OS2 World Community Forum

OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - General => Polls => Topic started by: RickCHodgin on November 06, 2017, 08:51:09 pm

Title: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 06, 2017, 08:51:09 pm
I'm mapping out the features that will be supported with ES/2.  I would like community feedback on how important some features of OS/2 are, such as 16-bit support?  16-bit and 32-bit Win-OS/2 support?  16-bit and 32-bit DOS support?

In addition, what are some must-have's in moving forward?  64-bit is a given.  But what else?  What is OS/2 lacking that would be needed in moving forward?
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: ivan on November 06, 2017, 10:08:57 pm
Rick, I don't think there is a definitive answer because any answer depends on usage.

For example, the manufacturing plants that my old company looks after are using OS/2 to run the machine tool controllers, all of which are 32bit programs and physical PCI cards.  Almost all of the computers now use 64bit processors (the remaining few should be upgraded by the end of the year).

In that instance, as long as a 64bit OS/2 clone will still run 32bit OS/2 programs and act in the same way as OS/2 does at the moment (high stability, up running for several months at a time and operators don't need retraining) I think the company could sell them on the upgrade with little or no certification problems.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 06, 2017, 10:22:16 pm
Rick, I don't think there is a definitive answer because any answer depends on usage.

My thinking is this:  For full compatibility we have avenues like ArcaOS or eCM which are moving forward to support modern hardware with full binary compatibility on all DOS + OS/2 + Win-OS/2 code.  But in moving forward with a fully open source kernel, drivers, and app stack, I am wondering if we need full compatibility on the new product?

Would it be enough to allow existing OS/2 code to recompile from source code in ES/2 and then run in that environment the same way?  In that way OS/2 apps can be recompiled and run natively in ES/2 as they have, but will not be binary compatible.

My personal goal is to allow most all existing OS/2 code to recompile with no to very little refactoring.  I want to keep everything pretty much standard with the existing OS/2 design, but there will be changes here and there.  The extent to which I change things will be influenced by this poll.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Doug Bissett on November 07, 2017, 12:11:53 am
You know that there is another approach to this.

If you look at the whole situation, the only reason why we think we need a 64 bit OS, is to run the bloated crap that is ported from other platforms (Mozilla, Office clones etc.). We have lost the ability to create compact, efficient, software for OS/2.. We are also very close to losing the ability to create drivers for modern hardware. Unfortunately, part of that is that the manufacturers won't reveal their secrets, but Linux seems to be able to get the required information, so it isn't impossible.

The OS/2 kernel is still very powerful, even without 64 bit. All it needs are some new programs to replace the crap that comes from elsewhere, and new drivers to run new hardware. A new, 64 bit, clone of OS/2 sounds impressive (and it would be very impressive, IF it can be done), but the software to run is old, and it is that old software that actually keeps OS/2 going, so complete compatibility is required, or there is no point in doing it.

Currently, there has been a break though, by using the technique to use memory above 4 GB, as pioneered by the QSINIT package. That is only the beginning of what could be done to use the expanded memory space. An API to be able to use that would solve a lot of the memory constraints, and the kernel doesn't need to get involved. Many more things can be done.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 07, 2017, 12:23:50 am
You know that there is another approach to this.

If you look at the whole situation, the only reason why we think we need a 64 bit OS, is to run the bloated crap that is ported from other platforms (Mozilla, Office clones etc.). We have lost the ability to create compact, efficient, software for OS/2.. We are also very close to losing the ability to create drivers for modern hardware. Unfortunately, part of that is that the manufacturers won't reveal their secrets, but Linux seems to be able to get the required information, so it isn't impossible.

The OS/2 kernel is still very powerful, even without 64 bit. All it needs are some new programs to replace the crap that comes from elsewhere, and new drivers to run new hardware. A new, 64 bit, clone of OS/2 sounds impressive (and it would be very impressive, IF it can be done), but the software to run is old, and it is that old software that actually keeps OS/2 going, so complete compatibility is required, or there is no point in doing it.

Currently, there has been a break though, by using the technique to use memory above 4 GB, as pioneered by the QSINIT package. That is only the beginning of what could be done to use the expanded memory space. An API to be able to use that would solve a lot of the memory constraints, and the kernel doesn't need to get involved. Many more things can be done.

As I understand it, there is a legal barrier in what we're able to do with the existing OS/2 kernel and drivers.  We are not allowed legally to reverse engineer anything, or to perform binary patches.  Arca Noae was able to get a license to do that for their new release of OS/2, but for the rest of us it's out of bounds.

Can we move forward legally extending the OS/2 kernel?

I've been looking at the OS/2 API and there are parts of it that are daunting, but I know if I can get the base framework developed and begin coding the functions, then other low-level OS/2 developers will come on board and help with completing all of the functions.  I'm also hoping that many original OS/2 developers from IBM will see this project and, in their retirement, come forward and offer their assistance, knowledge, and insight.

