yes, custom version of os2ldr is coming. we may expect it within a couple of weeks.
the only info that i have is that a group coordinated by pasha is doing it.
os2krnl may also come (of course not in two weeks :) ).
What are these files for?
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.03, 00:06:51
What are these files for?
They do OS/2 things... hence their names... ;)
More specifically, and if memory serves (yeah, I know what they do, but I'm just getting over the flu and had a long day - my mind still isnt here)
OS2LDR Loads things. Basically it starts the OS (and IIRC, sets up/connects to some of the initial hardware required to do so such as memory and disk - which it then passes off to the OS - specifically OS2KRNL). It also does more than that, and apparently is still used by the OS to talk to certain hardware, making it also a sort of abstraction layer between the OS and the hardware (like a true microkernel OS), thus is tied to many functions used/needed by OS2KRNL.
OS2KRNL is OS/2's kernel, which handles much of the "behind the scenes" work OS/2 does (such as thread and process scheduling, etc) and more...
-Rob
Hi,
I did a Google search and turned up these links (each are related to the other):
http://www.edm2.com/0703/hshk.html
http://www.edm2.com/0607/kernel.html
They'll tell you far more than you ever wanted to know about both...
-Rob
Well, I figured they functioned like the NTLDR and NTOSKRNL files :P, but I was asking more like, who are these from, and what updates do they contain? ???
I was thinking maybe it was someone from OSFREE talking about how they had made progress and now had a working os2ldr and os2krnl for OSFREE or something, but I take it these are for us eCS users?
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.03, 06:06:55
Well, I figured they functioned like the NTLDR and NTOSKRNL files :P, but I was asking more like, who are these from, and what updates do they contain? ???
I was thinking maybe it was someone from OSFREE talking about how they had made progress and now had a working os2ldr and os2krnl for OSFREE or something, but I take it these are for us eCS users?
That is a good question, and I am baffled as to who AAA is. They joined yesterday, and have been on the forum a total of 1 minute and 18 seconds - in which time they made that post. Nor do I know which Pasha they are referring to...
-Robert
Pasha seems to be connected with the development of ACPI, or atleast is handling support tickets on the netlabs ACPI SVN thinger.
http://svn.netlabs.org/acpi/report/1
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 05:38:13
Pasha seems to be connected with the development of ACPI, or atleast is handling support tickets on the netlabs ACPI SVN thinger.
http://svn.netlabs.org/acpi/report/1
*a* Pasha seems to be connected...
That someone with the username "AAA" made a post, didnt provide who they are, and there's no reference of such a project existing (yet it's just about done according to him/her) doesnt make me necessarily connect the Pasha s/he is referencing to the one involved in the ACPI project... if the post is real, then perhaps... otherwise... ????
I'm hoping it's real... but nothing out there backs it yet. :(
-Rob
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.02.04, 05:51:21
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 05:38:13
Pasha seems to be connected with the development of ACPI, or atleast is handling support tickets on the netlabs ACPI SVN thinger.
http://svn.netlabs.org/acpi/report/1
*a* Pasha seems to be connected...
That someone with the username "AAA" made a post, didnt provide who they are, and there's no reference of such a project existing (yet it's just about done according to him/her) doesnt make me necessarily connect the Pasha s/he is referencing to the one involved in the ACPI project... if the post is real, then perhaps... otherwise... ????
I'm hoping it's real... but nothing out there backs it yet. :(
Pavel (the ACPI Pasha) posted on #netlabs on IRC about the upcoming os2ldr replacement over the weekend. I have no clue who AAA is though.....
So... Does Pasha=Pavel Shtemenko? The NTFS and ACPI dude? Nice... This seems to be more legit now if so. Also, do you know what its going to do thats different?
Yes, Pasha=Pavel Shtemenko. I saw his conversation initially on #netlabs but I too am not sure who AAA is as there were several people on #netlabs at the time.
There is a new forum at http://forum.ecomstation.ru : 'Kernel - Development of New Kernel' (scroll all the way to the bottom). Pasha is asking for ideas about what to add to an os2ldr.ini file he is developing. This kind of stuff is way over my head, but if some here have an opinion worth airing... head on over.
Quote from: abwillis on 2008.02.04, 17:28:10
Yes, Pasha=Pavel Shtemenko. I saw his conversation initially on #netlabs but I too am not sure who AAA is as there were several people on #netlabs at the time.
Unfortunally ;-) This project do group programmers from exUSSR, I am coordinator of this project. Netlabs don't help and don't participation in this project. They have own voyager. Our group rewrite all as is. Mean, rewrite os2ldr - it must be compatible with IBM kernels. Rewrite doscall1.dll - it must be compatible with IBM os2ldr and os2krnl, rewrite os2krnl - it must be compatible with os2ldr and doscall1.dll (Note: It is in theory) . Now ending 1st part - os2ldr. Now it is full compatible, except - absent MCA support, absent EISA support, absent support for i4004, i8080, i8085, i8086, i8088, i80186, i80286, i80386, i80486. As you understand - need test. We writes according to docs from EDM/2, DebugHandbook, ifs.inf,omf.inf, DDK header, lxlite source and of course os2 debuger.
For common info. now writes readme - next upload to hobbes.nmsu.edu output packet.
Status of loader:
Binary loader - free
Source loader - close (it used DDK and can't be under GPL)
Pasha,
I think you need to know that there are many people out there who appreciate and value the hard work you and your team are putting into these projects.
I'm sure that over the long term, we will all benefit from the work you are doing, and I'm sure I speak for many on this board when I say that we will do whatever we can to help.
Regards,
Moby.
I agree on the need to support this kind of OS/2 native development.
I just hope that the support becomes something concrete that will help the financial situation of those Eastern developers. As oppossed to Odinized hacks which only make the OS/2 environment unstable, core components like that of OS2LDR have the potential of actually increasing the stability and modern hardware availability for OS/2...
Pasha,
I really appreciate the work being done on os2ldr and the kernel, but please don't discard Netlabs just because of Voyager. The Voyager project is NOT about kernel replacement, so I think there is really no conflict between the two projects. Instead, I think that both are needed (and can cooperate) for a better OS/2 future.
What about the osFree project? Are you collaborating with them? I think we need to join forces as much as possible to succeed.
One last thing: I am concerned about the availability of sources. I understand that you need to keep the sources close at this time, but will they become opensource at some future point in time? Will you remove DDK dependencies? Otherwise, I fear we may fall into another cage (not IBM's, but just another cage nonetheless).
I am willing to betatest the loader and/or the kernel, if you need testers.
Thank you for your work!!
Bye
Cris
What kind of improvements will bring the new os2ldr?
The new os2ldr has been uploaded to Hobbes Incoming for those that want to test it.
