open source is good, it's easy to maintain, fix. Main question to you: who will pay for open sourcing? For open sourcing of existing apps. For creation of new and open sourced?



To Ian Manners:

> You talk as if you have been educated by Microsoft,

I was educated on the streets of OS/2 town. The market here is different from real life. OS/2 dollar is 10x more expensive (ten times). And yes, I respect Microsoft corporation.


> you have no idea what 'Open Source' software is, or what it is about

My arguments:
* I am listening all presentations of Yuri Dario which follows open source way since 90-th
* We have discussed open sourcing million times, russian articles, year 2002: http://ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=63
year 2004: http://ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=102
* I am reading all messages from Martin Iturbide regarding Open Source campaign

And I am working on OS/2 market and eComStation since 1996/1997, interacting with all developers of native software. So I see what happens, what the developers of shareware do.

I agree with all advantages of open sourcing. But I make questions how to apply open sourcing to OS/2 market. Filter (Remove) all open source ported software and you see different picture.





Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 27, 2014, 05:43:01 pm
shareware

Oh shareware sucks so much...
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: ivan on August 27, 2014, 05:51:41 pm
Martin, I would like to make a point about OS/2 in an engineering/business situation.

Note I said OS/2 not eCS.  We maintain OS/2 and the associated equipment in a reasonably large engineering enterprise.  We have mentioned using eCS to our clients and their reply has always been 'is it certified for use with our machine-tools' and there is the stumbling block.  We are permitted to use open source ports where we have access to the source code and will move their office over to using AOO4 when we finish our testing (at the moment they are using Describe but it is showing its age now because it is closed source).

If the community were able to produce an open source clone of OS/2 I know of a number of engineering operations that would move over to using it because, in most cases the certification problem wouldn't arise and the Linux control programs for the new machine-tools could be ported over to OS/2 (we have one client having that done at the moment because they have to replace a major machine in their production line and they decided to stay with OS/2 rather than change to an OS/2 - Linux combination, stick with what has worked well for the past 20 years). 

From what I see of Eugene's work the Microsoft comment is not out of place because of their usual 'embrace, extend, extinguish' working practice.  I hesitate to say more as I don't want to continue the argument.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 06:25:54 pm
Quote
* XWorkPlace.. As I remember, there was XFile WPS extender (XFolder + WarpEnhancer + XPager). and XWorkPlace was developed with the support of Serenity Systems. It was impossible develop this project without this investments. There was D-Day, there was collaboration with eCS developers, short terms to complete the project. This is the example of open sourced program ordered and supported by the commercial company.
Sorry but I think your are wrong. XWorkplace was fully developed by Ulrich and Serenity used it for eComStation. Paul Ratcliffe took charge of it (can't know for sure if it was since version 1.0) and made a good job patching it. There was also help from Yuri Dario,  Christian Hennecke and others. I don't know they payrolls to if it was made at their own time or paid.  There is a Serenity and Mensys investment on patching it, but if XWorkplace was not open sourced on the first place, I doubt we will have it today as an important component.

But the way - http://xtracker.xworkplace.org/ is down.

Quote
* Piano Launchpad doesn't use GPL or other code. It was developed by our professional WPS developer. Of course, we have read the examples from hobbes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You are not using GPL, agreed. But Pianopad is based in BlubblePad which is open source BSD license. It is legal to make a derivative work of BSD software and close the source code, but It will be better to open source it to allow the project grow.

Quote
* One more time: we all agree that open source is good, it's easy to maintain, fix. Main question to you: who will pay for open sourcing? For open sourcing of existing apps. For creation of new and open sourced?

You need to switch from a "Selling license" model to a "Selling services" model.
- Offer paid support
- Offer to develop/port open source software for a money target (Bitwise works)
- Find a corporate sponsor and help them with OS/2 on their business charging money for it. You will not get money "millions" from the community, there is not enough mass to charge for a massive product.
- Understand that this is a dying platform, and squeezing money from users will not save it. There are not much possibilities to save it if we don't collaborate to open source the close source components of it.

Eugene, but what I will like to you do is to open source your software and start working on a little part on the "dream" of having a full open source OS/2. I can not assure that it will be a good or bad decision, but the platform is dying and we need to pull all efforts on having source code that we can re-use in a legal way and loose the control of a single company or individual.

You are going to leave this community one day, just like me, It is just that we don't know when. I don't want to leave abandoware and copyrights behind that will not allow the platform to grow in the future.  Think about that, are you here to make money? or are you help to help the community? If you want to make money, go the people that have money like corporation and compete to get money from there. If you want to help the platform you are welcome here, but (sadly) there is no money on the "end consumer market" for OS/2.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Sergey Posokhov on August 27, 2014, 06:49:05 pm
It would need reverse engineering...
And I did it ;) At least for Presentation Manager.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 07:03:34 pm
Hi Sergey

I got a question about it, I don't know if you can help me.

I want to know this, but I don't know if this are dumb questions.
1) How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?
2) or viceversa, how can an say a .DLL on OS/2, let me know which functions can I use from you?

It may be very basic, but since I don't have programming skills I don't know about it.

Thanks
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Sergey Posokhov on August 27, 2014, 07:10:55 pm
How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?

My Hiew.exe (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/h-search.php?key=hiew) told me that it is PMWP.dll

or viceversa, how can an say a .DLL on OS/2, let me know which functions can I use from you?

It's even possible to explore which functions has been used by FC/2 to do charset conversions (and now we know which functions are "more standard than others").
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 27, 2014, 07:12:11 pm
1) How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?

