OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum

WebSite Information => Article Discussions => Topic started by: miturbide on 2012.05.27, 18:58:07

Title: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.05.27, 18:58:07
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/21749/2/ (http://www.os2world.com/content/view/21749/2/)
Quote
Posted by Eugene Gorbunoff - Sunday, 27 May 2012


What applications do eComStation users need?

I consider this a good exercise, it is always good to know what the community is needing. But I still consider this community first objective is to get more users and developers. Accomplishing this is hard because of the OS competition on the PC market.

We have Windows and MacOS, close source, available for charge, and Windows came as a default on all PCs (with a hide charge) and MacOS came with all Apple computer. Both had a bast community of users and developers, and are interesting markets for software developers that sell licenses.

On the other had, we have a thousand Linux distributions, it is open source, available free of charge. There is also a vast user and developer community. And they are also an interesting server software market for it. (Oracle, IBM, other have their paid software available for this platform).

Sure, that platforms had their technical ups and downs, but they share something in common:
- they have more users
- developers
- and are a interesting market.

But here with the OS/2 and eComStation community we have the following reality:
- eComStation is only available at charge.
- OS/2 is abandomware, which means it is not legal to use it if you didn't acquire a license with it was available for sale.
- eComStation and OS/2 is open source. The source code and its improvements are controlled by a single company
- We have a reduced user and developer base.

So, what are the benefits of OS/2-eComStation compared to those other Windows, MacOS, Linux.

Being pragmatic, there is no benefit. We use/support this platform because we like it. It is the thing that we consider what is more appealing to us.

But when I try to think about an strategy to grown the user/developer base of this platform the following doubts appears:
- What is the future of this platform? Controlled by a single company and without it major developer (IBM) investing on it.
No answer.
- How can new users acquire OS/2-ecs to start testing it and developing over it?
The only solution is to pay a license fee.

So, trying to think on a solution about this the only way to start getting more users and developers is working on turning/cloning OS/2-eCS as open source software.
Making a clone of OS/2, just like other projects are working right now (Linux, ReactOS and Haiku OS).

Making it open source, will not give us user/developers at once, but will be provide a more decent answer to my questions:
- What is the future of this platform?
It is not controlled by a single company. Everybody can use it, develop it and share it for any purpose. The control does not depend on a single company or group.
The future of the platform is open for everybody to mark its path.
- How can new users acquire OS/2-ecs to start testing it and developing over it?
You can download it free of charge, and you will not be breaking any law because it is open source.

Sure, people may read this and try technically by refuting line by line, like saying is it "impossible" to make an OS/2 clone (which is not true, it is hard, not impossible). Or by complaining that ReacOS and Haiku are not technical apt.

But the main question remains when a new user/developer thinks about OS/2 and eComStation:

- What is the future of this platform?

Can you answer that?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: crimso on 2012.05.28, 14:22:28
IMO it is rather pointless to discuss this.

The probability of OS/2 and eCS becoming Open Source is next to zero. IBM would have to invest money to sort out license issues and prepare the release. There is little to be gained there on the non-pecuniary side, so unless there is a business case of sufficient size, it will not happen.

Creating an OS/2 clone might not be impossible technically, but practically the situation is such that it won't happen anyway. Such a project would be huge and take an awful lot of manpower. The number of developers who are skilled enough to pull this off and are still into OS/2 and eCS is small. If they worked on such a project in their spare-time, it would take about forever. Even if they could work on it full-time, it would take quite long. While they were working on it, other projects that are vital to the community would have to be put on the back-burner and technical progress would move on. I rather doubt that this would be of benefit.

The only way I can see for OS/2 technology to survive in the long run is by


Given that user-interfaces of OSes/distributions like Windows 8 and Ubuntu are taking the mobile route currently, which seems to put off quite a few people, there might actually be a window for the second option.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.05.29, 14:50:22
In a perfect world we could do something along the same lines to what IBM did with OS/2 PPC; i.e. put a "OS/2 personality" on top of something else. The issue is how would we offer backward capability. Is the OS/2 API well documented and would there be legal issues if someone produced a open implementation of it?

In a perfect world we could maybe take DOSBox or FreeDOS for the DOS computability and use the newer builds of WINE for Windows computability and forgo the use of Win-OS/2.

TBH I strongly believe that Windows 8 is a train wreck in the making and I agree with crimso's view that it could be used to our advantage.

Of course, it's nice to knock ideas around but actually being able to do them is quite another. On the another hand, it has amazed me what the community has been able to do with OS/2, even without access to the source code!

Cheers,

Dan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.06.08, 04:18:05
The probability of OS/2 and eCS becoming Open Source is next to zero. IBM would have to invest money ....
We all know that IBM is a dead end about this.

Creating an OS/2 clone might not be impossible technically, but practically the situation is such that it won't happen anyway. Such a project would be huge and take an awful lot of manpower....

I'm sorry, but I can not ignore how ReactOS had progress on cloning Windows. Sure, ReactOS is far from perfect, but they have a booting OS that can runs applications. I'm not sure how many manpower they used, but I can see the results.

I aim to this because this platform need to have a long term goal and try to make steps to reach that goal.


  • Coming up with something that is based on other OSS to minimize down the workload and is cool enough to draw developers from elsewhere, which is pretty much what Voyager was aiming to do first; or

This idea was also good and valid too. It can also be a part of a long term goal. It is too bad that Netlabs stopped the idea and there are no resources or people interested on coding it (just as there is no interest on an OSS clone)


The issue that concerns me is that there is no ideas/efforts to have a long term strategy for the platform. Patching old IBM binaries does not sound like a good long term strategy.

I just wish there could be a way to reactivate OSS projects to replace old OS/2 proprietary components.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: aschn on 2012.06.08, 16:29:41
With the current amount of developers, I see the following as the only
viable option (the idea is not new):

Make those features that we like about OS/2 available for Linux.
Create a window manager that feels like the WPS with objects that support
setup strings.

I don't see anything else what's missing in a current Linux distro.

Andreas
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: lewhoo on 2012.06.08, 16:57:22
"I don't see anything else what's missing in a current Linux distro."

There are plenty of things missing or just made in a different way. As an everyday linux user (I have to use it at work, for scientific tasks), I find its archaic in many ways architecture very annoying. Complete rubbish in the file system, slow gui response (Xwindow), ideas that make using linux via ssh very convinient, but slowing down the system boot/response time etc... However, yes, I agree that this may be the only way to save something from OS/2. But for me OS/2 is not only the WPS, so it would be saving only a small part.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.06.08, 17:43:55
I'm also not a Linux lover (even that I'm an open source lover), I personally dislike the Directory hierarchic structure (FHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard)), and the Monolithic kernel, but I agreed with Andrea's post.

It will be practical to stop worrying about the backend components and clone the top of OS/2 over it.

But on that case, which will be the steps to try to accomplish this?
Would it be like cloning, WPS, SOM and PM over Linux?

Would it be possible to start/focus on a project to clone WPS to turn it 100% OSS, and work it over eComStation/OS/2 with the goal of someday make it run on Linux?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: melf on 2012.06.08, 22:53:44
Although there might be questionable things about the OS4 project, I think their contributions should not be disregarded. Future might tell us that the application of their work is not illegal. I guess that the kernel is the key to a future life, that is not based on Linux.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.06.09, 02:04:18
A bit of a side question, what view does Mensys have on this? Perhaps some of the revenue from eCS sales or the software subscription could potentially fund a replacement Kernel etc.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.06.09, 04:42:23
hi melf

I also have good expectations about OS/4 project. For what I know they are using a IBM kernel leaked source code, but when they manage to replace it all there will be no legal doubts about the project (which it may take some time).

The only issue I have with the OS/4 team is that they do not care about which license to put on the development the made (commercial or open source). They are now in a legal void, they say come and code, but the rules of the use of the code are not clear. They just say, use it, it is free of charge.

Some of the russian team of this project, think that the GNU GPL and other open source license only allows big corporations to make million of dollars, which I think it is not right and I found exaggerated. They don't think that if they release it under a copyleft license, anybody that code any improvement (big corporations and individuals) will be forced to make it open source too, which in the long term it will help the project to grow. That is what happened to Linux, IBM, Redhat and even MS, when they try to make an improvement to linux components are forced to give the source code under the same license.

On this case, I also dislike releasing open source software under non-copyleft license, which mean that the derivative work can became close source. If we are trying to make the platform to grow I consider copyleft the best option.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.06.09, 05:08:16
Hi danielnez1

I can not talk on Mensys behalf but I think we all know what is their current business model.

They sell eComStation licenses, and they pay the OEM fee to IBM. On that case their strategy is to make eComStation run on newer hardware to support their legacy customers.
Mensys has supported open source development like Qt4, OpenJDK, OS2AHCI, network drivers (which is good) but it is focused on trying to keep eCS running in the short term.

The reality for Mensys is that someday the OS/2 legacy corporate customers will eventually migrate to other platform, ATMs will get old and out of circulation, scada devices get upgraded, industrial machines will get upgraded once the economy gets better, so they will not require OS/2 anymore. At that moment (I think we can not specify when) it will not be a profitable business for them.

Since they sell licenses, they do not understand the open source model (services). But I can say for sure, if OS/2 became open source (cloning it) they will benefit in the long term, they currently have corporate customers which they can keep selling support, they have a developer network and they have business advantaged over any other company trying to make money with the platform.

The only one that will not benefit from making a OS/2 OSS clone is IBM, which will loose the OEM software fee.

Please notice I don't have anything against Mensys, thanks to them OS/2 is still on the market (since I don't know what happened to Serenity), and they keep investing on this platform.
I consider Mensys business model for eComStation not bad, but it is not sustainable on the long term if you want the platform to be preserved.

But Mensys is always welcome to slap me back in the face. What is the future of the platform? How are the going to grow the users base with this business model?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.06.09, 12:27:07
Hi miturbide,

I agree with what you are saying. I do believe that long term, Mensys would benefit from a more open version of OS/2 as they could still sell support or sell a beefed up version for cooperate customers etc.

