Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - obiwan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
OS2 Petition / Re: VLC Player for OS/2
« on: 2009.02.20, 00:57:08 »
No... it really doesnt. There are settable parameters in either smPlayer or mPlayer to help with that. Fixing those will resolve the issue.

There were multiple issues, not just one, and the fix for all of them, in the end, was to install VLC. That was easier than figuring out whatever the parameters needed to be. An application that sets itself up correctly without intervention is by that fact more polished, and preferable to work with.

OS2 Petition / Re: VLC Player for OS/2
« on: 2009.02.19, 09:04:25 »
Ogle doesn't have a cache setting. No setting made any difference to some of the problems (e.g. being unable to find which feature on the disk is the movie). Even if what you are saying applies, it means the difference between a clunky player and a polished one, since VLC worked perfectly every time.

OS2 Petition / Re: VLC Player for OS/2
« on: 2009.02.19, 07:14:51 »
I just did some testing with VLC vs. mplayer vs. ogle on a couple different Linux systems. Different hardware, different distros, with only DVD playback, using several new discs. Mplayer and ogle showed some annoying problems with timing and video quality on both systems, while VLC had no problems, and video quality was superb.

Given this, I wish I had time to see about porting VLC. It's true the GUI needs wxWidgets, but the video playback itself just uses SDL, so if the wxWidgets interface really won't work it isn't necessarily a show-stopper. I think if my only experience with mplayer were on /2, I would think it was the OS causing the problems, which is not the case.

Maybe later.

Utilities / Re: GNU bash 3.2 has been ported to OS/2
« on: 2008.09.11, 18:28:06 »
I accidentally found jsawa's page with his port of Bash 3.2:

He uses EMX, whereas I use Knut's libc.

I'll see about incorporating his patches before I put out a build.

Applications / Re: Lotus 1-2-3 1.7.1 Errors [fixed!]
« on: 2008.09.07, 23:28:44 »
The difference is that the first one is the default. I don't really know, but I would guess a well-behaved OS/2 application would fall back to the second one if it doesn't support the first, but SS was ported from Windows to OS/2 as sort of an afterthought, so "best behavior" is not it's strong point.

It seems it attempts to determine the language by checking the codepage, so since it didn't recognize 1004, it assumed it was some language it lacked support for, hence the error about installing the correct language.

Applications / Re: Lotus 1-2-3 1.7.1 Errors [fixed!]
« on: 2008.09.07, 21:30:54 »
Fixed it.

Even went through a reinstall of the OS, and SmartSuite yet again, and still had the problem.

The common denominator was that I keep setting the Codepage during install to 1004,850. Changing this to 850,1004 fixed it.

Alternatively, one can set the codepage for an application in the program object's properties, and that has the same effect.

Thanks to all who made such a generous effort to help.

Applications / Re: Up-to-date applications
« on: 2008.09.07, 19:02:24 »
Word processing - use Describe, spreadsheet - Mesa (comes with Describe voyager).  Those are what I used to run my business since about '87 when I got warp connect and could easily network the computers.

Can these still be had? I was under the impression if we didn't move on them during their time, we were out of luck.

Comments, Suggestions & Questions / Re: OS/2 Warp 4 Server
« on: 2008.09.07, 17:45:53 »
Thanks for all the great info, Fahrvenugen.

The big pitfall for me, and why I've never actually finished installing Warp Server 4, is figuring out all the fixpaks and updates, so having a rundown like you posted is a big help. The fact that you now installed it yourself so quickly shows me it can be done. I also appreciate your tests and shared results. I can feel pretty confident now that the stuff I need has a good chance of being ok.

This is purely to be a server, so I don't need any browsers or Odin stuff, or even graphics beyond VGA. I had to think about whether I care about Java, but for the purposes of this server I don't.

So I'll go ahead and give it a try.

Comments, Suggestions & Questions / Re: OS/2 Warp 4 Server
« on: 2008.09.06, 02:36:53 »
Personally I prefer the Warp 3 / Warp Server 4 code base over the Warp 4 (client) / Warp Server for eBusiness code base.  For many reasons I find that the older version preferable to the "newer" version, especially in server applications.  The main benefit of the newer version (for the situations that I have put OS/2 into a server type role) is the larger hard disk partitions that become possible with LVM and JFS.  Even with this, I still have machines that I have left running on the older Warp 3 code base.

This comment has influenced me to consider Warp 4 Server for a server I need to set up. Assuming the hardware is compatible, is this a decent choice? Have you, or anyone else running such a server, encountered problems with services ported using libc, like those built by Paul Smedley?


Hey obiwan, there is something called - "Division of Labor"; and, just who will take on the job (undertake the "research" that you are talking about). 8)

This very well confirms my point. It indeed takes work just to find this out, yet before we even get there (seemingly) we are already discussing aspirations on orders of magnitude greater scale.

I particularly like ddan's answer. Even if it is possible to access the 64-bit instruction sets while running the existing OS/2 kernel, it seems likely we would be limited to 4GB of memory. But, then, maybe that's still good enough? If not, seems conceivable to work around it, if this end is really desired.