Just search all DLLs on the system for "wincopyobject". The one that have that symbol in its file is most likely the needed one...



UPD: Well, if the function is exported by name, not ordinal.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on August 27, 2014, 09:18:16 pm
Quote
I am wondering how long one can ride the dead horse...

Wow a missed that one.. in my case, how long can you have a hobbie? Months? Years? a Lifetime?

I started to think that time is not important for the ones that are here for fun and do not have a business model with OS/2. This is a community site, while it remains fun we are going to still hang out here :)

For me the hobby seems to be a Lifetimejob...  ;)  The 5 years I mentioned are my expactations for some kind of modern hardware, OS/2 itself will allways stay on some of my hardware - i.e. I just bought for very small money a Thinkpad 365ED with a Cyrix 586 (in reality it was still a 486 - but Intel did not had the copyright for 586 so they called those "Pentium"... so long ago...  ::)  )  - I want to repair it and want to install Warp connect or Warp 4 on it  :D

I did the same with the Thinkpad 701c Butterfly and the X41, the X200 Tablet and even the Transnote...  ;)

I like to be around here very much, this forum is really great. I try to contribute as much as I can - and therefore ride the dead horse as long as possible...  ::)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 27, 2014, 09:44:49 pm
Hello,

the thread on closed vs. open source is very interesting.

As I am quite new to this forum, I should remain silent - but I cannot:

I think it is okay to earn a living by developing and selling software.

It is even better to make the sources publically available, otherwise I would
have never managed to develop an own programming language.

What I learned lately is that the author of a Windows 8+ `start-up button`
extension decided to close his sources for he found out that others took his
MIT-licence sources, designed different icons, and dared to sell his application
under different programme names.

Also projects that offer an open source version of their application but demand
a lot of money for the bug-free edition are questionable.

Concerning larger applications I really liked the then Sun Microsystems licence of
Solaris 10: free for private and educational use, with costs for commercial usage.

Alex
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 10:46:11 pm
What I learned lately is that the author of a Windows 8+ `start-up button`
extension decided to close his sources for he found out that others took his
MIT-licence sources, designed different icons, and dared to sell his application
under different programme names.

That is an interesting case. That is why everybody needs to know which open source license to apply and understand that this can happens.... and it is not illegal at all.

But there are people that do not get upset when this happens. They goal is to share the code and knowledge, and if other party is making money with you code is because they were smart enough to have a business model with it, it does not mean they are ripping you off. Plus, since it is open source, they do not have the exclusivity of the product. Other can grab the original source code and reproduce the thing that other are selling. If you are making a good open source software, and other is smart enough to sell it, why don't talk about it and try to work together, instead of having hard feeling and close the source code.  The smart salesman can help you getting funding and he can pay you to fix bugs and maintain the software.

On the other side I know other history with VLC which I think it was worst. There was a group that started to grab the same VLC source code, untouch, bundle it with a lot of Ad-ware, put it online under other name and started an aggressive marketing campaign to get users to download their software.  They made some money, but after a while people find about it and even VideoLan complained.  But at last VideoLan was the group with the skills and the other "Ad-Ware player" got lost in time... they made some money but dissipated in the long term.

So, knowing the open source license is a good thing to do. Understanding the GNU GPL, BSD licensing and the concepts of copyleft is a good start.

Regards.

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 27, 2014, 11:11:06 pm
Hi,

Martin wrote: `That is an interesting case [on the Win8+ start menu application]`.

Please read: classicshell.net/faq/#general_oss

Ivo Beltchev's essence is: `Some people have taken the code wholesale and are selling their own copies of the start menu with little to no modification. While this is allowed under the licensing terms, it was against the spirit of my intent.`

Alex
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 27, 2014, 11:38:34 pm
Interesting...

Quote
Is Classic Shell open-source?
Versions before 3.9.0 are open-source. The source code can be downloaded from Source Forge.

Starting with version 3.9.0, Classic Shell is no longer open-source. There are couple of reasons for that change.
The initial intent of making Classic Shell open-source was to provide other developers with solutions to common problems - how to build a shell extension, how to create a custom-looking menu, etc. Over time, the code has become more and more complex and is solving more and more narrow problems. Its educational value has diminished substantially. The only thing you can learn from the source code is how to build a very similar software. Which brings me to the second reason - some people have taken the code wholesale and are selling their own copies of the start menu with little to no modification. While this is allowed under the licensing terms, it was against the spirit of my intent.

In this case, I think there should be another option, instead of putting the software under a liberal licese like the MIT which can be close sourced, why don't put it under a copyleft license like GNU GPL. That will force the developers that change the code to share the source code. On this case, even that if other party is making money with your software, anybody will have access to the source code to duplicate the work. This is one of reasson why Linux growed so much, until it became interesting to corporations.

I remember that some time ago I didn't like copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, until some guy on the forum told me to start looking the GNU GPL as the wish of the developer to have their software always open and to keep growing in time. It is an interesting point of view and I like the GNU GPL  license too.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 28, 2014, 12:03:01 am
Hi,

I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

The effort, however, is significant: studying legal comments on mixing sources with different licences,
publishing separated source trees accordingly, searching days for MIT C solutions (`hopefully this one fits
to MIT`), studying complicated math books to develop code for math functions although respective GPL C
implementations have been existing already for a long time and which are much better, etc.

Alex
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 28, 2014, 12:32:00 am
I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

It is legal to do that. To say it is fair or not is a personal opinion. We can not say that people that support GPL are good or bad. It is a license and developer and users use it under their will.

