OS2 World Community Forum

OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical => Programming => Topic started by: Lars on January 05, 2014, 02:32:06 pm

Title: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Lars on January 05, 2014, 02:32:06 pm
I don't doubt that the developers are skilled people. However I doubt that this project will be of any relevance if it continues in the current way. I just want to state my opinions here and I won't go into the "legal/illegal" issue.
I am open to any comment, good or bad:

1) I would have never found the website. Fortunately, one of Martin's comments pointed to it. The project needs more promotion. A good way would be to be present in the most frequented OS/2 newsgroups

2) from the website, it's completely unobvious of what the latest version is for the OS4 core project. I'd go with the SVN revision numbers but I could never be sure. It's also not clear what version was reasonably stable and what version was not. I would also think it would be a good idea to remove all versions that proved to be too unstable for most testers.

3) it's completely unobvious in how far the QSINIT project relates to the OS4 project. Does QSINIT "overwrite" the OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips ? What would be the benefit to use QSINIT in favor of the OS2LDR that comes with the OS/4 kernel zip ? Is that the same group of developers of these 2 projects ?

4) there is no FAQ that would collect common problems or such. Also there is about no documentation. All the information is contained in the few postings floating around on the os2world website. Who is going to bother and go through the effort to test the OS/4 kernel if he is more or less completely on his own ? Not too many people I would think ...

5) there is too little feedback back into the developer community. One of the topics has already been addressed: David as the ACPI developer should be taken into the loop. Me might not be inclined to support the OS4 kernel but I'd say it's the OS/4 people's job to get in touch with him. At least that would make sense ...

6) all of the website is in cyrillic (russian, anyway). I know it might be not that easy but at least a bit of english would be helpful (we are not talking about perfect english here). It's just a major hinderance in attracting anybody to try and test and support development of the OS/4 kernel.

For me, 2) and 3) and 4) are the most pressing problems. And they surely have no relation to the "legal" / "illegal" question.


Ok, let the shitstrom begin ...


Lars
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 05, 2014, 03:31:39 pm
Hi Lars

I also agreed with some of your points.

About 5) I noticed the OS/4 team chats on IRC irc://efnet/os2russian. But the conversation is generally in Russian language, but if you jump there in English you will get a conversation.

There is also some political things about this project to add up. They do not have a good relation with Mensys. (maybe it is from both sides). So, it does not seems that they want to do something together. I really hope this can change on the future, but for the moment I don't think that nobody getting paid by Mensys will like to join OS/4 project.

Also, some OS/4 members thinks that open source is "evil capitalism". I chatted with some members of OS/4 once and they have a "resentment" that Mensys is taking advantage of open source software to make "MILLIONS". First I doubt that Mensys is making millions with eComStation (as net profit). Also it seems that they have a miss interpretation of what open source is. Open Source can used for good or evil.
- When Mensys pays for patching XWorkplace and they are forced to release the source code (GNU GPL license), that is good.
- When eCoSoft grabs a BSD licensed software and turn it into a closed source product, it is legal, but its bad for open source and software continuity.
- When Mensys ports the AHCI drivers is good, when they hide the binaries to the public is bad, they are forced to release the source code (GPL) thats good, when other person grabs the same source code and release the binaries is good... and everything is legal. (this is why it is stupid to hide the binaries of an open source project)

So, at the end open source is making us more good than bad. This is why I think that Mensys is doing good for the platform in general terms and I don't care if they are making millions (which I'm almost sure they are not) as soon as they support more open source projects.

In short I think that the problem with OS/4 is not only legal, it is also political.

My main suggestion is "Stop worrying about Mensys, and open source everything (preferable copyleft)".
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 05, 2014, 03:35:20 pm
...and by the way, if OS/4 decides to walk the open source path. I'm willing to help on whatever I can.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: walking_x on January 05, 2014, 04:43:15 pm
Ok. QSINIT loader is not OS/4 nor uses any piece of OS/4 or IBM code.
I write it at free time, just for fun ;) So, no chances to HUGE DOCS and FAQ ;)

But it works (surprise!).

QSINIT share some functionality with OS/4: OS2LDR.INI file format (kernel menu and options).
This is because I WAS in OS/4 team and wrote the same part of OS/4 OS2LDR. And because compatibility is a good idea.

About "legal" / "illegal" question.
QSINIT code has written from scratch... Even LE/LX module loader... some free code was used (listed in docs), but this is all. Since I'm very familiar with process of kernel loading (a slightly difficult process ;)) - I just rewrote it.

Ok - Microsoft still owns FAT, LE and some things like that and this is only one (and hypothetic) problem ;)
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on January 05, 2014, 05:28:21 pm
- When eCoSoft grabs a BSD licensed software and turn it into a closed source product, it is legal, but its bad for open source and software continuity.