David
Quote from: Carlo_Warp on 2008.02.25, 19:41:06
What kind of improvements will bring the new os2ldr?
The first improvement seems to be a human readable INI file to configure
the loading process, like selecting which kernel to boot without the need to
replace kernel files at all. Very interesting.
Since it says it should not be used on production environments, I had not
installed in my machines yet (I will wait for some comments about it before
trying) but I'm thinking about install an OS/2 version on an emulator and try
it.
BTW, I believe this is great news. I really hope the source code to be
released whenever the author get bored of updating it (or, at least, sell
its source to serenity systems). But it was really nice to see the readme
signature: " 2008, Team OS/4." he he. :)
Anyway, I would like to congratulate our russian friends for their superb
work. :)
I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.
Well, I just tried it on my eCS 2 RC4 and the boot process never got past loading the normal OS2krnl. This system had ACPI 3.07 installed as it mentioned this as one of the requirements..
Now to boot to my other eCS partition and switch the os2ldr back.
David
It boots in actual hardware, no ACPI, WSEB Internal Revision 14.105_smp :)
Pavel,
please do not jail the binaries/code by selling it (or exclusively licensing) to a proprietary entity. Having made these first steps, you and your team are (will be) in the best position to replace the proprietary source with open source equivalent. Once the proprietary intellectual property (IP) hurdles are behind, you and your team might become the de facto maintainers of these OS/2-defining crucial core components (since you guys are also working in the kernel replacement).
If, as suggested by Iturbide (whose change of position surprised me, nonetheless) you select one of several open source licenses available for your OS/2 collective work, you may find that selecting a business model relevant of the collaborative modern Internet computing landscape that most suits your peculiar needs, interests, conditions, etc., will provide an adequate source of income.
As Chris suggested above, Voyager is (just one of) the wrappers (around your work) that might provide the user interface and application support; but if your work is licensed under the GPLv3, there will be other possible ones that we could not even anticipate at the moment --the (F)OSS communities are quite creative but they snub suffocating clauses designed to place their work exclusively into a proprietary entity's interests, leaving the community(ies) out.
Wonderful work and best of luck in your Team OS/4 efforts.
Quote from: David Graser on 2008.02.27, 23:30:22
Well, I just tried it on my eCS 2 RC4 and the boot process never got past loading the normal OS2krnl. This system had ACPI 3.07 installed as it mentioned this as one of the requirements..
Now to boot to my other eCS partition and switch the os2ldr back.
David
After, I find one bad things in acpi. Open ticket in acpi and I send new version of test acpi to betazone. Or wait acpi 3.8.
wish somebody explained me what are the benefits of opening the source of loader for Pasha.
As far as I know the current owner of ACPI is not in a hurry to do that, so are many other owners of the code.
Best regards,
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.02.27, 22:17:04
I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.
I like the "opensource" solution better, also... but this decision is up to the authors.
I think we should support the effort one way or another. And Sasha should keep in
mind that a new closed-source loader and kernel should lead us to another dead end
in the future.
Anyway, I believe it is a great achievement, and probably the guys behind the effort
are trying to make it work fully and properly before spending time and work preparing
the source to be released.
I know many will argue that an open source project would evolve faster, but the authors
have the right to decide their way to go. That's all.
Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: AAA on 2008.02.28, 09:45:29
wish somebody explained me what are the benefits of opening the source of loader for Pasha.
I believe that I already hinted on the benefits to Pavel and Team OS/4 if they succeeded in replacing the proprietary IP in OS2LDR and, subsequently OS2KRNL, effectively becoming themselves what Linus Torvalds and other maintainers are for the Linux kernel.
On the other hand, I can tell you also that if the subsequently cleaned and reengineered OS2LDR/OS2KRNL are released, say under the GPLv2, or best, GPLv3, the ACPI crowd relevant to these discussion --who still live in an proprietary cave watching shadows of proprietary virtual reality-- will not be able to touch Pavel and Team OS/4 source.
Pavel and Team OS/4, upon their successful independent recreation of the OS2KRNL, would have achieved something far more important than ACPI. And if those owners/implementators of the latter want to survive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving-- they would be forced to disclose the code (either within a mutual licensing agreeement or by following the F-OSS path) to Pavel and Team OS/4 if their ACPI is to survive.
I would venture to speculate, in a responsible manner, that if the OSS path is followed for the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL, possibly another organization far more creative and knowledgeable than that which currently puts together the OS/2 truck might even jump into the scene. And I would simple say: Welcome back StarDock! The Beast is free at last!*
Quote from: AAA on 2008.02.28, 09:45:29
As far as I know the current owner of ACPI is not in a hurry to do that, so are many other owners of the code.
...hummm, and who is the owner of ACPI ??? (now all in unison sing its name!)
Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.02.28, 15:42:26
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.02.27, 22:17:04
I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.
[...]
Sasha should keep in
[...]
I know many will argue that an open source project would evolve faster, but the authors
have the right to decide their way to go. That's all.
It also means the difference between adoption and oblivion. Linux was adopted faster because it had less restrictions than FreeBSD, although --arguably-- the latter was more secure.
* Note: For those whose psyche has been conditioned by one of the Judeo-Christian strands of influence, please do not associate my choice of words with your nemesis. There is always an attempt to reduce ones meaning of words to a level not anticipated or meant by the writer.
do I understand this right: these guys are reverse engineering the OS/2 kernel (btw which one)?
hats off!
would be great if this will be a part of eComStation someday
This does look like very good news folks. So, just what is "Unfortunate" about "This project do group programmers from exUSSR, I am coordinator of this project. Netlabs don't help and don't participation in this project. They have own voyager. Our group rewrite all as is. Mean, rewrite os2ldr - it must be compatible with IBM kernels. Rewrite doscall1.dll - it must be compatible with IBM os2ldr and os2krnl, rewrite os2krnl - it must be compatible with os2ldr and doscall1.dll (Note: It is in theory) . Now ending 1st part - os2ldr. Now it is full compatible, except - absent MCA support, absent EISA support, absent support for i4004, i8080, i8085, i8086, i8088, i80186, i80286, i80386, i80486. As you understand - need test. We writes according to docs from EDM/2, DebugHandbook, ifs.inf,omf.inf, DDK header, lxlite source and of course os2 debuger.." inter alia when we have:-
the Russian company "RUSAL mulling the establishment of an hydropower facility in Guyana, South America; with - refinery, smelter studies also on the cards".
"By Nicosia Smith
Thursday, February 8th 2007"
Please see the attached links:
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56513627
Here is the deal as was observed by your truly:
"A feasibility study for hydropower should not take so long, can't previous ones be re-evaluated?
Saturday, February 10th 2007"
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56513805
From the above therefore, it will appear that the OS/2 Community is very, very fortunate to have this project group comprise programmers from ex-USSR who it is quite certain will bring a wealth of expertise to such projects bordering on the enhancement of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, Application & Distribution Layers....
