• 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

os2ldr

Started by AAA, 2008.02.02, 23:40:57

Previous topic - Next topic

El Vato

#45
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56

Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]

It is more like contextualization  --I do not provide suggestions in a vacuum.  One analyses the current status of the target entity, in this case OS/2,  and consider  the variables that affect its evolution --if we accept the notion of Darwin-- in the current technological environment in which it finds itself.

For instance, Sun could have released the Java code under BSD, or even the Apache Foundation, licenses.  But then the Java code and/or components would have been taken by any commercial entity with an affinity to appropriate software resources without contributing anything back to the core of what was taken.

Evidently, in an resource starved entity like the OS/2, maintaining the old business model advocated by the high priests of yesteryear who defend sacred cow X, or sacred cow Y, simply extends the proprietary chains to which OS/2 is being held captive.  Hence, taking as precedent the loop that Novell exploited to the detriment  of the open source (specifically GPLv2 Linux and GNU complement) in which MS was not forced to contribute back code to OSS but was being benefited by Novell's commercial Linux business nonetheless, you can apprehend the reason for my contextualization –as opposed to an simple generalization.

If the developers of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, etc., do not want  their work to be simply taken by others –possibly without even a courteous "thank you"-- releasing their work under GPLv2 or GPLv3 will force those of the old school to play nicely and contribute back to the source or components upstream from which they might simply not feel obliged due to their current narrow indoctrination.  The ultimate beneficiary will be, of course, the healthy digital development of the OS/2.

It is cool to know about different F-OSS licenses, but it is cooler to know in what context those should be applied.  When was the last time that Apple contributed back to the BSD derived operating system that it took as the foundation for its proprietary X window implementation --in any significant way that might represent a threat to its share of predictable lunch of geek serving$ ???  Does the BSD community get an iPod as a thank you for their quality work in making possible the propaganda blasted X product ???

El Vato

#46
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.07.06, 22:05:28
Hi El Vato,

This is indeed a nice post;
[...]

I am glad you found it interesting, SAB

Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.07, 00:30:12
Hi, El Vato!

Try downloading that file from this location:
[...]

I appreciate the link, TBW, thank you.  On the other hand, the test that I did was possibly the simplest one and did not require the SMP kernel.  I modified the first two diskettes for an installation and the OS2LDR dated 06-26-2008 did not even make it to the white OS/2 in the upper left side of the screen: there was only a blinking uderscore/dash.

Reiterating, after replacing the OS2LDR of reference with an older IBM version, the routine actually proceeded in the Sun Ultra AMD64 unit.

Regards.

AAA

First of all, IBM had reasons to provide a separate loader with each kernel.

Secondly, let me guess, on your installation diskette there is a kernel W4, which is not supported by CB loader (even in Read Me it says so)

it is known that W4 does not work with CB loaders.

That is why UNI/SMP 104a should be used with CB loader.

Dоn't forget to change DOSCALL1.DLL while going from UNI to SMP and the other way around.

saborion2

Hi All,

Re:

Quote

I appreciate the link, BTW, thank you.  On the other hand, the test that I did was possibly the simplest one and did not require the SMP kernel.  I modified the first two diskettes for an installation and the OS2LDR dated 06-26-2008 did not even make it to the white OS/2 in the upper left side of the screen: there was only a blinking uderscore/dash.

Reiterating, after replacing the OS2LDR of reference with an older IBM version, the routine actually proceeded in the Sun Ultra AMD64 unit.


What are your opinions in terms of "critical mass" being reached/achieved as far as installations of the OS2LDR is concerned.... all in all, making this effort a very "viable" one.

Best regards,

SAB

El Vato

Quote from: AAA on 2008.07.07, 12:19:32
First of all, IBM had reasons to provide a separate loader with each kernel.

Secondly, let me guess, on your installation diskette there is a kernel W4, which is not supported by CB loader (even in Read Me it says so)

it is known that W4 does not work with CB loaders. [...]
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.06, 20:32:54
Quote from: AAA on 2008.06.26, 19:27:14
Please try 104a UNI instead of W4

http://www.ecomstation.org/sidebars/cmd/kernel/files/uni20050811.zip

Whereas this latest (06-26-2008) OS2LDR is able to boot older Intel CPU Systems --and even this image in WSEB's VPC/2,
I assume that you refer to my input, AAA ???

