• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - djcaetano

#181
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
1) Get IBM to release the OS2 API documentation so that we at least can work with what we got?

  They could do that, but they'll ask: "what profit will we earn from it?"

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
2) OS2 PowerPC version is internal coded by IBM and by that should be possible to open source?

   As I had already said, many OS/2 for PowerPC documents express clearly that much of OS/2 for PPC internals (base API) were just ported from Intel to PPC kernel. They did this to show "how great was their OS design".
   Even in the kernel, much of the alleged "improvements" can be just OS/2 Intel code added to the kernel.
   Saying OS/2 for PPC is just IBM code will not help because it is not.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
3) If Microsoft don't care about OS2; well then why not open the kernel code at least and WPS?

  Microsoft doesn't care as long as their rights are being preserved.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
4) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not offer free download of the latest release?
5) Why not get OS2 World Foundation to offer free download after setting up an agreement with IBM?
6) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not name the price to give a 3rd party custody over the code?

   Taking into account IBM's behavior towards OS/2, I believe IBM thinks in OS/2 as a shame they want to forget. They wanted OS/2 brand to fade long ago.

   No, I am not just a pessimist. I really believe we must continue to ask IBM (and make some public noise...), give them some reason to put money in the source code release... but we must support osFree and Voyager also. We cannot let these projects die.
   Maybe these projects could be added as a special kind of "bounty"? It's complex, because there will be a lot of people in the process, but something has to be done. Without access to source code, OS/2 (or even eCS for that matter) will not live forever.
#182
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.01.24, 18:49:14
http://voyager.netlabs.org  Is there any news about the Voyager project? With no news, it too seems 'dead in the water'.
Is there any news about Voyager?

NOTE: dates are in latin format: dd/mm/yyyy

  Voyager Discussion was updated 05/01/2008:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Voyager_Discussion&action=history

  Voyager FAQ was updated 08/12/2007
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Voyager_FAQ&action=history

  The desktop class list was updated in 01/11/2007:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php?title=Desktop_class_list&action=history
  Several things on Netlabs Object Model were edited in November also:
http://svn.netlabs.org/v_nom/browser/trunk
  And a presentation was uploaded in the docs svn in November:
http://svn.netlabs.org/v_doc/browser

  But most updates are from august 2007.

  I can't say it's "dead in the water". Things are in a stage there is
not much to show. As far as I could read, they are trying to prototype
what they had already described. Nothing much useful yet.
#183
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.01.24, 17:28:51
I agree. We know IBM will not open source OS/2. We should support the effort to clone OS/2; Voyager, OSFree or a port of K42.  8)

  I believe Voyager is the way to go. It can be developed on top of OS/2, but can be easily ported to another plataforms (this is one top priority objective of the project, at least). The objective is to isolate the system look and feel from the base operating system, in a way the user cannot even know what kernel is being used in daily operations.
  This means you could replace top-OS/2 subsystems with a new one that keeps the OS/2 feeling (Voyager) and then use it as a easy-pass to another plataform, keeping the best thing of OS/2 (usability) on a modern kernel with better device driver support from vendors. Note that this doesn't mean this kernel will be Linux one. It can be even Windows' (ReactOS?), Haiku's or MacOS' (MACH?).

   I spent several hours in the last few days reading every piece of document produced by the Voyager project and this small post presents why I believe this is the way to go. It is like recreating the idea of OS/2 for PowerPC's "personalities" ... And with some effort, these ideas can be applied to any kernel, not only uK.

   It *is* important to notice that Voyager is really a *good* concept. If Voyager is implemented on top of Linux kernel, for example, the idea is you'll use Linux kernel but your feeling will be the same as using OS/2 Kernel. This seems to be impossible? Well, spend a time playing with MacOS X and tell me there is a *Un*x inside it. The Voyager experience *shall not* be dependent of the kernel being used. Even using Linux or ReactOS kernel, you'll have a WPS, a CONFIG.SYS (if this is the best way to go... /etc is, for sure, the worst way, though) and your prompt will be like OS/2 CMD.EXE, not that bizarre shells UNIX's users are used to. The way you feel the system will be the same of OS/2. It is the "everything is an object" approach, not the bizarre "everything is a file" approach.