It is a pity that these initiatives were not undertaken 5 - 10 years ago.
Lets think in terms of all the synergies et cetera et cetera...
The way to go TEAM OS/4 (assuming this to be Warp 4); or, should it be TEAM OS/5 (Warp 5. ;) ;) ;) ??? !
Version 0.2 on Hobbes
Well, I got further this time. Last time I could not get past the eCS logo. I am booting further, however, I am now Exception in module: JFS which is a trap D.
Unfortunately I am going out of town for a week and won't have the time to take a picture and upload it here right now.
David
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 16:45:54
Version 0.2 on Hobbes
Well, well, well! I had just boot my eCS 2.0 RC4 system on SMP mode, on a Core2 Quad computer and the new OS2LDR 0.2...
And everything went fine!
Keep up the good work and I am eager to test OS2KRNL and DOSCALL1.DLL replacements (I hope the new version of DOSCALL1.DLL to be SMP-ready... :). Yeah, I noticed the option to boot daily build of OS2KRNL on OS2LDR.INI provided as an example... :D
Quote from: David Graser on 2008.06.26, 17:46:34
Well, I got further this time. Last time I could not get past the eCS logo. I am booting further, however, I am now Exception in module: JFS which is a trap D.
Unfortunately I am going out of town for a week and won't have the time to take a picture and upload it here right now.
David
While waiting on my wife, here it is.
eCS 2 RC4
This is with ACPI 3.09 installed. ACPI 3.08 did not work either.
David
Exception in module: JFS
TRAP 000D ERRCD=0059 ERACC=d0df ERLIM=5fffffff
EAX=00000000 EBX=f9e90024 ECS=00004000 edx=00000000
ESI=fd472114 EDI=00000000 EBP=f9e9fd70 FLG=00213246
CS:EIP=2a68:f8eab6f6 CSACC=d09f CSLIM=ffffffff
SS:ESP=1550:f9e9fd1c SSACC=c093 SSLIM=ffffffff
DS=0160 DSACC=c0f3 DSLIM=ffffffff CR0-8001001d
ES=0160 ESACC=c0f3 ESLIM=ffffffff CR@=001c0ffe
FS=0000 FSACC=**** FSLIM=********
GS=0000 GSACC=**** GSLIM=********
The system detected an internal processing error at
location ##0168:fff1da1f.
60000, 9084
078606d8
Internal revision 14.104a_W4
Please try 104a UNI instead of W4
http://www.ecomstation.org/sidebars/cmd/kernel/files/uni20050811.zip
Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.06.26, 18:09:43
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 16:45:54
Version 0.2 on Hobbes
Well, well, well! I had just boot my eCS 2.0 RC4 system on SMP mode, on a Core2 Quad computer and the new OS2LDR 0.2...
And everything went fine!
Keep up the good work and I am eager to test OS2KRNL and DOSCALL1.DLL replacements (I hope the new version of DOSCALL1.DLL to be SMP-ready... :). Yeah, I noticed the option to boot daily build of OS2KRNL on OS2LDR.INI provided as an example... :D
Hi "djcaetano",
This sounds great... How about posting some "snapshots" for us to take a look for ourselves! ;)
Thanks (a million times) in anticipation.
Kindest regards,
SAB
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 16:45:54
Version 0.2 on Hobbes
Trying to boot a VPC (v7 for Windows) image of a eCS RC4 I got the following error when loading OS2LVM.DMD
The system detected an internal processing error at
location ##0168:fffb59dd - 000e:000a49dd
0f8606fd
Internal revision 14.104a_W4
Hi All,
Re:
Quote
Hi "djcaetano",
This sounds great... How about posting some "snapshots" for us to take a look for ourselves! Wink
Thanks (a million times) in anticipation.
Kindest regards,
SAB
This particular post is intended to serve as a "stimulant" to what appeared to have been at one time "spirited" debate among the membership about existing and emerging OS/2 technologies; and, for instance the informed comments and suggestions (although none of late ;D )by Kim Haverblad among others. So, the question is - Is the "cat" (efforts to bring OS/2 technologies on par with modern Windows, Linux, OSX....) still going to be "belled" (the anticipation of "new" technology developments (such as the ACPI, OS2LDR upgrades.... ;) ) in Windows, Linux, OSX...) which will/should also be incorporated into OS/2 from the get go (and, OS/2 developers and users not having having to play catch up).
Kindest regards.
SAB
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.27, 08:35:00
Please try 104a UNI instead of W4
http://www.ecomstation.org/sidebars/cmd/kernel/files/uni20050811.zip
OK, I finally got back in town and had a chance to test this. My system does boot up with this kernel and the new OS/2 loader. However, My network card no longer works and as a result, I cannot access the internet from this partition.
Please advice what networkcard/driver do you use.
OK, I found what the problem is. I tested to see if this is the same problem I have had before and it is. It must have been related to the unikrnl when I tested it before. However, at the time, I did not put 2 + 2=4 together.
I have a WIFI and a network card.
The WIFI is a GenMac Wrapper Intel 2200 Wlan.
The network card is an Realtek 8139/8130/810x.
Although the WIFI driver is supposedly supported, installs, and loads with eCS 2 rc4, I have never been able to access the internet wirelessly.
The Realtek card driver has always worked.
With the old os2krnl, it did not matter that both drivers are installed. With the unikrnl, it does matter. By removing the GenMac driver, I now can access the internet with the Realtek ethernet card driver.
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 19:27:14
Please try 104a UNI instead of W4
http://www.ecomstation.org/sidebars/cmd/kernel/files/uni20050811.zip
Whereas this latest (06-26-2008) OS2LDR is able to boot older Intel CPU Systems --and even this image in WSEB's VPC/2 (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg4cj3td_9psvhrfpr), it can not boot an Sun MicroSystems Ultra 20 M2 AMD64 dual-core Opteron with 1GB of RAM (http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra20/).
Note in the illustration of VPC/2 above that I clicked the file that you referenced and I got:
Hotlinking of files
from ecomstation.org
is not allowed. :D
Hence, I proceeded to access the resource directly. Besides the OS2KRNL, I installed in the root drive OS2DUMP from the compressed file.
On the other hand, the older IBM OS2LDR actually did boot in the Sun Ultra workstation --similar to the illustration of WSEB's VPC/2 above.
Hope the info is useful for your further development of OS2LDR.
Regards.
Hi El Vato,
This is indeed a nice post;
Re:
QuoteWhereas this latest (06-26-2008) OS2LDR is able to boot older Intel CPU Systems --and even this image in WSEB's VPC/2, it can not boot an Sun MicroSystems Ultra 20 M2 AMD64 dual-core Opteron with 1GB of RAM.