I can also say that is not fair to use BSD code create an close source OS (NeXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel and BSD, later NeXTSTEP was converted into Mac OS X). But that was complete legal according to the BSD license, and again, that is a personal opinion.

So we have:
- Copyleft: virus-like GPL license.... called the virus of love by some :)
- Liberal: BSD and MIT license.
- Super close source licenses.

For somethings I prefer GPL. And I complete understand when a developer decide that his software or any derivative work they do they want to turn it GNU GPL. Because they want other people to use their source code (for money or free), but source code must always be shared and distributed under the same conditions for everyone.

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 28, 2014, 12:43:59 am
My 2 cents:

There are several business models and all of them have their own pros and cons. Bitwaise works, as far as I know, develops/ports open source software, collecting money in advance and during development to pay for the developer and of course to hopefully generate some profit. They also sell closed source software, like Injoy Firewall. Ecomstation.ru or ecosoft invests in developing software and then sells licenses, basically advancing the developments costs. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a complety valid way to produce and sell software. They also have done similar work as Bitwise, developing software paid by third parties. In this case the other parties most likely decided the software should be closed source.
It is true that open sourcing has several advantages for the community, like Martin has stated. It is not neccessarily true that there are advantages for the developer. In the case of the developer advancing the development costs, there is in fact a huge disadvantage in open sourcing, namely someone else using the code and selling it too, without having to invest. No sane person running a company would invite that.
Closed source abandonware, yes, that is a problem. The example Martin gave, the sad demise of the developer and the resultant loss of the code, can easily be corrected. It's just a matter of  a decent will). And as Eugene stated, he seems to have made some provisions for that by licensing the code to his subcontractors.

Generally, I like open source better, but we have to remember that we all have to buy our bread and preferably some cheese to put on it. There are several ways to make money still in developing os/2 stuff, everybody is free to choose the way how to do that. 'a 90's model' still works today, to a lesser extent perhaps, but is does. Selling services and support can even be complementary to that. The one does not exclude the other.

Lastly, the ongoing 'war' between Eugene and some others, and between Sigurd and Eugene that keeps coming up here and on several other fora and news groups. Please guys, keep it civil. I do not like the way Eugene accuses others of piracy without giving any proof. In fact, I do not even see how the development of the OS/4 kernel, legally questionable as it is, can harm his business. On the contrary, if the developers of it only distribute the kernel, it might even be good for his business if it makes eCS run on more hardware. As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.
Lets discuss matters as adults, not as little children.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on August 28, 2014, 05:14:51 am
I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

I can also say that is not fair to use BSD code create an close source OS (NeXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel and BSD, later NeXTSTEP was converted into Mac OS X). But that was complete legal according to the BSD license, and again, that is a personal opinion.

OS/2 PPC is based on the Mach kernel as well, most TCP/IP stacks were originally based on BSD code, includin most implementations that are now GPL, there is nothing dihonest about that, that is how the BSD lisence is intended to function.

What is dishonest is the tendency of GPL maintainers to strip the credits of the original programmers from the GPL'd code and only mention the "politically correct" later maintainers.

P.S. The mach kernel is a big pile of poo and one of the major minuses of the Mac OS. It was originally designed to take advantage of the fast context switching that PDP's, 68xxx and some early RISC processors offered, that made it torelable on 68030+ and PPC processors. That it is now only available on ARM and x86 which are both notoriusly slow at context switching is piss yourself funny.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 28, 2014, 05:37:35 am
My nickels worth (no more pennies here)
GPL is nice, or at least the idea is nice, keeping source open. But it is restrictive, I found myself breaking the GPL due to distributing software that was linked to OpenSSL. I took it for granted that supplying all the source was good enough but its not. I've also run into problems where I have a GPL binary but no source so basically abandonedware . (luckily I got it relicensed so I could share it). For libraries it is also virus like, I prefer the LGPL so programs can be extended and fixes to the original are still shared
GPL is not good for standards. Would we have the internet if the BSD stack was the GPL stack? Lots of companies closed the BSD stack and included it in their operating systems or programs, the obvious example is our stack. Same with other software such as Zlib which is a defacto standard compression library found in all manner of software. In these cases it is usually compatibility that is important rather then sharing actual source, lots of programs interact with the internet due to having standards.
Another way to make money is to dual license your software, a GPL version and sell closed source licenses. X264 uses this model and seems to do well but the copyright has to be limited to a few people.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 28, 2014, 10:48:18 am
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



My nickels worth (no more pennies here)
GPL is nice, or at least the idea is nice, keeping source open. But it is restrictive, I found myself breaking the GPL due to distributing software that was linked to OpenSSL. I took it for granted that supplying all the source was good enough but its not. I've also run into problems where I have a GPL binary but no source so basically abandonedware . (luckily I got it relicensed so I could share it). For libraries it is also virus like, I prefer the LGPL so programs can be extended and fixes to the original are still shared
GPL is not good for standards. Would we have the internet if the BSD stack was the GPL stack? Lots of companies closed the BSD stack and included it in their operating systems or programs, the obvious example is our stack. Same with other software such as Zlib which is a defacto standard compression library found in all manner of software. In these cases it is usually compatibility that is important rather then sharing actual source, lots of programs interact with the internet due to having standards.
Another way to make money is to dual license your software, a GPL version and sell closed source licenses. X264 uses this model and seems to do well but the copyright has to be limited to a few people.