I really want to move us forward with a new kernel.  And if full compatibility is a must, then that will be my target ... but I honestly don't know if I can do that because of the legal barrier.  I would have to have intimate knowledge of how things work, and without reverse engineering, decompiling, and examining how the binaries work, I don't think it's attainable legally.  It's why my goal has been to reproduce the entire environment, allowing for recompiles of existing source code with little or no change, but that the OS/2 binaries would not work on ES/2 systems, or vice-versa, except in simple app cases where everything is runtime linked.  But for drivers, and more complex apps it would require the recompile.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 07, 2017, 01:47:05 am
I'm mapping out the features that will be supported with ES/2.  I would like community feedback on how important some features of OS/2 are, such as 16-bit support?  16-bit and 32-bit Win-OS/2 support?  16-bit and 32-bit DOS support?

In addition, what are some must-have's in moving forward?  64-bit is a given.  But what else?  What is OS/2 lacking that would be needed in moving forward?

With a 64bit kernel, 16 bit code simply will not run, the CPU design is such that in 64 bit mode, we lose access to 16 bit code running directly on the CPU. It would be possible to use DOSBOX or even VirtualBox to run 16 bit code in a virtualized environment, but it's not the same and if people want to do that, they may as well run OS/2 in one virtual machine as well.
Also our device drivers are mostly 16 bit, so there is no way to migrate to your new operating system and the truth is, without device drivers of some type to interface with computers, it wouldn't be possible to use it.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Valery Sedletski on November 07, 2017, 02:13:02 am
2dryeo:

This is not true. This is a common misunderstanding. 16-bit code works in 64-bit mode. Dixie, the author of QSINIT (aka Tetris) said that he safely uses 16-bit IDT/GDT entries together with 64-bit and 32-bit ones. This is EFI version of QSINIT. EFI is 64-bit here, and QSINIT uses some 16-bit routines. So, 16-bit code can coexist with 32-bit and 64-bit ones. Indeed, under "16-bit", many people mean 16-bit real mode code, not 16-bit protected mode code, as 16-bit OS/2 and Win16 are. So, VM86 processor mode won't work in 64-bit "long" mode indeed, but 16-bit protected mode code will work.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 07, 2017, 02:39:23 am
With a 64bit kernel, 16 bit code simply will not run, the CPU design is such that in 64 bit mode, we lose access to 16 bit code running directly on the CPU...

ES/2 won't only be a 64-bit kernel.  It will be able to boot into both 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode depending on settings, or boot-time overrides.

Quote
Also our device drivers are mostly 16 bit, so there is no way to migrate to your new operating system and the truth is, without device drivers of some type to interface with computers, it wouldn't be possible to use it.

I intend to write a full driver suite, and to create tools to help others port drivers to support as much hardware as is possible from published sources.

My goals for ES/2 are comprehensive.  I'm not trying to hack together something, but to build a base that will be our operating system from here on out.  It is a real effort with real purpose and focus.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Doug Bissett on November 07, 2017, 04:21:21 am
Quote
ES/2 won't only be a 64-bit kernel.  It will be able to boot into both 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode depending on settings, or boot-time overrides.

That really doesn't make sense. If a user needs to reboot to use older software, why would you need a new kernel? There are many options to do that already, and there are probably very few OS/2 programs that could be converted to 64 bit programs. In a lot of cases, the source is not available, so it would require a complete rewrite to make those programs work. Programs like OpenOffice, and Firefox, already run better in other operating systems.

Quote
I intend to write a full driver suite, and to create tools to help others port drivers to support as much hardware as is possible from published sources.

Why don't you start with drivers, and make it possible to convert to 64 bit, when/if that feature becomes available. Today, we need a lot of new drivers. If we don't get those drivers, there won't be any need for a new kernel because the platform will be long dead (unusable), before the kernel becomes available. There are very few people, spending long hours, trying to keep OS/2 viable, and that doesn't include even dreaming about a new kernel. Today, we desperately need USB 3. eMMC,  GPT, WiFi, (although this one is under way), and more.

Quote
As I understand it, there is a legal barrier in what we're able to do with the existing OS/2 kernel and drivers.  We are not allowed legally to reverse engineer anything, or to perform binary patches.  Arca Noae was able to get a license to do that for their new release of OS/2, but for the rest of us it's out of bounds.

It is true, that you cannot reverse engineer the kernel (legally), however OS/2 is designed to be enhanced by simply replacing parts with new parts (Object oriented). Doing so is not going to cause legal problems, as long as you don't copy what somebody else did. Patches are a gray area. From what I understand, you are not allowed to patch something, then distribute the patched file (Arca Noae has an exemption, for OS/2 itself, but not for other things). It seems to be okay, if you distribute a patch that a user can apply to the original file.