Note in the illustration of VPC/2 above that I clicked the file that you referenced and I got........
At lease we know for sure that the
Quotelatest (06-26-2008) OS2LDR is able to boot older Intel CPU Systems
; the good thing about this is that there is something for OS/2 Developers to work with rather than nothing at all ;) ; and, it is quite certain that "things" will definitely continue to improve from this point onwards.
BTW, are you Brazilian; and, also operating out of Brazil?
Best regards.
SAB
Quote from: David Graser on 2008.07.03, 09:04:34
OK, I found what the problem is. I tested to see if this is the same problem I have had before and it is. It must have been related to the unikrnl when I tested it before. However, at the time, I did not put 2 + 2=4 together.
I have a WIFI and a network card.
The WIFI is a GenMac Wrapper Intel 2200 Wlan.
The network card is an Realtek 8139/8130/810x.
Although the WIFI driver is supposedly supported, installs, and loads with eCS 2 rc4, I have never been able to access the internet wirelessly.
The Realtek card driver has always worked.
With the old os2krnl, it did not matter that both drivers are installed. With the unikrnl, it does matter. By removing the GenMac driver, I now can access the internet with the Realtek ethernet card driver.
If I remember correctly, the SMP kernel on a singel CPU system did not have this problem. In fact, I was tempted to just leave the SMP kernel on my single CPU notebook.
Hi, El Vato!
Try downloading that file from this location:
http://ecomstation.ru/download/smp20050811.zip
Regards
I have delved into the history of this thread after some after-thought and came across this interesting post by "El Vato":
Re:
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.02.28, 18:56:41
Quote from: AAA on 2008.02.28, 09:45:29
wish somebody explained me what are the benefits of opening the source of loader for Pasha.
I believe that I already hinted on the benefits to Pavel and Team OS/4 if they succeeded in replacing the proprietary IP in OS2LDR and, subsequently OS2KRNL, effectively becoming themselves what Linus Torvalds and other maintainers are for the Linux kernel.
On the other hand, I can tell you also that if the subsequently cleaned and reengineered OS2LDR/OS2KRNL are released, say under the GPLv2, or best, GPLv3, the ACPI crowd relevant to these discussion --who still live in an proprietary cave watching shadows of proprietary virtual reality-- will not be able to touch Pavel and Team OS/4 source.
Pavel and Team OS/4, upon their successful independent recreation of the OS2KRNL, would have achieved something far more important than ACPI. And if those owners/implementators of the latter want to survive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving-- they would be forced to disclose the code (either within a mutual licensing agreeement or by following the F-OSS path) to Pavel and Team OS/4 if their ACPI is to survive.
I would venture to speculate, in a responsible manner, that if the OSS path is followed for the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL, possibly another organization far more creative and knowledgeable than that which currently puts together the OS/2 truck might even jump into the scene. And I would simple say: Welcome back StarDock! The Beast is free at last!*........
Therefore I now ask this pertinent question - Will there be any "specific" focus on an "64-Bit OS2KRNL" in order to enable OS/2 users
Quoteto survive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving
And, here are two reasons as to why this question from an historical perspective:
Quote
The Explosion of the Ariane 5
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html
The Patriot Missile Failure
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html
I sincerely hope that the point that I am making with regards to the "specific" focus on an "64-Bit OS2KRNL" is clearly understood....
Best regards.
SAB
Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization that open source only means license GNU GPL V2 or V3. That's not correct, there are several open source approved license. (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
If the os2ldr dev team is interested on open source, possible they can think on other license like BSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses) (" The BSD license, for example, allows anyone to redistribute the work or any derivative without any source, if such is the desired path.")
Or the Commun Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License) "The CPL's stated aims are to support and encourage collaborative open source development, while still retaining the ability to use the CPL'd content with software licensed under other licenses, including many proprietary licenses. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is a slightly modified version of the CPL."
Possible GNU GPL it is a to liberal license, but there are other alternatives.
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56
Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]
It is more like
contextualization --I do not provide suggestions in a vacuum. One analyses the current status of the target entity, in this case OS/2, and consider the variables that affect its evolution --if we accept the notion of Darwin-- in the current technological environment in which it finds itself.
For instance, Sun could have released the Java code under BSD, or even the Apache Foundation, licenses. But then the Java code and/or components would have been taken by any commercial entity with an affinity to appropriate software resources without contributing anything back to the core of what was taken.
Evidently, in an resource starved entity like the OS/2, maintaining the old business model advocated by the high priests of yesteryear who defend sacred cow X, or sacred cow Y, simply extends the proprietary chains to which OS/2 is being held captive. Hence, taking as precedent the loop that Novell exploited to the detriment of the open source (specifically GPLv2 Linux and GNU complement) in which MS was not forced to contribute back code to OSS but was being benefited by Novell's commercial Linux business nonetheless, you can apprehend the reason for my
contextualization –as opposed to an simple generalization.
If the developers of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, etc., do not want their work to be simply taken by others –possibly without even a courteous "thank you"-- releasing their work under GPLv2 or GPLv3 will
force those of the old school to play nicely and contribute back to the source or components upstream from which they might simply not feel obliged due to their current narrow indoctrination. The ultimate beneficiary will be, of course, the
healthy digital development of the OS/2.
It is cool to know about different F-OSS licenses, but it is cooler to know in what context those should be applied. When was the last time that Apple contributed back to the BSD derived operating system that it took as the foundation for its proprietary X window implementation --in any significant way that might represent a threat to its share of predictable lunch of geek serving$ ??? Does the BSD community get an iPod as a thank you for their quality work in making possible the propaganda blasted X product ???
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.07.06, 22:05:28
Hi El Vato,
This is indeed a nice post;
[...]
I am glad you found it interesting, SAB
Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.07, 00:30:12
Hi, El Vato!
Try downloading that file from this location:
[...]
I appreciate the link, TBW, thank you. On the other hand, the test that I did was possibly the simplest one and did not require the SMP kernel. I modified the first two diskettes for an installation and the OS2LDR dated 06-26-2008 did not even make it to the white OS/2 in the upper left side of the screen: there was only a blinking uderscore/dash.
Reiterating, after replacing the OS2LDR of reference with an older IBM version, the routine actually proceeded in the Sun Ultra AMD64 unit.
Regards.
First of all, IBM had reasons to provide a separate loader with each kernel.
Secondly, let me guess, on your installation diskette there is a kernel W4, which is not supported by CB loader (even in Read Me it says so)
it is known that W4 does not work with CB loaders.
That is why UNI/SMP 104a should be used with CB loader.
Dоn't forget to change DOSCALL1.DLL while going from UNI to SMP and the other way around.