Agreed to everything.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Ian Manners on August 28, 2014, 04:08:04 pm
Hi everyone,

I wasn't saying anything bad about Microsoft, after all, there is Microsoft supplied code
in OS/2 and eComStation, it's about there take on the Open Source model.

It should also be noted that I wasn't saying anything bad about Eugene apart from
basically telling Eugene to leave unrelated and unnecessary  comments about
others from his posts. How Eugene wants to release his code is entirely up to him,
some of us may prefer it if he did open source his (and others) code but at the
end of the day he is free to chose, that what freedom is all about :)

Eugene does on many occasions sound like a Microsoft Code jockey, that's what
that comment is about, no more, no less.

Microsoft does have this thing about code that is Open Sourced (note I didn't say
GPL'ed), they are as time progress's getting a better understanding of shared code,
and difference between the different licensing models and I note that even they are
releasing some code to non core Microsoft products these days, assuming they no longer
want to provide support for that code or program.

Personally I believe it is entirely up to those writing the code, or those paying for the code
as to which license they wish to use. I don't have a problem if someone wants to provide
a closed source code program, or an open source code program, there are reasons for
both just as there are reasons for using a modified or combined license.

Sometimes you are bound by the original code license so there is no choice, and that
applies to Mensys, unless there is a way to rewrite a lot of code..

As I get older I prefer any code I write to be open sourced simply so others can utilise
what I have written on the condition that my details will remain within the program going
forward. I also find it makes life so much easier when you can find code snippets, or
even an open source program that you can 'bend' to your purposes that is close to
what you want, and I do normally thank those people by email as they have saved
me both time, and sometimes frustration. The other thing I have always done is to
send a copy of any changes I've made to code back to the originating author(s) no
matter which license it is.

There are a couple of programs I've written that cannot have the source code released
for private reasons, some are due to ownership is to the company I write the programs for,
and one program that I use on my website that I cant release the code due to the original
authors request, and simply because others have sent me code snippets to include but
none of us are sure were some of those code snippets came from (sound familiar :)).

As I have the website code I could rewrite the program but as I'm really the only one using
it, seems a bit pointless doesn't it :)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 28, 2014, 09:42:04 pm
Sometimes I saw the software licensing model in this dumb way:


But since I accept one of the extremes,  that commercial (close source) software business model should exist, why I should not accept the other extreme which is GNU GPL?
Just as a I can not call commercial software right or wrong, I can not make the same with GNU GPL.

So I started to respect GNU GPL also, because I also respect commercial close source software option. And also, because I had saw how much had linux grown with that licensing.

But In the case of a platform like OS/2, which is dying, right now it is the moment for open source software (copyleft  or not). We need to grow the platform, make it free (vendor free) (Free as in freedom) to attract people, grow the community, find niches and maybe one day we can turn into a market again with commercial software running on it, and people paying happily for application that runs over it.

But right now it is not the comment to squeeze money of the community for commercial software.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Andy Willis on August 28, 2014, 10:11:40 pm
To Martin Iturbide:

* XWorkPlace.. As I remember, there was XFile WPS extender (XFolder + WarpEnhancer + XPager). and XWorkPlace was developed with the support of Serenity Systems. It was impossible develop this project without this investments. There was D-Day, there was collaboration with eCS developers, short terms to complete the project. This is the example of open sourced program ordered and supported by the commercial company.
XWorkPlace (XWP) existed prior to Serenity Systems having a contract with IBM.  It was originally XFolder but the name changed prior to Serenity Systems.  Serenity Systems did have work done on eWorkPlace (eWP) which some of that work likely did go back into the original (though much of it was removing features not considered stable from XWP).  I used to build XWorkPlace back before eCS came out, though I never made any enhancements to it.  One of the first things I did, in fact, once I installed eCS was to replace eWP with XWP. 
Now, I don't disagree in general that much of OpenSource software got where it did due to businesses paying programmers to update it but XWP is not a good example.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 28, 2014, 10:14:11 pm
> But right now it is not the comment to squeeze money of the community for commercial software.

I don't know what is better:
a) When every user can buy registration key, so the developer supports the user, has obligations, should make efforts to keep program work better.  The developer is listening to the customers because understands that implemented features will attract new customers.

b) or when the developers of open source make noise about sponsoring. "make donations", "press Sponsor button",..  too much pressure on the users. and you see the messages even if you already have transferred sponsor money. "You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

That's why eCo Software selected the model of shareware sellings. In reality all our software is created on sponsor money but we have more  civilized relations with the users.

"In the case of a platform like OS/2, which is dying, right now it is the moment for " .. and I continue: think how to use OS/2 for business purposes, how to attract engineers, how to compete with other commercial products. How to distribute OS/2 computers which execute special tasks.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 28, 2014, 10:49:16 pm
a) When every user can buy registration key, so the developer supports the user, has obligations, should make efforts to keep program work better.  The developer is listening to the customers because understands that implemented features will attract new customers.

- What if you don't want to make the fix? The user do not have the option to change it itself, or he don't have the option to hire a developer to fix it since the source code is private.  I had seen a lot of close source software where the developers says to you "No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

- What if you go out of business? Who is going to improve your software? What if you leave the community, what options will your customer have? With open source you don't have this problems.

- What will happen if you have debts and you no longer can maintain eCo Software and start working in a bank to pay your bills?

- There is also shareware that nags a lot about "Pay for the Software".."Pay the full version".

- With close source software you do the improvements that your customer ask for. If you have one customer that wants the software in red, for a single small customer, you don't do it.