That is exactly the reason why I still try to avoid all that ecosoft stuff - with a lot of projects those try to make money from things others have invented or developed. And in addition I had a lot of crashes due to this parts. One of the examples: USb widget (working better now, but still better to be replaced), another example: the fails with eCs 2.2 beta 1 with "Big icons" and the other ecosoft stuff for the WPS (remember Drive letters?). For a stable WPS it is better to disable the NeoWPS parts. It was one of the major enhancements of beta 2 compared to beta 1 to disable the newly introduced neowps features again.

I will give a video example once my maximum warp pc is ready. 
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 05, 2014, 05:38:40 pm
Hi walking_x

If you want to start a page about QSINIT Loader on the OS2World Wiki in english, and we can try to collaborate on it.
http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/QSINIT (http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/QSINIT)

What do you think? You can use the same user and password of this forum for the Wiki.

Regards
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Dave Yeo on January 05, 2014, 07:15:20 pm
Ok - Microsoft still owns FAT, LE and some things like that and this is only one (and hypothetic) problem ;)

I always assumed that our OS/2 license includes rights to use FAT, LE and such.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Doug Bissett on January 05, 2014, 07:33:35 pm
I will make four comments here. They are my own views:

1) walking_x has stated that his work is original, or acknowledged, where appropriate (I have to believe him). It is HIS work, so he can do as he likes with it. I would like to see it go open source, but that is his choice. I would, however, ask him to take steps to make sure that the source is made available to the OS/2 (eCS) community, if he decides to quit work on it, or if something unforeseen happens, and he cannot continue. We can't afford to lose such important work.

2) It has been my experience, that eCoSoft is producing software, for profit. Most of what has been made available, for free, was paid for by Mensys. It does not make sense for a "for profit" company to open source their work. I won't comment on the quality of their work.   :(   The market will do that.

3) OS/4 is a "problem". I don't know the details, but I have heard that the OS/4 kernel is a (illegally) disassembled OS2 kernel, from IBM, rearranged in some way to make it easier to modify (which hasn't happened yet, AFAIK, and please correct me if I am wrong). I have looked at it a few times, and found no benefit to using it. Now, it seems that they have added a version of ACPI. Whether that is original work, or not, I don't know (I doubt it). The OS/4 loader part is probably necessary to be able to load the kernel, and it seems that walking_x is probably the original author of it.

4) I note that the Russian approach (generally, not always) seems to be to produce products of mediocre quality, and they don't always respect other people's rights (copyrights). That may be part of the reason why they don't want to get involved with GPL, or other open source licensing. It is probably a result of their history, and the fact that their government doesn't do much to protect individual, or corporate, rights. I have noted a few comments about "large capitalist entities taking their work, for their own benefit". There seems to be no concern about taking something from those same entities, or individuals. I think the Russians need a change in government, and they need to look in the mirror to find the source of their problems. An attitude shift is definitely required, for them to get along with most of the rest of the world.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on January 05, 2014, 08:24:49 pm

1) Please don't mention eCo Software when discussing the pirates.

2) To Martin: eCo Software provides all kinds of code: closed source, open source, ..
All our software is clean, we respect the rights of other developers. Our components are verified and distributed with eCS all over the world.

3) eCo Software doesn't deliver products to Sigurd Fastenrath (http://ecomstation.ru/temp/201301/201301-attack.html), he can't discuss our products because can't test them.

4) To Doug: Please don't generalize "russians". Our people respect other people's rights, buy licenses.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on January 05, 2014, 08:53:48 pm
3) eCo Software doesn't deliver products to Sigurd Fastenrath (http://ecomstation.ru/temp/201301/201301-attack.html), he can't discuss our products because can't test them.

That is exactly true. And in addition it is the other way round:

eCosoft takes my work and ideas to earn money, i.e.: http://de.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=214 (http://de.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=214)

You can find and proof the "business" of this company and how legal rights are kicked with feet here:

http://de.ecomstation.ru/help/?action=faq (http://de.ecomstation.ru/help/?action=faq)

Just read Answer to Question 3 - a typical violation of everything that is accepted as legal by other persons/companies.
Classical rights form the medieval age - lacking every advice from a lawyer or at least someone who knows something about rights and justice.

But, no need to care about, I guess, as the economical steam is running out there, I think one of the reasons may be the quality of the products, speaking for it self..... :o

And yes - the Maximum Warp PC will not contain even one application developed by ecosoft, it will be a nice OS/2 Version and be shown in a longer movie, later this year, hopefully  ::) It will be a movie "Celebrating 20 Years of OS/2 Warp".
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 06, 2014, 12:27:57 am
Hi Sigurd .