Hi All,
Re:
Quote
I appreciate the link, BTW, thank you. On the other hand, the test that I did was possibly the simplest one and did not require the SMP kernel. I modified the first two diskettes for an installation and the OS2LDR dated 06-26-2008 did not even make it to the white OS/2 in the upper left side of the screen: there was only a blinking uderscore/dash.
Reiterating, after replacing the OS2LDR of reference with an older IBM version, the routine actually proceeded in the Sun Ultra AMD64 unit.
What are your opinions in terms of "critical mass" being reached/achieved as far as installations of the OS2LDR is concerned.... all in all, making this effort a very "viable" one.
Best regards,
SAB
Quote from: AAA on 2008.07.07, 12:19:32
First of all, IBM had reasons to provide a separate loader with each kernel.
Secondly, let me guess, on your installation diskette there is a kernel W4, which is not supported by CB loader (even in Read Me it says so)
it is known that W4 does not work with CB loaders. [...]
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.06, 20:32:54
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 19:27:14
Please try 104a UNI instead of W4
http://www.ecomstation.org/sidebars/cmd/kernel/files/uni20050811.zip
Whereas this latest (06-26-2008) OS2LDR is able to boot older Intel CPU Systems --and even this image in WSEB's VPC/2 (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg4cj3td_9psvhrfpr),
I assume that you refer to my input, AAA ???
Bottom of the picture:
"Revision level 14.104a_UNI"
That is, the second diskette simply reflects the version of my replacement of the OS2KRNLI / OS2DUMP in the first installation or bootstrap diskette. In other words, WSEB modified/updated boot floppies --that I have among several options for emergencies-- were used in the test.
First I began by simply replacing the existing OS2LDR in the installation or bootstrap diskette --leaving existing OS2KRNLI and OS2DUMP intact. It did not work.
From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.
Evidently, since I was using boot diskettes
from WSEB, it simply implies that I never used a W4 kernel; do not be deceived by the picture logo --under the covers WSEB grade stuff is executing :)
Should you be interested in the diskette images, let me know --but this time, please be direct as to whom you are referring to, AAA...
From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.
here could be a problem, please, try one more time without renaming OS2KRNL. Of course, there may be some other bugs, but there is only one way to find them.
I didn't have any intention to offend you but I am not very familiar with engine of the local forum.
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56
Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization that open source only means license GNU GPL V2 or V3. That's not correct, there are several open source approved license. (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
If the os2ldr dev team is interested on open source, possible they can think on other license like BSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses) (" The BSD license, for example, allows anyone to redistribute the work or any derivative without any source, if such is the desired path.")
Or the Commun Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License) "The CPL's stated aims are to support and encourage collaborative open source development, while still retaining the ability to use the CPL'd content with software licensed under other licenses, including many proprietary licenses. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is a slightly modified version of the CPL."
Possible GNU GPL it is a to liberal license, but there are other alternatives.
As you understand, os2ldr use IBM DDK. May be need read IBM DDK license fisrt?
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.07, 08:50:21
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56
Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]
If the developers of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, etc., do not want their work to be simply taken by others –possibly without even a courteous "thank you"-- releasing their work under GPLv2 or GPLv3 will force those of the old school to play nicely and contribute back to the source or components upstream from which they might simply not feel obliged due to their current narrow indoctrination. The ultimate beneficiary will be, of course, the healthy digital development of the OS/2.
It is cool to know about different F-OSS licenses, but it is cooler to know in what context those should be applied. When was the last time that Apple contributed back to the BSD derived operating system that it took as the foundation for its proprietary X window implementation --in any significant way that might represent a threat to its share of predictable lunch of geek serving$ ??? Does the BSD community get an iPod as a thank you for their quality work in making possible the propaganda blasted X product ???
1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project
So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help.
Hi "pasha",
A few observations:
Re:
Quote1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project
So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode(y), which want help and know how help.
Since it ought to be well known that IBM has responded some time ago to an
OS/2 World Foundation's Petition Letter that the OS/2 Source-Codes cannot be Open-Sourced due to "legal and other reasons" (then one ought to take this as a given). However, I am curious though as to the present agreement in place with IBM (and, perhaps other companies) that enabled development work to be carried out on the "os2ldr and os2krnl" project.
Additionally, (from an earlier question) is there; or, will there be a focus on the development an 64-bit "os2krnl" in order to; re:
Quotesurvive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving
?
Thank you.
Regards,
SAB
Quote from: AAA on 2008.07.08, 00:22:44
From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.
here could be a problem, please, try one more time without renaming OS2KRNL. Of course, there may be some other bugs, but there is only one way to find them.
I didn't have any intention to offend you but I am not very familiar with engine of the local forum.
No offense taken, AAA, I simply said that you were being ambiguous.
Regarding the renaming of OS2KRNL to OS2KRNLI, when booting from diskettes that renaming is simply what makes the OS/2 installation pause and prompt the user for the next available diskette in the series; we could say that the additiona
i is for
interactive. In other words, it should have no effect on OS2LDR.
Notwithstanding, since I keep an open mind, I followed your advice and
did not rename the OS2KRNL for another test case but with the same result: Pasha's OS2LDR does not boot into an AMD64 system.
Please note that I am only the messenger, but OS/2 Warp 3 client and server OS2LDR even do boot into that AMD64 machine. Accordingly, Pasha's OS2LDR apparently needs further refinement.
Regards.
Quote from: pasha on 2008.07.09, 14:50:10
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.07, 08:50:21
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56
Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]
[...]
Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help.
Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha.
Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so. Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.
That is why...
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:34:11
Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha.
Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so. Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.
That is why...
Hi, El Vato!
While I substantially agree with your point, I think (but it's my personal opinion here) one should read between the lines of Pasha's post:
«Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help»,
where I'd stress the «know how help» part...
Hope this isn't too cryptic a post...
Regards
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:22:01
Regarding the renaming of OS2KRNL to OS2KRNLI, when booting from diskettes that renaming is simply what makes the OS/2 installation pause and prompt the user for the next available diskette in the series; we could say that the additiona i is for interactive. In other words, it should have no effect on OS2LDR.
Notwithstanding, since I keep an open mind, I followed your advice and did not rename the OS2KRNL for another test case but with the same result: Pasha's OS2LDR does not boot into an AMD64 system.
Hi, El Vato,
I used to know that the -I letter in OSKRNLI stood for "Install" (please see Zimmerli's article on EDM/2 "Inside the OS/2 Kernel": http://www.edm2.com/0607/kernel.html [search for "os2krnli" inside]). Notwithstanding, I *think* the new os2ldr replacement is currently meant for an already installed system, so maybe you should try to start from there.
Just my thoughts on the subject, nothing more :-)
Regards
Hi El Vato,
Re:
Quote
Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha.
Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so. Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.
That is why...