As for IBM, I've always been puzzled by their attitude to OS/2 migration. For a business solutions company it seems a bit weak to suggest to their corporate OS/2 customers to simply migrate to Linux and/or use Java without providing any sort of backwards compatibility. However I guess that worked to the advantage for eCS.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.06.09, 17:24:26
Quote
As for IBM, I've always been puzzled by their attitude to OS/2 migration.

I worked for IBM for 25 years. For the first 20, they were a company that went out of their way to be sure that the customer got the best service, and products. In the last 5 years (ending in 1992, when I retired), the whole thing changed to "make money, or you're outa here". OS/2 had a solid customer base, but IBM was not making much money from it. Development was expensive, and there was not a lot of service to be done. I believe that it paid for itself, but there was little profit in it, so IBM tried to cut it. The only reason it hung around for as long as it did, was because of the solid customer base who refused to let it go. IBM filled the gap by pushing JAVA, for a while, but that also didn't produce much profit, so they jumped on the *NIX bandwagon, and attempted to make money by selling "conversion support". I think that is coming to an end too, but I have no idea where they plan to go next. I would suspect that windows would make more opportunities for "conversion", and maintenance, and I have seen a few indications that that is where they are going. I also believe that most customers are realizing that they are not getting the service, or products, that they need (from anybody, not just IBM). There is an opportunity to pick up a lot of that business, but I don't know of anything that is available to do the job. Cell phones, and *pad products will eventually replace the laptop, and desktop (if they haven't already), but the servers that do the background work are available to whoever can make the most reliable hardware and software. Linux, seems to have that market, but I am not so sure that it is really doing the job that is desired. OS/2 (as eCS), can still do a credible job, but it is getting very limited with new hardware, the GUI parts (OS/2's strong point) are becoming less important, and the networking is getting so far out of date (no IPv6 support), that everybody can see the end of the line, and they don't want to commit to it, until that problem (among others) has been resolved.

Where does it go from here? Well, rumor has it that IBM has "lost the source". If that is actually true, then IBM would be the last company that I would hire to help me protect my data. If it is not, how can anybody trust anything that they say?  So, IBM will be no help with the task. We can get little information about new products (even simple things like video adapters, and NICs), to be able to write proper drivers. There are far too few qualified programmers working with OS/2 software to be able to keep up with the changes that are demanded by users. The bottom line is, that Mensys (eCS) has made great progress in keeping OS/2 working, but there have been no great advances since IBM backed out. Eventually, OS/2 (as eCS), will just not be able to do the job any more, and the users will have to move on, to get the job done. A lot of that has already happened, but there is a hard core who are still committed to keeping the platform alive. More power to them, but they need as much help as they can get.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: rwklein on 2012.06.11, 15:16:31
While not is out in the public. One thing that has improved and continues research is the ACPI section.
But also research in how to boot eCS from an GPT partition is progressing.

I don't think IBM has lost the sources. I know of one customer Mensys did not get that had a support contract with IBM then ran upto 2013 or 2014. So the must have source code somewhere.

Roderick
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: jdeb on 2012.06.11, 18:53:16
The way I understand it is if IBM wanted to release the OS/2 source code it would be unlawful for them to do so. My understanding is that they are not the sole owners of every part OS/2. OS/2 started as a joint project between IBM and Microsoft; because OS/2 contains code that belongs to both parties, IBM would have to convince Microsoft to also agree to the release. Microsoft would never do this.

With that being said, I am very happy with eCS and grateful for the advances it has made. I am also hopeful that future releases will run on more modern hardware; specifically wireless, video cards, and stable multicore use.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: WarpWorld on 2012.06.11, 18:56:22
While not is out in the public. One thing that has improved and continues research is the ACPI section.
But also research in how to boot eCS from an GPT partition is progressing.

I don't think IBM has lost the sources. I know of one customer Mensys did not get that had a support contract with IBM then ran upto 2013 or 2014. So the must have source code somewhere.

Roderick
I am agree with that. This story ''we lost source code,blah,blah'' is for little children.What's for best team of programers form world to disassemble,decode or what of binary version of source code.So they don't have interest to do that.Time when they were selling OS/2 is past and that's end.I think OS/2 is one of definitely dead systems (like BeOS,MS DOS and others)...Yes existed open source clones,which can run compatible software,but they are not naturally closed source OSes from big companies...
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Sigurd on 2012.06.11, 21:05:20
Quote
As for IBM, I've always been puzzled by their attitude to OS/2 migration.

I worked for IBM for 25 years. For the first 20, they were a company that went out of their way to be sure that the customer got the best service, and products. In the last 5 years (ending in 1992, when I retired), the whole thing changed to "make money, or you're outa here". OS/2 had a solid customer base, but IBM was not making much money from it. Development was expensive, and there was not a lot of service to be done. I believe that it paid for itself, but there was little profit in it, so IBM tried to cut it. The only reason it hung around for as long as it did, was because of the solid customer base who refused to let it go. IBM filled the gap by pushing JAVA, for a while, but that also didn't produce much profit, so they jumped on the *NIX bandwagon, and attempted to make money by selling "conversion support". I think that is coming to an end too, but I have no idea where they plan to go next. I would suspect that windows would make more opportunities for "conversion", and maintenance, and I have seen a few indications that that is where they are going. I also believe that most customers are realizing that they are not getting the service, or products, that they need (from anybody, not just IBM). There is an opportunity to pick up a lot of that business, but I don't know of anything that is available to do the job. Cell phones, and *pad products will eventually replace the laptop, and desktop (if they haven't already), but the servers that do the background work are available to whoever can make the most reliable hardware and software. Linux, seems to have that market, but I am not so sure that it is really doing the job that is desired. OS/2 (as eCS), can still do a credible job, but it is getting very limited with new hardware, the GUI parts (OS/2's strong point) are becoming less important, and the networking is getting so far out of date (no IPv6 support), that everybody can see the end of the line, and they don't want to commit to it, until that problem (among others) has been resolved.

Where does it go from here? Well, rumor has it that IBM has "lost the source". If that is actually true, then IBM would be the last company that I would hire to help me protect my data. If it is not, how can anybody trust anything that they say?  So, IBM will be no help with the task. We can get little information about new products (even simple things like video adapters, and NICs), to be able to write proper drivers. There are far too few qualified programmers working with OS/2 software to be able to keep up with the changes that are demanded by users. The bottom line is, that Mensys (eCS) has made great progress in keeping OS/2 working, but there have been no great advances since IBM backed out. Eventually, OS/2 (as eCS), will just not be able to do the job any more, and the users will have to move on, to get the job done. A lot of that has already happened, but there is a hard core who are still committed to keeping the platform alive. More power to them, but they need as much help as they can get.

The best I read for some time here. I totally do agree!!
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.06.11, 21:49:52
It's nice to see new developments for the platform (i.e. ACPI). Once that matures enough and we see some more drivers I'll probably use eCS as my main OS on my new Compaq Presairo CQ57 i3 (WiFi and sound don't currently work with eCS 2.1).

In terms of Linux, that has made some great strides over the past couple of years (bar GNOME 3 and Unity) however there are some aspects that frustrate me, such as the contemporary UNIX system structure and the fact you still need to use the Terminal for some basic tasks. Of course Linux has perhaps found its true home on smartphones/tablets and servers rather then the conventional desktops.

While OS/2 and eCS have their quirks (particularly some aspects of the Workplace shell) IMHO it still supplies a degree of familiarity to Windows users compared to Linux which to me is a good asset to have.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Ben on 2012.06.12, 13:17:24

It seems clear at this point in time, that any OS can be kept on life support indefinitely, even with just a trickle of new input. Some will thrive under limitless funding while others will just keep on trekkin'.

The real question one should ask is how is it that no new OS' have come into being?

Another question one should ask is how is it that no new computers have come along in all this very... long... time?

We still have the late 70's, early 80's, x86 architecture being patched and face-lifted with trowels of plaster, and great fanfare about miniscule, literally microscopic, changes yet there has been no significant enhancements and no... that's right.. .zero... newcomers into the arena.

This doesn't seem possible does it? That's because it doesn't work the way that TV tells us. In fact, nothing works the way that TV tells us. Yet TV is working precisely as it is supposed to. Precisely. Such a fine-tuned metaphorical, machine! Begrudgingly, respectful, admiration leaking out from what should be an open and unmitigated, hatred from all, (not just me).

Yes, we still have the Mac trudging along on the bones of the Power PC and now, oo! strange... now, it is also on the X86 architecture and and... yes... it has morphed into a Linux variant. All to give the illusion of real change where there is... none...

There's an old adage in politics; "throw enough shit at the fan and some of it will stick"... Do you see how that applies here, in reference to the previous paragraph?

In plain English, throw enough miniscule changes at the people, hype them in to the stratosphere, and everyone will think that we are in the massive rush of an "evolution"ary computer change where soon... soon... we'll progress, (undefined, that word is meaningless), into, into...


I do apologize; that wasn't plain at all. Here's plain.

They want a human & computer merger.

Why?

A computers chief usage is that of a control device.

Get it?

Why did, in the time of the Bubonic Plague, the elite give up lordship... mastery... over us, (the serfs/slaves), and hand control over to government that seemingly just popped into existence?

A question that is most easy to answer and everyone knows it; They didn't!



So... in ending the segway and in returning to the topic...

Does this computer OS/architecture, game-play remind you of politics?

There are two main contenders Conservative/Republican, (Windows/X86), and  Liberal/Democrat, (Mac), and a wishy-washy 3rd party called New Democrats/Green Party, (Linux), that caters to the misfits, an acts as a subtle rudder to steer the preselected candidate into power under the guise of "freedom of choice".

