Does Serenity systems and / or IBM have any plans for a 64 bit kernel upgrade ? If not , it looks like version 2.0 will be the last version of ecomstation ?
Paul
While it is still technically a 32 bit kernel, the current kernel 14.104a runs great on 64 bit processors.
As for a 64 bit kernel, Serenity currently does not have the source for the 32 bit kernel available, and IBM has pretty much stopped all OS/2 development, with the possible exception being minor fixes for those who still have maintenance contracts. So no, I don't see a 64 bit kernel coming from either of those sources.
The best option right now is to put your efforts into Project Voyage. At the moment there has been no decision as to what kernel Voyager will use. However considering the current direction in personal computing it would make sense for all those on the development team to consider 64 bit kernel options.
Re: "As for a 64 bit kernel, Serenity currently does not have the source for the 32 bit kernel available, and IBM has pretty much stopped all OS/2 development, with the possible exception being minor fixes for those who still have maintenance contracts. So no, I don't see a 64 bit kernel coming from either of those sources..." Question: Are they not enough OS/2 oriented "geeks" on planet Earth who can come up with a "work-around" for the development of an "64-bit Kernel"; but, then again - the name ought not to (cannot) be OS/2. ::)
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.07, 07:46:24
Question: Are they not enough OS/2 oriented "geeks" on planet Earth who can come up with a "work-around" for the development of an "64-bit Kernel"; but, then again - the name ought not to (cannot) be OS/2. ::)
Saborion2, now... that's a really good question once for all! :-)
The simple answer is: Maybe. ;-). If you talk about doing a 64bit-version of the OS/2 kernel, then we have the main obstacle that the *current* kernel is not open-sourced (or rather: The source code is not legally available). Regarding manpower... well, I don't know. I think that if IBM would open-source the kernel, it would be suprising to see how much of our geeks would jump to the occasion and I'm convinced that these guys would do the job. But:
Considering that there are already working open-sourced 64bit kernels available that have stood the test of time, I wonder how much sense it would make to re-invent the wheel with a 64bit OS/2 kernel (given the fact that this consumes almost all manpower we have in development).
As for "the name ought not to (cannot) be OS/2.": Yes, you're definitely right on that!! And even from the viewpoint of leaping towards future in a "marketing" way, I would even more support that idea. The sad truth is that we have the dilemma of the name: While "OS/2" implies most but not all positive attributes to the insider(s), it has nothing but negative associations for the not-insiders, meaning... potential new customers.
Regards,
Thomas
"warpcafe" you have said;
QuoteThe simple answer is: Maybe. ;-). If you talk about doing a 64bit-version of the OS/2 kernel, then we have the main obstacle that the *current* kernel is not open-sourced (or rather: The source code is not legally available). Regarding manpower... well, I don't know. I think that if IBM would open-source the kernel, it would be surprising to see how much of our geeks would jump to the occasion and I'm convinced that these guys would do the job. But: Considering that there are already working open-sourced 64bit kernels available that have stood the test of time, I wonder how much sense it would make to re-invent the wheel with a 64bit OS/2 kernel (given the fact that this consumes almost all manpower we have in development).
The thing is; there is no point in saying:
QuoteI think that if IBM would open-source the kernel
Since it should be quite known what was the response to the Second Petition Letter by the OS/2 World Foundation to IBM which in part states that this cannot be done as there are "legal" and other reasons involved. So, the real question at this point in time is what's "next"; since, the eComStation Kernel in itself is not Open-Sourced. :-X
Sab, you somehow again managed to disappoint me althouhg I was hoping for an improvement giving you starting this thread... phew... ok:
You say
QuoteThe thing is; there is no point in saying:
QuoteI think that if IBM would open-source the kernel
since it should be quite known...
You don't need to tell me. I have signed more than 1 petition to open-source it since the 1990s.
When I said "if IBM would" it was meant *hypothetically*, ... like in "IF", you know?
That's why I wrote "IF" by the way.
I'll repeat more detailed, perhaps there was some noise:
Even if IBM would
ever open-source the OS/2-kernel (did you get the hypothetical part?) it would not make any difference:
The skills needed to "upgrade" a 32bit-kernel to 64bit are at least(!) the same like those needed to create a 64bit-kernel from scratch. Moreover,
even IF we had a workarounded-64-bit-kernel - what would we do with it? Because at that moment, we would find ourselves at ground zero again: No working drivers, no working software, no WPS... everything would need to be put hands-on again. Once we're done, there's a 128bit-kernel by M$ and Linux and even my mobile phone would be better than this new OS in all regards.
So, for heavens sake: Let the geeks do voyager, let them select the microkernel to go along with it and there you go. And if there is something you need, request, want: Put up a bounty
and bring the bucks in. You told me wonderful things about your experience in funding international stuff - ok, but how many bounties did
you sponsor HERE?
Regards
Thomas
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.07, 07:46:24
Question: Are they not enough OS/2 oriented "geeks" on planet Earth who can come up with a "work-around" for the development of an "64-bit Kernel"; but, then again - the name ought not to (cannot) be OS/2. ::)
In my opinion no. Not without the source code. All the programmers I know are already working on more than one project. Some can't handle anymore workload. And remember, most of these programmers are not getting paid! They do this in their spare time.
That is why everyone in the eCS/OS2 community needs to do whatever they can to help contribute, whether it be
1. Development and programming
2. Graphics: bitmaps, icons, and PNGs for various projects
3. Giving advice on the various forums to help those having problems
4. Helping those web sites that need help
5. Money, whether is is supporting bounties or making donations to various projects at Mensys
The one thing we don't need is more bitching or infighting. We saw this with the Warpin project which could have spilled over into the XWP project and possible others. If you must criticize, make it constructive and do it in a professional manner.
With the next release of Open Watcom, we should see the end of our need for VAC. Steven Levine has made substantial contributions to get OW to the point where VAC should no longer be needed. One of the present problems is that VAC has always been needed to do development in OS/2 and eCS. Only those that owned a copy could program.
Hi "warpcafe",
QuoteSo, for heavens sake: Let the geeks do voyager, let them select the microkernel to go along with it and there you go. And if there is something you need, request, want: Put up a bounty and bring the bucks in. You told me wonderful things about your experience in funding international stuff - ok, but how many bounties did you sponsor HERE?
I thought that you were already aware that the one (1) bounty that was sponsored by
Orion (in my name) so far is for the
"Port of IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0 to the OS/2 Operating System. Also, consideration is underway for increasing this amount; and/or, the possibility of attracting bank ( http://www.iadb.org ) funding for this project once the respective "Bounty Hunter/s" can be identified and negotiations/agreements entered into. ;D ;) ;D
Just to comment, *even if* we had the source code for the kernel, I'm not sure what that would do for us.
From what I understand (and I could be incorrect on this, but I seem to recall hearing this from reliable sources who have actually worked on the kernel for IBM), much of the OS/2 kernel is coded in straight assembler code. If you've ever looked at assembler code, it is extremely difficult to port to another platform (such as turning it into a 64 bit kernel).
On the other hand, if IBM were to hypothetically release the kernel from the Power PC version of OS/2, this was based on the MACH kernel, and in theory should be easier to port to other platforms. However in reality I can't see this code being released either.
Quote from: Fahrvenugen on 2008.04.08, 02:25:07
Just to comment, *even if* we had the source code for the kernel, I'm not sure what that would do for us.
From what I understand (and I could be incorrect on this, but I seem to recall hearing this from reliable sources who have actually worked on the kernel for IBM), much of the OS/2 kernel is coded in straight assembler code. If you've ever looked at assembler code, it is extremely difficult to port to another platform (such as turning it into a 64 bit kernel).
On the other hand, if IBM were to hypothetically release the kernel from the Power PC version of OS/2, this was based on the MACH kernel, and in theory should be easier to port to other platforms. However in reality I can't see this code being released either.
Well, to be quite honest with you; and, from what you have said above may be equated to the same as "If Horses Were Wishes Then Beggars Would Ride". :( The very simple question to you at this time is this: Just how much longer must OS/2 users continue to wait after all the years we/they have been waiting only to be confronted with the situation we/they are in presently. Isn't it time that there is something "really tangible" (a pragmatic approach to this situation) that can be taken to the "banks". ::) ::) ::)
Best regards.
Hi Saborion2,
-good to see you back on track ;-)-
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.08, 07:14:37
Isn't it time that there is something "really tangible" (a pragmatic approach to this situation) that can be taken to the "banks". ::) ::) ::)
Definitely. You're right.
But from a corporate viewpoint, a tangible offering/product is not enough. It needs to be wrapped with service. At least as an option to show that there is professional support and services available for the product. And that's another open checkpoint on the todo-list (for Mensys? Serenity?).
Even if the corporate consumer decides to provide these services on its own... there must be a SPOC or reliable contact for the consumers needs. Even if Mensys builds a supporting network with SoHo-companies... there must be a dedicated, reliable and ORGANIZED backbone at Mensys (or Serenity?) for these SoHos then. This is the main obstacle I see at the moment.
But... as you said: Never say never. :-)
Cheers,
Thomas
Citing Neil Waldhauser on the same subject:
"There is virtually no advantage to a 64-bit kernel for OS/2. To gain any advantage at all, each of the many bits of the operating system, each as complex as the kernel, would need to be replaced with 64 bit bits. The 32-bit kernel (typo corrected by me) we have is fine for a while, assuming the ACPI project can reach a good level of success.
Far more important is replacing each IBM part with an open source equivalent. Once that is achieved, and we own the interfaces, then replacing the kernel with something modern is easy. While we still have IBM parts in the system, IBM can stop supplying us and then the game is over.
The best future for eCS I can see is via the Voyager project."
Pretty much that is also my opinion.
Kind regards,
Herwig B.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.07, 20:28:00
I thought that you were already aware that the one (1) bounty that was sponsored by Orion (in my name) so far is for the "Port of IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0 to the OS/2 Operating System. Also, consideration is underway for increasing this amount; and/or, the possibility of attracting bank ( http://www.iadb.org ) funding for this project once the respective "Bounty Hunter/s" can be identified and negotiations/agreements entered into. ;D ;) ;D
Where is this thing? (the bounty)
I don't see it anywhere. There is a bounty for "Native OS/2 Port of Lotus Notes (Hannover)", but I don't see "Orion" anywhere in the list of sponsors. Also I'm not particularly impressed by the amount presently sponsored.