- With shareware, you don't have obligation with your users, if you go out of business that is all. That's why the OS/2 users didn't have a chance to sue IBM when they dumped the platform. That is how software works. With close source software you discontinue your software and leave the users abandon.

- If a customer pays $40 for a eCo Software. Do you agreed to make whatever change he request for?

b) or when the developers of open source make noise about sponsoring. "make donations", "press Sponsor button",..  too much pressure on the users. and you see the messages even if you already have transferred sponsor money. "You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

- I prefer the pressure of asking for donations, but in return having the source code public.
- ""You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself!" - The same applies to close source software.
- "Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this" - With open source software I can fork the project and fix it myself or hire someone else to do it.

Sorry Eugene, but your points against open source are very weak.



Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 28, 2014, 11:43:06 pm
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 29, 2014, 12:34:56 am
Hi,

> ... wrote> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked [...]

Our current thread reminds me of what I have been enduring for the last 17 years in my professional IT business life:

IT orthology everywhere: `Agile`, `Waterfall`, `Constistence`, `Closed`, `Open`, etc.

I dare a humble philosophical Zwischenschnitt aus dem Rheinland:

In Sun VirtualBox 4.3.12 on a MacBook, I still cannot compile Agena with our eCS Demo CD with a plugged-in virtual FAT16 2GB hard disk at IDE primary slave residing my GCC 4.9.0 devenv.

Please tell me what am I doing wrong ?

Alex
http://agena.sourceforge.net


with U: everywhere changed to C:

[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

[C:\]make

Killed by SIGSEGV
pid=0x011b ppid=0x011a tid=0x0001 slot=0x0051 pri=0x0200 mc=0x00
C:\USR\BIN\MAKE.EXE
LIBC065 0:0005dfdc
cs:eip=005b:1de9dfdc      ss:esp=0053:0014f480      ebp=0014f498
 ds=0053      es=0053      fs=150b      gs=0000     efl=00010246
eax=00000047 ebx=00027c31 ecx=00027c67 edx=00027c47 edi=00027c31
Process dumping was disabled, use DUMPPROC / PROCDUMP to enable
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 29, 2014, 12:48:02 am
Hi,

> ... wrote> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked [...]


I dare a humble philosophical Zwischenschnitt aus dem Rheinland:

I always dare a decent Riesling aus dem Rheinland)

[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

Not a clue if it has anything to do with it, bat afak the latest gcc we have on os/2 via yum/rpm is 4.7.3. Paul Smedley has built a 4.9.0, are you using that?

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 29, 2014, 12:54:18 am
For answers to technical questions you might want to go to  irc.freenode.net #netlabs where quite a few developers hang out.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on August 29, 2014, 01:12:47 am
guzzi,

> Not a clue if it has anything to do with it, bat afak the latest gcc we have on os/2 via yum/rpm is 4.7.3. Paul Smedley has built a 4.9.0, are you using that?

Sure I do.

alex
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: ivan on August 29, 2014, 01:16:38 am
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I think those are based on GPL code.  If they are then there are some problems for someone.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 29, 2014, 01:26:36 am
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I agree, these are cool. There are some limitations I've noticed while using Zippy, like some d'n'd lacks and some odd GUI drawbacks, but both dvdtoys and zippy are pretty cool pieces of software.

But there is an issue regarding prices. Zippy costs 913 Russian rubles; summing it with DVD/CD toys (1248), and we get 2161 Russian rubbles; converting to USD, and we get roughly $60. eComStation 2.1 Home & Student license costs 149 USD.

Sorry I'm not ready to pay 149$ for a base operating system, and then nearly half of it to be able to burn optical media and upack compressed archives. Please remember also that eCo Software offers two software subscriptions 15$ each annually (quoting, first: "sysinfo + russification + fixpack + eCo Market + Panorama VESA", second: "png desktop + piano launchpad + virtual keyboard + file open container").

149+60+15+15 = $239.

Show me that insane person who has paid $239 for a bunch of not-that-well developed outdated software, while knowing there's a Windows 8.1 license selling at $119 which includes all these features and lots more, but costs twice as lower.



I literally interpret all the above as an attempt to squeeze the last cent from the community.



I would better pay that sum for open source software development work rather than getting a copy of middle-quality software with no rights.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 29, 2014, 01:35:10 am
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I think those are based on GPL code.  If they are then there are some problems for someone.

dvd/cd toys is a shell for cdrtools, don't see how that would be gpl code. cdrtools itself might be, but that is distributed seperately.
As for zippy, not a clue about the licensing. It only supports extraction for rar, not archiving and that goes for many other formats too. So it looks to me it conforms to all licensing requirements.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: guzzi on August 29, 2014, 02:04:11 am
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I agree, these are cool. There are some limitations I've noticed while using Zippy, like some d'n'd lacks and some odd GUI drawbacks, but both dvdtoys and zippy are pretty cool pieces of software.

If you have issues, write to Glassman or Eugene, in my experience defects get fixed fast and feature requests, at least mine, have all been implemented ( I asked for command line options for zippy, it got added).

But there is an issue regarding prices. Zippy costs 913 Russian rubles; summing it with DVD/CD toys (1248), and we get 2161 Russian rubbles; converting to USD, and we get roughly $60. eComStation 2.1 Home & Student license costs 149 USD.

Sorry I'm not ready to pay 149$ for a base operating system, and then nearly half of it to be able to burn optical media and upack compressed archives. Please remember also that eCo Software offers two software subscriptions 15$ each annually (quoting, first: "sysinfo + russification + fixpack + eCo Market + Panorama VESA", second: "png desktop + piano launchpad + virtual keyboard + file open container").