Can I have your permission to repost your article on the OS2World.com/wiki? We use the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. If you can agreed to that kind of license, or want to post something else on the OS2World.com wiki please let me know.

Regards
Martín.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: walking_x on January 06, 2014, 07:08:44 am
2) It has been my experience, that eCoSoft is producing software, for profit. Most of what has been made available, for free, was paid for by Mensys.
Of cause, I will open sources when become tired of it ;) But now don't like the idea to open all, under free license. The reason you wrote here.

Ok, Mensys wants to live - this is normal. But, in fact - they will take this code and will make of it another one "subscription package". So, I will give them a gift - something for sale, nothing else. And Gorbunov will start telling all - what exactly eCS team made it, after long days and nights of heavy researching ;)

I don't like this, at least, while I still writing this code.

If you want to start a page about QSINIT Loader on the OS2World Wiki in english, and we can try to collaborate on it.
Yes, some kind of FAQ can be created here from time to time ;)
May be, I need to update doc in package too....

But now it still "under development", and doc always lag behind of code changes.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on January 06, 2014, 07:28:24 am
Hi Sigurd .

Can I have your permission to repost your article on the OS2World.com/wiki? We use the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. If you can agreed to that kind of license, or want to post something else on the OS2World.com wiki please let me know.

Regards
Martín.

Yes, for sure Martin. It is a pleasure for me. Please keep in mind that it is about two years old and some things did change i.e. the Airboot Manager.

Best regards,

Sigurd
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Andi B. on January 06, 2014, 11:33:27 am
Quote
...the Russians....An attitude shift is definitely required, for them to get along with most of the rest of the world.
May I add that your definition of 'rest of the world' seems to me being a rather small fraction of the real world. Unfortunately. ;)

Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Lars on January 06, 2014, 01:10:18 pm
Another point for my original 5):

somewhere in one of these discussion groups here I read that there is some bug in Veit Kannegieser's PCIBUS.SNP that causes problems with the OS/4 kernel. Why was Veit not contacted ? I have contacted him in the past and while he is obviously pretty busy with his "real life" job he is certainly going to help where he can. While the OS/4 team doesn't like the idea of "closed source" they tend towards the very same behaviour:
1) do it all yourself
2) don't talk to anybody else
3) keep everything to yourself, not the binaries but the knowledge
4) don't document anything

I think I am qualified to utter these statements. I have put considerable work in fixing the OS/2 USB stack. And I am doing it for free as I have my own "real life" job. David cannot do it for free. He is doing it for a living.
The OS/2 source code is freely available from the netlabs SVN server. We (David and I) don't hide anything from anybody.
One just need to ask Adrian Gschwend for getting an account.

About the binaries not being freely delivered: who is going to pay David if everything is given away for free ? You DO HAVE the option to build the updated USB drivers yourself (but you need to know how to run a compiler, assembler, linker, make utility).
What Mensys does is keeping the strings together and making sure that all updates and necessary fixes and also new stuff go into a common distribution. That is quite some work and not everybody can do this work for free.


Lars
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Lars on January 06, 2014, 01:21:35 pm
About the problems with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP, see:

http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,176.msg1453.html#msg1453

Lars
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: OS4User on January 06, 2014, 02:13:23 pm
About the problems with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP, see:

http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,176.msg1453.html#msg1453

Lars

I am running os/4 kernel with Veit's PCIBUS.SNP  -  never see a problem.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 06, 2014, 02:21:59 pm

Ok, Mensys wants to live - this is normal. But, in fact - they will take this code and will make of it another one "subscription package". So, I will give them a gift - something for sale, nothing else. And Gorbunov will start telling all - what exactly eCS team made it, after long days and nights of heavy researching ;)


This is the beauty of open source. Every time that somebody says something false like "Mensys invented XWorkplace" we all know the truth and it is all documented on the web. The idea is not to care about Mensys/Gorbunov, if you turn QSINIT as copyleft (not only open source), and if Mensys will use it, they possible will patch it and improve it too, and if it is copyleft they will be forced to release the source code, so the efforts of the small developer and big developer will join in the same project and with the same license.

This makes me remember that there used to be a lot of people that liked to recycle and felt good about their contribution to the environment. They separated the garbage and give it to the recycle center that was doing something good for nature but reusing the plastic and aluminum. The company that received this garbage recycled it and start making some money, but they were also supporting the environment with their actions while making profits. When people started to see that recycling was a good business for the recycle center they got "resentment" and questioned why they are doing money? why I still separate the garbage if they are a "evil corporation"? Nobody remembered that in the end they were doing a good deed to the world and only focused on "resentment" against the success of the recycle center.

At the end, people stopped recycling, the recycle center got financial problems and the environment got screwed again.