As i understand it, one of the biggest problems with drivers, is that they need the device driver development package, from IBM (the DDK), and that is no longer available. Some people do have that package, and they can develop drivers, using it. If that package could be replaced, drivers would be easier to develop. In addition, I expect that there are more than a few DDK licenses, sitting idle, and those could be put to good use, if those who have them would donate them to somebody who can/will use them.

There isn't any point in putting a modern gas/electric hybrid engine in a model T Ford, if the tires are going to wear out next month, and they cannot be replaced. Better to find a way to reliably replace the tires, then worry about replacing the engine.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 07, 2017, 05:19:31 am
Why don't you start with drivers...

GNU did that back in the mid-80s.  They wrote replacement after replacement for Unix-based drivers + programs.  Fast forward to 2017 and they still don't have their own kernel ready for a production environment.  The GNU HURD is unstable, buggy, and not recommended for any type of use.

ES/2 will start with the kernel, then drivers, then apps.  It's a purposeful goal based off the truly excellent core design of OS/2.  It is something I believe in and have wanted for over 20 years.  The time is now.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Andi B. on November 07, 2017, 08:53:10 am
Code: [Select]
...Some people do have that package, and they can develop drivers, using it. If that package could be replaced, drivers would be easier to develop. In addition, I expect that there are more than a few DDK licenses, sitting idle, and those could be put to good use, if those who have them would donate them to somebody who can/will use them....I got the impression some people think the DDK is mystical well hidden secret code no one had access to without paying a truck load of gold in advance. It isn't. It was free to download. At least at the time I got my copy. Of course registration was required and you have to accept the usual lawyers bullshit speech before which most of it I forgot the second I pressed the accept button. Though I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed to share the DDK sources in the public. But it is/was definitely allowed to me -

1) to freely download
2) to use for education and work on OS/2 device drivers
3) to release drivers based on that code

IMHO you hardly can argue giving DDK sources to a friend of mine would be covered by the 'do not share in the public' clause. So friends of mine who accept to not release it into the public can have a copy from me.

Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 07, 2017, 10:51:39 am
I got the impression some people think the DDK is mystical well hidden secret code no one had access to without paying a truck load of gold in advance. It isn't. It was free to download. At least at the time I got my copy. Of course registration was required and you have to accept the usual lawyers bullshit speech before which most of it I forgot the second I pressed the accept button. Though I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed to share the DDK sources in the public.

I agree, this has been true for the times of the OS/2 Developer Toolbox program. The Entry level without additional payment was enough. And even before it was neither ultra expensive nor black magic at all.
The so-called "legal stuff" was only about the third-party components that were included. They should (in some cases) be used for device driver development only. But not all OS/2 device drivers were released in DDK source form and vice versa.

And just a picture for the real mode compatibility...
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 07, 2017, 11:26:43 am
I would like community feedback on how important some features of OS/2 are, such as 16-bit support?  16-bit and 32-bit Win-OS/2 support?  16-bit and 32-bit DOS support?

</silence>You'll have the freedom to not support whatever component of an OS/2 install one may be using indeed, in my case (almost) all of the above, but for one it's yet another method to reduce the size of the user base. At the moment I do use MS Office 4.3 more frequently than the number of times I'd really need and want 64-bit support, and on average our collection of software (and investements, if anything of time) will be older than software for more common OSes. If one has to get rid of old software, then one may as well consider using any other OS.<silence>
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 07, 2017, 12:45:10 pm
</silence>You'll have the freedom to not support whatever component of an OS/2 install one may be using indeed, in my case (almost) all of the above, but for one it's yet another method to reduce the size of the user base. At the moment I do use MS Office 4.3 more frequently than the number of times I'd really need and want 64-bit support, and on average our collection of software (and investements, if anything of time) will be older than software for more common OSes. If one has to get rid of old software, then one may as well consider using any other OS.<silence>

I would like to include everything OS/2 has today.  Every API, every subtlety, every nuance.  If (more) people come on board and help me it can all be done, but I think people will need to see some real progress before they're willing to invest time and labor in an unproven product like this, by a potential crackpot like me no less.  hehe

When I see your posts, your </silence>....<silence> tags crack me up. :-)
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 16, 2017, 01:41:40 am
</silence>
FWIW: DOSBox may seem to be a possible answer to reduce a theoretical workload of 64-bit developers, but it isn't. If you're going to suggest a 64-bit DOSBox to play my collection of legacy DOS games, which may be too slow anyway, then it's very likely that I'll discover a faster 64-bit DOSBox for Windows and never switch to a 64-bit DOSBox for OS/2.