  In fact, nothing will prevent that someone creates a clone of OS/2 for PowerPC Kernel... and this could be used as Voyager kernel (the kernel part of the project is not defined!). OS/2 for PowerPC would be, for sure, a lot better than OS/2 for Intel kernel, which is very outdated in several aspects. But the problem remains the same: which device driver model to use in this kernel? Not OS/2's model, for sure: nobody wants to write hacked device drivers forever. The best would be Windows model, since Linux model is somewhat limited. But even if every hardware vendor builds Windows' drivers, this model is a moving target, since Microsoft mess with it at each Windows release.

  This is the big question that needs an answer, but the point is: it has not to be answered now! Since we do not have a working and portable WPS, there is no reason to define what device driver model will be used on the kernel. Since this is a very complex question (and the answer may change until a working WPS clone is ready), Voyager decided to start from the top layer, the one which is the most important for the users: the WPS. Until we have a working WPS clone, there is a lot of time to discuss kernel issues, models and so on.
  What was the error of the past (osFree)? Discuss moving targets in the beginning of the project (Kernel, Device Drivers etc) and forgetting about the "fixed targets", like WPS.

  OS/2 Kernel for Intel will not survive forever without *really big* updates. And even if I wish IBM could release the source code for some parts of OS/2, I really doubt it. And this is even more difficult in the case of the Kernel (even OS/2 for PowerPC's one, I believe. Most parts of OS/2 for PowerPC were simply *ported* from Intel, AFAIK... All documents I read said that IBM have "enhanced" MACH kernel, and I believe this was done with patented OS/2 code). Even if Voyager project do not succeed in producing a new operating system with "OS/2 feeling", it can succeed in producing a working, portable WPS... in that case, it would be at least less painful to migrate to another OS, something we all will need to do some time from now.

  The point is: we do not need "yet another operating system". We need to keep the "OS/2 way of use a computer" built on modern technologies and able to run on modern hardware. And this is "less difficult" to achieve than building a new operating system from scratch (which is a far more complex task than we are capable to accomplish with the man-power available into this community ).

  Well, these are my thoughts.
  My kindest regards!

PS: OpenBeOS clone could not use BeOS original code, *but* I was informed that some of OBOS developers had been able to peek in the original source code, besides the fact the inner works of BeOS are a lot more well documented that OS/2 internals (or so I was told). These are very important facts to take into account when comparing the speed of development of a new BeOS versus the development of a new OS/2.
#184
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.01.16, 01:12:45
I am a registered Pixel owner, I am also a photographer who would like to edit in OS/2 instead of Windows.  I had high hopes for pixel but after delay after delay I have given up.  There is more wrong with this app then SDL problems. 

  Well, I was able to find some limitations (no working screen capture, for example), but no crashes until now.
  I was coping with several problems regarding screen redraw, but they were solved with the latest SDL release (released yesterday), at least in this machine (running Panorama driver, where SDL uses VMAN to manage graphics now).
  Also, I registered this application, and a friend of mine also registered. The price is not big and I believe the author would care more for OS/2 version if there are more registered OS/2 users. Besides, the registration is valid for all systems (Win, OS/2, Linux, Mac...) and this is very nice. I do not expect to give up OS/2 or eCS, but I like multiplataform apps, so I can use the software wherever I go (even on my wife's WinXP machine, for example).

  But I am interested on Pixel problems. If they are SDL/2 problems, I will see what can I do. If they are Pixel specific problems, I will see if I can poke Pixel's author. :P

  Nonetheless, as a "one-man project", Pixel seems really impressive to me.

  My kindest regards.
#185
 
  Hello guys!

  Yesterday I received an e-mail of an old friend and he told me Pixel had been
ported to eComStation/OS/2!
  Today I downloaded it and play with it for a while... and besides some minor
redraw glitches (SDL/2 limitations) it is superb! IMHO, way better than Gimp!
It is worth trying, it is very small and fast... and it is in promotional price while
in beta (US$ 38,00), which grants access up to 2.0 version.
  It works like a charm on OS/2 and eCS. The only (temporary?) drawback
is the fact it needs SDL, and therefore do not work under Panorama drivers.

  This is Pixel website: http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/

  Regards,

  Daniel Caetano
  daniel@caetano.eng.br
#186
Quote from: warpcafe on 2008.01.07, 19:38:09
just guessing here... but did you (un~)check the option "printer-specific format" to see if that has any impact?
It must be somewhere in the printer's properties tabs... on/around the "spool" stuff... sorry, have no OS/2 at hand right now... perhaps this has some effect? I found that sometimes it does the trick (for certain printer models and connection variants). Hope it helps.

  Hi man!