Bye
Cris
Quote from: Criguada on 2008.04.08, 13:56:19
Where is this thing? (the bounty)
I don't see it anywhere. There is a bounty for "Native OS/2 Port of Lotus Notes (Hannover)", but I don't see "Orion" anywhere in the list of sponsors. Also I'm not particularly impressed by the amount presently sponsored.
Bye
Cris
Hey Cris,
Apparently you do not know that
"(Hannover)" was is fact the Code-Name for what is now
IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0; and, you can glean additional information in relation to the
"Orion" linkage to this particular "bounty" and
COMFETAR LIVE from the below attached link:
http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=14283&expand=true&lc=en
COMFETAR LIVE is intended to mirror UNIDO's
"COMFAR": (see the below attached link):
http://www.win2biz.com/comfar/default.htm
with possible financing option from the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB):
http://www.iadb.org
All for your kind information. ;)
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.08, 15:45:39
Apparently you do not know that "(Hannover)" was is fact the Code-Name for what is now IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0; and, you can glean additional
No, I definitely did not know. Should I?
And BTW I am not very interested in the package, I was just interested by your assertions about being able to sponsor.
I still fail to see the connection between you and Orion Resources Intl.
mmmhh... "S...{removed by moderator for privacy protection}"... is it you?
BTW, the home page of this "Orion Resources Intl" thing is just the usual placeholder page placed there by domain vendors apparently, and I still am not very impressed by the amount sponsored for such an undertaking.
Bye
Cris
Hi "Criguada",
QuoteBTW, the home page of this "Orion Resources Intl" thing is just the usual placeholder page placed there by domain vendors apparently, and I still am not very impressed by the amount sponsored for such an undertaking.
Let me quote "warpcafe", Global Moderator for you:
QuoteBut from a corporate viewpoint, a tangible offering/product is not enough. It needs to be wrapped with service. At least as an option to show that there is professional support and services available for the product. And that's another open checkpoint on the todo-list (for Mensys? Serenity?).
Even if the corporate consumer decides to provide these services on its own... there must be a SPOC or reliable contact for the consumers needs. Even if Mensys builds a supporting network with SoHo-companies... there must be a dedicated, reliable and ORGANIZED backbone at Mensys (or Serenity?) for these SoHos then. This is the main obstacle I see at the moment.
There is a saying that goes like this or something like it; "Were I Not An Eagle Would I With The Birds (Golden Eagles) Have Flown"; so, the question to you is if you have not an interest in the upkeep of the level of the "watering well" from which you are now drinking then why are you here.
BTW, try to do some research for yourself sometimes and understand how certain objectives can be achieved:
Here is an alternative one for you (from this one; Re: "MIF Website" that was intended)
http://www.iadb.org/news/articledetail.cfm?language=EN&artid=1340
Read between the lines sometimes when we wish to make reference to "amount sponsored for such an undertaking".... as you should know that the "appetizers come before the main courses"; and, do let us know when the things that "warpcafe" has professionally pointed out are/would be needed in certain scenarios are in place. Also, let us know when you see the
"CASSINI Distribution" emerging. 8) 8) 8)
saborion2,
Seeing as how you're extremely interested in seeing Lotus Notes 8 ported to OS/2, I've got an idea:
Why don't you pick up a good "teach yourself to program" and a "teach yourself to port apps" book and start working on the project?
After all, if you start the project of getting Lotus Notes 8 (hannover) to run on OS/2 / eCS, then it is more likely to get done then if no one starts the project.
Just my thoughts.
Hi "Fahrvenugen"
Re:
Quote from: Fahrvenugen on 2008.04.09, 03:48:52
saborion2,
Seeing as how you're extremely interested in seeing Lotus Notes 8 ported to OS/2, I've got an idea:
Why don't you pick up a good "teach yourself to program" and a "teach yourself to port apps" book and start working on the project?
After all, if you start the project of getting Lotus Notes 8 (hannover) to run on OS/2 / eCS, then it is more likely to get done then if no one starts the project.
Just my thoughts.
Thank you for your kind thoughts and I will take this opportunity to share a little story with you which goes like this.
A former colleague of mine upon receiving a copy of an "Economic Evaluation" software application quite frankly refused to let other colleagues of ours get hold of that particular application (I would like you in your response to come up with the answer that colleague gave for not wanting to share the knowledge of the existence of the particular application with others) Anyway, here is an hint - consider the differences in the distributions of the Windows vs the Linux Operating Systems; and , the Microsoft's Office vs the OpenOffice, Lotus Notes, Lotus Symphony, Lotus SameTime....
How about if you along with a team take on the project which will allow me to focus on other business matters (business development, marketing...). ;D BTW, you will have to undertake some application enhancements and if I was in possession of your email address (I suppose you do know where to locate mine from this web site) ... perhaps I could provide you with those details. ;)
saborion2,
OK, I have to ask...
What is 'ORION's "CASSINI DISTRIBUTION"'? I've searched the web, and various other links you have provided, but find no information about it whatsoever - much less any relationship to eCS or OS/2.
Google turns up 2 links when searching for it - and both are to posts on this forum.
Please explain for us unenlightened ones...
Thanks,
Robert
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.04.21, 23:51:08
saborion2,
OK, I have to ask...
What is 'ORION's "CASSINI DISTRIBUTION"'? I've searched the web, and various other links you have provided, but find no information about it whatsoever - much less any relationship to eCS or OS/2.
Google turns up 2 links when searching for it - and both are to posts on this forum.
Please explain for us unenlightened ones...
Thanks,
Robert
Hi "RobertM"
Here is an hint:
Quote(Applications to be subsequently ported to the IBM OS/2® Warp) Operating Systems.
http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=14283&expand=true&lc=en
It is the "proposed" Code-Name for COMFETAR - LIVE on an Open-Sourced (like Linux) VOYAGER (if it is OS/2... all the better)! 8)
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.22, 00:12:03
Here is an hint:
Quote(Applications to be subsequently ported to the IBM OS/2® Warp) Operating Systems.
http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=14283&expand=true&lc=en
It is the "proposed" Code-Name for COMFETAR - LIVE on an Open-Sourced (like Linux) VOYAGER (if it is OS/2... all the better)! 8)
I've looked at that - the company seems to have long since dissappeared, and the domain is being handled by a domain parking company.
The particular announcement, even though showing a last modified date of Mar 2008, was submitted in... 2001(?) if memory serves, with no substantial roadmap info our timeline or status update to the content (such as the defunct web link).
Hence, I asked. Yes, I already assumed that you are {...removed by moderator for privacy protection...} (
saborion2), so as there is no info that tells us anything about current status, current plans, plans for a website being completed, anything reassuring that IBM is still willing to assist on the project, etc... I asked.
So... answers? ;)
Thanks,
Robert
Quite a lot can also be said about:-
Quote
http://www.aibuiltpc.com/Websites.html
Not really a very navigable site. ???
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.22, 04:28:43
Quite a lot can also be said about:-
Quote
http://www.aibuiltpc.com/Websites.html
Not really a very navigable site. ???
Really? In what way? Besides the fact it
is a website (and not a parked domain)...
- It has descriptions of each site we have worked on
- It has at least TWO links to each site (the image, and the site name)
- It has a menu bar at the top that returns you to our other current business area that we are actively advertising for
- Each page has info about how to contact us
- And finally, it's not just a parked domain
I don't see the relationship. Is it finished? No. Is it functional in every business aspect that we wish to advertise on the Internet? Yes. Does it have information about our services (repair or websites) with valid links to each? Yes.
I am curious though why you are pointing that out (or what relationship it has to my questions) and why you have still avoided the questions...
This is perplexing me more and more...
Thanks,
Robert
Re:
QuoteReally? In what way? Besides the fact it is a website (and not a parked domain)...
Here are some cool examples:
Quotehttp://www.iadb.org/
http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/
This is starting to hurt my head, as most threads involving saborion2 do.
Sab. I can say this. If you have a proposed project and are looking for developers you are going about it all wrong. If you can make a business case that is one thing, though let me say this you are not going to see a substantial return on investment in OS/2. OS/2 is my platform of choice but I am under no delusion that it is not for everyone.
I actually can not figure out what this entire thread is even about. There will not be a 64bit OS/2. The only company who could legally supply that to us is IBM and it is clear they are not going to do that, beyond that it isn't even clear if they COULD supply a 64 bit version of OS/2 with support for both 32bit and 16bit legacy which would be required (since alot of device drivers are still 16bit).
RobertM, I think we should just stop paying attention to all of this. Would like any information you could provide on your GPS solution for OS/2 since I am working on several different carputers which I would love to be able to say can do GPS.. (lol, i've even tinkered with voicetype to get syncish functions)
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.04.22, 05:33:58
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.22, 04:28:43
Quite a lot can also be said about:-
Quote
http://www.aibuiltpc.com/Websites.html
Not really a very navigable site. ???
Really? In what way? Besides the fact it is a website (and not a parked domain)...
- It has descriptions of each site we have worked on
- It has at least TWO links to each site (the image, and the site name)
- It has a menu bar at the top that returns you to our other current business area that we are actively advertising for
- Each page has info about how to contact us
- And finally, it's not just a parked domain
I don't see the relationship. Is it finished? No. Is it functional in every business aspect that we wish to advertise on the Internet? Yes. Does it have information about our services (repair or websites) with valid links to each? Yes.
I am curious though why you are pointing that out (or what relationship it has to my questions) and why you have still avoided the questions...
This is perplexing me more and more...
Thanks,
Robert
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 07:03:42
This is starting to hurt my head, as most threads involving saborion2 do.
...I actually can not figure out what this entire thread is even about.
So am I... I'm giving up as he hasnt provided one piece of info about anything. All the links point to programs that everyone knows exists, and explains nothing about their relationship (or lack thereof as the case is) to OS/2.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 07:03:42
RobertM, I think we should just stop paying attention to all of this. Would like any information you could provide on your GPS solution for OS/2 since I am working on several different carputers which I would love to be able to say can do GPS.. (lol, i've even tinkered with voicetype to get syncish functions)
Well, we've (our client) has some ToughBooks installed... but is waiting on the county to activate the wireless accounts on it... and we are plodding through the data and methods of drawing it. They have yet to decide on a GPS unit for the vehicles, so programming an interface is on hold for the moment...