Let's care about the environment (community/platform) and not about the recycle center (Mensys or any other company).

Resentment will take us the wrong way, will make us waist time on what to do to screw the other, will steal our hours of sleep trying to figure it out how to harm the other.
Resentment does not have to be a motivator never,  only your will to help and contribute. Only the love to this platform will make us work together to create something bigger that will persevere in time.

Regards
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: OS4User on January 06, 2014, 02:26:51 pm
2) from the website, it's completely unobvious of what the latest version is for the OS4 core project. I'd go with the SVN revision numbers but I could never be sure. It's also not clear what version was reasonably stable and what version was not. I would also think it would be a good idea to remove all versions that proved to be too unstable for most testers.

3) it's completely unobvious in how far the QSINIT project relates to the OS4 project. Does QSINIT "overwrite" the OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips ? What would be the benefit to use QSINIT in favor of the OS2LDR that comes with the OS/4 kernel zip ? Is that the same group of developers of these 2 projects ?

4) there is no FAQ that would collect common problems or such. Also there is about no documentation. All the information is contained in the few postings floating around on the os2world website. Who is going to bother and go through the effort to test the OS/4 kernel if he is more or less completely on his own ? Not too many people I would think ...

For me, 2) and 3) and 4) are the most pressing problems

2) latest ver is here http://ru2.halfos.ru/core/downloads/

3) you can use QSINIT instead of OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips

4) if os2word  wants,   it is possible to do a kind of wiki
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: walking_x on January 06, 2014, 04:24:40 pm
Why was Veit not contacted ?
Veit's PCIBUS.SNP causes problems with QSINIT, not OS/4. Ok, I can contact Veit or fix it in available code. But who will replace current version in ALL eCS installations?

So I just fixed my code to make happy Veit`s code ;) And, may be this is a better idea - because now it simulate IBM OS2LDR in PCI helpers.

Quote
1) do it all yourself
2) don't talk to anybody else
3) keep everything to yourself, not the binaries but the knowledge
4) don't document anything
Loading of kernel is complex task - I may write a small book about  it, but have no time to do this too ;) (we're all need to pay tribute to "real life").

Code is documented, at least QSINIT.
But changing it without understanding - can make consequences far from source point.
QSINIT a less restrictive, but both OS/4 & IBM, who use "real mode COM file" model - is a kind of little nightmare -  for manage, link or update.

So - getting sources is only for "Now I got these sources" in this part. Ok, Mensys can add kernel patching to loader or nice copyright message - but no real improvements can be done...  This is conservative part of code ;) Or, if you have ideas - tell me.

if you turn QSINIT as copyleft (not only open source), and if Mensys will use it, they possible will patch it and improve it too, and if it is copyleft they will be forced to release the source code, so the efforts of the small developer and big developer will join in the same project and with the same license.
Now I can make these improvements by myself. And - I'm absolutly serious, not every one programmer can make improvements in this part, in most way this will be disasters ;) Of cause, I was much more optimistic too - when started learning this process.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 06, 2014, 06:32:01 pm
Now I can make these improvements by myself. And - I'm absolutly serious, not every one programmer can make improvements in this part, in most way this will be disasters ;) Of cause, I was much more optimistic too - when started learning this process.

Just go ahead, you know I'm an open source freak :) ...but just go ahead and let's see how things shapes in the future.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Lars on January 06, 2014, 08:41:38 pm
2) from the website, it's completely unobvious of what the latest version is for the OS4 core project. I'd go with the SVN revision numbers but I could never be sure. It's also not clear what version was reasonably stable and what version was not. I would also think it would be a good idea to remove all versions that proved to be too unstable for most testers.

3) it's completely unobvious in how far the QSINIT project relates to the OS4 project. Does QSINIT "overwrite" the OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips ? What would be the benefit to use QSINIT in favor of the OS2LDR that comes with the OS/4 kernel zip ? Is that the same group of developers of these 2 projects ?

4) there is no FAQ that would collect common problems or such. Also there is about no documentation. All the information is contained in the few postings floating around on the os2world website. Who is going to bother and go through the effort to test the OS/4 kernel if he is more or less completely on his own ? Not too many people I would think ...

For me, 2) and 3) and 4) are the most pressing problems

2) latest ver is here http://ru2.halfos.ru/core/downloads/

3) you can use QSINIT instead of OS2LDR contained in the OS/4 zips

4) if os2word  wants,   it is possible to do a kind of wiki

Why does the QSINIT kernel not become part of OS/4 and replaces the one from the OS/4 package ?


Lars
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Lars on January 06, 2014, 08:48:44 pm
Veit's PCIBUS.SNP causes problems with QSINIT, not OS/4. Ok, I can contact Veit or fix it in available code. But who will replace current version in ALL eCS installations?