Can you discern a pattern?
Look around you. You'll see this very pattern repeated, never naturally occurring, yet pervasive. The ancient greeks, (do you know why I used a lower case "g"?), wrote about this method 2,350 years ago. So did the ancient Chinese around the same time period. No, not about computers, but about "techniques of control". Control of what? Control of you.

Anyway, like I alluded to in my first sentence, OS/2 can be kept going indefinitely. When the control system is ready to steer us in a different direction, a new, (Miracle!!), OS will come out. There will be much chatter and excitement, line-ups and raging, squawking and spats all about what the latest and greatest is as compared to the "ol' stand-by" as the masses, -- really one side being split into two opposing sides to promote infighting-- just go along with the hot-inflated, breeze from the fetid, breath of those that live upon high, swaying and harmonizing to the computer-generated songs and juvenile lyrics handed down to us from the filth at the top. (Yes folks, shit does float to the top).

Until then we will trudge along with our "True 32-bit, Object Oriented" wonder of yesteryear... which is still the best OS out there... as far as I'm concerned... and if I had a big, bag of money that I did not need, OS/2 would get a big boost!

But...

For some, the "jolt!" of real, brain activity, is too much! But don't worry... I put the pseudo-paramedics on stand-by in case someone flops over... and please! no keyboard stammering!.. or I'll have to send in the white coats... you know... those that are associated with nervous disorders... especially catering to the ones that have been exposed to recent, unexpected, externally excited, brain-activity. Shocking, you know... it's just not right!

Oh! Dear me.
Once again I must apologize... I didn't mean to talk about "the real issues". Don't be alarmed. I'll stop. I'll turn right now, back to your... regular... programming... programming... programming.

Ever seen a "zombie" movie? Where the "once men" creatures imitate real life, ambling along in their herky-jerky motion, lost in a somnambulant state somewhere between sleep and death? And what are these lost souls searching for? "BRAINS!"

Now, don't become alarmed, but those movies are just the sons-of-the-elite having their little fun... at our expense That is to say, the movie producers making fun of YOU! The Zombies. Do you get it? No? The movies producers know that you never will... Cows munch their cud, the masses munch their popcorn... So what is the difference between them? To those that make the movies, there is no difference. The fact that most of those who read this post will never think beyond the surface of those words, prove the movie makers right! Which are you? Do you understand the question?

So you don't like the above paragraph and reflexively think what I wrote was wrong, sardonic, (look it up!), or satirical? Rent one of the many, many, zombie movies out, and watch it. Pay particular attention to that metaphor I just gave you. And it doesn't matter which zombie movie; They're all the same. Take the 1st one as a suggestion, the old black and white starter by George A. Romero, the "Night of the Living Dead". Get it? It surely ain't no zombie movie! Look at it for a moment like the swelling masses of zombies are just the swelling masses of people and that there are, but just a few really alive! with working brains.

The National Film Registry wrote of this as a film deemed as "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant." Huh? How can such a piece of mindless trash get such accolades? That doesn't make any sense... unless you look at it in the light that I just shone upon it.

Don't like the Zombie flicks? Watch any of the many, (ever wonder why the make more than one version of the same flick?), versions of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", (Spock - Leonard Nimoy - is in one of them for all you Trekkies out there), and you'll see another take on the exact same thing, people becoming empty shells, mockeries of themselves, and the few really alive people with some brains, fighting against them. And in case you still didn't get it, we are the zombies, the walking dead... and the elite... are the ones that are truly alive and with brains.

Ever notice that? Common and constant re-occurrence of theme in the cinema?

There are only nine movie themes. It's well known amongst the literary community and critics talk of it all of the time. Ever wonder "why"?

Ever wonder why you have never seen a movie where people progress in a natural way, love and care for, and support one another, where the "functional", (not dysfunctional), family thrives and where government fades away, (no one wants to fight), and big business is no more? How can it be that no such movie exists if there is freedom?

Oops! More reality. Tut, tut. Where ARE my manners!

What? No remote?

Here! Let me push the off button for you. CLICK!



P.S.

Just as a side note...

Under every test ever done down through history and today, (and there have been many), the sons of the average joe always, (and I mean always), tested higher in ever conceivable test, (physical, mental, spiritual), than do the sons of the elite, (interbred). Always. No exceptions.

So how do they stay above us and in control?

They give us, (and we accept, into the very heart of our family), TV programming, grotesque video games, mindless, brain-rot trash, immoral behaviour, and fake revolutions, (computer, politics, etc.).

If you ain't stupid when you sit down to watch TV, have no fear, you soon will be! This is how we remain under their thumb and their puppets... that they toy with; we, the great genius' at birth, who are mindlessly conned into throwing away our birth gifts... our own, personal genius... so we can watch, rotten, TV garbage! Oh! What a deal we have negotiated!

Remember, it's always a choice... we are never forced.

Keep all of that in mind the next time you watch your favourite episode of "The King of the Hill" as he chug-a-lugs a half gallon of chilled, horse sperm, or as you gobble down the "very latest", "cutting edge", and obviously "faked" news broadcasts. (Not mindless trash you say?... right...soul-destroying would be more accurate.)


Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: jdeb on 2012.06.12, 15:44:10
That is Great! Funny and thought provoking. Love it Ben ;D
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Ben on 2012.06.12, 19:31:27

Thanks, jdeb.

I'm glad you caught both the humour and the seriousness of it.

It's hard as hell to excite brain activity these days so you gotta add some "jabs" and some "bites" and a sprinkle or two of "humour."

But is it a wonder that only a very few people ever try to think anymore, with a plethora of thought-arresting phrases like:


I could go on and on listing these terms and phrases that are all carefully crafted by teams of old, psychiatrists and psychologists, (old people having vast reserves of experience and knowledge upon which to draw), each specializing in different fields and subcategories of linguistics, philology, archeology, social engineering, behavioural patterns. And all of whom remain anonymous. (Can you name one?)

You know them as the amorphous blobs called "Think Tanks"... and there... are... hundreds of them, if not thousands. (Can you name one member of a Think Tank? or for that matter can you even name one Think Tank?) How can you know so little about groups that have such wide-reaching, affects upon your lives?

Who starts them?

Who pays them?

What people asked for them? Did you? I certainly did not!

What need do they serve and who are they serving? You? They surely are not serving me!

Why don't you know more about them?

Yet they control our society and our day to day existence in a deep and profound way that very few people will ever be aware of or understand.

Anyway...

Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: RobertM on 2012.06.14, 03:47:02
Quote
As for IBM, I've always been puzzled by their attitude to OS/2 migration.

I worked for IBM for 25 years. For the first 20, they were a company that went out of their way to be sure that the customer got the best service, and products. In the last 5 years (ending in 1992, when I retired), the whole thing changed to "make money, or you're outa here". OS/2 had a solid customer base, but IBM was not making much money from it. Development was expensive, and there was not a lot of service to be done.

What many people don't know about that time is that IBM Global Services was a multi-billion dollar division with a massive net to gross percentage. IBMGS was (though rarely mentioned) one of the largest "enemies" of OS/2. Companies were transitioning to smaller solutions and away from IBM's big metal (which were a large part of the bread and butter of IBMGS's support money). Like you said, there wasn't much in making money supporting OS/2. "Hey... it's still running, right?" "Yup"...

When I was "consulting" with IBMGS and we (one of their teams and I) were working on getting the Bank of America/Riggs Bank contract, I would have supported a MASSIVE chunk of the country. I as in *me* - not a team of people (as is the current banking situation with much switching to Windows)... that's a TINY profit potential compared to the current situation. (we lost to another IBM GS team - though I earned some very expensive OS/2 related packages, such as IBM CM/2, multiple OS/2 Warp Server licenses and a variety of other Lotus and IBM server and client licenses - and free training and certification on the also mostly unknown (but thoroughly amazing) IBM DSS for OS/2 and related products).

When it comes to "big metal", high support costs are expected due to the machine's and operating system's nature (and the massive up-front prices). Not so much when it came to PCs and PC based servers. Thus, already, OS/2 had a problem. One couldn't demand such massive premiums for supporting Intel based PCs and servers - and the support needs were drastically smaller than the competitors. IBM GS eventually transitioned into supporting what made them money - through the steps Doug posted and into Windows where the support money was.

This also impacted their server business. When the Netfinity line was transformed into the eServer xSeries line, the "cream of the crop" was to be the IBM eServer xSeries 430. It was a SIXTY FOUR CPU box that OS/2 was targeted for. Truth be told, OS/2 was the ONLY "PC OS" that could really run on it. Windows couldn't even handle 32 CPUs at the time. IBM re-focused at that time to such a massive extent that THEY helped Microsoft get 32 CPU support running and segmentation was implemented on the x430 to allow a fully configured version to act as two 32 CPU machines. And that was the death knell for OS/2 on the xSeries. Since then, only a small handful of basic xSeries servers would run OS/2 - which is why machines like the x440 and x445 have issues with it.

On top of that, something I've hinted at before... improvements to OS/2 *WERE* written - including things that would allow it to more fully utilize the x430. The extent of those improvements is largely unknown to me (only got into some of the details with IBM when I was dying for access to an x430) - and none ever saw the light of day.

WE will NEVER see those enhancements (YES folks, Warp Server 5 in some form *DID* exist. SO SICKENINGLY TIRED OF ARGUING ON THAT). They were never "completed" and fully tested as the project was killed. IBM *does* release beta code and even alpha code at various points for testing - heck, I've even gotten pre-alpha code for testing when I was part of their "real" beta/alpha test team - including code (yes as in code) and binaries for the "new" (at the time) 32bit print subsystem. But for integration into a production product? The binaries or code will never see the light of day except for rare instances where it's been compiled for a specific client for a specific scenario to honor a support contract (which is why some big companies have some interesting "fixes" - one of which myself and a few other companies got was fixes to the 32 bit TCP/IP stack to fix a stack hang on certain types of attacks - THAT set of binaries lasted (ie: were available - and only to a select few) for only a few hours, and on day two a more official fix was released and made available to others.