Very small steps, and stuck waiting on client decisions. Also finding that the "popular" GPS, namely the Nuvi series doesnt send certain bits of required data which is highly needed for the GPS to work...
Trying to find some workarounds... there is apparently a way to put them in "Data Only" mode to get the data...
Robert
QuoteSo am I... I'm giving up as he hasnt provided one piece of info about anything. All the links point to programs that everyone knows exists, and explains nothing about their relationship (or lack thereof as the case is) to OS/2.
It appears you guys are not sure what is it exactly you should be looking for after all the hints...
Here, see if this helps to point you to where the money is before you talk your heads off:
Quote
The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) Projects
http://www.iadb.org/mif/preparation.cfm?language=English&parid=3&item1id=5
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.22, 08:13:26
QuoteSo am I... I'm giving up as he hasnt provided one piece of info about anything. All the links point to programs that everyone knows exists, and explains nothing about their relationship (or lack thereof as the case is) to OS/2.
It appears you guys are not sure what is it exactly you should be looking for after all the hints...
Here, see if this helps to point you to where the money is before you talk your heads off:
Quote
The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) Projects
http://www.iadb.org/mif/preparation.cfm?language=English&parid=3&item1id=5
This means absolutely nothing.
- IBM won't Open Source OS/2. Period. They have made that quite clear.
- IBM won't just hand over the source for Symphony.
- Comfetar Live seems a dead project, and you refuse to comment on it, it's current status, or anything indicating a relationship to OS/2.
- Even if something about Comfetar is still "live", the references to OS/2 porting have been on IBM's site since BEFORE IBM pulled the plug on OS/2
- You SEEM to be suggesting that someone seek funding... for something... what? And more importantly, WHO? Virtually all of us have day jobs. And as for Serenity, do you know anything about their business model or business circumstances to *think* they may be in a position to (or have a desire to) do so? What makes you think they wish to incur a large amount of debt, instead of proceeding in a fashion that wont potentially bankrupt them?
Stop with meaningless hints. If they do have meaning, then spell them out.
Because quite frankly, if there IS meaning, (1) it is eluding us, (2) these games (as they seem to be) would do nothing but turn off potential investors who would research the viability of investing anything in OS/2 or OS/2 solutions when the chief (and only) proponent of this method (of yours) is to play word games and drop nonsensical hints in this forum.
So, please, just spell out whatever you are trying to say.
In the meantime, you may wish to check out this site:
http://www.GeoCodeEngine.com/
Robert
Hmm.. this thread got a bit weird to figure out.. but the original question was if there ever will be a 64 bit kernel for eComstation. While been looking at Windows XP 64 bit versions and as well Debian I've noticed the issues with drivers and several software packages that just won't work or not stable enough. So going to 64 bit even if we could would generate loads of new issues with the existing code base and that wouldn't help us out.
So, going back to what has been discussed in several threads and as well part what can we do next when knocking on IBM's door?
- Well, do we have any valid business cases that we can point to that actually would benefit from that IBM opens up the code?
- Are there specific patents that we can point to that involves OS2 that we would like to get our hands on?
- IBM claimed that there are legal matters with open up the code; do we know what components that they might try to hide behind that we can exclude from the scope?
All in all; can we create a list of specific components and patents that we really would need to make our life easier and as well on the same time - make it hard for IBM to say no and hide behind legal matters and patents.
Hi Kim,
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.04.22, 11:00:29
So, going back to what has been discussed in several threads and as well part what can we do next when knocking on IBM's door?
- Well, do we have any valid business cases that we can point to that actually would benefit from that IBM opens up the code?
The insurance industry (IIRC, State Farm used to be entirely OS/2)
The banking/ATM industry (with a solid business, support and distribution model in place, I am sure there would be a growing number of banks who wanted to give up their current headaches in support and maintenance). I'd focus on ATMs first... then move up to client and server machines. ATMs are easy... a few new drivers for the ATM components (if/where needed) such as the cash dispenser, deposit unit... and a good flash video handler - or better yet, a good shockwave/flash engine.
The medical industry for various specialized computer and recordkeeping systems (from experience, they dont care - or even want to know - what their systems are running, as long as it works, and works, and works - and it would also alleviate numerous problems they are having with "stolen" customer records on compromised machines),
The Point of Sale marketplace (there are apparently still a bunch of solution providers who are using OS/2 on these systems - including for dual display cash register setups hooked to dual bar code scanners, serving ads... Giant (MD, DC, VA) was running theirs on Warp 4 as of 2005 (and may still be) - and didnt install it until the early 2000's) - the only "big" thing it would need is updated touchscreen drivers - and the company that makes those screens (there's pretty much only 1 big one here - namely Elo) are willing to provide what's needed to make new drivers (which pretty much amounts to creating a USB version - and maybe different handling to allow RMB actions - but that (RMB) isnt needed for POS based stuff anyway).
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.04.22, 11:00:29
- Are there specific patents that we can point to that involves OS2 that we would like to get our hands on?
The WPS. Patent wise, I dont know what else. Technology wise, the APIs (or documentation to make clean room replacements for them) for the WPS and other subsystems.
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.04.22, 11:00:29
- IBM claimed that there are legal matters with open up the code; do we know what components that they might try to hide behind that we can exclude from the scope?
Believe it or not, I used to have the list of many of them. They came with some developer kit or compiler or with IBM's Directory and Security Server for OS/2 beta (I think that was the name of it). I'll check my VAC++ docs when I get the chance, but...
- Much of the graphics engine (MicroGrafix I believe - and others)
- Much of the MM codecs (numerous contributors)
- LanMan (MS - obsoleted anyway)
- Probably parts of PMShell (MS and others - though there is the PPC implementation)
- Some of the (non-NetBIOS) networking components
- Parts of HPFS (I
think)
- There are things online that suggest that parts of the kernel as well (MS and others) - but then again, there is the PPC and other kernels
- Legacy code in WPS (MS) and possibly parts of the API
- Of course the DOS and WinOS2 stuff
- Various core drivers (much of which have been replaced though - and the rest could probably be replaced or licensed)
The list of companies that provided portions of OS/2 was very long. The amount of work they did may have been minimal - or not. I dont know. I do know that MS was just one of many companies that wrote code for OS/2 - and in less sections than the remaining companies.
The problem I see is, in many cases, IBM may outright own the code - while in others, they may be licensing the code, and there is probably no way to determine which is the case without their assistance.
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.04.22, 11:00:29
All in all; can we create a list of specific components and patents that we really would need to make our life easier and as well on the same time - make it hard for IBM to say no and hide behind legal matters and patents.
API documentation may be the way... but would require a lot of work. Some of the info could be gleaned from some of their developer kits and compilers. The bugs and errata that numerous programs have come to count on could not be.
I'd ask for the PPC kernel and abstraction layers, OS/2 REXX code, PPC WPS and PM. At the very least, from the PPC kernel/abstraction layers, a replacement should be able to be written for Intel architecture - assuming that the PPC kernel was finished. If so, then it would just be a matter of adding the new API calls added to those subsystems since the PPC days. It would be a start - if they have and can find the code.
Robert[/list]
Well, regarding patents, when looking for
OS/2 and
WPS in
USPTO's (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html) database one gets 14 entries and as you might see not all of them are related to OS2. But, I think that if we can point IBM to patents on code that we need and make a case out of that they actually own the patents it's harder for IBM to state that a part involves 3rd party.
- 7,188,319 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Displaying graphical information and user selected properties on a computer interface
- 6,757,713 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Method for including a self-removing indicator in a self-removing message
- 6,711,608 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Method for including a self-removing code in a self-removing message
- 6,701,347 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Method for including a self-removing code in a self-removing email message that contains an advertisement
- 6,512,591 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Multiple peripheral support for a single physical port in a host-based printing system
- 6,487,586 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient
- 6,324,569 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient
- 6,311,058 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) System for delivering data content over a low bit rate transmission channel
- 6,288,790 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Mobility support for printing
- 6,173,327 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Object-oriented method and apparatus for information delivery
- 5,819,263 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Financial planning system incorporating relationship and group management
- 5,812,129 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Method and system for accessing functions of a user interface environment from processes running outside of the user interface environment
- 5,778,226 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=13&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Kernels, description tables and device drivers
- 5,459,867 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=OS%2F2&s2=WPS&OS=OS/2+AND+WPS&RS=OS/2+AND+WPS) Kernels, description tables, and device drivers
And I'm quite sure that we should be able to dig out several more specific patents that we might need point on when talking to IBM. Also Adrian, Netlabs, has earlier mentioned that they have or planned to put together a list of specific patents that would be of interest; we could use that list now. Also suggestion would be that we start dokument and link together specific patents in the
wiki (http://www.os2world.com/components/com_mambowiki/index.php/Patents).
Robert, you left out the fact that most of PMShell wasn't even written by IBM. It was a project at a university (the exact one eludes me at the moment) and also contains code which is copywritten by our friends over at Apple.
I wish we could just ask for the code minus the contributed code in all places, however as this has been pointed out this is very hard to decipher. The code has been changed many times probably since the original contributions, not to mention the time and money it would take for IBM to run it all through their legal departments. I wish there was an easy way to make this happen, but I simply do not see it.
As for my wish lists, I would like to see MMOS2 released in source. (even without the codecs) so that it could be extended, fixed and modernized (it is one of the best multimedia subsystems in any OS but a few small bugs (and large amounts of outdated 16bit code) hinder it.
How about a full open sourcing of GRADD. Now that snap is going to be opened up (hopefully with the OS/2 codebase) we could benefit greatly by having the source to gradd. We are going to be handicapped later on if we proceed with snap (which I think is our best option) if there is no way to fix bugs in gradd. As most of us who were testers for snap can recall, there were quite a few fixes required to make snap stable. As this is a component completely developed in house it shouldn't be impossible.
Now, making a business case for this is hard, IBM isn't going to be interested into a royalty payment off every copy of eCS which is sold, nor do I believe that Serenity could take a hit to their bottom line to pay substantially.