Recently AN did mention adding DOS sound support, which is a better niche market strategy than telling potential new customers that there's such a thing as DOSBox if they want to hear their legacy sounds.

Besides of that, mainly a browser may require a 64-bit environment in the future. Without any 16-bit and 32-bit legacy support I'll have to stop using all of my apps, to browse with a new 64-bit browser, so then I may as well switch to another 64-bit OS and renew all of my apps too.
<silence>
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 20, 2017, 08:04:29 pm
I was thinking on the way in to work today...  I don't think I'll be able to maintain full binary compatibility with existing OS/2 software, UNLESS I am able to contact IBM and work out some kind of licensing agreement which allows me to use binary techniques to try to decompile and investigate the inner-workings of various aspects of their kernel, and some of the drivers.

Does anybody have a good working relationship with IBM?  I do not intend to make any money from ES/2, so it would have to be a willingness on IBM's part to donate the license to me so I could do that type of work legally.  But, apart from getting it written it wouldn't cost them anything.

If anybody has an idea in how to move forward, I would like to provide full binary compatibility with existing OS/2 apps in ES/2.  I want all of the code from back then to work in my new kernel, and to be able to then write replacement drivers one-by-one to enable all of the new features in a 64-bit environment, for example.

We can really do this well if we come together with our talents and work for a common goal.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 10:56:21 pm
I was thinking on the way in to work today...  I don't think I'll be able to maintain full binary compatibility with existing OS/2 software, UNLESS I am able to contact IBM and work out some kind of licensing agreement which allows me to use binary techniques to try to decompile and investigate the inner-workings of various aspects of their kernel, and some of the drivers.
Why you're not reading the "The OS/2 Debugging Handbook". The four volumes should be available in BookMaster or portable document format if you don't want to order the printed edition.

I'm not a laywer so I cannot speech here about legal issues.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 20, 2017, 11:46:17 pm
I was thinking on the way in to work today...  I don't think I'll be able to maintain full binary compatibility with existing OS/2 software, UNLESS I am able to contact IBM and work out some kind of licensing agreement which allows me to use binary techniques to try to decompile and investigate the inner-workings of various aspects of their kernel, and some of the drivers.
Why you're not reading the "The OS/2 Debugging Handbook". The four volumes should be available in BookMaster or portable document format if you don't want to order the printed edition.

I didn't know they existed.

UPDATE:  Volume I (https://archive.org/details/sg244640), Volume II (https://archive.org/details/sg244641), Volume III (https://archive.org/details/sg24464200), Volume IV (https://archive.org/details/sg24464300).

Quote from: Andreas Kohl
I'm not a laywer so I cannot speech here about legal issues.

I won't do anything illegal, but if there are legal sources and existing documentation or provisions that are part of standard releases by IBM or its authorized agents which give insight into things which can be known or reasonably inferred and then tested, I'm open to that.

I want to do the best job I can on this project.  And I want to encourage others to come and help me because they won't be helping me, but helping themselves and countless others.  I truly want to write an operating system that will give people a reason to leave Windows, leave Linux, leave Android products, leave Apple products.

My goals are ES/2 first (desktop OS/2 clone), but AS/2 second (ARM-based mobile OS).  I have a purpose and a plan and it is to give people back freedom, to give them power to move rightly, empowering them by the products they possess, rather than binding them up in spyware and things they don't want.

Freely available, fully open source code, no limitations on use or registration, and a solid design which comes from the best the Lord first gave me, with the help of others...  It is doable.  We just need to work together.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 21, 2017, 11:39:21 pm

I didn't know they existed.

UPDATE:  Volume I (https://archive.org/details/sg244640), Volume II (https://archive.org/details/sg244641), Volume III (https://archive.org/details/sg24464200), Volume IV (https://archive.org/details/sg24464300).


Hi Rick.

Those books were always available for free download at the IBM redbooks site. I don't think that there is something illegal on using those books are references.

I even found on that is still online on the IBM site: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG244640.html

Regards
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 22, 2017, 12:06:25 am

I didn't know they existed.

UPDATE:  Volume I (https://archive.org/details/sg244640), Volume II (https://archive.org/details/sg244641), Volume III (https://archive.org/details/sg24464200), Volume IV (https://archive.org/details/sg24464300).

Those books were always available for free download at the IBM redbooks site.
Unfortunately the words "always" and "free" made the above statement wrong or at least inaccurate. You couldn't download any of the earlier mentioned files at all 20 years ago - a verifiable fact.