Much like the code we know about that is "lost", the code most people *don't* know about is even more "lost".



Now as for licensing and copyrights on the actual OS/2 components, sorry folks, Microsoft is a TINY piece of the problem. MUCH of OS/2 work was sub-contracted to or licensed from others, including WPS components. The actual list is daunting, including work licensed from companies that no longer exist (which doesn't invalidate the copyrights sadly - at least not in this country). Much of the remaining portions that Microsoft holds any claim to are HORRENDOUS and should have died DECADES ago - like the LanManager/MPTS configuration/installation disaster. There aren't many such places - and they all need to be replaced anyway.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: jdeb on 2012.08.10, 17:20:03
 ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIq0ukqUJSk
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.10, 21:36:48
^^ In a way OS/2 was (and still is) indirectly through Windows NT  ;D

Having tried to install eCS on my new-ish Compaq and reading other people's experiences, it's clear the platform has some major hurdles to overcome, i.e: USB 3.0, WiFi etc. The OS/2 community and companies have done some amazing things with the platform and continue to do so, it does appear to be increasingly difficult to keep up to speed with the latest hardware.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.13, 19:49:33
One more thing, around 2010 there were a few rumours about IBM producing a Linux distro with OS/2 services running on top of it. The rumour seemed to fade after that, but was there any truth to it, or was it just wild speculation?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: RobertM on 2012.08.13, 20:53:38
One more thing, around 2010 there were a few rumours about IBM producing a Linux distro with OS/2 services running on top of it. The rumour seemed to fade after that, but was there any truth to it, or was it just wild speculation?

Since earlier than that (and the effort died off earlier as well - and more than once), there was interest to "port" the Workplace Shell to Linux and elsewhere. The history, 20 years in the making, goes something like this:

1990's:

Early to Mid 2000's:

In the late 2000's to today:

During that time, various "migration methods" for running OS/2 type apps have been suggested by IBM - but no (that I can find or are aware of) plans for a Linux distro with an OS/2 personality seem to have ever surfaced in their press releases since the aborted OS/2 PPC version.

Also during that time, there were efforts to allow an OS/2 based server to distributively run OS/2 based apps on other clients - it was a similar but far more elegant version of how (in the Windows world) one could remote into another machine, run various apps, and so on from a different client (which was pretty much only drawing the interfaces). A similar thing already exists in the OS/2 world in the form of *SEAMLESS* WinOS2 (except that the Win Code is run locally), where OS/2 dialogs are redrawn as Win3.x dialogs (when in SEAMLESS mode) - which is why they inherit *OS/2's* object settings (such as border size, etc), because they are largely redressed OS/2 objects.

And finally, Citrix and Connectix had initiatives in this area (client, server and VM based) that suffered the following demises: Connectix's were all killed when Microsoft bought them. Citrix dropped efforts in the OS/2 arena over time as (1) their partnership with Microsoft strengthened, and (2) OS/2's demise was made known by IBM.

Hope that history (which may not be all inclusive) gives you some idea of what went on in that arena.

Best,
Rob
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.13, 21:20:24
Thanks Rob, I knew a little bit about Workplace OS but it's fascinating to hear a bit of the back storey.

I guess the IP was the killer issue, unless IBM were to get something out of it (i.e. more clients etc.), I guess the work required in porting and any auditing required wouldn't be worth it.

That aside, the lack of a client OS does appear to be a gaping hole in their product lineup.

Cheers,

Dan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.08.14, 16:26:32
What about the version of the Workplace shell that was written for AIX and other Unixes in the form of the Common Desktop Environment (CDE)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment
This has recently been opensourced and should run on Linux, http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.08.14, 23:09:14
I used long time ago Common Desktop Environment (CDE) on AIX environment (ohh... the memories). It is good to see it open sourced and now available for the general public.

But I think that CDE differs a lot from what we know as the Workplace Shell (with all the objects and the SOM stuff).  Running CDE over OS2-eCS may be interesting too but I don't see it as a migration path for the platform to have a future.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.08.14, 23:10:29
Reading back the WarpStock 2007 Voyager presentation. (http://ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/pub/events/DWS2007/presentations/Voyager-dws2007.pdf) I think that was the best idea. The OS/2 distinctive technology is the WPS constructed over SOM, and building a WPS and SOM open source clone over eComStation was a good plan to have at least a roadmap for the platform to have a future.

I would really like to start and collaborate on a project aims to clone WPS. For now it can be just over eComStation and IBM' SOM, re-using the stuff we have in xWorkplace, xshadows, etc. I'm not a developer but I can help on documentation, GIT admin, communication, whatever. I just hope that there will be some developers out there with interest to try to work together on this goal.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.14, 23:28:26
The OS/2 distinctive technology is the WPS constructed over SOM

I like the the idea of the Voyager project, but it's a shame it never seemed to really take off. However I would argue that there is more to the OS/2 user experience than just WPS and SOM, it also includes things like backwards computability and little things like drive letters etc.

I agree with your earlier point about Linux, while its "Good Enough" for a lot of things, I personally find its directory structure and general OS paradigm a mess. While OS X is BSD based, it gives generally good level of abstraction to "shield" the end user from what lies beneath.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: RobertM on 2012.08.15, 01:09:40
What about the version of the Workplace shell that was written for AIX and other Unixes in the form of the Common Desktop Environment (CDE)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment
This has recently been opensourced and should run on Linux, http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/

Wikipedia has some of the details incorrect. I've just fixed it. It SHOULD NOT have read "IBM contributed its Common User Access model and Workplace Shell." - but should have read "IBM contributed its Common User Access model FROM the Workplace Shell."

For those who don't know, it refers to CUA'91 (87) which made its way into OS/2 v2. It was a definition/roadmap on how things should be universally accessible - and something carried through in various operating systems, such as "Alt-F"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
(also incomplete)

Either way, the above article needs revision, as CUA wasn't just a WPS thing. While some aspects were moved into the AIX GUI, the WPS was not. As noted on the CDE article, CDE is actually far more largely based off other technologies than anything else (including WPS).
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: RobertM on 2012.08.15, 01:29:55
The OS/2 distinctive technology is the WPS constructed over SOM

I like the the idea of the Voyager project, but it's a shame it never seemed to really take off. However I would argue that there is more to the OS/2 user experience than just WPS and SOM, it also includes things like backwards computability and little things like drive letters etc.

I agree with your earlier point about Linux, while its "Good Enough" for a lot of things, I personally find its directory structure and general OS paradigm a mess. While OS X is BSD based, it gives generally good level of abstraction to "shield" the end user from what lies beneath.

In that, WPS is something that would excel in making it more abstracted. As it is, WPS doesn't really need letters - or can assign them.

And still in this area, WPS and HPFS (and JFS) excel:

seem like a silly problem? Here's a tip... let's say you have a folder full of resources containing a lot of sub-folders for each, BUT, there are ones you use frequently that you'd like to be able to find quickly. Put a period in front of them (and sort by name). You'll get something like this (the equivalent of TWO (or three - see the end of the example) sorted lists):

.Common Objects
.Shared Images
.Shared Code
Analytics Data
Project 01
Project 02
Project 10
_Archives
_Backup Files


Note: I have ".A-.Z", "A-Z", "_A-_Z" - three sets of alphabetical sorting (of course, numbers fit in there too - but for simplicity sake, I simply represent the sorting as "A-Z").


Anyway, I always have to use a separate program to add a leading period to a folder or file name in Windows (Windows Explorer refuses to allow it).
[/list]
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: eirik on 2012.08.30, 10:42:35
Users have short memories, and new users have no memory.  We need to focus on functionality and why we like OS/2-eCS.  Most likely, new users will cherish some of the things we like too.  Compared to Win:

To stay competitive and become attractive to new users, eCS needs to:

On many of these "musts" there is good progress and promise, but on communicating with other devices, eCS faces vast challenges that also need to be resolved to keep old users and attract new users.  New users is the ultimate key to attract funds and developers. The way to get new users is to offer better or similar services as competitors.  I think this is possible -- if not I would have switched to something else, although some times my patience is tested :-) 

For many users a limited fee for using eCS is not a major obstacle as long as the platform continues to develop and new software is available.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.31, 20:27:30
Some interesting points. Regarding Java, I think that it is falling out of favor in the web applet market, despite some shortcomings I think its a nice language and is certainly an asset for the platform.

An important factor these days is the web and the dreaded "cloud" services/apps. In that respect, eCS seems well covered with Firefox.

I know IBM have shot down the possibility of open sourcing various OS/2 components, but has there ever been discussion of licensing the source code to companies like Mensys? Did Stardock attempt something similar?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.08.31, 21:52:18
I know IBM have shot down the possibility of open sourcing various OS/2 components, but has there ever been discussion of licensing the source code to companies like Mensys? Did Stardock attempt something similar?

Hi Danielnez1. Sorry to be negative on this area, but we had tried with IBM and it seems that there is no possibility on licensing source code. Once I even tried for them to change the license of the IBM DDK source code, but they told that do not have at hand the development agreements with Microsoft, so they don't know if they can do that. They think they have a risk with Microsoft on this area.

We also have to remember that IBM only works with business cases, any sentimental/technical/historical reason to bring OS/2 source code to the public do not work with them.

That's why I think the only way to made a future for this platform is try to made an open source clone of OS/2 components like WPS, SOM/DSOM and PM, and try to leave IBM on the past.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.08.31, 22:12:54
Hello,

It's fine to be negative ;)

Licensing the source to property components does happen with some software (i.e. Windows and RISC OS spring to mind) but as you have pointed out it would have to be in IBM's interest in doing it. If the price was right I'm sure something could be done, but the question would be if the (likely huge) cost would be feasible and worthwhile for a 3rd party to pay for.