Bottom of the picture:
"Revision level 14.104a_UNI"

That is, the second diskette simply reflects the version of my replacement of the OS2KRNLI / OS2DUMP in the first installation or bootstrap diskette.  In other words, WSEB modified/updated boot floppies --that I have among several options for emergencies-- were used in the test.

First I began by simply replacing the existing OS2LDR in the installation or bootstrap diskette --leaving existing OS2KRNLI and OS2DUMP intact.  It did not work.

From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.

Evidently, since I was using boot diskettes from WSEB, it simply implies that I never used a W4 kernel; do not be deceived by the picture logo --under the covers WSEB grade stuff is executing  :)

Should you be interested in the diskette images, let me know --but this time, please be direct as to whom you are referring to, AAA...

AAA

From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.

here could be a problem, please, try one more time without renaming OS2KRNL. Of course, there may be some other bugs, but there is only one way to find them.

I didn't have any intention to offend you but I am not very familiar with engine of the local forum.

pasha

Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56

Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization that open source only means license GNU GPL V2 or V3. That's not correct, there are several  open source approved license.

If the os2ldr dev team is interested on open source, possible they can think on other license like BSD (" The BSD license, for example, allows anyone to redistribute the work or any derivative without any source, if such is the desired path.")

Or the Commun Public License "The CPL's stated aims are to support and encourage collaborative open source development, while still retaining the ability to use the CPL'd content with software licensed under other licenses, including many proprietary licenses. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is a slightly modified version of the CPL."

Possible GNU GPL it is a to liberal license, but there are other alternatives.

  As you understand, os2ldr use IBM DDK. May be need read IBM DDK license fisrt?

pasha

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.07, 08:50:21
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56

Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]

If the developers of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, etc., do not want  their work to be simply taken by others –possibly without even a courteous "thank you"-- releasing their work under GPLv2 or GPLv3 will force those of the old school to play nicely and contribute back to the source or components upstream from which they might simply not feel obliged due to their current narrow indoctrination.  The ultimate beneficiary will be, of course, the healthy digital development of the OS/2.

It is cool to know about different F-OSS licenses, but it is cooler to know in what context those should be applied.  When was the last time that Apple contributed back to the BSD derived operating system that it took as the foundation for its proprietary X window implementation --in any significant way that might represent a threat to its share of predictable lunch of geek serving$ ???  Does the BSD community get an iPod as a thank you for their quality work in making possible the propaganda blasted X product ???


1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project

  So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help.

saborion2

#53
Hi "pasha",

A few observations:

Re:

Quote1. os2ldr and os2krnl use IBM DDK
2. I don't see normal GPL project from 199x to current day
3. I don't think, that this will intrested for linux
4. I don't think, that this will help project

  So, we have to see , that source can't be open as GNU and GNU term. But... Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode(y), which want help and know how help.

Since it ought to be well known that IBM has responded some time ago to an OS/2 World Foundation's Petition Letter that the OS/2 Source-Codes cannot be Open-Sourced due to "legal and other reasons" (then one ought to take this as a given). However, I am curious though as to the present agreement in place with IBM (and, perhaps other companies) that enabled development work to be carried out on the "os2ldr and os2krnl" project.

Additionally, (from an earlier question) is there; or, will there be a focus on the development an 64-bit "os2krnl" in order to; re:

Quotesurvive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving
?

Thank you.

Regards,

SAB
   

El Vato

Quote from: AAA on 2008.07.08, 00:22:44
From the installation floppy, I replaced the OS2KRNL with the one that you suggested and renamed to the conventional/pragmatic 0S2KRNLI --yes, and I also replaced the original OS2DUMP with the one from the zip package that you suggested.

here could be a problem, please, try one more time without renaming OS2KRNL. Of course, there may be some other bugs, but there is only one way to find them.

I didn't have any intention to offend you but I am not very familiar with engine of the local forum.
No offense taken, AAA, I simply said that you were being ambiguous.