Quote
I don't think that there is something illegal on using those books are references.
Of course there's nothing illegal. But their content cannot serve as a reference (for what?). They deal with practical topics based on OS/2 Warp 3 - workbooks or training guides would fit better - and handbook is the right term used by ITSO. To cover later system or kernel enhancements it's quite easy to follow publications that refer to these books by using your BookManager READ/2 program's search function.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 22, 2017, 02:35:55 am
Unfortunately the words "always" and "free" made the above statement wrong or at least inaccurate. You couldn't download any of the earlier mentioned files at all 20 years ago - a verifiable fact.

Andreas, please cool off. You are right but if you are going to question every little thing on the forum people are going to start to ignore you, and this is not the USENET. You are not forced to reply every post, there is no prize for being the one that post the most on the forums.

If it is worthy I can ask IBM permission to republish those books, if someone is crying over IBM's copyright for having those books posted on a non-profit library.

Regards

Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 22, 2017, 03:47:38 am
If it is worthy I can ask IBM permission to republish those books, if someone is crying over IBM's copyright for having those books posted on a non-profit library.

Can you ask IBM about a obtaining a license to decompile and binary examine their boot, kernel, and driver code?  It would help me immensely.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 22, 2017, 10:56:53 am
Can you ask IBM about a obtaining a license to decompile and binary examine their boot, kernel, and driver code?  It would help me immensely.

With my 333 Post I would like to say, please do not take it personal, that this is the best joke I have ever read in this Forum during all the years - by far, very far....

It must be joking, must'nt it? Or...  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh8VTXSpEns (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh8VTXSpEns)
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 22, 2017, 11:26:56 am
Can you ask IBM about a obtaining a license to decompile and binary examine their boot, kernel, and driver code?  It would help me immensely.

With my 333 Post I would like to say, please do not take it personal, that this is the best joke I have ever read in this Forum during all the years.

It must be joke, must'nt it? Or...  ;D

No joke.  If someone has a good working relationship with IBM, I would like to obtain a license like Arca Noae did, to legally examine the core OS/2 binary files through various means of reverse-engineering.

I would try to contact them myself, but business eloquence is not my strength.  I would harm my cause through ignorance, inexperience, and saying / writing the wrong things.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 22, 2017, 12:21:35 pm
Can you ask IBM about a obtaining a license to decompile and binary examine their boot, kernel, and driver code?  It would help me immensely.

With my 333 Post I would like to say, please do not take it personal, that this is the best joke I have ever read in this Forum during all the years.

It must be joke, must'nt it? Or...  ;D

No joke.  If someone has a good working relationship with IBM, I would like to obtain a license like Arca Noae did, to legally examine the core OS/2 binary files through various means of reverse-engineering.

I would try to contact them myself, but business eloquence is not my strength.  I would harm my cause through ignorance, inexperience, and saying / writing the wrong things.

Hi Rick.

I'm sorry but I only have found the process to republish publications (print or electronic publications) under permission. I haven't found a way to request IBM permission to release binaries or source code. Also, if the document says in some part "IBM Internal" or "Confidential"  they would give permission.

Regards
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 22, 2017, 03:24:58 pm
Hi Rick.

I'm sorry but I only have found the process to republish publications (print or electronic publications) under permission. I haven't found a way to request IBM permission to release binaries or source code. Also, if the document says in some part "IBM Internal" or "Confidential"  they would give permission.

Okay.  If I don't hear from anybody else who's able to help me, I will try to contact someone at IBM directly.  Maybe David Barnes would know someone and be interested in helping his old OS get some new life. :-)
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 24, 2017, 11:22:58 pm
Andreas, please cool off.
No problem it was snowing in Masovia ;-)

Quote
You are right but if you are going to question every little thing on the forum people are going to start to ignore you, and this is not the USENET. You are not forced to reply every post, there is no prize for being the one that post the most on the forums.
You are here the moderator. But I don't realise why you have to invent such things. But now real content for post number 181 (round about a milliard):

If you have installed the latest "IBM Developer's Toolkit for OS/2 Warp Version 4" there's a online book "Kernel Debugger Reference" that can serve as reference. Warp 4 and derived products should further contain a file README.DBG to indicate the location of the debug kernels on the media.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on November 28, 2017, 11:32:16 am
Please add your vote to the poll.  I want an accurate view of the OS/2 community's thinking.

Suppose IBM came out with a new OS/2 ... how important would all of the legacy 16-bit support be in OS/2 Warp Version 5?  Support for old (1980s) hardware?

How important would full compatibility be in the year 2018 or later?
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Devon on December 03, 2017, 11:13:55 pm
I think just making a Linux distribution that mimics OS/2-like functionality in its graphical interface would be more ideal (and maybe a compatibility layer to run 32-bit OS/2 applications could be added in). Otherwise you're perpetually dealing with licensing problems, old closed source code and the inability to easily harness new hardware.

You could call it 'Warp/ix' and then be done with it.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 08, 2017, 09:01:29 pm
I think just making a Linux distribution that mimics OS/2-like functionality...