I'd love to see osFree reach a state where it was ready to carry the platform forward, but if ReactOS is anything to go by, it will be a very long process.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: David McKenna on 2012.08.31, 23:38:29
Quote
Hi Danielnez1. Sorry to be negative on this area, but we had tried with IBM ...

  Hi Martin,

  Thanks for all your efforts to keep OS/2 going! Just wondering... did you ever try to contact Microsoft about the OS/2 DDK? Also, do you have any idea when its patents run out? In the US patents last 17 years with the option to renew once. Even if they patented in 1996 (when OS/2 was strangled by IBM), 17 years would be 2013 (yes, it has been that long!). Would they bother to renew.....?

Regards,

Dave McKenna
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.01, 04:01:10
Thanks David

I haven't tried with Microsoft. I think that MS has too much competitive strategy when they don't give anything to a possible competitor on their market. And possible they are on the same IBM position, when they don't know what belongs to them and what not. But anybody is welcome to give it a try, I may be wrong

Maybe some lawyer can review the MS IBM Joint development agreement (http://www.krsaborio.net/ibm/research/acrobat/871126.pdf), but some of the annex are missing. And I don't know what other documents were signed between IBM and MS.

About the patents, I don't know too much about US Intellectual Property. But it will be interesting to document / list all the patents that are OS/2 related. Some SOM patents we have it listed on the EDM/2 wiki  (http://www.edm2.com/index.php/Category:SOM_Articles)(at the right column, down)

The only MS patent I know about OS/2 is the HPFS (http://www.google.com/patents?id=BrskAAAAEBAJ) which has 17 years. Is there any way to know if MS renew it ?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.09.01, 05:39:54
The only MS patent I know about OS/2 is the HPFS (http://www.google.com/patents?id=BrskAAAAEBAJ) which has 17 years. Is there any way to know if MS renew it ?

I think David is mixing up the original copyright law and patents. Patents last for 20 years from filing and can only be extended by adding to the invention. So there may be some NTFS patents that are based on the HPFS ones and could be used against a HPFS implementation. Microsoft would probably never complain about infringing on the HPFS ones and they haven't in regards to the Linux kernel which has contained HPFS (first read only, now read and write) since at least ver 1.x.
Of course when it comes to code there is also copyright which probably covers the DDK source and will probably never run out. The only reliable way around copyright is to do a clean re-implementation.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.09.02, 00:34:51
Licensees can be easily open to interpretation. I've been involved in an Academic and produced some software for it, getting the copyright and IP issues clarified has been a nightmare and the current draft licence has been drawn up between two solicitors, the University legal team and ourselves and it's still a long way off being finalised.

One possibility could be to disassemble the OS/2 binaries (which is legal in the EU) but the resulting code would probably need a huge clean up.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: walking_x on 2012.09.10, 15:54:36
One possibility could be to disassemble the OS/2 binaries (which is legal in the EU) but the resulting code would probably need a huge clean up.
Yes, this project is named "OS/4 kernel" and what?
Mensys ban it from everywhere, both kernel and os2ldr. In new os2ldr was implemented menu, debug & log support, correct memory handling (IBM loader can see only 512Mb of 4Gb on latest ASUS MBs, for example)... AND - they remove it support from new "Azarewicz" ACPI. Funny. Let's they make all of this from scratch.
Mensys is enemy for himself.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.09.10, 17:19:49
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the OS/4 kernel based off leaked OS/2 source code from IBM? If so then no company would quite rightly touch it with a bargepole. I'm sure IBM would set their Nazguls on them in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: walking_x on 2012.09.10, 18:29:24
Someone steal from IBM Merlin source code.
This is UNIprocessor kernel, without SMP, without changes for JFS, many other new features (like LIBPATHSTRICT=T, memory above 512Mb - 2 new arenas!, loading modules into this memory and so on).
But OS/4 is 104a (or 104b, I'm not sure) - basically ;)

os2ldr unlike kernel, contain too many new features to be completely "reversed" or "stolen": ini/menu with a lot of options, own PXE support (topic about it is here somewhere), detection of kernel type (UNI, SMP), advanced memory handling (there is a lot of holes in PC address space in modern models, IBM os2ldr can see memory only up to 1st such "hole"), etc...
So, I'm simply don't understand - why they are want to ban it?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: abwillis on 2012.09.10, 20:46:28
The biggest problem with the kernel (not necessarily any issue I know of on the loader) is the fact that they used the debug kernel to patch.  The debug kernel is not designed to use in every day usage.  I would guess they used it because they probably used the debugging function connected to another PC to figure out what needed to be done but then had everything based off of the binary they were using because they lacked the source.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.10, 23:06:52
Hi walking_x

I will consider OS/4 when:

1) once they are able to replace the IBM leaked source code. Using leaked source code is consider illegal. Abandonware is consider illegal. There is no future for a platform if it can not be also used for commercial use. Companies and individuals that works to make money don't want to have the risk of using an illegal platform.

2) When OS/4 kernel and loader turns open source. I don't know why some Russians thinks that Open Source only help the capitalist. Talking on the #OS2russian channel they told me "Open Source only works for making Mensys Millions of Dollars". But they don't think that turning the software open source (copyleft) also forces Mensys to give back the source code improvements.

About QSLoader, as far as I know it is original work (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it says on the license.
"Binary form of this package is freeware. Source code can be available by request, for non-commercial use only."

So, this loader do not has a future, and the license seems to be dedicated to Mensys. Not even the more radical people from the "Free Software Foundation" limits their source code for "non-commercial use only".  My suggestion is to make it open source under a copyleft license. Which mean that anybody that will modifying the source code will be forced to give back the changes. So in this case, if Mensys uses this loader for eComStation, any improved source code will have to be released public too.

I consider the OS/4 like a good team of developers and they are not motivated of making money (which I consider it good), but they need to formalize their work with an open source copyleft license. The OS/4 team need to stop having heart feelings against Mensys and think about the future of the platform.

Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.10, 23:35:04
But I still consider that working on cloning OS/2 from "Top to down" is the best idea.

When I mean "Top to Down" I mean trying to clone:
1) WorkplaceShell  (reusing as much of XWorkplace - GNU GPL )
2) SOM/DSOM
3) Presentation Manager (reusing as much of FreePM and the OSFree DLLs - FreeBSD)

Trying to clone this three components as Open Source over eComStation - OS/2 Warp 4.52, and later keep moving to go to the lower level components. I think it the same idea that the Voyager protect used to have.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.09.14, 17:17:32
Would something like dbus be a staring point for a open source version of SOM?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.16, 00:31:30
Being honest, I'm do not have deep technical knowledge to know if some dbus source code (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus)  can be used to create a clone of SOM/DSOM.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: walking_x on 2012.09.19, 15:13:37
The biggest problem with the kernel (not necessarily any issue I know of on the loader) is the fact that they used the debug kernel to patch.  The debug kernel is not designed to use in every day usage.  I would guess they used it because they probably used the debugging function connected to another PC to figure out what needed to be done but then had everything based off of the binary they were using because they lacked the source.
Latest OS/4 kernel package contain both debug and retail kernels ;) Really retail - without kernel debugger code. COM port link still available, but optional - for logging...

1) once they are able to replace the IBM leaked source code. Using leaked source code is consider illegal. Abandonware is consider illegal. There is no future for a platform if it can not be also used for commercial use. Companies and individuals that works to make money don't want to have the risk of using an illegal platform.
I think - only one way is to annoy IBM every month and repeatedly ask to open OS/2 source code ;)

Quote
2) When OS/4 kernel and loader turns open source. I don't know why some Russians thinks that Open Source only help the capitalist. Talking on the #OS2russian channel they told me "Open Source only works for making Mensys Millions of Dollars". But they don't think that turning the software open source (copyleft) also forces Mensys to give back the source code improvements.
There is a small problem with Mensys - they cannot create working things ;) Multimac? Fine - it works 3 (three) seconds on full gigabit speed for me, then trap system ;) Uniaud? It mute forever after 1-2 sounds, on most of PCs near me. Azarewicz version. They put wrong versions of drivers to release (!) of OS. They create system app with funny default Borland Delphi icon, etc, etc...

Quote
About QSLoader, as far as I know it is original work (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it says on the license.
"Binary form of this package is freeware. Source code can be available by request, for non-commercial use only." So, this loader do not has a future, and the license seems to be dedicated to Mensys.
Gorbunov wrote a time ago on his forum: "we need to search source code available to put our copyrights on it" ;) This is clearly define "the way of Mensys", I think ;) May be I'm wrong, but I can promise to upload qsloader source code then it author became too tired of it.

Quote
The OS/4 team need to stop having heart feelings against Mensys and think about the future of the platform.
May be... but who started this "war"? Who asked hobbes to remove OS/4 loader (not kernel!)? Why? It really usable, for personal use, at least. Especially on modern PCs (with "holes" in memory). And who will really care about it's "source" if it is not distributed by Mensys? IBM? Are they remember such word at all? ;)
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.19, 16:18:21
Hi walking_x

I agreed with the removal of OS/4 kernel links from this forum, I don't want to shut down OS2World.com if I got a complain from copyright author. OS/4 kernel is a illegal software and I don't want to put in risk this site. I prefer to mitigate the risk at once, than having a remote possibility that IBM can sue us.  When OS/4 releases a legal version that can be uploaded at hobbes and shared with everyone it will be ok.

For the moment, I think that maintaining OS2World.com online is more important.

OS/4 community should try to clone OS/2 components and make them open souce (copyleft). It is more important to make the platform survive for everyone than complaining about Mensys or Gorbunov.

Contact the Loader clone author and tell him to turn the it open source under a copyleft license (maybe GNU GPL) and stop caring about Mensys. This will benefit the platform in the long term, and anybody that wants to recompile/improve/change the loader will also require to give the source back.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.19, 16:54:21
Here it is my strategy's business case for the "Savvy Businessman"

(http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/action,dlattach/topic,5786.0/attach,1744/)

 :)

Lesson Learned: "Dreams may not have business cases."
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: AAA on 2012.09.19, 22:23:02
... OS/4 kernel is a illegal software ...