149+60+15+15 = $239.

I have paid far more over the years with software subscription from Mensys, upgrading a few times from  OS/2 2.1  and a host of shareware programs I have bought since 1994 when I started using OS/2. I don't regret it. It was all free choice.

Show me that insane person who've paid $239 for a bunch of not-that-well developed outdated software, while knowing there's a Windows 8.1 license selling at $119 which includes all these features and lots more, but costs twice as lower.

You are talking to that insane person)))) What I personally think is more insane is that a bottle of Russki Standart in Russia is much more expensive than a bottle of similar quality no-brand vodka in Germany)
I have a netbook running Windows 7. I used Windows at work. Twice as cheap, 10 times the aggrovation)



I literally interpret all the above as an attempt to squeeze the last cent from the community.

I don't see it that way. There are alternatives that you can use. Nobody forces you to buy the software.


I would better pay that sum for open source software development work rather than getting a copy of middle-quality software with no rights.

Yes and no. Zippy and dvd/cd toys were developed because some money could be made from it. Despite the price, it won't be much money because the user base is small. If, and only if, people would shell out the money anyway to pay for other people developing similar software open source, that would indeed be better. But people don't, or only in a limited way. You and Martin talk about 'squeezing money out of people'. That isn't the case. Nobody forces you to buy. I would of course prefer if ecosoft would produce open source software. I'm not so sure they would be able to continue as a business if they did.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 29, 2014, 03:58:56 pm
Trying to not drift away, it is not which model is right or wrong. It is which model do we need right now.

- eComStation uses a lot of open source software, without it, it will be just Warp 4.52.
- The more interesting software ported to this platform latetly had been from projects that had been originally open sourced (OpenJDK, Qt, Firefox, OpenOffice, Qt apps ported, etc)
- Open source reduces the risk of vendor dependency. IBM dumped us in the past and can happen again, with open source we reduce that risk.
- We should stop thinking that we will be the last ones, there will be people left after we leave the community. It will be better to leave software and documents for this platforms that allows derivative works without the dependency of a single person or group.

Open Source it is not the saver, or the end of the world. It is just the model that is working for us right now. I see open source as the path, the community and persons using and developing for the platform are "the savers".

That's why I see that should start to care about the close source components an try to clone them in the open source path (PM, SOM, WPS, Control Program, etc).
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 29, 2014, 04:46:06 pm
Hi,

> ... wrote> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked [...]

Our current thread reminds me of what I have been enduring for the last 17 years in my professional IT business life:

IT orthology everywhere: `Agile`, `Waterfall`, `Constistence`, `Closed`, `Open`, etc.

I dare a humble philosophical Zwischenschnitt aus dem Rheinland:

In Sun VirtualBox 4.3.12 on a MacBook, I still cannot compile Agena with our eCS Demo CD with a plugged-in virtual FAT16 2GB hard disk at IDE primary slave residing my GCC 4.9.0 devenv.

Please tell me what am I doing wrong ?

Alex
http://agena.sourceforge.net


with U: everywhere changed to C:

[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

[C:\]make

Killed by SIGSEGV
pid=0x011b ppid=0x011a tid=0x0001 slot=0x0051 pri=0x0200 mc=0x00
C:\USR\BIN\MAKE.EXE
LIBC065 0:0005dfdc
cs:eip=005b:1de9dfdc      ss:esp=0053:0014f480      ebp=0014f498
 ds=0053      es=0053      fs=150b      gs=0000     efl=00010246
eax=00000047 ebx=00027c31 ecx=00027c67 edx=00027c47 edi=00027c31
Process dumping was disabled, use DUMPPROC / PROCDUMP to enable

GCC 4.9.0 is buggy as hell along with having enough changes that much code no longer compiles. And this before any weaknesses that may appear in porting to OS/2. Many are waiting for 4.9.1 or staying with previous version. At least that's the hearsay I've heard.
Personally I find Pauls build of 4.4.6 to be the most stable
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Ian Manners on August 29, 2014, 06:05:34 pm
Hi Dave

I'm glad to see that post, I just emailed Alex :-

 "GCC v4.9 to me seems to be a bit unstable, I regressed back to v4.8.2 but thats just me :)"
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Andy Willis on August 29, 2014, 07:07:05 pm
[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

[C:\]make

Killed by SIGSEGV
pid=0x011b ppid=0x011a tid=0x0001 slot=0x0051 pri=0x0200 mc=0x00
C:\USR\BIN\MAKE.EXE
LIBC065 0:0005dfdc
cs:eip=005b:1de9dfdc      ss:esp=0053:0014f480      ebp=0014f498
 ds=0053      es=0053      fs=150b      gs=0000     efl=00010246
eax=00000047 ebx=00027c31 ecx=00027c67 edx=00027c47 edi=00027c31
Process dumping was disabled, use DUMPPROC / PROCDUMP to enable

GCC 4.9.0 is buggy as hell along with having enough changes that much code no longer compiles. And this before any weaknesses that may appear in porting to OS/2. Many are waiting for 4.9.1 or staying with previous version. At least that's the hearsay I've heard.
Personally I find Pauls build of 4.4.6 to be the most stable
For all that...  GCC may not necessarily be at issue.  The crash is in make.  Which make is being used? Or from whence did it come?
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 29, 2014, 08:02:06 pm
Yes and no. Zippy and dvd/cd toys were developed because some money could be made from it. Despite the price, it won't be much money because the user base is small. If, and only if, people would shell out the money anyway to pay for other people developing similar software open source, that would indeed be better. But people don't, or only in a limited way. You and Martin talk about 'squeezing money out of people'. That isn't the case. Nobody forces you to buy. I would of course prefer if ecosoft would produce open source software. I'm not so sure they would be able to continue as a business if they did.