Not meaning to throw a damper on this discussion regarding the development of the OSKRNL, OS2LDR... Why do we once and for all (rather than going around and around) try to understand and appreciate the situation with regards to the OS/2 Operating System in that following a
Second Petition Letter to IBM by the OS/2 World Foundation it was stated that for "legal" and other reasons the OS/2 Operating System cannot be Open-Sourced. The whole question is/in other words... Why don't we "Take-The-Bull-By-The-Horns" (approach IBM directly with regards to the development of the
OSKRNL, OS2LDR...)Kindest regards,
SAB
Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.17, 14:24:40
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:34:11
Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha.
[...]
Hi, El Vato!
[...] I think (but it's my personal opinion here) one should read between the lines of Pasha's post:
«Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help»,
where I'd stress the «know how help» part...
Hope this isn't too cryptic a post...
Regards
In any different approach to an old paradigm, it is often difficult to discern the inherent assumptions from one's reasoning. It appears that you, as well as Pasha, have fallen into that trap and have closed your eyes to the proprietary nature of OS2LDR and OS2KRNL and the fact that ignoring that essential point does not translate into advancement of the OS/2.
That crucial fact is what prompted Richard Stallman to advise (prior to Java being open source) to potential developers not to even look at the
open to see for everyone Java source made available by Sun. It is a trap that will come back and bite the developers attempting to disseminate any
contributed work.
Evidently, being able to contribute to some other entity's (ies') work does not translate into having vested rights on that work –that ultimately does not belong to you.
Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.17, 14:44:27
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:22:01
[...]; we could say that the additiona i is for interactive. [...]
Hi, El Vato,
I used to know that the -I letter in OSKRNLI stood for "Install" (please see Zimmerli's article on EDM/2 "Inside the OS/2 Kernel"
Reiterating: In any different approach to an old paradigm, it is often difficult to discern the inherent assumptions from one's reasoning. Apparently those assumptions even translate into replacing words into what I wrote.
we could say that the additiona i is for interactive. is not the same as, the additiona i
is for interactive.
Clearly, I wrote the former –not the latter. And no, I had not read the source that you cite; the word that I used was based in actual experience during my long past initial struggles installing OS/2 from floppies. By the time the first diskette is finished the OS2KRNL is already installed/accepted and the OS/2 installation routine prompts the user to replace the boot diskette for the diskette containing peripheral device drivers, etc. --resembling more an interactive session between user and machine. Hence,
we could say that the additiona i is for interactive.Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.17, 14:44:27
I *think* the new os2ldr replacement is currently meant for an already installed system, so maybe you should try to start from there.[...]
Where is the condition that OS2LDR should be installed into an existing system ???
The beauty of open betas is that the developers will receive feed back that they had not even anticipated due to the sample target not being controlled as in an science experiment and proprietary software products methodologies.
There is a point where pedantic arguments do not correspond to their pragmatic equivalents. Evidently, we are dealing with an instance of such.
As yourself,
Just my thought on the subject, nothing more :-)
Hi El Vato,
You have said et al
Re:
Quote
The beauty of open betas is that the developers will receive feed back that they had not even anticipated due to the sample target not being controlled as in an science experiment and proprietary software products methodologies.
There is a point where pedantic arguments do not correspond to their pragmatic equivalents. Evidently, we are dealing with an instance of such.
As yourself, Just my thought on the subject, nothing more :-)
I have two questions for you here:
1. Should there not be compelling reasons given/stated/outlined (as in the case of
VOYAGER Project; and, as CASSINI will) for the development of the
advanced "OS2KRNL and OS2LDR".
2. Do you care to explain if it is possible to jump straight to
"
beta-codes" without consideration for the "
alpha-code"
development?
I am just being a bit curious.
Have a nice day.
Thanks.
SAB
I thought about sharing the two (highlighted) quoted links below that may shed some light into the licensing issues --as might be relevant to OS/2-- discussed in prior threads. I hope those will further shed some light into the discussion. This is simply information from actual instances of the application of those licenses and the potential repercussions for subsequent development.
"Apple has a very strong following in the open source community, and I can no longer understand it nor justify my own support (I am writing this on a Macbook). They built OS X on FreeBSD (a project I have enthusiastically supported, contributed to and been a user of for 10 years or more), they built Safari on KHTML, and are now using libraries such as SproutCore in MobileMe. They have taken open source and everything it built and leveraged it to get to market faster - yet they have now, with iTunes and the new SDK, built a layer on top of it that excludes others. For Apple, open source is great when it furthers their own goals, but not when using it with Apple software where it may further the goals of others.
[...]
The problem with Apple is that the blind demand is driven by a distorted reality, so those same developers who poured thousands of hours into the BSD kernel now turn around and purchase an iPhone running that code, but it is now tied up in DRM, licenses and restrictions placed there by others." (http://www.techcrunchit.com/2008/07/15/the-new-apple-walled-garden/)
Hence, Apple takes their code, repackages and seals it with DRM and restrictions glue, and subsequently sells the tainted BSD licensed code back to them ??? Yet, the fellow criticizes the GPLv3 which, if their work was covered by such a license instead of BSD, Apple would not be able to touch their work ... ??? :D INSANE :D
That is essentially what this IT business Edge blogger comment:
"Apple can do whatever it wants with the modifications made to BSD for the Mac OS X and the iPhone OS. If the company had opted instead to start with a Linux variant released under the GNU GPL, that would be a different conversation. But it didn't." (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=414&nr=LOS)
Quote from: Criguada on 2008.02.23, 19:07:34
Pasha,
I really appreciate the work being done on os2ldr and the kernel, but please don't discard Netlabs just because of Voyager. The Voyager project is NOT about kernel replacement, so I think there is really no conflict between the two projects. Instead, I think that both are needed (and can cooperate) for a better OS/2 future.
What about the osFree project? Are you collaborating with them? I think we need to join forces as much as possible to succeed.
I am sorry, but netlabs don't want use Voyager under OS/2. For me it is bad. It can be replacement for pmshell..... And improve time for IBM free OS/2.
About osfree, usially, I look comment in this source, but... 104a (Team Os/4 base) has very very very diff.
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.02.22, 23:27:59
I agree on the need to support this kind of OS/2 native development.
I just hope that the support becomes something concrete that will help the financial situation of those Eastern developers. As oppossed to Odinized hacks which only make the OS/2 environment unstable, core components like that of OS2LDR have the potential of actually increasing the stability and modern hardware availability for OS/2...
Financial support can be after result? Right? Now new kernel is absent ;-) os2ldr is only prepare for new kernel. os2ldr is very simple and very buggyway :( Write is short - remove bug is long.
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.02.28, 04:23:40
please do not jail the binaries/code by selling it (or exclusively licensing) to a proprietary entity. Having made these first steps, you and your team are (will be) in the best position to replace the proprietary source with open source equivalent. Once the proprietary intellectual property (IP) hurdles are behind, you and your team might become the de facto maintainers of these OS/2-defining crucial core components (since you guys are also working in the kernel replacement).