It would be very interesting to hear how you can prove this statement.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Criguada on 2012.09.20, 00:00:55
... OS/4 kernel is a illegal software ...

It would be very interesting to hear how you can prove this statement.

AAA, unfortunately you have your logic reversed. If you want your software to be distributable without legal issues, *you* have to prove it is legal, original work, not the other way around. If you cannot prove it (or give others a way of proving it e.g. showing your source code) nobody will ever risk his business (or even his site) by publishing it.

This may obviously not be true for an original, unseen piece of software, but OS/4 kernel is replicating exactly the functions of a commercial OS kernel, so the burden of proving it is clean is *yours*.

Bye
Cris
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.20, 03:47:36
A few years ago, the OS/4 kernel was described, by the developers, as "rearranging chunks of the OS/2 kernel, to make it work better" (or something to that effect). That would mean that every "chunk" was somebody else's work (belonging to IBM), and it was being used in new work, without the original owner's consent. If that is not copyright infringement, I don't know what is. Of course, some people seem to think that copyright laws are meant to be broken, if it is inconvenient to obey them. In this case, it is very inconvenient to obey the law, but it is the law (right, or wrong), so you need to obey it, or get it changed.

I am not sure of the actual "corporate" status of OS2World, but Mensys is a business, and a business cannot afford to break the law. There is also the requirement to provide legal software to their customers. Since the OS/4 kernel has not (probably cannot) been proven to be original work, neither one of them can take the chance that it isn't.

For the record, I am not sure that something like the OS/4 kernel (assuming it is legal) needs to be open source. If a company can build such a thing, and can get their own copyright for it, I don't see any real problem with Mensys (or  any other entity that may end up with OS/2)  paying them a reasonable royalty for their work. The main problem with doing it that way, is that the company could suddenly decide to raise the cost, or they could go out of business, or decide to terminate the project. That, of course, should be properly handled in the contract with them, so that costs are controlled, and the source (and all rights) defaults to Mensys, if they go out of business, or terminate the project. So far, Mensys seems to be rather poor at making binding contracts, but that has nothing to do with the discussion here.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.20, 21:12:01
Hi DougB

...The main problem with doing it that way, is that the company could suddenly decide to raise the cost, or they could go out of business, or decide to terminate the project. ..

You are exactly describing the risks of close source software. I prefer to have things open sourced (copyleft) instead of close source software. IBM has teach me (and I think all of us)  a lesson, no matter how bit or small the developer company is, you can always be left "High and Dry".  Open Source is a way to legally mitigate this risk.

That's why releasing software as open source will legally allow anybody (individuals and companies) to keep developing the software, no matter if the original developer exists or not.

Currently OS/2 is in survival mode. If we want to platform to have a long term future we need to make an open source clone of it, otherwise, the Mensys updates on eComStation will end with the last corporate customer migrating to Windows/Linux.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: danielnez1 on 2012.09.21, 23:32:28
I would like to see osFree take off as it does appear to me to have the most potential, plus their intention to try to use Linux drivers would help delegate the need to support the huge variety of devices to a certain degree.

Other "clone" projects like ReactOS and Haiku have come a long way but have taken years to develop to the stage they are now and likewise starting a OS/2 clone from the ground up wold be the most time consuming and resource intensive option.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Joop on 2012.09.22, 14:17:15
Currently OS/2 is in survival mode. If we want to platform to have a long term future we need to make an open source clone of it, otherwise, the Mensys updates on eComStation will end with the last corporate customer migrating to Windows/Linux.

I don't think this will happen, OS/2 is unique and once installed correctly rock solid, a factor very important in production plants and if you watch the customer list you can read that there are many of them. Also it seems that certain options are ruled out in Windows like having more than two serial ports. OS/2 still supports the original XT specs which is standard 4 items of all hardware, so 4 hard drives, 4 tape drives, 4 floppy drives, 4 serial ports, 4 parallel ports,  full support scsi, many mice (there is not given a number, but I have had four working at a time). This is because OS/2 is true multitasking and Windows is certainly not. You can find that out by installing a four floppy drive card and format four diskettes or floppy's same time with different format if you like. Windows goes one by one, OS/2 goes 4 same time, but each a small amount of time, so you see four diskette drives light up one after another. This is because the driver can only handle one at the time. Same for software, had rebuild a site with over 100 pages with batch editor. Thought it would took hours to do, but it was forbidden to blink with your eyes, OS/2 rebuild 100 pages next to each other!. I didn't believe this response, it took me over a week to investigate, all files were rebuild correctly. You won't get this performance from Windows by far.

So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development, so more users can program or migrate foreign software from other platforms. There is much work to do in this respect. So developers, please, add a file with first steps and how do you do that.

Regards,
Joop
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: ivan on 2012.09.22, 18:01:25
Joop, I have to agree with you regarding the use of OS/2 in industry.

I have two engineering works as clients where all the machinery is operated by OS/2 and in one case the office uses OS/2 as well.  There is no way they will change to anything else to run the machinery but it would be nice if we were able to update the input and output filters for DeScribe which is their main word-processor.  I have setup Libre Office running in Virtualbox - that needs updating as well - to do document conversion for them, and no, the port of Open Office does not cut it yet for real world use.

I also agree we need more information on porting software.  I am not a programmer but I would be prepared to try IF I knew where to begin.  For example, I use Sigil to produce epubs of the manuals we produce, thanks to Paul we have a port of it but it is version 0.2 and rather short of the features of the latest version 0.5.  If I knew how to start and setup what is necessary to port version 0.4.5 which is the last version possible because of QT4 restrictions, I would try and see if I could port it.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.22, 19:07:34
Quote
So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development

Quote
I also agree we need more information on porting software.

Paul Smedley actually released his whole build environment, and others have been using that to port things. I don't know what the details are now, I got the package when it first appeared, and it does work. I am pretty sure that you need to request the package, and possibly pay a modest fee, to get it now. The package does contain a very brief set of instructions on how to use it, but a user does have to do some serious digging, to learn how to go about porting software, especially when it won't build without modifying the code.

Unfortunately, it is probably not as simple as saying "do this..." with a set of instructions. Each program could require something different, so you would need a set of instructions for each program. The trick is, to get good enough at doing the job, that you can write your own instructions, but learning how to do it, is a lot of work.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Joop on 2012.09.22, 19:59:51
Quote
So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development

Quote
I also agree we need more information on porting software.

Paul Smedley actually released his whole build environment, and others have been using that to port things. I don't know what the details are now, I got the package when it first appeared, and it does work. I am pretty sure that you need to request the package, and possibly pay a modest fee, to get it now. The package does contain a very brief set of instructions on how to use it, but a user does have to do some serious digging, to learn how to go about porting software, especially when it won't build without modifying the code.

Unfortunately, it is probably not as simple as saying "do this..." with a set of instructions. Each program could require something different, so you would need a set of instructions for each program. The trick is, to get good enough at doing the job, that you can write your own instructions, but learning how to do it, is a lot of work.
I have Paul's environment and it still doesn't set me on going. Its too short, an example program to do yourself and how to might help a lot. And I'm willing to pay a humble fee for that, but it has to set me on the right track! Sorry, I don't agree with you. I even think that you can port automated programs because the things where the compilation hangs are always the same things. So you can publish these problems so we haven't to re-invent the wheel time after time. We need to work together, otherwise we can kiss OS/2 goodbye in the future.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.23, 06:46:23
Quote
and it still doesn't set me on going. Its too short

Actually, it is enough to get you going, but you need to pick a relatively simple project to start with. Something that has already been done, so you know that it will compile  a proper program, so that you aren't fighting with program incompatibilities, as well as with setup problems.

Quote
because the things where the compilation hangs are always the same things

I'll bet that Paul, and the others, are rolling on the floor, laughing at that statement. They are also crying, because it isn't always that simple.

Paul suggests getting the WGET source, and work with that to get started. It is an excellent starting point because the program is not all that complicated, and you don't need to worry about fancy things, like which direction the window locations count. Once you get the basics to work, you can progress into more complicated things. After you do a few of those types of project, you can move on to more advanced projects, learning as you go.

I found that the hardest part, of getting started, was to tweak my setup so that it would work. Once I got that going, other things were easier. You don't want to be starting off by trying to build Firefox, simply because you would have no idea if a problem was caused by your setup, or by some code incompatibility.  The most important thing, is don't be afraid to try things, but be aware, that doing that can cause damage to your system, if you get really unlucky.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Joop on 2012.09.23, 15:36:00
Quote
because the things where the compilation hangs are always the same things

I'll bet that Paul, and the others, are rolling on the floor, laughing at that statement. They are also crying, because it isn't always that simple.
Keep on rolling laughing on the floor  ;D, at the end we'll see.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.09.24, 01:11:34
Here's a couple of porting guides. Understand that they are old and geared towards EMX and many of the referenced problems have been fixed in kLIBC.
http://www.os2site.com/sw/dev/guide.html
http://www.os2site.com/sw/dev/porting-faq.zip

Quote
because the things where the compilation hangs are always the same things

I'll bet that Paul, and the others, are rolling on the floor, laughing at that statement. They are also crying, because it isn't always that simple.
Keep on rolling laughing on the floor  ;D, at the end we'll see.