Another way of looking at this is to see what changes in components we require and working on our own replacements for it. This would require a coordination which has not been seen before in OS/2. This would mean all the people who are making various applications and drivers would need to work together. Instead of having a video driver being written by one person, and a sound driver coming from someone else, we need to get these people working together. MMOS2 wouldn't be that hard to tackle. Nor would an up to date lan manager. Alot of new operating systems have these components and in their first betas. Samba is a good way to go, but we need a GUI configuration for it (like lan manager), and we need both server and client services to be available in this gui. Perhaps the truth of it is we really need to make a subproject off of samba which is OS/2 specific.
There has been alot of talk about using cups to replace our printing system, however it hasn't actually happened. I understand there is alot of work involved in this, but I believe if we pooled our resources this could get completed.
Re:
Quote
This means absolutely nothing.
* IBM won't Open Source OS/2. Period. They have made that quite clear.
* IBM won't just hand over the source for Symphony.
* Comfetar Live seems a dead project, and you refuse to comment on it, it's current status, or anything indicating a relationship to OS/2.
* Even if something about Comfetar is still "live", the references to OS/2 porting have been on IBM's site since BEFORE IBM pulled the plug on OS/2
* You SEEM to be suggesting that someone seek funding... for something... what? And more importantly, WHO? Virtually all of us have day jobs. And as for Serenity, do you know anything about their business model or business circumstances to *think* they may be in a position to (or have a desire to) do so? What makes you think they wish to incur a large amount of debt, instead of proceeding in a fashion that wont potentially bankrupt them?
Just to repeat:
QuoteYou SEEM to be suggesting that someone seek funding... for something... what? And more importantly, WHO?
Are you forgetting that there are quite a few "Bounties" that are currently in the "System" - including one for
"A Port of Lotus Notes 8.0, Lotus SameTime 8.0... to the OS/2 Operating System. Do you know what is the Road Map
Quotebusiness model or business circumstances
for this particular "Port"; also, what the plans are for the achievement of objectives. 8)
Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it. ;D How I love internet memes.
(http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/moresense.jpg)
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
Robert, you left out the fact that most of PMShell wasn't even written by IBM. It was a project at a university (the exact one eludes me at the moment) and also contains code which is copywritten by our friends over at Apple.
Which would once again bring us back to the supposedly clean-room PPC PMShell.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
I wish we could just ask for the code minus the contributed code in all places, however as this has been pointed out this is very hard to decipher. The code has been changed many times probably since the original contributions, not to mention the time and money it would take for IBM to run it all through their legal departments. I wish there was an easy way to make this happen, but I simply do not see it.
As for my wish lists, I would like to see MMOS2 released in source. (even without the codecs) so that it could be extended, fixed and modernized (it is one of the best multimedia subsystems in any OS but a few small bugs (and large amounts of outdated 16bit code) hinder it.
There are quite a few subsystems that I really liked in the days I played with C++ on OS/2... MMOS2 was one... the whole GDI system was another. The whole handling of virtually any device context was something I was quite impressed with.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
How about a full open sourcing of GRADD. Now that snap is going to be opened up (hopefully with the OS/2 codebase) we could benefit greatly by having the source to gradd. We are going to be handicapped later on if we proceed with snap (which I think is our best option) if there is no way to fix bugs in gradd. As most of us who were testers for snap can recall, there were quite a few fixes required to make snap stable. As this is a component completely developed in house it shouldn't be impossible.
And if that included any hardware accelerated graphics stuff that they wrote or own the rights to, it would make things even easier.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
Now, making a business case for this is hard, IBM isn't going to be interested into a royalty payment off every copy of eCS which is sold, nor do I believe that Serenity could take a hit to their bottom line to pay substantially.
Hmmm... hadnt thought of a business case in
that respect (a business case for
IBM) but should have.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
Another way of looking at this is to see what changes in components we require and working on our own replacements for it. This would require a coordination which has not been seen before in OS/2. This would mean all the people who are making various applications and drivers would need to work together. Instead of having a video driver being written by one person, and a sound driver coming from someone else, we need to get these people working together. MMOS2 wouldn't be that hard to tackle. Nor would an up to date lan manager. Alot of new operating systems have these components and in their first betas. Samba is a good way to go, but we need a GUI configuration for it (like lan manager),
Which is where things (GUI config like lanman) fall apart without stuff like a full WPS/DSOM implementation. Every time I have to go "manage" (ie: fight with) one of our clients Windows Server 2003, I seriously wish it had the elegance of the DnD enabled "Administrative Tools" under Warp Server.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.22, 17:58:29
and we need both server and client services to be available in this gui. Perhaps the truth of it is we really need to make a subproject off of samba which is OS/2 specific.
There has been alot of talk about using cups to replace our printing system, however it hasn't actually happened. I understand there is alot of work involved in this, but I believe if we pooled our resources this could get completed.
Probably... I havent looked into CUPS lately, but I am wondering what OS/2 specific features may need to be added to prevent breaking other things. It is rare of late though that I DnD stuff onto a printer to print... not since I stopped using Describe or IBM Works.
R
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.04.22, 22:57:58
Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it. ;D How I love internet memes.
(http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/moresense.jpg)
Hey "Saijin_Naib"; Guess one has to do what makes them "tick". 8) How about providing your email address there is some information that I would like for you to have since you appear to have lots of "spare time" at hand at a time of global economic uncertainties. 8)
BTW; Rest assured that the
"Space Suite" has no relationship with the "four" illuminations that were seen last evening in Planet 3's atmosphere. (was that in the
New Mexico's desert?) (with
VOYAGER and CASSINI - yes). Hope you can begin to read between the lines. ;D Otherwise the "assimilation" is progressing well after the last descent from 35,000 feet. ;D ::) ;D
??????????
I try not to read between the lines, I personally prefer to read the WORDS, and in this case, the words make NO SENSE.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.23, 05:51:14
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.04.22, 22:57:58
Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it. ;D How I love internet memes.
(http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/moresense.jpg)
Hey "Saijin_Naib"; Guess one has to do what makes them "tick". 8) How about providing your email address there is some information that I would like for you to have since you appear to have lots of "spare time" at hand at a time of global economic uncertainties. 8)
BTW; Rest assured that the "Space Suite" has no relationship with the "four" illuminations that were seen last evening in Planet 3's atmosphere. (was that in the New Mexico's desert?) (with VOYAGER and CASSINI - yes). Hope you can begin to read between the lines. ;D Otherwise the "assimilation" is progressing well after the last descent from 35,000 feet. ;D ::) ;D
QuoteI try not to read between the lines, I personally prefer to read the WORDS, and in this case, the words make NO SENSE.
Ghee whiz... Got to tell you dude - If only I could have understood the importance of learning those Cobol and Fortran principles that were in our apprentice diaries some forty or more years ago then I might have been a little happier. Got to tell you too - that the "word"
"c-o-n-c-a-t-e-n-a-t-i-o-n" made no sense to me at one time. So, I would guess by now you will understand why the
Quotenumbers crunching
is the in thing for me. 8)
Do ya think that you can use your programming skills and help me to pull it (COMFETAR - LIVE) off! ::)
I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.
The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.
But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.
Quote from: Peter Jespersen on 2008.04.23, 15:10:03
I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.
The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.
But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatibility could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatibility was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.
This was well said "Peter Jespersen"; but, just to add - ("support your local
Voyager/Cassini Developers. 8) In this way
"Cassini" comes with the
"features" (bells and whistles) that
eluded Voyager's Developers). ;D
Best regards.
A little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be. I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes. I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative. That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.23, 17:20:37
Quote from: Peter Jespersen on 2008.04.23, 15:10:03
I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.
The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.
But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatibility could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatibility was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.
This was well said "Peter Jespersen"; but, just to add - ("support your local Voyager/Cassini Developers. 8) In this way "Cassini" comes with the "features" (bells and whistles) that eluded Voyager's Developers). ;D
Best regards.
QuoteA little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be. I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes. I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative. That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.
Now, why talk about
Quote"an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative"
when OS/2 in itself was not developed from "scratch" when one take a look at the development of this OS:
Quotehttp://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2Warp.html
and, this is why I am in total agreement with "Peter Jespersen" when he said:
QuoteMove on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.
The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.
But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.
Surely, one does not necessarily have to re-invent the w-h-e-e-l in coming up with a sustainable solution to the OS/2 saga. The folks who are holding on to the Source-Codes (for dead) need to be shown that there can indeed be viable alternatives. 8) ::) 8)
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code. What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware. The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved. These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2. I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.23, 18:29:27
QuoteA little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be. I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes. I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative. That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.
Now, why talk about Quote"an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative"
when OS/2 in itself was not developed from "scratch" when one take a look at the development of this OS:
Quotehttp://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2Warp.html
and, this is why I am in total agreement with "Peter Jespersen" when he said:
QuoteMove on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.
The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.
But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.
Surely, one does not necessarily have to re-invent the w-h-e-e-l in coming up with a sustainable solution to the OS/2 saga. The folks who are holding on to the Source-Codes (for dead) need to be shown that there can indeed be viable alternatives. 8) ::) 8)
Re:
Quote
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.
This is what was gleaned over the internet with regards to the morphing/development of the OS/2 Operating System; and, it is supposed that "IBM" would be the best source for confirmation. 8)
Quote
A Short History of OS/2
http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html
Quote
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code. What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware. The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved. These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2. I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.
What is "eComStation" may I ask? ;)
Quote
"eComStation is fully OS/2 compatible and will run your existing OS/2 applications!"
http://www.ecomstation.com/
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.24, 06:33:55
Re:
Quote
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.
This is what was gleaned over the internet with regards to the morphing/development of the OS/2 Operating System; and, it is supposed that "IBM" would be the best source for confirmation. 8)
Actually, nothing you point to says anything similar. Actually, if you read into some of those articles (and others on the Internet), you will see that early NT morphed from early OS/2 code. While OS/2 was written from the ground up to be a replacement for DOS based operating systems.
Regardless, we dont need to wait for IBM for an answer... the core components of OS/2 (ie: not including the device drivers and added subsystems) all hold IBM or IBM/MS or (in the most recent version) IBM/"Others" (as IBM started referring to MS) copyrights - and there are a list of IBM patents out there that are for OS/2 technologies and tied chronologically with it's development.
Certain things were ported to OS/2
after it was already long since a mature, stable OS (like the AIX firewall) - while others were re-written, nearly in their entirety based off designs and concepts from AIX (like JFS - which if memory serves, was then ported BACK to AIX as JFS2 with larger per file size limits).