I have not worked with Linux or GNU for matters of conscience.  When I look at Linux I see Linus Torvalds, who is by all accounts a vile, crass, mean, spiteful, insulting, profane individual who thinks nothing of giving people the finger on camera, or using all manner of profane words to yell at people online.  And when I look at GNU I see Richard Stallman, who is by all accounts, a complete pervert who believes that pedophilia and necrophilia should be legalized, among many other odd things.

I had planned in 2012 to go to GNU and complete the GNU HURD kernel for them, but then I learned those things about Stallman.  I had already decided not to work on Linux, which is why I was moving toward the HURD kernel.

I'm sorry, but I cannot support Linux or GNU for those reasons.  It's why I'm creating everything from scratch.  I want to have an offering based on holiness, on a real giving unto God purposefully, and not just creation for the sake of creation, and not for money, not for fame, but to honestly give the world something wonderful they can use, and without the negative aspects of mankind associated with existing offerings apart from forgiveness and repentance through Christ.

My intention with ES/2 is to give people the best we can create, and to do so to empower them.  Full source code.  Full legal rights.  Full everything.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Sergey Posokhov on December 10, 2017, 08:56:19 pm
Okay.  If I don't hear from anybody else who's able to help me, I will try to contact someone at IBM directly.
There are no employees in IBM who remember the 90s.
According to a report by Russian-speaking IBM employee from the forum sql.ru, "IBM today is a conglomerate of companies acquired in Silicon Valley and all around the globe".
So it's better to buy the latest OS version from Arca Noae and concentrate one's efforts on free software.
And, of course, they will not sell nor open anything to a random person (including you and me).
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 10, 2017, 10:34:31 pm
There are no employees in IBM who remember the 90s.
According to a report by Russian-speaking IBM employee from the forum sql.ru, "IBM today is a conglomerate of companies acquired in Silicon Valley and all around the globe".
So it's better to buy the latest OS version from Arca Noae and concentrate one's efforts on free software.
And, of course, they will not sell nor open anything to a random person (including you and me).

I hope people, who WERE employees in the 90s, will come forward from wherever they are now, and help continue development.  Some may have retired, and are looking for things to do. :-)
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Sergey Posokhov on December 11, 2017, 03:48:30 pm
I hope people, who WERE employees in the 90s, will come forward from wherever they are now
Some of them are connected with Arca Noae.

When I discovered a bug in Panorama we are (with Alex G who's working on OS4 kernel) contacted Lewis Rosenthal, and he asked one of ex-IBM employees about possible effects of the bug (it was annoying bug with boot time crashes in OS4 and colored snow on the screen in eCS 2.x). Then someone (who? I don't know) fixed it.

Both ArcaOS and OS4 kernels works fine. Everything fine, after all. I would like to see both kernels in one installation. But, of course, nobody will deliver them or fix old software for free.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 11, 2017, 04:24:43 pm
I hope people, who WERE employees in the 90s, will come forward from wherever they are now
Some of them are connected with Arca Noae.

Interesting.  It is my hope some of them will come over, but I don't hold my breath.  Most people are offended by the fact that this is a project given over to God first, and then to people, and not being done for money.  I have a history of offering up good solutions to people only to have them rejected solely on that basis.  As such, I am accustomed to it.

When I discovered a bug in Panorama we are (with Alex G who's working on OS4 kernel) contacted Lewis Rosenthal, and he asked one of ex-IBM employees about possible effects of the bug (it was annoying bug with boot time crashes in OS4 and colored snow on the screen in eCS 2.x). Then someone (who? I don't know) fixed it.

Both ArcaOS and OS4 kernels works fine. Everything fine, after all. I would like to see both kernels in one installation. But, of course, nobody will deliver them or fix old software for free.

I would like others to come work on ES/2 once the kernel is sufficiently developed.  By having this kernel be from-scratch with our own tools to create and debug new code, and being wholly un-encumbered with any of man's legal licenses, it really empowers people to move forward with a great toolset and a great platform.  My goal is I would like to see ES/2 replace Windows, Linux, and Apple's OS.  I also plan (James 4:15) to create a portable ES/2 version for ARM-based devices, called AS/2.

I want to get ES/2 completed, write a few other apps, and then turn my attention toward replacing all of OS/2 and making a truly native ES/2 distribution that isn't just the kernel, but is a whole new OS.  I do not want to do this coding alone, but it has to start somewhere.  I also have goals in creating hardware which I would really like to address.  I would author equally open-source tools for that project as well, and do it in ES/2.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: BigGoofyGuy on December 13, 2017, 04:50:41 am
After IBM had won that lawsuit against Microsoft for stopping OS/2 Warp from being pre-installed on computers, I had hoped they would continue developing their operating system to compete with Windows. Alas, they did not. I am glad there was eComStation and now Arca Noae to continue.