I could always address this to Roderick Klein from Mensys. I once wrote a REXX script to patch a (minor) problem in OS2LDR. They took it and eventually ran it against all copies of OS2LDR on the installation CD-ROM. The patched OS2LDR became part of the build tree for the CD-ROM.

For updates of drivers like PCIBUS.SNP: a WPI could be created from it and then installed via the eCS Update utility that was written by Chuck McKinnis. That is exactly what it was created for.


Lars
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: OS4User on January 06, 2014, 08:54:57 pm

Why does the QSINIT kernel not become part of OS/4 and replaces the one from the OS/4 package?

Lars

They are being developed by two different developers.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Doug Bissett on January 06, 2014, 11:23:05 pm
It seems that this subject is going viral.  :)

There is too much to go through, to make individual replies, so I will comment on some that caught my attention, without quoting:

Mensys is in the game to make money. If they don't, the game is over, because nobody else will be able to do it. Mensys is sub licensed by IBM to distribute OS/2. Without that license, distributing eCS would become a nightmare for anybody who wants to try it. Some still seem to think that everybody should get everything, for free. Sorry, but I don't agree. If that happened, nobody would buy eComStation, and with no sales, comes no development, or any kind of coordination.  I think that Mensys has been more than generous to make available what they do make available, for free. I, for one, am willing to contribute to the project, when I can, and Mensys is free to use whatever I contribute. I am not so sure that I feel that way toward those who don't contribute to the project, and still demand all of the benefits.

Overall, very little is known about the OS/4 project. That is partly because it is being done in private, and in Russian (the language), but it is also because the developers have not been keeping users up to date. It is my impression, that the main focus of OS/4 is to rework the kernel. The loader part probably became necessary to make it possible to load the kernel, but I get the idea that the loader part of OS/4 has become "finished", and is not really being developed any more. QSINIT, while it has it's roots in OS/4, has become a stand alone project. While there is some question about the legality of the OS/4 kernel, there is little doubt that the QSINIT loader is original work.

I would note, that I get the impression that Mensys wants nothing to do with OS/4, because of the legal questions, and the developers don't want to admit what they are really doing. Mensys must have a fully legal product to sell, or they risk law suits. They also need well tested software (which is a major problem for them, because they don't have a large test base), to be able to assure their customers that they are buying a viable product. I am sure that there is also some concern that "spyware" might be included.

QSINIT has recently added some functionality that OS/2 desperately needs (working around UEFI problems, and making it possible to use memory above 4 GB, even if it is only for a RAMDISK). That puts QSINIT into the "must have" category. At the moment, the only major fault, is that ACPI doesn't get along with it. I expect that David A. is far too busy to think about trying to help fix that problem. I would hope that Mensys is smart enough to make sure that it does get fixed, once they get eCS 2.2 out the door, and then take steps to incorporate the new loader (or a sub set of it - Tetris is probably not necessary  :D ) into eCS, in one way, or another. I would also hope that walking_x will work with them to accomplish that. Walking_x also needs to have a way to turn over the source, to somebody (Mensys would be the obvious recipient), if he should decide to quit, or if he should become incapable of doing so (need I mention the proverbial "What bus?"). The first step in doing that would be to license the work, in some way that it will not become a private project, as it is now (we saw what happened with GENMAC). Of course, that also means that the source needs to be made available, although a contract could probably be made, to delay the open source status, until such time as walking_x decided to quit, or became unable to continue. Making the source available doesn't mean that somebody else can pick it up, change it, and use it for their own benefit. That is why the license is required. Of course, there is nothing stopping somebody else from improving the source, or adding new features, as long as they follow the license. If they completely destroy their system while doing so, that is their problem.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 07, 2014, 04:04:05 pm

Yes, for sure Martin. It is a pleasure for me. Please keep in mind that it is about two years old and some things did change i.e. the Airboot Manager.

Best regards,

Sigurd

Thanks, it is done: http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Sigurd_Fastenrath

Remember that you can update that page with your same forum userid and password.

Regards.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: walking_x on January 07, 2014, 05:50:08 pm
QSINIT has recently added some functionality that OS/2 desperately needs (working around UEFI problems, and making it possible to use memory above 4 GB, even if it is only for a RAMDISK).
There is a chance, that Mensys already working on 512Mb problem. At least, I heared "something" and some monthes ago a strange person tried to get sources of any loader - QSINIT or OS/4, by using different names and addresses ;) A whole detective story ;)

But binary patching of OS2LDR - is not an easy task and they need patch not only 512Mb problem, but "immediate reboot" problem too. This includes two different parts of IBM OS2LDR and looks a bit worst.