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.24, 06:33:55
Quote
A Short History of OS/2
http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html
Which as referenced at the link below (which you already posted just a little earlier) is just a better formatted version of the new link you posted. Have you even read the articles? Just curious. Because you have just posted a link (to a different site) containing the same article and pretending it is new evidence of your point. The first link (which I re-listed below) wasnt - and the link above that you just posted - which goes to a better formatted version of the article thus is not either.
http://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2History.html
- Thus, another redundant post from you, which proves nothing more than the first. Congrats! Better formatting of the same thing does not help prove a point the initial article couldnt.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.24, 06:33:55
Quote
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code. What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware. The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved. These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2. I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.
What is "eComStation" may I ask? ;)
"eComStation is fully OS/2 compatible and will run your existing OS/2 applications!"
http://www.ecomstation.com/
eComStation
IS OS/2. It is
NOT Linux or some other OS/kernel masquerading as OS/2. So, I dont see what you are trying to point out. Robert was discussing a Linux based implementation designed to look and feel like OS/2 as a successor he does not feel viable.
From someone who has seen what the threading model in OS/2 (and the still in progress one in Linux) can do, and the amazingly large amount of control a program or user has over thread and process priority under OS/2, I dont blame him.
Re:
Quote
Actually, nothing you point to says anything similar. Actually, if you read into some of those articles (and others on the Internet), you will see that early NT morphed from early OS/2 code. While OS/2 was written from the ground up to be a replacement for DOS based operating systems.
Regardless, we dont need to wait for IBM for an answer... the core components of OS/2 (ie: not including the device drivers and added subsystems) all hold IBM or IBM/MS or (in the most recent version) IBM/"Others" (as IBM started referring to MS) copyrights - and there are a list of IBM patents out there that are for OS/2 technologies and tied chronologically with it's development.
Certain things were ported to OS/2 after it was already long since a mature, stable OS (like the AIX firewall) - while others were re-written, nearly in their entirety based off designs and concepts from AIX (like JFS - which if memory serves, was then ported BACK to AIX as JFS2 with larger per file size limits).
From your writing (which attempt to give the impression that you are an authority when it comes to the overall knowledge of the development of OS/2 and related applications); also, the apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself; and, FYI as a long time
IBM Software Business Partner repeating known facts does not appear to be very useful and helpful in cases where one is attempting to grapple with well thought our issues -
hence, the appreciation, reference and usage of the OS/2 WF Bounty System/Process in place.
What is there to convince us that all the/our focus is on the "message" and that some is not diverted towards the "messenger/s". 8)
Regards.
QuoteFrom your writing (which attempt to give the impression that you are an authority when it comes to the overall knowledge of the development of OS/2 and related applications);
I claim no such position - but I would guess I am far more knowledgeable than you. Unlike you, when I started as an IBM Business Partner, they actually cared about OS/2. You entered the game far later than that.
Quotealso, the apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself;
You are welcome to express yourself - within the boundaries of accepted forum ettiquette. But when you are wrong, expect someone to point that out to you. All I asked was that instead of you posting the same thing over and over again, you post further justification. You haven't - you instead claim I am attacking you for disagreeing with you.
Quoteand, FYI as a long time IBM Software Business Partner repeating known facts does not appear to be very useful and helpful in cases where one is attempting to grapple with well thought our issues - hence, the appreciation, reference and usage of the OS/2 WF Bounty System/Process in place.
I've been an IBM Business Partner since 1995. I even helped beta test components of OS/2 long before they became available in OS/2 (such as the 32bit print engine in Warp 4) and talked directly to the
developers of those subsections.
Also, "repeating known facts..." if someone asks for clarification of your point ("What's the status of COMFETAR LIVE?" "Why do you think that OS/2 wasn't a new OS but something relabelled?") then obviously they are not known facts - especially when no one else seems to agree... so enlighten us (with something different).
QuoteWhat is there to convince us that all the/our focus is on the "message" and that some is not diverted towards the "messenger/s"
Because both Robert Deed and I pointed out what we knew about OS/2 - which has nothing to do with you. Thus... "the messenger" has nothing to do with the subject, so stop taking disagreement personal.
Because I started with OS/2 with v2.0 Limited Edition (GUI and all) and the version of C-Set/2 that was released with it - thus again my knowledge and experience on the topic and my response has nothing to do with you personally.
Because I have been an IBM Business Partner for 13 years (exclusively for OS/2) - thus again my knowledge and experience on the topic and my response has nothing to do with you personally.
Because I've actually worked with the code developers at IBM to help resolve issues that are currently fixed in OS/2 (such as, already mentioned, problems in the 32 bit print engine that you and no one else saw because I and a few others tested it long before the first public beta) - thus again my knowledge and experience on the topic and my response has nothing to do with you personally.
SO......Back to the topic at hand... the original kernel (and probably the current derivatives) are probably part MS property. And even if they are not, they are covered under the IBM/MS cross licensing agreement - either way, getting the source would be difficult. Yet, getting the source would be required in order to make a 64bit version.
The PPC kernel is supposedly a "clean room" implementation of the Mach kernel, and is a more likely candidate - but would require more work since it is written for a different platform/architecture. But, having the code to it would provide the ability to duplicate much of the functionality in the current Intel based kernel, leaving only the more recent portions to be recreated. It's a start - even if not the best of starts.
The (or a) Linux kernel is an alternative, but would cause issues in getting it as scalable and as threadable as the OS/2 kernel. As of now, much of the work on some of the new Linux threading models - as well as 64 CPU support - is actually
based off OS/2's threading and CPU model (one of IBM's contribution to the Linux community). Unfortunately, it's not enough info or code to be useful to recreate the OS/2 kernel. While that means that a Linux kernel may eventually be at a usable point, it introduces numerous other issues into the mix (like updating other core Linux components (to utilize the new threading model) that would be needed to recreate OS/2 on top of them). Heck, just the granularity of process and thread levels alone on OS/2 is amazing... 4 levels, each with 63 sub-levels for priority. Then of course, you have the issue that many OS/2 subsystems use CPU Ring 2... ooops! Need to modify the kernel to handle that too - or re-write everything else as Linux components.
And all of that leads to other areas that would need to be addressed - such as writing a new PM and WPS and SOM and DSOM for Linux (and far more) which is being addressed in other threads, so I wont go into detail here about that issue.
Robert
Roberts,
First of all, I would like to say I am a great fan of both of you and I really enjoy your comments on every thread, but regarding a new kernel, OS/2 for PPC parts, Voyager and such things... I would like to point out something:
A) Most of OS/2 for PPC higher level subsystems are just Intel-OS/2 recompiled code. I had read about it in several places, but there is a book
REICH, D. E. Designing high-powered OS/2 Warp applications - The anatomy
of multithreaded programs. United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1995.
Where this is clearly stated. I don't know PMShell was just rescompiled, but WPS was for sure. The same should apply to MMPM/2. I believe only lower level subsystems like GRE, device drivers, file systems and such things were rewritten from scratch.
B) Please, do not forget: the Operating System experience *is not* directly related to the kernel. Remember that OS/2 for PowerPC is MACH based, something much more like a UNIX than like an OS/2. And OS/2 for PPC, as far as I can tell, is a normal OS/2 from the users' point of view. It has a CONFIG.SYS and everything. The kernel is very important when talking about device driver model and performance (memory and CPU management), and that's all!
Of course OS/2 kernel is great, but it is old (outdated) and has various problems. The most important: we are trapped with a limited driver model... 32 bit drivers are mostly a hack into the kernel. Also, even with access to the kernel source, it is not possible to create a direct 64-bit backward compatible kernel in the way old applications "simply run", without recompilation or any kind of virtualization.
There is the need to use a new kernel for the future and, be it OS/2-kernel based or non-OS/2-kernel based, it *will* be incompatible (directly) with existing applications. It simply doesn't matter what kernel is used.
And this has nothing to do with APIs or the kernel itself, it has to do with memory model and processor operating modes. The bright side is: whatever kernel is used, since OS/2 applications are based on system API calls, as long as the API is mostly preserved, it is always possible:
1) Recompile old OS/2 applications for the new operating system, no matter what kernel was used.
2) Run old OS/2 applications (for which we do not have the source code) inside a virtal 32 bit environment, *not* emulated, in the same way OS/2 runs DOS applications. Notice that MDOS *is not* a DOS operating system running into a Virtual Machine Box. This kind of virtualization is needed because a new 64 bit kernel should operate in 64 bit CPU mode, and it has nothing to do with the kernel used.
Whatever the kernel is selected, if the target was running it in 32 bit mode, it would be possible to run binary OS/2 applications with a scheme similar to ODIN, but a more effective one, since it could be integrated into the kernel AND OS/2 API is not a moving target. In short, binary compatibility can be achieved seamlessly even with a foreign kernel; the problem is not what kernel, but the CPU operation mode / memory model.
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know if it is possible for 64 bit operating systems to support 32 bit applications without using some kind of virtual operation mode. But this *doesn't* mean running an emulator, nor loading the entire old 32bit-OS/2 operating system to run an application. As long as the 64 bit APIs are the same to old ones (just recompiled with different variable types), the virtual environment have just to remap 32 bit API calls to the 64 bit API calls.
If I am wrong and it *is* possible to run 32 bit apps inside 64 bit CPU mode, then full binary compatibility is possible, but the API will have to be reprogrammed anyway. This would only be avoided if: a) 32 bits programs can run in 64 bit mode; b) OS/2 32-bit kernel source is released and c) OS/2 API code is released. But I am afraid none of these can be satisfied.
That said, I am against Linux kernel for two reasons: Linux' threading model suck (incomplete, deficient) and Linux' device driver model suck. A user should never have to recompile the kernel just to enable a new device. But Linux is not the only kernel. There are LOTs of other kernels which *doesn't* have this problem and are very good. IBM used MACH (which was the one used for MacOS X too), but there is L4 or even Haiku kernel, which is already very good. The down side: there will be almost no device drivers available. This leaves one with the possibility of using ReactOS kernel... but hey, before we think in a kernel, there should be "things" to run on top of this kernel. We need to reprogram the API, or modify some parts of it. What about 2000's CAIRO instead of 1980's OS/2 GRE? What about re-creating WPS? When a new open WPS, using a new open graphical engine are ready, THEN one should think "on top of what will we run this beast?". THEN it will be the time to decide which kernel will be used and maybe we have, at that time, more options of well supported kernels then just NT (ReactOS) and Linux. Maybe Haiku's or even MacOS'.