Some compilation hangs are simple, eg needing socklen_t typedef. Some are complex such as our TCPIP stack not having getaddrinfo(), a very common function now a days as it supports both ipv4 and ipv6.
The real problems often happen after compilation succeeds, line ending issues is probably the most common. Many times you can find where the issues have already been fixed for Windows and just adding __OS2__ to a define may fix it.
A lot depends on the original source being written with portability in mind. If it uses calls to the Linux kernel such as Gnome does now, then even compiling on *BSD becomes very hard.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: diver on 2012.09.24, 09:41:27
I also agree we need more information on porting software.  I am not a programmer but I would be prepared to try IF I knew where to begin.  For example, I use Sigil to produce epubs of the manuals we produce, thanks to Paul we have a port of it but it is version 0.2 and rather short of the features of the latest version 0.5.  If I knew how to start and setup what is necessary to port version 0.4.5 which is the last version possible because of QT4 restrictions, I would try and see if I could port it.

does Sigil 0.5 and better need Qt 4.8? If not it should be possible to port as well, as our Qt 4.7 is very good.

regards
Silvan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: ivan on 2012.09.24, 12:53:53
Hi Silvan,

The best I can do is point you to the answer I got when I asked that question on the Sigil forum http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189434  see reply #7.

There is also an ongoing discussion re the beta 0.6 version  http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191617

I do agree that our Qt 4.7 is excellent - thank you - I use it for things like CoolReader, Image resize (SIR) and so on.

ivan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: diver on 2012.09.24, 15:47:00
Qt 4.8 will come sooner anyway, so stay tuned.

regards
Silvan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Paul Smedley on 2012.09.27, 11:32:44
Quote
So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development

Quote
I also agree we need more information on porting software.

Paul Smedley actually released his whole build environment, and others have been using that to port things. I don't know what the details are now, I got the package when it first appeared, and it does work. I am pretty sure that you need to request the package, and possibly pay a modest fee, to get it now. The package does contain a very brief set of instructions on how to use it, but a user does have to do some serious digging, to learn how to go about porting software, especially when it won't build without modifying the code.

Unfortunately, it is probably not as simple as saying "do this..." with a set of instructions. Each program could require something different, so you would need a set of instructions for each program. The trick is, to get good enough at doing the job, that you can write your own instructions, but learning how to do it, is a lot of work.

http://os2ports.smedley.id.au/index.php?page=BuildEnvDVD for those that may be interested.  The disc contains a zip of my current build environment.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Paul Smedley on 2012.09.27, 11:47:27
Quote
So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development

Quote
I also agree we need more information on porting software.

Paul Smedley actually released his whole build environment, and others have been using that to port things. I don't know what the details are now, I got the package when it first appeared, and it does work. I am pretty sure that you need to request the package, and possibly pay a modest fee, to get it now. The package does contain a very brief set of instructions on how to use it, but a user does have to do some serious digging, to learn how to go about porting software, especially when it won't build without modifying the code.

Unfortunately, it is probably not as simple as saying "do this..." with a set of instructions. Each program could require something different, so you would need a set of instructions for each program. The trick is, to get good enough at doing the job, that you can write your own instructions, but learning how to do it, is a lot of work.
I have Paul's environment and it still doesn't set me on going. Its too short, an example program to do yourself and how to might help a lot. And I'm willing to pay a humble fee for that, but it has to set me on the right track! Sorry, I don't agree with you. I even think that you can port automated programs because the things where the compilation hangs are always the same things. So you can publish these problems so we haven't to re-invent the wheel time after time. We need to work together, otherwise we can kiss OS/2 goodbye in the future.

I can either spend time writing a bunch of docs, or I can spend what little free time I have working on OS/2 related projects.

Or I can spend my time hacking away at my debian server.

I'm not terribly fussed either way...

The community is welcome to write some docs for my build environment - I'm even happy to include those docs with future editions of the disc (with a credit to whoever creates them).
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: ivan on 2012.09.27, 21:53:52
Hi Paul,

I don't think anyone is asking you to stop doing what you are doing to write a manual.  Myself, am very thankful for what you do - in fact I'm still using the port of Sigil you did.

What I would appreciate is the odd extra line in the readme giving the command you used to build the program - I always miss something when I attempt to build a program and being able to look at what someone has used and been successful with might be the thing that would help me to be successful as well.

I am a guilty as the next person in not thanking you and the others for the work you do for OS/2.  At 70 odd I plead forgetfulness most of the time but this time it is my heartfelt thanks.

ivan
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.27, 23:03:20
Quote
I don't think anyone is asking you to stop doing what you are doing to write a manual.

I agree. Paul is not the one to write the manual. He developed his methods the hard way, learning as he went. That usually makes a person skip the obvious, simply because it is obvious (to him). What we need, is somebody to go through the procedure, asking questions along the way, and documenting what needed to be done, and why. I am sure that there are enough people who have done the basics, that we should be able to answer questions, and get something to work.

Any volunteers?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Paul Smedley on 2012.09.27, 23:51:20
Quote
I don't think anyone is asking you to stop doing what you are doing to write a manual.

I agree. Paul is not the one to write the manual. He developed his methods the hard way, learning as he went. That usually makes a person skip the obvious, simply because it is obvious (to him). What we need, is somebody to go through the procedure, asking questions along the way, and documenting what needed to be done, and why. I am sure that there are enough people who have done the basics, that we should be able to answer questions, and get something to work.

Any volunteers?

And I quote.... "I have Paul's environment and it still doesn't set me on going. Its too short, an example program to do yourself and how to might help a lot"

An example of a user who took my environment and ran with it, asking a lot of questions along the way, is Elbert Pol - who has now ported a shedload of apps for OS/2 - far more that I've done in recent times.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: miturbide on 2012.09.28, 00:01:47
I think it may help if someone can write some article on the EDM/2 on how to set up Paul's environment.

I had used it to create a "hello world" command line program once, reading a very simple GCC online tutorial.

Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.09.28, 05:57:22
An example of a user who took my environment and ran with it, asking a lot of questions along the way, is Elbert Pol - who has now ported a shedload of apps for OS/2 - far more that I've done in recent times.

Elbert is a good example, he asks lots of questions. I'm often surprised how often I look at some development mailing list archives and there is Elbert asking something.

comp.os.os2.programing.porting is one place to ask questions.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.28, 06:22:47
Quote
I think it may help if someone can write some article on the EDM/2 on how to set up Paul's environment.

Setting up the environment means following the readme.os2 that comes with it. There is no magic there, just do as it says. Of course, you do complicate things somewhat, if you use a different drive letter.

I think the main problem is "what do I do now?" I guess the answer would be to pick a project that you want to build, and then do it. Then, it will either build, or it won't. If it does, you can be pretty sure that your basic setup is good. If it won't build, you need to figure out why it won't build, and that is where asking lots of questions (without being a PITA) comes in. The WGET program was suggested as a reasonable staring point, because it is relatively simple, and it is known to build, without problems (at least that is what I understand, I haven't actually tried it, so let's have a go.

The source is available at: http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/ (http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/)

You have the basic choice of an HTML page, or a FTP page. Now, you need to determine what package to get. Lets be brave, and pick the latest version (1.14). Now, there are 4 files for that. 2 are .sig files, which are probably some sort of file verification thing. We will ignore them. Now, you have a choice between wget-1.14.tar.gz or wget-1.14.tar.xz. I have no idea what .xz is, but .gz is something that the eCS archive viewer will unwrap, so lets see what we get. Looks okay to me (but what do I know?).

The download file contains a directory (wget-1.14). Put that on the same drive as Paul's build environment. Then, click on the icon that you built to launch paul's build environment. That should get you to a command line. Change to the wget-1.14 directory, and now we need to figure out how to build it. Paul's instructions are a little confusing at this point (and somewhat incomplete in some more complicated cases).

Since I am tired, I will quit here, and hopefully, somebody will make this a little easier. I am not at all sure if I still have the original setup files, or if I have messed around with them. I don't normally use the setup as Paul supplied it (which seems to be set up to build a mozilla derivative, and I do not have the latest version), so I am somewhat lost here. I am sure that most people will have the same problem.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.28, 22:03:08
Well, now I am running into configuration problems. For some reason, Paul's build seems to want to configure to build a Mozilla derivative, and it wants to use U:\moztools\config.site-gcc335b4. That file is from a release of moztools, as released by Dave Yeo, not too long ago. It bears no relation, at all, to my system, and a number of the entries don't make sense, to me. I don't think it should be using that anyway.

So, I removed the environment variables for MOZILLA, and CONFIG_SITE. Then, I get some reasonable output from:
Code: [Select]
ash ./configurebut it seems to want a different GREP than what is available. The error lines, from config.log are;
Code: [Select]
configure:5382: checking for grep that handles long lines and -e
configure:5433: error: no acceptable grep could be found in U:\foo;U:\usr\bin;U:\usr\local\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\GLIB\gcc\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\LIBIDL\gcc\bin;u:\PERL\bin;u:\bin;U:\MOZTOOLS;U:\EMX\bin;u:\extras\bin;u:\dev\qt\trunk\bin;U:\python25;M:\MPTN\BIN;M:\IBMCOM;M:\ECS\SYSTEM\Samba;M:\ECS\BIN;M:\TCPIP\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\EMX\BIN;M:\IBMGSK50\BIN;M:\IBMGSK40\BIN;M:\IBMGSK\BIN;M:\OS2;M:\OS2\SYSTEM;M:\OS2\INSTALL;M:\;M:\OS2\MDOS;M:\OS2\APPS;M:\ECS\KLIBC\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\JAVA142\BIN;M:\MMOS2\FREEDB;M:\MMOS2;M:\MMOS2\MMPLAYER;W:\PROGRAMS\4OS2;W:\PROGRAMS\OPENSSH;W:\UTILITY;W:\APPS\WGET\BIN;W:\TOOLS\dfsee\bin;W:\ODIN\SYSTEM32;W:\LOTUSW4\COMPNENT;W:\LOTUSW4\ORGANIZE;W:\LOTUSW4\APPROACH;W:\LOTUSW4\FLG;W:\LOTUSW4\WORDPRO;W:\APPS\BA2KWS;W:\PROGRAMS\qt4\bin;W:\APPS\EMBLSH;M:\ecs\ACPI\UTIL;U:\WATCOM\BINP;U:\WATCOM\BINW;U:\VISPRORX;;;/usr/xpg4/bin

Question: What is that all about?
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: Paul Smedley on 2012.09.29, 07:19:27
Well, now I am running into configuration problems. For some reason, Paul's build seems to want to configure to build a Mozilla derivative, and it wants to use U:\moztools\config.site-gcc335b4. That file is from a release of moztools, as released by Dave Yeo, not too long ago. It bears no relation, at all, to my system, and a number of the entries don't make sense, to me. I don't think it should be using that anyway.