It would be neat if there was some backward compatibility but I don't see it as being critical.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Devon on December 16, 2017, 12:19:18 pm
When I look at Linux I see Linus Torvalds, who is by all accounts a vile, crass, mean, spiteful, insulting, profane individual who thinks nothing of giving people the finger on camera, or using all manner of profane words to yell at people online.  And when I look at GNU I see Richard Stallman, who is by all accounts, a complete pervert who believes that pedophilia and necrophilia should be legalized, among many other odd things.

I don't really think it's about a matter of emotion. Alan Cox has explained many times how Linus' responses are justified.... it's Linus' job to get the point across. Sometimes you can't reason with people, so he has to wake them up and explain the situation in a more brash way.

With a negative attitude like that towards everything, you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot as it's going to take an insane amount of time to code everything from scratch for one person (would 20 years be a gentle assumption?) That's why few projects build everything from scratch when there's already Linux.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 16, 2017, 01:01:48 pm
When I look at Linux I see Linus Torvalds, who is by all accounts a vile, crass, mean, spiteful, insulting, profane individual who thinks nothing of giving people the finger on camera, or using all manner of profane words to yell at people online.  And when I look at GNU I see Richard Stallman, who is by all accounts, a complete pervert who believes that pedophilia and necrophilia should be legalized, among many other odd things.

I don't really think it's about a matter of emotion. Alan Cox has explained many times how Linus' responses are justified.... it's Linus' job to get the point across. Sometimes you can't reason with people, so he has to wake them up and explain the situation in a more brash way.

People are valuable.  Special.  Worth investing the time of an explanation, rather than just a response.  There's no justification for being harshly insulting, vulgar, obscene, etc.

Alan Cox is simply wrong in that regard, and so is Linus.  Alan is essentially an enabler for bad behavior.

With a negative attitude like that towards everything, you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot as it's going to take an insane amount of time to code everything from scratch for one person (would 20 years be a gentle assumption?) That's why few projects build everything from scratch when there's already Linux.

I don't view it as negative, but necessary.  We must be lifted out of the muck of sin and sin's impact upon this world.  We must make conscious, purposeful choices to reject things that stem from our sin condition, and seek after that which does not have sin.  Only then are we able to proceed correctly, seeking no longer to satiate or serve our sin-tendancies (profanity, yelling, and doing sinful things), and instead we consciously place emphasis on not being that way, but instead looking up to the Lord, looking within to gain an understanding, and then walking forward and teaching others that our limits as men and women (in and of sin) can be overcome, but not just by us alone, but in looking up first, because then He/His teachings move to the front to naturally guide us in a new way.

I do not want to work on this project alone.  I'm 48 years old.  All things being equal people in my family live into their mid-70s.  That gives me 22+ years left to do what I want to change, affect, and impact this world.  I have an interest in OS development, so I apply it where I can, building a foundation on the Lord, and moving up from there so all will be solid, and have right goals and intents.

My hope is others will see the progress being made, and come forward to give the best of what they have to the Lord, through not only this project, but also the other things in their lives.

Bottom line:  I care about you.  I care about people.  That caring comes from the inside and the caring the Lord first had for each of you, and has given me.  It is real, deep, and guides me to invest so much labor into this project.  I want you to have a full open source Public Domain license operating system so you can use it, or use its dedign or code as a base for doing more.

I want to empower you to be un-debted owners free and clear of entanglements, and not renters.  I want to help you with real growth and prosperity to achieve all your life goals.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Devon on December 18, 2017, 02:40:42 am
People are valuable.  Special.  Worth investing the time of an explanation, rather than just a response.  There's no justification for being harshly insulting, vulgar, obscene, etc.

Alan Cox is simply wrong in that regard, and so is Linus.  Alan is essentially an enabler for bad behavior.

I don't view it as negative, but necessary.  We must be lifted out of the muck of sin and sin's impact upon this world.  We must make conscious, purposeful choices to reject things that stem from our sin condition, and seek after that which does not have sin.  Only then are we able to proceed correctly, seeking no longer to satiate or serve our sin-tendancies (profanity, yelling, and doing sinful things), and instead we consciously place emphasis on not being that way, but instead looking up to the Lord, looking within to gain an understanding, and then walking forward and teaching others that our limits as men and women (in and of sin) can be overcome, but not just by us alone, but in looking up first, because then He/His teachings move to the front to naturally guide us in a new way.

I do not want to work on this project alone.  I'm 48 years old.  All things being equal people in my family live into their mid-70s.  That gives me 22+ years left to do what I want to change, affect, and impact this world.  I have an interest in OS development, so I apply it where I can, building a foundation on the Lord, and moving up from there so all will be solid, and have right goals and intents.