But hey... this is just the direction Project Voyager took!
The only thing I hope is they development team keep the work and more and more people join them in the effort. Just complaining because they had not decided what kernel to use will not help at all. And I am sure of that.
Just my 2 cents.
Wow, epic posts. Thank you both! I've learned something here.
Hey djc!
I was thinking of writing a lengthy post commenting on each section of yours... then I realized, it would amount to "Yeah, I agree." or "Good point!" - so imagine I broke your post into sections and wrote one or both of those after each! ;) ;D
I actually commented on some of that stuff in my post that beat yours by seconds...
As for the kernel, one of the reasons I was interested in the PPC one (which I have little to NO knowledge about - ie: I know it exists) is because it would be a good "reverse engineering" starting place to get more hints about what and how the kernel worked (and more of a possibility of something that IBM could release - if they could find it)... and though it is based off the Mach kernel, I am sure it included several key things for Intel-OS/2 similar threading and scalability...
So... yeah, I agree! Good Points!
Robert
::)
Re:
Quote
I claim no such position - but I would guess I am far more knowledgeable than you. Unlike you, when I started as an IBM Business Partner, they actually cared about OS/2. You entered the game far later than that.
Quote
also, the apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself;
You are welcome to express yourself - within the boundaries of accepted forum ettiquette. But when you are wrong, expect someone to point that out to you. All I asked was that instead of you posting the same thing over and over again, you post further justification. You haven't - you instead claim I am attacking you for disagreeing with you.
Actually, I pondered for a while whether or not I should respond to your post but then again of what benefit would it be if I do not attempt to correct you with regards to some of your assumptions so much so even wanting to make a comparison with regards to time line of IBM Partner Membership in a public debate believing that such an issue is most trivial an uncalled for when more important issues should be the topic of the conversation; and, not to say the least that my earlier interface with the dumb terminal at the University of Sheffield, England during the mid-to-late nineteen seventies, the early nineteen eighties development banking and micro computing experiences through contact with
Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations consultants, followed by micro-computing class instructions at Baruch College predates both of our relationships with regards to IBM Partner Membership (in my own case holding both IBM and Lotus Development Corporation Partner Memberships; but, so much for that.
Now,
Quotethe apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself;
You are welcome to express yourself - within the boundaries of accepted forum etiquette
First of all I have taken the liberty of changing of the word which I believe should be "etiquette" ;) Why ask for certain details; and, As a point of reference here is an extract from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication;
Re:
Quote; Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.
In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"
then you completely ignore the real issues at hand. Surely in your "wisdom" you do not wish us to believe that applications like the ones referenced above are expected to run on their own without the aid of the underlying Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) integrated into the Operating Systems - do you. So, at which point in the development processes of the Operating Systems are the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) issues are expected to be addressed by developers. Were your company a candidate for a competitive bidding contract being offered by our company then your company may have just been eliminated from the process. 8)
BTW, there are words like those of
"the adoption of a philosophical approach" to certain scenarios.
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Hi Robert,
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.04.24, 19:59:27
As for the kernel, one of the reasons I was interested in the PPC one (which I have little to NO knowledge about - ie: I know it exists) is because it would be a good "reverse engineering" starting place to get more hints about what and how the kernel worked (and more of a possibility of something that IBM could release - if they could find it)... and though it is based off the Mach kernel, I am sure it included several key things for Intel-OS/2 similar threading and scalability...
So... yeah, I agree! Good Points!
I really think OS/2 for PowerPC not being released (even if recompiled for Intel!) was a big shame. I fell in love with its design and really think that should be the way computing should go. But this is past and we should think about future. Anyway, I agree it would be a great starting point. The problem with this approach remains the same as using a unknown kernel: we would have the need to write all device drivers, something very cumbersome.
BUT, being OS/2 PPC kernel based on MACH kernel (although not the same "release version as MacOS X, AFAIK), maybe it's possible to add MacOS X device driver support to it in a not-so-painful way. But at this time, this would only means we would be able to run OS/2 on MacIntel computers... something that is not bad at all :) , but it is not a perfect solution also.
Anyway, there are lots of things to happen before this decision. If IBM decide to release OS/2 PPC Kernel source code, this could be natural way to go (even if others are possible). Let's the time show us the better way.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.24, 21:22:53
Re:
Quote
I claim no such position - but I would guess I am far more knowledgeable than you. Unlike you, when I started as an IBM Business Partner, they actually cared about OS/2. You entered the game far later than that.
Quote
also, the apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself;
You are welcome to express yourself - within the boundaries of accepted forum ettiquette. But when you are wrong, expect someone to point that out to you. All I asked was that instead of you posting the same thing over and over again, you post further justification. You haven't - you instead claim I am attacking you for disagreeing with you.
Actually, I pondered for a while whether or not I should respond to your post but then again of what benefit would it be if I do not attempt to correct you with regards to some of your assumptions so much so even wanting to make a comparison with regards to time line of IBM Partner Membership in a public debate believing that such an issue is most trivial an uncalled for when more important issues should be the topic of the conversation; and, not to say the least that my earlier interface with the dumb terminal at the University of Sheffield, England during the mid-to-late nineteen seventies followed by micro-computing class instructions at Baruch College predates both of our relationships with regards to IBM Partner Membership (in my own case holding both IBM and Lotus Development Corporation Partner Memberships; but, so much for that.
So... you answer is "but I was in college before you were." Congrats. And yes, perhaps I should have added Lotus to my list as well.
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.04.24, 21:22:53
Now,
Quotethe apparent convenient avoidance of relevant issues when taken together give the indication/impression of the feeling of being challenged in a world in which one is free to express oneself;
You are welcome to express yourself - within the boundaries of accepted forum etiquette
First of all I have taken the liberty of changing of the word which I believe should be "etiquette" ;) Why ask for certain details; and, As a point of reference here is an extract from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication;
Re:
Quote; Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.
In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"
then you completely ignore the real issues at hand. Surely in your "wisdom" you do not wish us to believe that applications like the ones referenced above are expected to run on their own without the aid of the underlying Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) integrated into the Operating Systems - do you. So, at which point in the development processes of the Operating Systems are the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) issues are expected to be addressed by developers. Were your company a candidate for a competitive bidding contract being offered by our company then your company may have just been eliminated from the process. 8)
BTW, there are words like those of "the adoption of a philosophical approach" to certain scenarios.
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Well, I couldnt ignore the "real issues at hand" that you just brought up since you just brought them up - so let's tackle them. If you read through this thread (skipping your posts and the replies to them, that is) you will see that we have been discussing APIs and more (if even only by inference).
So, since you are now going off track with that... let me ask you this... just how many APIs do you think there are in the OS2KRNL? Just curious. You do realize that OS2KRNL isnt even a megabyte, dont you? As a matter of fact, OS2KRNL, OS2BOOT and OS2LDR
combined dont equal a megabyte.
So perhaps you are talking about APIs for various subsystems such as MMOS2, WPS, PM, networking (LanMan/Samba, TCP/IP, etc), SOM, DSOM, REXX/C, etc... in which case we are once again straying off topic as this thread is about "eComStation 64 Bit Kernel"
Now of course, there are the basic drivers (BASEDEVS) that hook directly into the kernel - but that's a different topic as well - and others have already managed to replace some of them with versions the eCS community has the code for.
So once again, I am not sure what you are trying to point out...
Robert
PS: Enjoy your day too... I am enjoying mine :)
Re:
Quote
Well, I couldn't ignore the "real issues at hand" that you just brought up since you just brought them up - so let's tackle them. If you read through this thread (skipping your posts and the replies to them, that is) you will see that we have been discussing APIs and more (if even only by inference).
So, since you are now going off track with that... let me ask you this... just how many APIs do you think there are in the OS2KRNL? Just curious. You do realize that OS2KRNL isn't even a megabyte, don't you? As a matter of fact, OS2KRNL, OS2BOOT and OS2LDR combined don't equal a megabyte.
So perhaps you are talking about APIs for various subsystems such as MMOS2, WPS, PM, networking (LanMan/Samba, TCP/IP, etc), SOM, DSOM, REXX/C, etc... in which case we are once again straying off topic as this thread is about "eComStation 64 Bit Kernel"
Now of course, there are the basic drivers (BASEDEVS) that hook directly into the kernel - but that's a different topic as well - and others have already managed to replace some of them with versions the eCS community has the code for.
So once again, I am not sure what you are trying to point out...
You know Robert, you do make me wonder sometimes with your kind/line of questions and the real intent... as a matter of fact do you really need to be reminded of a specific "bounty" that was posted in the OS/2 Bounty System that you are now saying here again
Quote
So once again, I am not sure what you are trying to point out...
Anyway, let me attempt
Quoteto point out...
to you once more (hopefully, one less time and trusting that it is not a waste of my time) therefore to make a long story short our efforts are intended to mirror a similar UNIDO's solution offering:
Quote
COMFAR
In 1983 the first generation of the Computer Model for Feasibility Analysis and Reporting (COMFAR), a computation tool for financial analysis of investments, was released. Since then, this UNIDO software has been developed further, to support the financial and economic appraisal of projects. In 1995 the third generation, COMFAR III Expert, was introduced to the market.
Today, over 1500 licensees are using COMFAR in about 130 countries for project analysis and appraisal.
http://www.win2biz.com/comfar/default.htm
that predates most IBM or Microsoft Office products that I am familiar with. I guess that you will notice the similarity in the product naming; and, such is our focus and directions all along without your insinuations of
Quotegoing off track
Now, how about you telling us/stating; putting aside the issue
Quotejust how many APIs do you think there are in the OS2KRNL
how many Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations financial, economic and technical consultants you, along with those IBM developers you spoke about sat down with to determine what
"tools" they needed to address the tasks at hand (like it is with
QuoteCOMFAR
and not having developed products that you thought that they would need. Maybe, one of the reasons why OS/2 is where it is today ???