Unfortunately, sources can't help them if they selected this method. Ok, I'm not like GENMAC story too... So, may be - I will publish sources under the same license (i.e. freeware for non-commercial) - code will be available, at least, for reference.

But QSINIT is a modular system - it still can be used for anything, just by writing own modules, based on it (yes, tetris - is a nice example ;)).
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Doug Bissett on January 07, 2014, 08:40:06 pm
Quote
There is a chance, that Mensys already working on 512Mb problem

I know that they have looked at it. I doubt if anything was done, other than some initial research (which probably explains your "detective story").

Quote
Ok, I'm not like GENMAC story too... So, may be - I will publish sources under the same license (i.e. freeware for non-commercial) - code will be available, at least, for reference.

GENMAC has proven to be a real problem for us. All development suddenly stopped (well, it was sort of announced), and the source code was not made available. That was not too much of a problem, for a while, but now we are waiting for Multimac to pick up the pieces, because GENMAC just can't do the job any more, and there is no way to fix it. Part of that problem was caused because the OS/2 community couldn't quite wrap their minds around the fact that somebody would do something like that, so they didn't do anything about if for far too long. Multimac should have been started about 3 years earlier, although I have heard that it would not have been possible (in it's current form) at that time.

Even with your best intentions to continue working on QSINIT, there is always the possibility that something bad will happen, and you won't be able to do that. If you don't take steps to release your source code, the OS/2 community will be left with no way to fix what you have done, if it stops working for one reason or another. I am sure that there are a couple of developers who would be able to sort out what you have done, and fix problems, if they have to. I am also sure that they will eventually solve the problems anyway, but you have already done that, and I hate to see those guys wasting their time on a problem that has already been solved. There are too many other problems that need to be solved.

One other reason to license your work, is to prevent others from stealing it, and using it for their own gain (I am not talking about Mensys). If it is not licensed, they could license it, and you would have no way to do anything about it.

I also urge you to think about what you mean by "freeware for non-commercial". That could mean that no business could use your work, ever. Or, it could mean that Mensys could not include your work in eCS distributions. Or both (possibly other things too). I would suggest that neither one of them would work to your advantage. What you need to do, is contract with Mensys, to include QSINIT (perhaps just a subset to load the OS/2 kernel), for all of their customers (including business customers), and pay you a small royalty for each one sold. They would probably put it on their store too, for those who need it for other purposes (like a RAMDISK, use with older versions of OS/2, or to play Tetris   ;)  ). I know that other programs have been done that way, and some closed source has been turned over to Mensys, to be released under certain conditions (like the death of the author, or if Mensys quits doing eCS). It is all in the contract that you make with Mensys. Another option would be to just sell the source to Mensys, and make a contract to maintain the source as part of the deal. There are many options, and most of them will work to your advantage, but trying to restrict what it can be used for, is really not a good idea. I would suggest that doing any of this will not make you rich, but it would probably cover your costs, plus a bit.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Boris on January 14, 2014, 10:07:13 pm
What you need to do, is contract with Mensys, to include QSINIT (perhaps just a subset to load the OS/2 kernel), for all of their customers (including business customers), and pay you a small royalty for each one sold. They would probably put it on their store too, for those who need it for other purposes (like a RAMDISK, use with older versions of OS/2, or to play Tetris   ;)  ). I know that other programs have been done that way, and some closed source has been turned over to Mensys, to be released under certain conditions (like the death of the author, or if Mensys quits doing eCS). It is all in the contract that you make with Mensys. Another option would be to just sell the source to Mensys, and make a contract to maintain the source as part of the deal. There are many options, and most of them will work to your advantage, but trying to restrict what it can be used for, is really not a good idea. I would suggest that doing any of this will not make you rich, but it would probably cover your costs, plus a bit.

W-w-w-wait a minute.
Do you mean then I will be unable to get QSINIT for free?

Then, if I find a bug, who then should I contact with bugreport? Mensys?

I think that is unacceptable, and the current situation with QSINIT is way better.
The loader is regulary updated, the author is easily available for contact with bugreports or wishes.

Also consider that I can use the Tetris bootloader even with Warp 3, and I don't need to buy eComStation to use the bootloader. I don't really want to mess with Mensys this way.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Doug Bissett on January 15, 2014, 04:18:13 am
Quote
Do you mean then I will be unable to get QSINIT for free?

No, I don't mean that. Mensys has contracted to use Air-Boot. They even rewrote it to (IMO) work better than the original, but you can still get Air-Boot from the original sources.

Quote
Then, if I find a bug, who then should I contact with bugreport? Mensys?

Absolutely, if you are using their version (whether they have modified it, or not). If you are not using their version, you need to go to whoever you got it from, if they still exist.

Quote
I think that is unacceptable, and the current situation with QSINIT is way better.