Source can't be open under GPL, we use DDK. Look to DDK license. About sale source - we can't sale it, because we hav't legally 'face' for legally saling. Now it is group, only group w/o legally in law means. When be result - be think ;-) When be first public release kernel - welcome all who want and know. Mean know and want change kernel - for this man source be open.
Quote from: Shai on 2008.02.28, 19:24:07
do I understand this right: these guys are reverse engineering the OS/2 kernel (btw which one)?
hats off!
would be great if this will be a part of eComStation someday
For you special ;-) IBM license possible part reverse engineering. Our technology - we cut kernel by segment and rewrite each. I mean, all segments be binary (IBM license), we rewrite 1 and replace to kernel. Then next, then next . Part of segments don't write, GDTSeg for example - it can't be write.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.07.09, 17:11:04
Hi "pasha",
A few observations:
Re:
Quote1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project
So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode(y), which want help and know how help.
Since it ought to be well known that IBM has responded some time ago to an OS/2 World Foundation's Petition Letter that the OS/2 Source-Codes cannot be Open-Sourced due to "legal and other reasons" (then one ought to take this as a given). However, I am curious though as to the present agreement in place with IBM (and, perhaps other companies) that enabled development work to be carried out on the "os2ldr and os2krnl" project.
Additionally, (from an earlier question) is there; or, will there be a focus on the development an 64-bit "os2krnl" in order to; re:
Quotesurvive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving
?
Thank you.
Regards,
SAB
This don't curious - project has don't access from anybody, can access from known user - IBM license is OK. 64 bits.... What in OS/2 really use greate then 512 Mb every time?
But, be source (our project) - can be 64 bit, but....
Quote from: pasha on 2008.08.01, 22:04:28
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.07.09, 17:11:04
Hi "pasha",
A few observations:
Re:
Quote1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project
So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode(y), which want help and know how help.
Since it ought to be well known that IBM has responded some time ago to an OS/2 World Foundation's Petition Letter that the OS/2 Source-Codes cannot be Open-Sourced due to "legal and other reasons" (then one ought to take this as a given). However, I am curious though as to the present agreement in place with IBM (and, perhaps other companies) that enabled development work to be carried out on the "os2ldr and os2krnl" project.
Additionally, (from an earlier question) is there; or, will there be a focus on the development an 64-bit "os2krnl" in order to; re:
Quotesurvive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving
?
Thank you.
Regards,
SAB
This don't curious - project has don't access from anybody, can access from known user - IBM license is OK. 64 bits.... What in OS/2 really use greate then 512 Mb every time?
But, be source (our project) - can be 64 bit, but....
Hi pasha,
I am glad to know that your project can be 64-bit based (hence, this augers well for
Project CASSINI). However, can you please elaborate on your statement - "IBM license is OK. 64 bits....". And, must admit some degree of difficulty in clearly understanding/comprehending all that you have written/stated in your post.
Thanks,
SAB
Hi pasha,
Some things I would appreciate 64bit support for are larger memory available for things like disk cache (without eating into shared memory), web server cache, MySQL caches, etc.
Our server handles a lot of video and images (and create image thumbnails for uploaded images on the fly), so it would help out there as well.
Another thing I think it would be helpful for is in enabling virtual RAM drives in memory (as I have seen done on various Linux hosts) where the entire web and SQL environment can be copied to a virtual RAM drive and run from there to thus increase access speeds and capacity.
As a starting point, I would be happy with seeing PAE mode support (36bit memory support as is available in any Intel CPU from the last 8+ years) to enable 64GB memory access.
Thanks for all your hard work,
Robert
why dev a new version of os2ldr anyway if its not for eCSv2? why native when really, who cares about this anymore? it would be like trying to rebuild the tacoma narrows bridge the way it was before it collapsed duh -though its not un"appreciated" all, hey, el Vato, your bold highlight in blue: "concrete" could have had a link in it to highlight the drift of your rift man, like this perhaps: http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html when he died it was said he [Sir Isaac]was too religious to be respected as a scientist and so nothin has changed, just the appearant position of the great wheel... >:(
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
why dev a new version of os2ldr anyway if its not for eCSv2? why native when really, who cares about this anymore? it would be like trying to rebuild the tacoma narrows bridge the way it was before it collapsed duh
Possibly if you did a little more research *before* posting a reply to something you do not fully understand might have saved me from repeating for the 3rd time this morning, "
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," my friend.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
-though its not un"appreciated" all, hey, el Vato, your bold highlight in blue: "concrete" could have had a link in it to highlight the drift of your rift man,
My use of the term
concrete implied providing some form of financial support for the developers of the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL *
during* the development phase --that being critical for the survival of any development effort; as opposed to merely expressing "support" in an passive manner.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
like this perhaps: http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html when he died it was said he [Sir Isaac]was too religious to be respected as a scientist
Being an OS/2 and GNU/Linux user, I do not consider the article of reference (MS Encarta) as sufficiently unbiased so as to be taken seriously --for it can only reflect the special interest of its owner.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
and so nothin has changed, just the appearant position of the great wheel... >:(
...oh, it has changed, my friend! One of the reasons for the existence of the so called Large Hadron Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) (that is the subject of news this morning) is to determine the nature of
black matter in the Universe. So ??? You might ask.
Well, the modern scientist is so indoctrinated with Newton's "
Laws" that every far away system that they observe, and that does not obey those "
Laws," is made to conform to those by the supposition of that certain
black matter to hold the entities from spinning off to nowhere.
In the absence of an alternative, possibly more complex, mathematical model for the Universe, the modern scientist is simply adding "perfect" circles to an unsustainable structure in the face of observational dissent. They did thus during the European "
Dark Ages" prior to Newton and they are doing it now because they can not let go of Newton.
Will not you join me in action, and not merely in fleeting words that you do not seem to understand, and construct an open source ship and go OS/2 Warp 5 speed to witness firsthand those developments far away? ;) Eh, ModZilla?!
Re:
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.09.10, 17:01:08
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
why dev a new version of os2ldr anyway if its not for eCSv2? why native when really, who cares about this anymore? it would be like trying to rebuild the tacoma narrows bridge the way it was before it collapsed duh
Possibly if you did a little more research *before* posting a reply to something you do not fully understand might have saved me from repeating for the 3rd time this morning, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," my friend.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
-though its not un"appreciated" all, hey, el Vato, your bold highlight in blue: "concrete" could have had a link in it to highlight the drift of your rift man,
My use of the term concrete implied providing some form of financial support for the developers of the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL *during* the development phase --that being critical for the survival of any development effort; as opposed to merely expressing "support" in an passive manner.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
like this perhaps: http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html when he died it was said he [Sir Isaac]was too religious to be respected as a scientist
Being an OS/2 and GNU/Linux user, I do not consider the article of reference (MS Encarta) as sufficiently unbiased so as to be taken seriously --for it can only reflect the special interest of its owner.