Not below why (from my perspective) it was felt that OS/2 was good candidate for
QuoteCOMFAR
COMFAR III Expert is a computer software that permits the user to simulate the short- and long-term financial and economic situation of investment projects. The software permits the analysis of industrial as well as non-industrial projects, whether new investments, rehabilitations, expansions, joint venture or privatization projects.
COMFAR III Expert is operable under Windows 3.11, Windows 95/98 and Windows NT. For details, please refer to the Hard- and Software Requirements.
So, what is your next question if another attempt is not to be made to hide the
COMFAR-COMFETAR LIVE relationship as well as the relevant
"functionality developmental" issues under the rug as they have been for years. ;)
Regards.
This is actually a reply to your other message.
PMSHell and WPS were just recompiles from the Intel code, however any toolkit which IBM did not have the source to or permission to use on PPC processors were removed. So theoretically it has less 3rd party code in it. Only IBM could really answer this.
MMOS/2 as far as PPC went was never completed. However, it was a full ground up 32bit rewrite. Actually, OS/2 PPC didn't contain any 16bit code.. so any parts of OS/2 which are 16bit (or were at the time of OS/2PPC) were either omitted or re-written.
Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.04.24, 21:25:17
Hi Robert,
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.04.24, 19:59:27
As for the kernel, one of the reasons I was interested in the PPC one (which I have little to NO knowledge about - ie: I know it exists) is because it would be a good "reverse engineering" starting place to get more hints about what and how the kernel worked (and more of a possibility of something that IBM could release - if they could find it)... and though it is based off the Mach kernel, I am sure it included several key things for Intel-OS/2 similar threading and scalability...
So... yeah, I agree! Good Points!
I really think OS/2 for PowerPC not being released (even if recompiled for Intel!) was a big shame. I fell in love with its design and really think that should be the way computing should go. But this is past and we should think about future. Anyway, I agree it would be a great starting point. The problem with this approach remains the same as using a unknown kernel: we would have the need to write all device drivers, something very cumbersome.
BUT, being OS/2 PPC kernel based on MACH kernel (although not the same "release version as MacOS X, AFAIK), maybe it's possible to add MacOS X device driver support to it in a not-so-painful way. But at this time, this would only means we would be able to run OS/2 on MacIntel computers... something that is not bad at all :) , but it is not a perfect solution also.
Anyway, there are lots of things to happen before this decision. If IBM decide to release OS/2 PPC Kernel source code, this could be natural way to go (even if others are possible). Let's the time show us the better way.
Hey RobertM.. While we're playing the game.. I've been an IBM Development Partner since 1993 (I believe, OS/2 2.0). I actually beta tested all versions of OS/2 since 1.3 (though I had a version of 1.2 which did not run on my PS/2.. ironic.) I even beta tested different versions of CSet and Visualage =)
However, my actual productivity as a development partner was rather limited. Since most of my applications are closed source billing systems I never really took part in developer forums. =)
Though I do find it amazing that someone who came to the game later on can argue things which we actually watched happen.
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.25, 05:57:46
Hey RobertM.. While we're playing the game.. I've been an IBM Development Partner since 1993 (I believe, OS/2 2.0). I actually beta tested all versions of OS/2 since 1.3 (though I had a version of 1.2 which did not run on my PS/2.. ironic.) I even beta tested different versions of CSet and Visualage =)
However, my actual productivity as a development partner was rather limited. Since most of my applications are closed source billing systems I never really took part in developer forums. =)
Though I do find it amazing that someone who came to the game later on can argue things which we actually watched happen.
Hey Robert,
At least he is amusing - if not redundant. I just wish he would spend even ONE post and explain why a now non-existant, defunct project and a VC group are the sudden salvation of OS/2... or for that matter what the heck it has to do with a 64 bit kernel since he hasnt provided the relationship - nor how he thinks that walking up to a VC group and saying "Hi! I am gonna port Notes, SameTime, et al to OS/2! Give me money!" would work...
Ah well... at this point I think I am going to let him enjoy his "opinions" and carry on this conversation with people who respond with "I think this because _____ (actual explanation)" :)
Anyway, I'm off for filming some shots for Star Trek New Voyages... I will see you all in 4 days.
Robert
Curious... What is star trek new voyages... =)
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.04.25, 06:30:32
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.25, 05:57:46
Hey RobertM.. While we're playing the game.. I've been an IBM Development Partner since 1993 (I believe, OS/2 2.0). I actually beta tested all versions of OS/2 since 1.3 (though I had a version of 1.2 which did not run on my PS/2.. ironic.) I even beta tested different versions of CSet and Visualage =)
However, my actual productivity as a development partner was rather limited. Since most of my applications are closed source billing systems I never really took part in developer forums. =)
Though I do find it amazing that someone who came to the game later on can argue things which we actually watched happen.
Hey Robert,
At least he is amusing - if not redundant. I just wish he would spend even ONE post and explain why a now non-existant, defunct project and a VC group are the sudden salvation of OS/2... or for that matter what the heck it has to do with a 64 bit kernel since he hasnt provided the relationship - nor how he thinks that walking up to a VC group and saying "Hi! I am gonna port Notes, SameTime, et al to OS/2! Give me money!" would work...
Ah well... at this point I think I am going to let him enjoy his "opinions" and carry on this conversation with people who respond with "I think this because _____ (actual explanation)" :)
Anyway, I'm off for filming some shots for Star Trek New Voyages... I will see you all in 4 days.
Robert
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.04.25, 06:39:54
Curious... What is star trek new voyages... =)
Sorry for the off-topic post/plug... Star Trek New Voyages (or Star Trek Phase 2 as we now call it) is the continuation of Kirk's original 5 year mission with new cast reprising the roles from TOS, rebuilt sets, state of the art cgi and scripts from some of TOS's most famous writers (like David Gerrold and DC Fontana), and even some TOS actors reprising their roles (such as George Takei and Grace Lee Whitney in "World Enough and Time" and Walter Koenig in "To Serve All My Days"). So far we've won the TV Guide Best Online Sci-Fi Webisode of 2007 (beat "Battlestar Galactica" and "The 4400" and the rest), been nominated for a Hugo, Peabody and Nebula award...
Check out http://www.StarTrekNewVoyages.com/ - the episodes are free to download or watch streaming (in high definition) online.
Robert
Well, there's my one horrendously off-topic post for the month... good thing the new month starts soon! ;D
Game! Games! Games!; and, Hilariously Entertaining... Don't think the
Gotham City OS/2 Meetings in those bygone days of the 90's were this entertaining. 8)
Where in the world is "Kim Chung" (Serenity Systems). ??? ::) :D
QuoteThough I do find it amazing that someone who came to the game later on can argue things which we actually watched happen.
How about trying this in a "computerized" game for a start: ;D
Quote
STAR DATE...... 1982
ORION RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL
A SIMPLIFIED GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING
MODERATOR NOTE: Article snipped to avoid possible copyright issues. Please post a link to such info if it is publised, instead of posting overly large snippets or entire documents.
BTW, As you enjoy your "game" of filling up at the "gas" stations in the coming days, months and years.... you may find some advantage by not having forgotten to integrate UC
2 during your programming schedules.
Re:
Quote
Instant Messaging and Web Conferencing
Lotus software
For unified communications and collaboration (UC²) solutions
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/category/uc2/
Enjoy comprehending the economic evaluation procedure as outlined by a
Quotedefunct VC Group
;D ;D ;D
Re:
QuoteMODERATOR NOTE: Article snipped to avoid possible copyright issues. Please post a link to such info if it is published, instead of posting overly large snippets or entire documents.
The purpose of the post (apart from that of driving for an high degree of openness) was intended as a response to; and, contrary to
Quote
a now non-existant, defunct project and a VC group are the sudden salvation of OS/2
iCOMFETAR LIVE is actually
a work-in-progress (please see
OS/2 WF's Bounty System - Re: "Native Port of IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0, IBM's Lotus SameTime 8.0... to the OS/2 Operating System) with a relevant link here:
Quote
http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=14283&expand=true&lc=en
and to provide information of a known procedure to be followed
for converting from financial to economic values with the
"corresponding computing limitations" being attempted to be addressed over time as reflected in the below attached referenced 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication and which was also previously posted:
Quote
Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.
In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"
All for your kind information.
Thank you.
Guys,
I know it is important to you to express you either opinions... but... could you please try to do it somewhere else? This thread started on "Ecomstation 64Bit kernel". It has now 5 pages, which is a damn lot. If I strip the OT posts from it, it might cut down to 1 or 2 (in the max) pages.
Saborion2, I have started a dedicated thread for COMFETAR etc.
Please feel free to give us a ramp-up on that subject, pros and cons... and we'll gladly participate in a raging debate. But
please let us do it there:
http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,977.0/ (http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,977.0/)
BTW, Sab... people are sometimes a little worried about your posts being hard to understand. I took this one from the current thread to show you what I (they) mean...:
Quote
Actually, I pondered for a while whether or not I should respond to your post but then again of what benefit would it be if I do not attempt to correct you with regards to some of your assumptions so much so even wanting to make a comparison with regards to time line of IBM Partner Membership in a public debate believing that such an issue is most trivial an uncalled for when more important issues should be the topic of the conversation; and, not to say the least that my earlier interface with the dumb terminal at the University of Sheffield, England during the mid-to-late nineteen seventies, the early nineteen eighties development banking and micro computing experiences through contact with Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations consultants, followed by micro-computing class instructions at Baruch College predates both of our relationships with regards to IBM Partner Membership (in my own case holding both IBM and Lotus Development Corporation Partner Memberships; but, so much for that.
THIS IS ACTUALLY
*1* SINGLE SENTENCE! I checked it three times... it's ONE sentence!
I know it's sometimes hard to make your fingers follow a much quicker mind... but please... give a try on shortening these sentences, it makes it much more pleasant to read and thus will increase the number of people paying attention to it.
Cheers
Thomas
This is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up. I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time. This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel. I understand why a 64 bit kernel is necessary, but I also know that at the moment, we do not have a (maintainable) kernel at all, 64 bit or otherwise! Without a kernel, you don't have an operating system. Without an operating system, it doesn't matter who has or doesn't have Lotus Notes, or any other application.
It seems obvious that we're not going to legally get the kernel source, or any other aid from IBM. We must either write a new kernel, or try to modify one that already exists. Waiting for an IBM handout will kill us.
The Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers. Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward. We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us. There are a number of projects in the works to do exactly what has been said here, yet we're behaving as if they do not exist. osfree has plans to recreate OS/2. Most importantly, they've actually worked at it, and have something to show for their work. Even though their chosen path is a difficult one, it is much better than waiting on IBM to feel sorry for us. I don't think sorrow is part of their corporate policy.
We know what we want - it's now a matter of making it happen.
This topic can be summed up like this:
IBM no longer supports OS/2. There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code. There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress.
Would you like to help? This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.
Now, a rant: if you take a look at netlabs or osfree, you'll notice that their websites are all broken. It would appear as if the community is gone. If you dig deeper, you'll find that there are people working. How do you expect to draw attention or developers when they can't even figure out if you're still alive? I thought for sure osfree was dead, until I looked at the dates in svn.
Quote from: phaelonimaire on 2008.04.26, 18:45:36
This is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up. I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time. This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel. I understand why a 64 bit kernel is necessary, but I also know that at the moment, we do not have a (maintainable) kernel at all, 64 bit or otherwise! Without a kernel, you don't have an operating system. Without an operating system, it doesn't matter who has or doesn't have Lotus Notes, or any other application.
It seems obvious that we're not going to legally get the kernel source, or any other aid from IBM. We must either write a new kernel, or try to modify one that already exists. Waiting for an IBM handout will kill us.
The Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers. Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward. We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us. There are a number of projects in the works to do exactly what has been said here, yet we're behaving as if they do not exist. osfree has plans to recreate OS/2. Most importantly, they've actually worked at it, and have something to show for their work. Even though their chosen path is a difficult one, it is much better than waiting on IBM to feel sorry for us. I don't think sorrow is part of their corporate policy.
We know what we want - it's now a matter of making it happen.
This topic can be summed up like this:
IBM no longer supports OS/2. There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code. There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress.
Would you like to help? This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.
Now, a rant: if you take a look at netlabs or osfree, you'll notice that their websites are all broken. It would appear as if the community is gone. If you dig deeper, you'll find that there are people working. How do you expect to draw attention or developers when they can't even figure out if you're still alive? I thought for sure osfree was dead, until I looked at the dates in svn.
First of all, an excellent post "phaelonimaire"; and, I am prompted to make the following observations; re:
QuoteThis is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up. I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time. This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel
Is there a time line (period) with regards to instances in which
Quotethis topic has been brought up
in this way one reading your comment would have a better idea about the specific period of reference and the particular "topic" that you are talking about.
Also, you have stated;
QuoteThe Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers. Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward. We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us.
As you will know, in most circumstances; and, from a dialectical point of view it may be necessary to know the history of something/behavior; as for example - our ancestral history (in this case the history of the development of the OS/2 Operating System) in order to know how we got where we are today; and, how to plan/prepare for the future; so, all in all it is felt that it is a good thing for a start that we know the "background experience" of the people that we are dealing with.... I am quite sure that you are quite familiar with the old saying - "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" ;D ::) 8)
With regards to:
QuoteIBM no longer supports OS/2. There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code. There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress.
Would you like to help? This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.
The IBM's response to the Second Petition Letter by the OS/2 World Foundation reads in part as follows:
Quote
As stated in our response to your September 2005 letter we have considered the positioning of OS/2 and open source several times in the past, and for a variety of business, technical, and legal reasons we have decided to not pursue any OS/2 open source projects.
IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate.
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/1/
Please note carefully that
Quote
IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2
does not appear to be saying the same thing as you are saying in that you you have said; and, to repeat...
Quote
IBM no longer supports OS/2.
Do you care to clarify your statement on the above. ;)
Thank you.
Kindest regards
SAB.
The topic I have mentioned would be kernel replacement, and general advancement of OS/2 as an operating system. Shortly after the announcement of the Voyager project, there was a thread on this website about what kernel to use. The debate was over rather it mattered which kernel was to be used. Shortly afterward, the topic of why we weren't using the Linux kernel and GNU software was raised. When the 64-bit x86 CPUs were 'new' a couple years ago, another topic surfaced about building a 64-bit OS/2 kernel. At that time, osfree.org was mentioned as a possible avenue.
History is a very broad category. There is the history of OS/2, which is important. There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant. When one looks to the future, one must also study the past. However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion. What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.
"...IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate."
We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right? Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"? If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get? Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux. If I wanted to do that, I would have done it by now.
True, IBM says they support OS/2. The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us? Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version.
Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM. It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail. At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.
Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward?
Quote from: phaelonimaire on 2008.04.27, 04:40:44
The topic I have mentioned would be kernel replacement, and general advancement of OS/2 as an operating system. Shortly after the announcement of the Voyager project, there was a thread on this website about what kernel to use. The debate was over rather it mattered which kernel was to be used. Shortly afterward, the topic of why we weren't using the Linux kernel and GNU software was raised. When the 64-bit x86 CPUs were 'new' a couple years ago, another topic surfaced about building a 64-bit OS/2 kernel. At that time, osfree.org was mentioned as a possible avenue.
History is a very broad category. There is the history of OS/2, which is important. There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant. When one looks to the future, one must also study the past. However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion. What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.
"...IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate."
We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right? Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"? If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get? Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux. If I wanted to do that, I would have done it by now.
True, IBM says they support OS/2. The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us? Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version.
Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM. It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail. At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.
Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward?
Hey "phaelonimaire"! Thank you for that confirmation as we prepare to lay down the plans for the enhanced interface; as with regards to:
Quote
"ACPI (short for "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface") is a standard that defines power and configuration management interfaces between an operating system and Hardware. It is meant to supersede the older APM standard (for power management) and provide a generic interface for recognition and configuration of hardware devices."
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/17964/2/
with particular reference to; and, bordering on the orientation of those of the early players that were "trusted" with the development of the design and development of the earlier "kernels"...; and, this is the considered opinion of what can be ascribed to the mis-orientation of the earlier developers of the early "kernels" - the incorrect assumptions of the ways in which the "international project analysts" should do their work in order to complete the tasks at hand rather than sitting down with them in the first instance and finding out the ways in which decision-making are arrive at; and, those are done - after results of well considered "reports/analyses" have been generated (
with the computing tools provided) and presented.
You have said; re:
Quote
History is a very broad category. There is the history of OS/2, which is important. There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant. When one looks to the future, one must also study the past. However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion. What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.
Considering the UNIDO's "COMFAR" as well as the "Software For Economic Evaluation" (SEE) cases do you care to explain what are the irrelevancies of the development of these applications (if these are the referenced experienced being mentioned) to either the Windows or OS/2 Operating Systems. See details below...
Quote
COMFAR III Expert is operable under Windows 3.11, Windows 95/98 and Windows NT. For details, please refer to the Hard- and Software Requirements.
http://www.win2biz.com/comfar/default.htm
Also
Quote
We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right? Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"? If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get? Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux. If I wanted to do that, I would have done it by now.
True, IBM says they support OS/2. The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us? Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version.
Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM. It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail. At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.
I live in the United States; but, while it is not certain in which country in the world you live and work... it is the general understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America preventing any individual or group of people living in the United States from coming up with the design and development of their own "mouse trap" (Computer Operating System) when considering a strategy for us to
Quotemove forward.
Anyway, here is an hint that should be consider at the earliest -
what do present day users want the "Computer Operating System" to do for them.; and, this should serve as a guide for us moving forward 8)
Kindest regards.
Hi "phaelonimaire"; You stated earlier...
Quote
Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward?
And, it is very much believed that this was said before; what if there is a work around of the OS/2 Kernel by let us say - a few "smart" American, Russian, Indian, Guyanese, Brazilian.... developers will this still be an OS/2 Kernel; or, thinking in terms of "moving forward"... one might suppose it can be called an OS/3 (Third Generation) Kernel; additionally, what bearing will this have on an organization such as the OS/2 World Foundation. Will this organization now be renamed the OS/3 World Foundation.... Not to mention the establishment of an OS/3 World/Software Alliance
Just my two cents. ;)
Kindest regards.
SAB
Additionally ""phaelonimaire";
One may need to look at the rationale for the development of an "64 Bit Kernel" for the "OS/2" or "OS/3"XX... - eComStation 2.0 Operating Systems from the standpoint that these are already available for the Windows and Linux Operating Systems among others it is believed.
Playing "catch-up" if one wishes to call it that. ;)
Regards.
Since these features are already available on other operating systems, why is it that we're here - talking about OS/2? While other operating systems may provide advanced feature sets and "better" hardware support, that doesn't mean their method of implementation works for every situation. There are a number of markets where OS/2 seems far easier to use than Linux or Windows. When it comes to industrial control PCs, kiosks, or ATMs, OS/2 is much easier to set up. It is possible to have it easily run only the GUI (PM) app you want (unlike Windows XP and the dreaded winlogon API), and is far less complicated than trying to both learn and then customize the standard linux distribution.
From the application development point of view, working with OS/2 is easier than Linux in some respects. I've found that writing OS/2 (and even Windows) GUI applications is much easier than trying to develop with GTK or other toolkits. I write mostly in C and Assembly, so packages such as wxWidgets and Qt do little or nothing for me. Keep in mind that this applies only when portability to other operating systems is not an issue.
The kernel and API are important to an operating system because they do far more than control the hardware and provide access to it. The way the kernel handles memory and I/O will dictate how the OS feels and performs. The way the API is designed will impact the way a developer writes an application, and may even contribute to its overall stability. A good example is the X11 event loop versus the Windows event loop. With X11, you can use select() to monitor the event loop and any other socket. With Windows, you must either use PeekMessage with a timeout/loop, or you have to create a separate thread to handle other sockets, which may or may not be the best solution.
I completely understand what you're saying about "playing catch-up". This is why everyone I know that used to run OS/2 now runs something else. Although there have been a number of great enhancements made to OS/2 since the start of the "Convenience Pak" days, we have not seen any major development on the core OS. This is not going to change until either the complete source code meets someone who will maintain it, or a replacement is written. Until then, the gap between OS/2 and the other operating systems will continue to grow.
As stated before (in this thread and numerous other places), something has to be done. We can either keep patching what IBM gave us, support those who are already working on an alternative (Voyager / osfree.org), or start from scratch and hope for the best.