  I tried to disable the "Printer specific format" in "Queue Options" tab, but it didn't work. Unfortunately. :(
  I think I will need to keep printing from Windows through VirtualPC. :(

  Thanks anyway.
#187
Networking / eCS 2.0 and Network Printing
2008.01.07, 18:43:23

   I'm running eCS2.0 RC1 and I am not being able to print to a HP LaserJet 4 Plus through network.
   The LaserJet is attached to an WinXP box, which has NetBEUI installed and also LMAnnounce activated.
   The eCS 2.0 computer has IBM Peer installed and working. It's able to see WinXP printer and send data
to it.
   The problem is weird and seems related to the network because when I attach the printer directly to my
computer it prints correctly, but not when it is attached to the XP box. The other OS/2 Warp 4.52 box
prints correctly through network. When I print something very small (a small picture, like an icon, in low
resolution or a few lines of text) everything goes right and the data is printed as it should. When I send
a lot of data (big picture or several pages of text), the first lines are correctly printed and then a lot of
garbage is print (bizarre texts like "NETLOGONg    Accept-Language: en-us, en; q=0.5" or simply a long
sequence of control codes or random characters)... and after several pages of garbage, the printing
stops.

   I had already installed the same (older) OS/2 Warp 4.52 printer driver on this eCS box, but the problem
remains the same.
   The only special thing about this printer is the fact it is running with 66MB of memory (2MB internal
plus 2x32MB expansion).

   Any clues about what may be wrong?

   Thanks in advance.
#188

  Ha! Today I could update ACPI to the newest version 3.xx and the 1GB memory limit problem is gone!
I had to update DANIS and DANIATAPI also, since the system hangs with the newer ACPI drivers and
old DANI drivers.

  Problems solved! :)
#189
Quote from: Paul Smedley on 2007.08.17, 06:03:15
My desktop system has 3gb of RAM and runs eCS v2 beta 4...... Asus M2N-E motherboard, Athlon64 X2 6000+ processor....

  Maybe there is really some incompatibility with my system (ASUS P5GZ-MX with Core 2 Duo E4300, 2x 1800MHz).
  Man, it sux. Besides the random lockups (more using SMP than using UNI mode), this weird memory limitation. :/
#190

  Hi,

  Some time ago I said I was not being able to load more than 500MB (or so) on my SMP machine (now running eCS2.0 RC1), even if the system said me there were a total of 2GB of memory (1700MB usually free). When tried to load anything above 500~600MB the system refused to load and report "not enough memory" (this goes both on SMP and on UNI modes, but on SMP is more frequent).
  Today I decided to do some tests and removed one of the two 1GB Kingston DDR2 memories. Well, the system is now with only 1GB but now I am able to use it entirely (no more 500~600MB "memory limit"), both on UNI and SMP modes.

  I guess it is a problem with the space spent by OS/2 to manage memory, but I am not sure.
  Anybody had ever been able to use OS/2 on a system with 2GB of RAM (or more) and use this memory fully?

  My kindest regards!
#191
Quote from: jmillar on 2007.07.18, 15:38:51
Multiprocessing is now mainstream. Kids, moms, grannies use CORE 2 and dual core AMD's. It's home computing now, not server or high power workstation material. And quadcore is available NOW, and quite cheaply!
(...)
Is it just me, or up to now very few people were going the multiprocessing route on ECS?
I'd love to hear from those of you who have experience from the OS/2 multiprocessing trenches. How about v2?

  My experience with SMP is kind of bad. I have been using OS/2 since early 90's and I never experienced so many random hangs as I am experiencing  now with eCS2.0 on SMP mode.
  It seems there is some serious limitation on memory management when running on SMP on some systems when using more than 512MB of RAM. At least, this is the case of my system.
  On the other hand, when everything is working, the performance gain is overwhelming. Every single program loads much faster than on UNI mode. FireFox and OpenOffice load times are much smaller and the same happens to WPS startup and desktop archiving. Also, VirtualPC runs much smoother on SMP than on UNI (speed-wise). I had not made extensive testing/benchmarking, but the difference is really impressive.

   I hope Serenity solve the SMP issues I am experiencing, or I'll need to disable SMP support even if I use a dual-core computer.