Applications / Re: Lotus 1-2-3 1.7.1 Errors
« on: 2008.09.02, 19:51:37 »
Thanks, Sander. I like the "can fix" attitude. I never used the old 1-2-3, so I'll take your word for it. I'd rather use 1-2-3 than OO.o.

If sending a zip file, you might need to leave off the .zip extension to get Gmail to accept it.

It might be useful to research what exactly constitutes 64-bit support. The technical implications of a 64-bit kernel are different whether you are talking about Windows or Linux, and OS/2 is neither. Much of this discussion to me seems very abstract, without a clear explanation of exactly what about the OS/2 kernel prevents a 64-bit binary from executing. That is what we are talking about, right? Ability to run 64-bit applications?

We're not talking about rewriting the OS/2 kernel so it does everything the kernel does using 64-bit instructions instead of 16 and 32, right? That seems completely pointless.

Else, are we talking about introducing a completely new kernel with a different abi, and a different name? Then what would we be introducing it to? That confuses me, because that would be a different OS. Not that there is anything wrong with using a different OS, if you want to. Just, if we're talking about a different OS, what does that have to do with OS/2? And why then talk about creating a new one, when others exist?

As far as I know, no-one has done any testcase to see what happens when you try to call a 64-bit instruction on OS/2. It guess it might trap, but why? How is a 64-bit instruction passed to the processor? Does the kernel really prevent it? Could the existing kernel be slightly modified to allow the instruction to pass? If so, that can probably be accomplished.

I really don't know the answers to these questions, and honestly I'm only mildly interested. It just seems to me that if anyone is seriously interested in executing 64-bit code on OS/2, the place to start is to read and experiment with exactly what prevents it, if anything. Not just jump to the conclusion that the kernel must be completely re-engineered for it, and make grandiose plans for this to come about somehow. Just because other OS's now have 64-bit versions of their kernels.

Maybe you all know something I don't know about this, and the reason you aren't saying it is because you assume everybody knows. However, since I don't know, and this piece is clearly missing from every thread, it would be useful to state it, with references. Otherwise I just don't get this.

Applications / Re: Lotus 1-2-3 1.7.1 Errors
« on: 2008.09.02, 04:09:44 »
That is kind of you to offer, saborion2, and I appreciate it. However, "Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 Warp" is the same product. By older, I meant the original 1-2-3, e.g. version 3, written for native OS/2, rather than ported from Windows using Open32, as SS appears to have been.

OpenOffice is a valid option. I have it on Linux now.

You know, guys, I have only recently installed eCS on this system after a hard drive crash, and haven't even finished setting it back up again. If wiping it out and starting over is likely to fix it, I'm willing to give that a shot.

Applications / Re: VBOX/2 and seamless mode
« on: 2008.09.02, 03:43:17 »
It is certainly possible to set up Hoblink X11 to make applications in a Linux guest appear in seamless mode, just as one would display applications running on a remote system using X11. You could eliminate the whole X server in the VBox guest, and probably speed it up in the process. I can't think of any advantage to using the X server in the VBox guest.

There are some useful articles about Hoblink on os2voice detailing how to set it up. Using SSH makes it particularly easy, but if I were to do it I'd avoid it and use telnet, rexec, or xdm, because encryption eats cpu cycles, and it's pointless in a connection to a guest on the local system.

I used to do everything this way, with multiple physical systems on a single screen. I even had KDE on my OS/2 desktop, which, to say the least, is just weird.

Applications / Re: Lotus 1-2-3 1.7.1 Errors
« on: 2008.09.02, 02:49:16 »
Thanks for all the helpful replies.

The thread ivan mentions could be relevant. The poster in that thread solved his problem by copying over the contents of \os2\etc\dsom from a working system. So I installed SS on another system, found that it worked fine, backed up the directory, copied the "good" ones over, and rebooted. The problem persisted, so I put it back and rebooted again.

Also tried what Lars suggested there, installed the developer's toolkit and ran pregimpl.exe, to see if it fails. It opened ok, wasn't sure what to do after that.


LTUIR22.DLL is indeed in D:\LOTUSW4\COMPNENT, and LIBPATH looks OK to me:

Code: [Select]

None of the files you listed are 0 byte or 32 bytes:

Code: (D:\LOTUSW4\ETC) [Select]
5/21/97 11:59a       106,656      0 a---
8/06/96  9:27p         5,271      0 ----
0/23/01  7:15a       223,215      0 ----
3/03/99  4:10a       154,584      0 a---
2/23/00  2:31a       332,629      0 a---
2/23/00  2:26a       119,850      0 a---
2/23/00  2:41a        78,578      0 a---
6/03/97  4:00p        10,020      0 ----
2/10/97 11:21a        31,248      0 a---

Code: (C:\OS2\ETC) [Select]
9/06/00 12:42p        66,058      0 a---  REXX.IR
 6/30/99  4:28p       496,503      0 a---  SOM.IR
10/02/01  5:44p        60,855      0 a---  WPDSERV.IR
10/02/01  5:35p       274,823      0 a---  WPSH.IR

I took your suggestion regarding my address.

I guess I could try putting some more time into comparing pregimpl.exe on the two systems.

If I am to switch to another application, I would seriously not choose another Lotus one, except maybe an older version of 1-2-3, if I can find one more native to /2.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5