Regarding the renaming of OS2KRNL to OS2KRNLI, when booting from diskettes that renaming is simply what makes the OS/2 installation pause and prompt the user for the next available diskette in the series; we could say that the additiona i is for interactive.  In other words, it should have no effect on OS2LDR.

Notwithstanding, since I keep an open mind, I followed your advice and did not rename the OS2KRNL for another test case but with the same result: Pasha's OS2LDR does not boot into an AMD64 system.

Please note that I am only the messenger, but OS/2 Warp 3 client and server OS2LDR even do boot into that AMD64 machine.  Accordingly, Pasha's OS2LDR apparently needs further refinement.

Regards.

El Vato

Quote from: pasha on 2008.07.09, 14:50:10
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.07, 08:50:21
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.07.07, 05:31:56

Going back to the open source subject that was previously discussed. It seems that there is some generalization [...]
[...]
Why open as GNU? Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help.

Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha. 

Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so.  Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.   

That is why...

The Blue Warper

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:34:11

Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha. 

Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so.  Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.   

That is why...

Hi, El Vato!

While I substantially agree with your point, I think (but it's my personal opinion here) one should read between the lines of Pasha's post:

«Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help»,

where I'd stress the «know how help» part...
Hope this isn't too cryptic a post...

Regards

The Blue Warper

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:22:01

Regarding the renaming of OS2KRNL to OS2KRNLI, when booting from diskettes that renaming is simply what makes the OS/2 installation pause and prompt the user for the next available diskette in the series; we could say that the additiona i is for interactive.  In other words, it should have no effect on OS2LDR.

Notwithstanding, since I keep an open mind, I followed your advice and did not rename the OS2KRNL for another test case but with the same result: Pasha's OS2LDR does not boot into an AMD64 system.


Hi, El Vato,

I used to know that the -I letter in OSKRNLI stood for "Install" (please see Zimmerli's article on EDM/2 "Inside the OS/2 Kernel": http://www.edm2.com/0607/kernel.html [search for "os2krnli" inside]).  Notwithstanding, I *think* the new os2ldr replacement is currently meant for an already installed system, so maybe you should try to start from there.

Just my thoughts on the subject, nothing more :-)

Regards

saborion2

#58
Hi El Vato,

Re:

Quote

Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha.

Otherwise, it does not matter how much work you and others expend on modifying those toys, its owner may stop you from using them at any time that owner and associates feel is advantageous to do so.  Its owner and associates may take those toys from you with nothing to give you in exchange for your work and that of others.   

That is why...


Not meaning to throw a damper on this discussion regarding the development of the OSKRNL, OS2LDR... Why do we once and for all (rather than going around and around) try to understand and appreciate the situation with regards to the OS/2 Operating System in that following a Second Petition Letter to IBM by the OS/2 World Foundation it was stated that for "legal" and other reasons the OS/2 Operating System cannot be Open-Sourced. The whole question is/in other words... Why don't we "Take-The-Bull-By-The-Horns" (approach IBM directly with regards to the development of the OSKRNL, OS2LDR...)

Kindest regards,

SAB

El Vato

Quote from: The Blue Warper on 2008.07.17, 14:24:40
Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.17, 11:34:11

Because when it is open as GNU, no one can take those toys away from you, Pasha. 
[...]

Hi, El Vato!

[...] I think (but it's my personal opinion here) one should read between the lines of Pasha's post:

«Source os2ldr and os2krnl can open for anybode, which want help and know how help»,

where I'd stress the «know how help» part...
Hope this isn't too cryptic a post...

Regards

In any different approach to an old paradigm, it is often difficult to discern the inherent assumptions from one's reasoning.  It appears that you, as well as Pasha, have fallen into that trap and have closed your eyes to the proprietary nature of OS2LDR and OS2KRNL and the fact that ignoring that essential point does not translate into advancement of the OS/2.

That crucial fact is what prompted Richard Stallman to advise (prior to Java being open source) to potential developers not to even look at the open to see for everyone Java source made available by Sun.  It is a trap that will come back and bite the developers attempting to disseminate any contributed work.

Evidently, being able to contribute to some other entity's (ies')  work does not translate into having vested rights on that work –that ultimately does not belong to you.