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.31, 17:47:28
and so nothin has changed, just the appearant position of the great wheel... >:(
...oh, it has changed, my friend! One of the reasons for the existence of the so called Large Hadron Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) (that is the subject of news this morning) is to determine the nature of black matter in the Universe. So ??? You might ask.
Well, the modern scientist is so indoctrinated with Newton's "Laws" that every far away system that they observe, and that does not obey those "Laws," is made to conform to those by the supposition of that certain black matter to hold the entities from spinning off to nowhere.
In the absence of an alternative, possibly more complex, mathematical model for the Universe, the modern scientist is simply adding "perfect" circles to an unsustainable structure in the face of observational dissent. They did thus during the European "Dark Ages" prior to Newton and they are doing it now because they can not let go of Newton.
Will not you join me in action, and not merely in fleeting words that you do not seem to understand, and construct an open source ship and go OS/2 Warp 5 speed to witness firsthand those developments far away? ;) Eh, ModZilla?!
Bravo El Vato,
Like the "true matador" ;D that I think you are you have pretty much "nailed" a few issues surrounding the development/advancement and use of the OS/2 Operating System in "one" step/move; and, with particular reference to
QuoteMy use of the term concrete implied providing some form of financial support for the developers of the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL *during* the development phase --that being critical for the survival of any development effort; as opposed to merely expressing "support" in an passive manner.
Do you think that the attached (though not seen in a very positive light at this time) "rings a bell" ::) ::) ::)
Quote
Thank you for your ....... Submissions Agreement, dated June 16, 2008. I am
sorry to say we are not interested in pursuing further discussions at this
time. The ..... Venture Capital Group does not perform equity or seed
funding. Rather, they engage with established venture capital firms that
offer technology relevant to the industries and customers ..... serves. For
more information, please visit:
...
Thank you again for contacting ...... We wish you the best in your future
endeavors.
How about adding "
Where Others Have Never Gone Before" (no forgetting -
To Boldly Go...) to your last paragraph. And, in an old school (Granville College) parlance... Should we say that "Contact_Has_Been_Made" with the other side. ;D ::) ;D
Best regards.
SAB
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.09.10, 17:51:10
[...]
QuoteMy use of the term concrete implied providing some form of financial support for the developers of the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL *during* the development phase --that being critical for the survival of any development effort; as opposed to merely expressing "support" in an passive manner.
Do you think that the attached (though not seen in a very positive light at this time) "rings a bell" ::) ::) ::)
Quote
Thank you for your .......[...]
Thank you again for contacting ...... We wish you the best in your future
endeavors.
It certainly does. For an ISV, venture capital may mean the difference between life and death of its software development efforts --at the price of throwing to the sharks its owner/founder if the
velociraptors (coined from Netscape's Jim Clark) are not happy with the 10 times return on initial investment at the very least.
For the OS/2 developer, notwithstanding, some form of a credit card fund might be used to sustain their efforts. For instance, imagine this card (below) with an OS/2 logo printed instead of the Penguin: Linux Fund (http://www.linuxfund.org/cards/)(http://cardbig.png)
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.09.10, 17:51:10
How about adding "Where Others Have Never Gone Before" (no forgetting - To Boldly Go...) to your last paragraph. And, in an old school (Granville College) parlance... Should we say that "Contact_Has_Been_Made" with the other side. ;D ::) ;D
[...]
Well you may add that if you so desire, SAB.
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.09.10, 18:58:39
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.09.10, 17:51:10
[...]
QuoteMy use of the term concrete implied providing some form of financial support for the developers of the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL *during* the development phase --that being critical for the survival of any development effort; as opposed to merely expressing "support" in an passive manner.
Do you think that the attached (though not seen in a very positive light at this time) "rings a bell" ::) ::) ::)
Quote
Thank you for your .......[...]
Thank you again for contacting ...... We wish you the best in your future
endeavors.
It certainly does. For an ISV, venture capital may mean the difference between life and death of its software development efforts --at the price of throwing to the sharks its owner/founder if the velociraptors (coined from Netscape's Jim Clark) are not happy with the 10 times return on initial investment at the very least.
For the OS/2 developer, notwithstanding, some form of a credit card fund might be used to sustain their efforts. For instance, imagine this card (below) with an OS/2 logo printed instead of the Penguin: Linux Fund (http://www.linuxfund.org/cards/)(http://cardbig.png)
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.09.10, 17:51:10
How about adding "Where Others Have Never Gone Before" (no forgetting - To Boldly Go...) to your last paragraph. And, in an old school (Granville College) parlance... Should we say that "Contact_Has_Been_Made" with the other side. ;D ::) ;D
[...]
Well you may add that if you so desire, SAB.
Well, to come to think about it when one considers how much has gone into the LHC (should I say pure research):
Re:
QuoteThe physicists celebrated with champagne when the white dots flashed on the blue screens of the control room, showing a successful crossing of the finish line on the $10 billion machine under planning since 1984.
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7405&eeid=6085221&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt
then, what is sooo........ wrong spending a few millions of dollars (if so much is really needed) where excellent value propositions can be demonstrated based on the development of OS2LDR/OS2KRNL.
El Vato, can you quote a figure as to what the total costs would/can be in a scenario concerned with the subject matter of this thread.
Kindest regards,
SAB
The 0.3 version os2ldr is on the Hobbes for those who want to test it.
Quote from: AAA on 2008.09.16, 20:17:08
The 0.3 version os2ldr is on the Hobbes for those who want to test it.
Can you provide us with a link?
Thanks.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.09.19, 17:27:47
Quote from: AAA on 2008.09.16, 20:17:08
The 0.3 version os2ldr is on the Hobbes for those who want to test it.
Can you provide us with a link?
Thanks.
Hi All,
If anyone has already tested this product... What are some of the compelling features of "os2ldr Version 0.3" when compared with earlier versions of this product?
http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/h-search.php?sh=1&button=Search&key=os2ldr.zip
Quote from: AAA on 2008.09.19, 21:00:25
http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/h-search.php?sh=1&button=Search&key=os2ldr.zip
Thank you very much AAA for that information. Do you know what are the "time lines" for future updates; and, will these be continuous processes (perpetual developments/advancements) of the "os2ldr"? 8)
Also, it was heartening to have read what was written on the "Hobbes" web site...
Re:
Quote
We look forward to keeping hobbes alive as long as it is used and appreciated by the OS/2 community.
This is just great ("neat" as our good friend the BWG would say). ;D ;D ;D