Yes, this is capitalism, and there's nothing illegal (usually) in what Eugene does with the software.

But there's an issue again.

I've described feelings of a hypothetical new user (don't laugh please here, there are some). And that's what he/she sees: wherever you go, there's pay, pay, pay, pay, no matter that even the base OS costs more than brand new Win 8.1, huh... not funny, this is sad.



When the community has got limited resources, it is better to finance Open Source projects, than buying commercial software.

In the first case you pay and you make good to yourself and the others.
In the second case you pay and you may or may not make good to yourself and the commercial structure you pay to.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 29, 2014, 09:58:12 pm
Two arguments:

1) Moreover, the users get Windows license for free (with new computer). So it's clear that we can't sell OS/2 to new people.
OS/2 can be sold to new customers only if:
* a company purchases it ..
* .. to use as black box (with running program which performs one task)

So, this example that OS/2 + shareware apps  is more expensive than Win 8 licenses with the included apps  is not important in our discussion.


2) Again, nobody can demonstrate examples of open source software created in OS/2. (yes, I see many small open sourced free utilities). There are many open source apps ported  from linux only. In reality, there is no OS/2 Open Source projects (we have .. ~ 5 .. 10 open source projects of medium size only: XWP, PM123, Warpin, ..).



> it is better to finance Open Source projects, than buying commercial software.

(it's equal to "it is better to finance porting from Linux, than buying native software").

So, this conclusion is dangerous and wrong.

You recommend to users pay for "imported" software. And don't support developers of native software. This kills OS/2 platform.

For Dutch users: Imagine that all milk in your shops is imported from Romania, all beef from Argentina, all cheese from Switzerland. Tulips from Turkey, etc. As result, dutch people will spend more time watching TV because of unemployment.


My conclusion from our discussion:
Imported software should pay taxes. Imported libraries should be free of taxes. But it's impossible to collect the taxes. In this case, it's necessary prohibit the sponsorship of applications porting. And support porting of libraries only.


Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 29, 2014, 10:30:17 pm
Eugene. Imagine a world without frontiers when nothing it is imported and everything is just from "one world".

There are important open source software on OS/2, free and paid. Belive it or not ACPI is based from an open source software (non-copyleft), Qt, OpenOffice, etc... everything is important. eComStation is almost Warp 4.5 with open source software on it, is eComStation project important to you?

Saying that porting open source software, is like importing milk to country that produced milk just sounds like nationalist/populist political crap. Don't make dumb comparisons, Japan does imports everything and convert is to better stuff, it is island factory that convert goods.  Now you start saying that Open Source is a fiasco on eComstation.ru? Please Eugene, this discussion is hurting you.

Let fix this is in the capitalistic way. Is your company giving you money? Can you post your company revenue results of the last year? Is you company sustainable?

I'm sorry Eugene. I think I'm making a mistake giving you so much space. The good thing is that discussion is public and people can take their own conclusions.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 29, 2014, 10:40:20 pm
> Imagine a world without frontiers when nothing it is imported and everything is just from "one world".

Is it joke? Look at Europe Union, one economical zone. Yes, Germany, Netherlands live in prosperity, but Eastern Europe, Greece, Spain automatically become poor. If introduce import taxes between EU member again, then South/East countries will restore their economical state.

The frontiers are important and will exist forever.


> ACPI is based from an open source software (non-copyleft), Qt, OpenOffice, etc... everything is important.

Green corridor:
* Qt is the runtime, library. It should be ported.
* ACPI is the driver. it should be ported.


Red corridor:
* Qt GUI apps
* Windows GUI apps (Odin )


Red corridor exceptions:
* OpenOffice is the end-user, GUI applications, it's bad that it is ported. As result, 0 native editors, office suites. On the other side, there is no analogue, so it may be ported, income should be forwarded to native software
* Firefox. no analogues, => may be ported, it's difficult take taxes.


> Now you start saying that Open Source is a fiasco on eComstation.ru?

No, I say that open source is a form to achieve the goal, not the goal.
There are other tasks and goals, and open sourcing is used since 90-th already.


> I think I'm making a mistake giving you so much space.

There is not problems here, the moderators remove my messages from this forum periodically.

Moreover, you need critics. If you are going visit OS/2 events (conferences) and talk with other users and developers, you will listen that other people don't understand your plan of Open Sourcing. As I said: To develop open source apps you need 1000x more money that to develop semi-commercial software. People (european developers) don't understand where are you going find financial resources?

I will repeat one more time: To develop open source software you should spend millions dollars. To develop semi-commercial eComStation you can spend N thousand dollars. The investors/sponsors of eCS didn't had millions, they had restricted resources, that's why eCS is not open-source.

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 29, 2014, 10:59:06 pm
Eugene, this is OS/2. Not Window, not Linux. There is no market share for shareware to end users. If making open source software on OS/2 is not sustainable, making shareware on this platform is less sustainable.

Please tell me:
Is your company giving you money? Can you post your company revenue results of the last year? Is you company sustainable?


Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 29, 2014, 11:04:33 pm
Two arguments:

1) Moreover, the users get Windows license for free (with new computer).

False, it is included in the price of the machine.

So it's clear that we can't sell OS/2 to new people.