So, I removed the environment variables for MOZILLA, and CONFIG_SITE. Then, I get some reasonable output from:
Code: [Select]
ash ./configurebut it seems to want a different GREP than what is available. The error lines, from config.log are;
Code: [Select]
configure:5382: checking for grep that handles long lines and -e
configure:5433: error: no acceptable grep could be found in U:\foo;U:\usr\bin;U:\usr\local\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\GLIB\gcc\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\LIBIDL\gcc\bin;u:\PERL\bin;u:\bin;U:\MOZTOOLS;U:\EMX\bin;u:\extras\bin;u:\dev\qt\trunk\bin;U:\python25;M:\MPTN\BIN;M:\IBMCOM;M:\ECS\SYSTEM\Samba;M:\ECS\BIN;M:\TCPIP\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\EMX\BIN;M:\IBMGSK50\BIN;M:\IBMGSK40\BIN;M:\IBMGSK\BIN;M:\OS2;M:\OS2\SYSTEM;M:\OS2\INSTALL;M:\;M:\OS2\MDOS;M:\OS2\APPS;M:\ECS\KLIBC\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\JAVA142\BIN;M:\MMOS2\FREEDB;M:\MMOS2;M:\MMOS2\MMPLAYER;W:\PROGRAMS\4OS2;W:\PROGRAMS\OPENSSH;W:\UTILITY;W:\APPS\WGET\BIN;W:\TOOLS\dfsee\bin;W:\ODIN\SYSTEM32;W:\LOTUSW4\COMPNENT;W:\LOTUSW4\ORGANIZE;W:\LOTUSW4\APPROACH;W:\LOTUSW4\FLG;W:\LOTUSW4\WORDPRO;W:\APPS\BA2KWS;W:\PROGRAMS\qt4\bin;W:\APPS\EMBLSH;M:\ecs\ACPI\UTIL;U:\WATCOM\BINP;U:\WATCOM\BINW;U:\VISPRORX;;;/usr/xpg4/bin

Question: What is that all about?

FWIW - I don't recommend removing the CONFIG_SITE reference.  Yes the config.site is located in a /moztools directory, and yes, it started life as a version used to build mozilla, but it's progressed a long way from that, and contains many things that 'help' configure - including grep.

Another way around the grep issue is to run:
'set grep=grep.exe' before running ./configure
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.09.29, 07:27:01
Quote
I think it may help if someone can write some article on the EDM/2 on how to set up Paul's environment.
[...]

The download file contains a directory (wget-1.14). Put that on the same drive as Paul's build environment. Then, click on the icon that you built to launch paul's build environment. That should get you to a command line. Change to the wget-1.14 directory, and now we need to figure out how to build it. Paul's instructions are a little confusing at this point (and somewhat incomplete in some more complicated cases).

Since I am tired, I will quit here, and hopefully, somebody will make this a little easier. I am not at all sure if I still have the original setup files, or if I have messed around with them. I don't normally use the setup as Paul supplied it (which seems to be set up to build a mozilla derivative, and I do not have the latest version), so I am somewhat lost here. I am sure that most people will have the same problem.

What I'd do (I don't have Pauls environment) is open EPM,  and open a shell within EPM. (Command --> Create command shell). Now we have a scrolling window for reviewing output.
Start out by doing sh configure --help (I use [pdk]sh.exe, substitute ash if you prefer) and examine the output. Of interest are options such as --enable-threads={posix|solaris|pth|windows} --disable-ipv6, ssl options, libiconv, libintl and whether to support nls options. We'll come back to this if configure makes mistakes in configuring for the build system.
Then try sh configure and watch the configure script figure out the build environment, what tools we have installed and what our libc supports.
Eventually here configure errors out with,

Code: [Select]
checking for libgnutls... no
configure: error: --with-ssl was given, but GNUTLS is not available

So we have to decide whether to use openssl. (Openssl has an incompatible license with GPL v2 ). For our first test build we'll disable it, so rerun configure as sh configure --without-ssl.
Eventually configure ends by creating a bunch of makefiles, so now we can do
make
and after a bunch of output make dies with
Code: [Select]
epbase=`echo spawn-pipe.o | sed 's|[^/]*$|.deps/&|;s|\.o$||'`;\
gcc.exe -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../src   -I/usr/local/include  -O2 -Wall -MT spawn-pipe.o -MD -MP -MF $depbase.Tpo -c -o spawn-pipe.o spawn-pipe.c &&\
mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
In file included from ./spawn.h:37,
                 from spawn-pipe.c:47:
./sched.h:43: error: redefinition of 'struct sched_param'
So need to examine what is different between lib\spawn.h and lib\sched.h and how they relate to our headers.
Search \usr\include for sched_param, we find it in spawn.h with a comment, todo implement sched.h.
Perhaps configure got confused by not finding sched.h? As we have sched_param we should be able to ignore the one included by lib\spawn.h. Best seems to try to change line 35 in spawn.h.in from
#if !(defined __GLIBC__ && !defined __UCLIBC__)
to
#if !(defined __GLIBC__ && !defined __UCLIBC__ || defined __OS2__)
and try again.
This time make finishes by building src\wget.exe so see if it runs by cd src && wget --version and it seems to work.
Now to test by doing make check which unluckily dies here due to perl issues. These can probably be fixed or can test wget by downloading things and seeing if they work.
Ideally after the build error is to contact the authours of wget for advice on the best way to fix the problem and get a fix into the code so the next version builds out of the box.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: dryeo on 2012.09.29, 07:39:34
Well, now I am running into configuration problems. For some reason, Paul's build seems to want to configure to build a Mozilla derivative, and it wants to use U:\moztools\config.site-gcc335b4. That file is from a release of moztools, as released by Dave Yeo, not too long ago. It bears no relation, at all, to my system, and a number of the entries don't make sense, to me. I don't think it should be using that anyway.

So, I removed the environment variables for MOZILLA, and CONFIG_SITE. Then, I get some reasonable output from:
Code: [Select]
ash ./configurebut it seems to want a different GREP than what is available. The error lines, from config.log are;
Code: [Select]
configure:5382: checking for grep that handles long lines and -e
configure:5433: error: no acceptable grep could be found in U:\foo;U:\usr\bin;U:\usr\local\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\GLIB\gcc\bin;U:\GLIBIDL335\LIBIDL\gcc\bin;u:\PERL\bin;u:\bin;U:\MOZTOOLS;U:\EMX\bin;u:\extras\bin;u:\dev\qt\trunk\bin;U:\python25;M:\MPTN\BIN;M:\IBMCOM;M:\ECS\SYSTEM\Samba;M:\ECS\BIN;M:\TCPIP\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\EMX\BIN;M:\IBMGSK50\BIN;M:\IBMGSK40\BIN;M:\IBMGSK\BIN;M:\OS2;M:\OS2\SYSTEM;M:\OS2\INSTALL;M:\;M:\OS2\MDOS;M:\OS2\APPS;M:\ECS\KLIBC\BIN;W:\PROGRAMS\JAVA142\BIN;M:\MMOS2\FREEDB;M:\MMOS2;M:\MMOS2\MMPLAYER;W:\PROGRAMS\4OS2;W:\PROGRAMS\OPENSSH;W:\UTILITY;W:\APPS\WGET\BIN;W:\TOOLS\dfsee\bin;W:\ODIN\SYSTEM32;W:\LOTUSW4\COMPNENT;W:\LOTUSW4\ORGANIZE;W:\LOTUSW4\APPROACH;W:\LOTUSW4\FLG;W:\LOTUSW4\WORDPRO;W:\APPS\BA2KWS;W:\PROGRAMS\qt4\bin;W:\APPS\EMBLSH;M:\ecs\ACPI\UTIL;U:\WATCOM\BINP;U:\WATCOM\BINW;U:\VISPRORX;;;/usr/xpg4/bin

Question: What is that all about?

As Paul hinted, it is looking for grep instead of grep.exe. You need exeext=.exe or/and ac_executable_extensions=.exe in your environment, preferably in config.site or set GREP=grep.exe, then perhaps PERL=perl.exe and so on.
BTW, I didn't release that moztools though it is basically the same as the one I use.
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.29, 17:42:02
Thanks guys. This will take a bit of study, and experimenting, and I don't have time at the moment.

Quote
BTW, I didn't release that moztools though it is basically the same as the one I use.

Sorry, I was thinking of MZFNTCFGFT.

I suppose that I really should get a new copy of Paul's build environment, but what I have is working well for what I actually use it for so I hate to upset the apple cart.

More, when I find the time...
Title: Re: What is the future of this platform?
Post by: DougB on 2012.09.30, 18:28:16
Paul:

Quote
FWIW - I don't recommend removing the CONFIG_SITE reference.

Well, I get a LOT further without it, than I do with it. It always stops with:
Code: [Select]
configure.:3322: error: in `U:/wget-1.14':
configure.:3325: error: failed to load site script u:/moztools/config.site-gcc335b4
See `config.log' for more details

When I look in config.log, the only relevant thing that I see, are these three lines, which tell me nothing.

If I REM the site entry in GCC335.cmd (I also added set grep=grep.exe), I get a lot of output, that looks pretty reasonable, then it stops at:
Code: [Select]
./configure.lineno: 6947: Syntax error: "!" unexpected

If I look in the configure file (which I have to assume this is working with), line 6947 is blank. I have no idea what it wants.

Dave: I haven't got around to trying anything that you suggested, yet. More when I find the time.