   Just to add my 2 cents, I believe Serenity made a bad choice when decided to take the "closed beta" path. I believe they were afraid many people would use the beta version and never buy the final version. Well, while this can be truth, it's not likely they will avoid people using eCS without paying; it's just a matter of looking on the internet and one will find it to download in eMule, torrent, etc. Those who want to keep with illegal versions will do it, no matter what Serenity does.
   On the other side, closing the beta, the amount of testers of eCS is really small - at least those that can really report problems, since those obtained it in "alternative ways" do not feel free to do bug-reports... and of course they do not want to read an answer like "Buy it and we will see if we solve your problem".
   I believe I'll buy eCS2.0 when it is out (I'm tired of my old OS/2 4.52 and the infinite patchs and upgrades), but I'll be really pissed off if I try to install in this dual core computer and it fail to work ... after I had spent hundreds of bucks in it. And the same goes to other "closed" software for eCS, like someone said, Panorama VESA.
   As a rule of thumb, I believe the more beta-testers, the better.
#192
Applications / Re: FireFox versus SMP
2007.07.17, 18:19:01
   I had discovered something interesting about the "bug" on Firefox and the SMP. In fact, I was able to solve the problem by removing the FIREFOX!.EXE that is used by eComStation 2.0RC1 to call the real FIREFOX.EXE. I don't know what is the reason for that FIREFOX!.EXE, but it looks like it was the cause for the strange behavior of FireFox on SMP. Removing it allowed the loading animation to work and also enabled the save file button.
   I believe the only problem remaining is the memory limitation problem... 2GB of RAM, 60GB of free swap space and the system doesn't allow me to use more than 600MB on SMP mode. :(
#193
Hardware / "Out of Memory" on SMP mode
2007.07.16, 17:02:28

  Hello again,

  Today I was able to do some tests and noticed the SMP mode of SMP Kernel
doesn't "like" my computer. My computer is a Core2 Duo E4300, running on a
ASUS P5GZ-MX motherboard, with 2GB of kingston RAM (2x1GB).
  I installed eCS 2.0RC1, configured ACPI to use APIC and installed the
SMP kernel. The fact is: if I do not enable SMP (/SMP) on ACPI driver,
the kernel only identifies 1 CPU and the system works without any problems.
If I enable SMP (/SMP) on ACPI, the kernel identifies both cores (as 2 CPUs)
and works, but with at least one BIG limitation (besides the problems with
Firefox I had mentioned before): I cannot load more than 512MB (the
number is not exactly 512, it's something between 512MB and 600MB).
   Since this computer has about 2GB of RAM, this is a weird limitation.
I tried to change things on CONFIG.SYS, modifying VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT,
but no real results: I face the same limitations in therms of memory load.
Whenever I load Java or VirtualPC, suddenly my computer becomes
unusable, unable to load anything.

  Anyone knows what should I change so I can use all of my computer's memory?

  Thanks in advance.
#194
Quote from: klipp on 2007.07.11, 20:40:10
Display>LVM info for partitions and selecting the DT, it shows the DT as Active/Startable where as my 1gb memory stick shows itself as Removable+Active/Bootable. So it looks like I'm going to try and figure

  I thought again and now I remembered that when I tried to create the volume, I used Character Mode LVM, where I created a partition first - and it didn't let me create a bootable partition. So I created a "Compatibility Volume, in a partition that "Doesn't need to be bootable" (probably an extended partition, not a primary one).
  I remember also that if I tried to create a bootable volume, LVM give an error about not being able to boot because of the 1024 cylinder problem or something like that.
#195
   I was out of luck, then... Here eCS RC1 installed even worse than beta 4 and beta 3 (beta 3 was the easiest, but I have use extra disk with 10.104 kernel on boot or it would lock up on testcfg loading).
   I am running eCS 2.0 RC1 and I made my mind: I'll be buying it, but I am still feeling dread about several hangs when on SMP mode. Sometimes the system says me I am out of memory. I found on the internet that in SMP mode we cannot mess around with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT, which was set on 1536 on default install. I changed it to 1024 and it seems this "out of memory" problem has gone away.
   But the hangs still happens. And Firefox is a lot jerky, slow reaction, the "OK" button when deciding if I would save or open a file is forever disabled (no way to enable it, even clicking over it) and the loading animation on the tabs do not work. This is very weird behaviuor and probably this is all correlated to some problem supporting SMP on this machine (ASUS P5GZ-MX running an Core 2 Duo E4300, with 2GB of RAM).
   I noticed the problems are less frequent since I changed from /PIC to /APIC, and added a lot of switches manually (since the installer was not even able to detect my machine was a dual core), but they are not solved at all.
 
   I have not tested Panorama, but SNAP runs nice on the integrated Intel video board.