True, you can't.

OS/2 can be sold to new customers only if:

The price will be lower than Windows. Currently Windows is obviously a better OS for a user than OS/2. So the price should be lower.

* a company purchases it ..

Soon there will be no such companies, as they will migrate. Sticking to this means killing OS/2 even more.

* .. to use as black box (with running program which performs one task)

Not efficient. Why would I pay that much for OS/2 if I have a lot more flexible GNU/Linux? For free?

So, this example that OS/2 + shareware apps  is more expensive than Win 8 licenses with the included apps  is not important in our discussion.

What? How the !@#$ you've managed to make that conclusion? I've literally busted all your previous logic there, above ^.

You want to achieve something, but you are obviously a very bad politician (or an advocate).

In the rush to try to prove something you make a lot of stupid mistakes wholly breaking the logic; you give false facts, and do wrong conclusions.

2) Again, nobody can demonstrate examples of open source software created in OS/2. (yes, I see many small open sourced free utilities). There are many open source apps ported  from linux only. In reality, there is no OS/2 Open Source projects (we have .. ~ 5 .. 10 open source projects of medium size only: XWP, PM123, Warpin, ..).

Dude, are you !x#$ing insane?? https://github.com/OS2World/

Any of the guys who have written code, invested their time and resources and then made their work available to everyone (including you, tho they better did not!) are much more valuable than all your stuff and the whole your company!

> it is better to finance Open Source projects, than buying commercial software.

So, this conclusion is dangerous and wrong.

You are dangerous and wrong.

You recommend to users pay for "imported" software. And don't support developers of native software. This kills OS/2 platform.

For Dutch users: Imagine that all milk in your shops is imported from Romania, all beef from Argentina, all cheese from Switzerland. Tulips from Turkey, etc. As result, dutch people will spend more time watching TV because of unemployment.


My conclusion from our discussion:
Imported software should pay taxes. Imported libraries should be free of taxes. But it's impossible to collect the taxes. In this case, it's necessary prohibit the sponsorship of applications porting. And support porting of libraries only.

Have I already said you are a very bad politician?

Now you are starting to rave. WTF is "import taxes"?

How did you ever think of that b^ll$41t?



Please, everyone. Any commercial structure is made to make money.

Including Eugene's. No matter how efficient it is. The thing is that a commercial structure will not ever do anything good to people (community) if it will not be able to make any cent of it. That's how capitalism works.

The situation gets critical when a company's CEO is not capable of making long-term strategies, which is our case.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on August 29, 2014, 11:34:58 pm
To Boris (dbanet): you are the only person here who uses all this words (!@#$, b^ll$h1t, ..).

Martin said: "We are merry and fun community of users".

Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: dbanet on August 29, 2014, 11:44:46 pm

To Boris (dbanet): you are the only person here who uses all this words (!@#$, b^ll$h1t, ..).

Martin said: "We are merry and fun community of users".

Usage of obscene language is not the main thing people take into consideration while assessing other people, Eugene.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 29, 2014, 11:49:08 pm
Eugene please tell me:
Is your company giving you money? Can you post your company revenue results of the last year? Is you company sustainable? Is the shareware businss model working for you on eComStation?
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Ian Manners on August 30, 2014, 07:43:18 am
Hi Boris,

Quote
Usage of obscene language is not the main thing people take into consideration while assessing other people, Eugene.

True but I reserve that language for American Abuse desks who keep telling me to simply unsubscribe from spam.
oh, and for Disney Studio who provide a digital download edition of Marvel titles that require Flash and a special app for Windows, Mac, or Android only but they forget to tell you than when you buy the BR disk.

Could you edit your posts above and change the wording thanks, that way we keep it 'civil' :)

Added ==>  so that os2world.com isn't classified as an adult forum.
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: Ian Manners on August 30, 2014, 08:00:57 am
Hi Eugene,

Quote
For Dutch users: Imagine that all milk in your shops is imported from Romania, all beef from Argentina, all cheese from Switzerland. Tulips from Turkey, etc. As result, dutch people will spend more time watching TV because of unemployment.

The Dutch would then think of something they are good at and export that. This is part of what free trade is about, breaking down the barriers.
Australia has changed its primary and secondary industries a few times over the past 2 centuries, it's just a part of what life is all about, change, no use blaming someone else, you get on with the job of finding the next thing the world needs and providing it.

Quote
Is it joke? Look at Europe Union, one economical zone. Yes, Germany, Netherlands live in prosperity, but Eastern Europe, Greece, Spain automatically become poor. If introduce import taxes between EU member again, then South/East countries will restore their economical state.

It is not Germany or Netherlands fault that Greece and Spain are badly managed by there government's, and that's an internal matter for them to rectify, the longer they leave the mismanagement, the harder it is to fix the problem.

Greece especially knew that joining the EU would require a change within there form of socialism but decided that was someone else's problem.

This all a subject for a 'different' forum :)
Title: Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
Post by: agena on September 05, 2014, 02:48:05 pm
> Yes, Germany (...) live(s) in prosperity (...)

No, we will not be prosperous.

Speaking for the Rhineland, at least.

How about fixing the SIGFPE problem presumably inherent to eCS/libc065.dll, so that this great
platform might exist for many further years ?

Concerning the heated discussion on this former thread - I just only wanted to ask for an up-to-date
C API eCS documentation.

OS/2 world.com should not become a political forum.

Instead, the whole OS/2 community should join to get great things done - just now with all
this frightening and albern `Cold War` revival.

Alex