My hope is others will see the progress being made, and come forward to give the best of what they have to the Lord, through not only this project, but also the other things in their lives.

Bottom line:  I care about you.  I care about people.  That caring comes from the inside and the caring the Lord first had for each of you, and has given me.  It is real, deep, and guides me to invest so much labor into this project.  I want you to have a full open source Public Domain license operating system so you can use it, or use its dedign or code as a base for doing more.

I want to empower you to be un-debted owners free and clear of entanglements, and not renters.  I want to help you with real growth and prosperity to achieve all your life goals.

Sure, people are special (1 John 2:2), but that's a separate issue when it comes to operating systems. Linus Torvalds cares deeply about technology and exemplifies a strict standard of quality. There's a lot of people who are involved in coding nowadays that need a bit of a "wake up", and talking sweet words isn't going to convey this.

In fact... if you want to get 'Biblically' involved there's a PERFECT analogy in Matthew 12:34. Christ called out the religious pharisees for their crap (who by the way were trying to be mindful of their speech) re: "vipers" which is no different from Linus' profanities. If Christ were to sweet talk them, they just wouldn't get it. And most of them still didn't after all of that...

Being legalistic and fixating on sin just makes you a pharisee who alienates other people and walks with two left feet in society. Everyone will always sin (1 John 1:9), so move on. Forcefully making yourself "not sin" misses the point as you try to enable yourself through human good, which God isn't a fan of by the way (Romans 4:5-6). So then it becomes a matter of hyperventilating on emotion and misconstruing everything as "sinful". Don't hypnotize yourself into an emotional frenzy or see everything as sinful.

There's NOTHING wrong with Linux, and claiming God is against it is a tough order that I can easily refute (along with works salvation and sinless perfection). But that's getting highly off topic and not relevant to a forum dedicated to OS/2.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot--twice... in terms of not getting Bible Doctrine and fixating on a "sin" tangent, and arrogantly rejecting community resources to create an ASTRONOMICAL amount of overhead.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 18, 2017, 12:32:13 pm
[snipl

You misunderstand.  And, I do not debate people, Devon.  I teach.

If you want to learn from my actions and choices the information is before you.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 18, 2017, 02:13:25 pm
I'd like to ask everyone to please vote again as I suspect inappropriate / invalid voting previously.

If you have a voice, please cast your vote and then add a comment post indicating how you voted and, if you'd like to share your reasoning for my knowledge, please also add a comment as to why you feel that way.  You can also send me a private message if you prefer.

Thank you for helping to make this poll a legitimate sample of data from the active OS/2 community.
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: Martin Iturbide on December 18, 2017, 02:32:53 pm
Hi Rick.

What I had understood with time is that the OS/2 community not only want to preserve the "OS/2 experience" (how the GUI looks and works) but also want to run the set of old apps they are used to. If you ask people will answer you "I was a 100% compatibility clone with all the OS/2 apps running, DOS and WIN16 support, like OS/2 was meant to be". And that is just too much of a work for one man.

Even that people will request something elegant, state of the art and perfect as first release, I'm against that approach. I will suggest you to focus on some little accomplishment on the OS/2 compatibility area (even if it is not perfect or complete) and grow your project from there. Show the community something that may be interesting and that has the potential to be improved.

I'm sorry I can not complete understand kernel development or how close or far are you to the goal, but once I see something that boots and can run a simple OS/2 command text binary I will think about it and provide more feedback.

My ideas are limited by my lack of knowledge on this area, but if you are starting with a kernel development my only idea is to create a kernel that will trick the rest of OS/2 binaries and components (CPI, PM, SOM, WPS) that they are running on the original OS/2 kernel. Even that we know that we may not get full driver compatibility, but the "main kernel drivers (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/OS/2_Kernel)" (or the drivers required to run the basic components, like CPI and PM) should be cloned and adapted.

Regards
Title: Re: Compatibility with OS/2
Post by: RickCHodgin on December 18, 2017, 02:42:07 pm
...if you are starting with a kernel development my only idea is to create a kernel that will trick the rest of OS/2 binaries and components (CPI, PM, SOM, WPS) that they are running on the original OS/2 kernel. Even that we know that we may not get full driver compatibility, but the "main kernel drivers (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/OS/2_Kernel)" (or the drivers required to run the basic components, like CPI and PM) should be cloned and adapted.

My goals are to be 100% compatible.  If something runs on OS2KRNL today, it should run on ES2KRNL with zero change.

Beyond that, I want to migrate things forward.  You can see that position here (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,1551.msg15394.html#msg15394) (and here (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,1572.msg15419.html#msg15419)).

I have never expected to do this project alone, but all large projects have to start somewhere.  This is where ES/2 is starting.