I don't. There are too many ways that the project could simply disappear, and we don't have access to the source. At least if Mensys has the source (which they seem to have learned is a necessary thing), even if it is in a sealed envelope, with restrictions on when it can be opened, the project is not likely to drop dead (if the Russian government decides to close it down, for instance). Mensys has a number of things like that, and they have, legally, made it a requirement that all of that stuff is to be made available, within the restrictions of the contracts, if they (or somebody else) decide(s) that they need to get out of the business. I am suggesting that QSINIT would fit nicely into that group of programs. Mensys has also made source code available, when the original owner allows it, or when they pay for the development (ACPI, Multimac). Walking_x seems to be reluctant to do that, so the deal can be a little more restrictive, if required. The form that it takes, is up to him, but at the moment, if his home burns to the ground, there is probably no way to recover his work, unless he can recreate it, and is able to do the work (he may, or may not, have offsite backups).

As with Air-Boot, QSINIT could go on for years, as it is, but there is currently no guarantee that it won't disappear tomorrow. Mensys is the "go to" organization for future OS/2 development, in the form of eCS, so it only makes sense that they should be the ones who walking_x makes a deal with, for a way to keep his work alive, even if he is unable to continue, for any number of reasons.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Boris on January 15, 2014, 11:22:25 pm
As with Air-Boot, QSINIT could go on for years, as it is, but there is currently no guarantee that it won't disappear tomorrow. Mensys is the "go to" organization for future OS/2 development, in the form of eCS, so it only makes sense that they should be the ones who walking_x makes a deal with, for a way to keep his work alive, even if he is unable to continue, for any number of reasons.

Don't worry, the project won't disappear. The developer is easily available on the IRC channel, I think, for about ten years, if not more.
You'd better talk to him directly, but please, don't make it worse.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Doug Bissett on January 16, 2014, 05:45:42 am
Quote
Don't worry, the project won't disappear. The developer is easily available on the IRC channel, I think, for about ten years, if not more.
You'd better talk to him directly, but please, don't make it worse.

I don't want it to be worse, but (to be blunt) what happens if he is run over by a bus? Your 10 years suddenly becomes no more years, and if somebody doesn't know about the project, it could easily be wiped from his computer, and we are left with nothing.

Sorry, but I must insist that he should take steps to protect the project from such an unfortunate incident. Somebody needs to have a current copy of his work, and know what to do with it, if something bad happens.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on January 16, 2014, 11:08:05 am
Mensys is the "go to" organization for future OS/2 development

As far as I understand it should go to XEU.COM - but who knows. Having NO information about what's going on at Mensys/xeu.com does not make this look like a very reliable "Organization for Future OS/2 devlopement"; doesn't it?

It seems to me that - wish I would be joking - there are more informations posted by the author of QSINIT than the whole Mensys/Xeu.com organization during the last one or two years. But giving more information than NO information isn't that hard, isn't it?  :-X
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: walking_x on January 16, 2014, 11:09:49 am
I don't want it to be worse, but (to be blunt) what happens if he is run over by a bus?
Anything can be lost.
Even OS/2 source code (on rumors) ;)

If to be serious, not only I have access to my svn - therefore the source code won`t be gone.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on January 16, 2014, 07:52:58 pm
Please try to keep the conversation calm and do not get upset by the conversation. Avoid personal attacks and avoid labeling the other party. 

If the conversation get too bad I will start to moderate it. Remember our friend Wil Wheaton (http://dontbeadickday.com/) and hear his recommendations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJTZsnuzuQ).


I try hard to follow Wil Wheaton's process (which is not BPMn complaint), but I'm working hard to follow it. I feel more gratification on being "awesome" than when I act like a dick.
(http://dontbeadickday.com/howtonotbeadick.jpg)
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: ff4 on January 08, 2015, 06:29:32 pm
Back to the topic: the documentation among other things need to be improved and hopefully they will at least in 2015 with some time left.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 11, 2015, 05:09:23 pm
Hi David.

I don't want to recall all the issues that we had, if you have doubts of what happened on the past, please contact people individually and ask, in case they want to answer you.

I just want to say that there is no problem on being "Pro commercial software" or "Selling software". I'm not Anti-Capitalist like others that freak out when some developers wants to make money to maintain their software. The only problem is the attitude that people adopts from time to time.

My point of view is that this are not the late 80's or early 90's when you can make money by selling OS/2 software, time has changed and this is why we don't see a lot of people rushing to create and sell software on this platform, like we are seeing on iOS or Android today.
I think that the platform is at a point when we need to collaborate and share and built an open source on OS/2 so we can grow, so on the long-term future it became a market again.

Today, creating an OS/2 software, putting it on the web and selling license a $20 license to each user will not make your rich, will not pay your bills and will not make your company prosperous.  I think we need to put the shoulder together to built an open source (or as close as it can get) OS/2 clone to became an "accessible OS Alternative" for everyone and possible from a community to grow (eventually and after a lot of years and efforts) into a market like Linux did.

Regards

Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Leonardo on November 13, 2015, 01:35:14 am
Amen
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: David Kiley on November 13, 2015, 07:23:23 am
Hi Martin,
Got it - seems like whatever happened was more then just about software philosophy.

My point of view is that this are not the late 80's or early 90's when you can make money by selling OS/2 software, time has changed and this is why we don't see a lot of people rushing to create and sell software on this platform, like we are seeing on iOS or Android today.
I think that the platform is at a point when we need to collaborate and share and built an open source on OS/2 so we can grow, so on the long-term future it became a market again.

True probably the best time to try to sell os/2 commercial software was when IBM was selling retail packages in stores i'm guessing. Now it's on a slow adoption decline curve.

I'm pretty pro open source generally myself although I like supporting commercial software as well. I do see that Eugene had a point that many of the open source projects that have been successful have had major corporate backers with big money behind them, but I think there are some that made it without it and just the community behind them which is probably the only way it would happen with os/2.

Commercial developers also have a legit fear of their sales and effort being cannibalized by free open source offerings - hence if the community is moving towards free and open source they might not wan to develop in it any-more at least in the immediate timeframe because future "sales" are threatened.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: David Kiley on November 13, 2015, 07:25:02 am
Hi Martin,
Got it - seems like whatever happened was more then just about software philosophy.

My point of view is that this are not the late 80's or early 90's when you can make money by selling OS/2 software, time has changed and this is why we don't see a lot of people rushing to create and sell software on this platform, like we are seeing on iOS or Android today.
I think that the platform is at a point when we need to collaborate and share and built an open source on OS/2 so we can grow, so on the long-term future it became a market again.

True probably the best time to try to sell os/2 commercial software was when IBM was selling retail packages in stores i'm guessing. Now it's on a slow adoption decline curve.

I'm pretty pro open source generally myself although I like supporting commercial software as well. I do see that Eugene had a point that many of the open source projects that have been successful have had major corporate backers with big money behind them, but I think there are some that made it without it and just the community behind them which is probably the only way it would happen with os/2.
Title: Re: OS/4 ? QSINIT ?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 13, 2015, 03:08:18 pm
Hi.

Quote
...seems like whatever happened was more then just about software philosophy.
Even that I think different from other people on the community does not gives me the right to filter commercial news, announcements or to boycott a commercial company.

But I like public discussion of things that "itches" the public (in a good matter), while other prefers to shut up. I remember that on the past someone told me that I should never-ever-never make a negative comment about Mensys, because the community owns them a lot because they were the only ones that still developed on OS/2. I told him that was not what a community was about, but he was also free to create a "sheep" community without freedom of speech.

Commercial developers also have a legit fear of their sales and effort being cannibalized by free open source offerings - hence if the community is moving towards free and open source they might not wan to develop in it any-more at least in the immediate timeframe because future "sales" are threatened.

Commercial developers are not being cannibalized by open source offerings. It depends to much on what you are developing. If you are going to develop and sell a file compression utility (Winzip, WinRar, etc), you have to know that you are not offering a lot of value. If you want to develop software to sell license you need to create a lot of value for it. It is not like the 80's when they used to set a high prize for a tool that took the developer 3 hours to develop and nobody else had the skill to do it. Today the market (not the OS/2 community) have a lot of customers and developers connected on the Internet, a lot of reference and knowledge it is not available only for an small group of individuals that bought the right book. So maybe the right way to say it is that developers are being cannibalized by globalization, like it happened on every industry.

Software market has turn into a service market. Redhat sells licenses, they share all the source code but the trick is to have a support service to have someone that will answer you if bugs shows up. Sometimes people do not buy a software, they want a service support when things goes wrong. Other people organize raise funds to create/port OSS. Developers also access Crowdfunding services to try to create new products . Microsoft on a strange maneuver did not charged their Win7/8 customer to migrate to version 10 (That was something MS never did on the past). The truth is that software market has changed and transformed and it is never coming back. Today if you want to develop software, you have to think it harder, it is not "money for a license to use" anymore, you need to add value.

If we consider the OS/2 platform my main concern is that people does not have "Free Access" (as freedom and as beer) to get, experiment, use and transform OS/2. If we compare the platform with the alternative OS it is expensive. Also there is always the doubt about the future of the platform, since IBM controls the source code and it is not sharing it and IBM is not developing it. On my way of thinking the only thing that reduce the risk of having a single company to define the future of the software is making it or cloning it as open source.

Regards