• 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

Question to potential Warpstock attendees

Started by Blonde Guy, 2008.06.14, 17:02:58

Previous topic - Next topic

abwillis

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.02, 16:12:54
1 Does anyone know who owns the license who might refuse to an HPFS386 potential mass distribution of the last implementation?
Microsoft wrote HPFS386 (hard to believe considering they don't offer it as an option but only the junk that is NTFS).  One reason that HPFS386 was never used in OS/2 other than the expensive Server version was because of the licensing fee to Microsoft.

saborion2

Also;

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.07.02, 16:12:54

I have had a couple of ideas cooking in my head for some time now..................

1 Does anyone know who owns the license who might refuse to an HPFS386 potential mass distribution of the last implementation?

According to the below attached; re:

Quote

These differences are not suprising given these filesystems' very different history: HPFS386 was reportedly written by Gordon Letwin, the father of HPFS, in late 1980's. JFS was developed for IBM's variant of Unix, AIX (probably in early 1990s). HPFS386 is hand optimized 386 assembly code, JFS is written in C - but the above numbers show that there's more to performance than tight loops.

If we can't decide which IFS is better on performance, we can try to base the decision on features. As I hinted above, this is not easy because features are impossible to quantify. Only individual user with specific needs can decide which feature set suits him or her best. A detailed description of the respective filesystems' feature sets can be found elsewhere so I'll just summarize the points that I find most important:

    * HPFS386 is bootable, JFS is not (although that might change in future).
    * HPFS386 supports files with maximum size of 2GB, the JFS limit is far larger.
    * CHKDSK on a large HPFS386 volume may take hours, on JFS it's usually seconds.
    * JFS comes with newer versions of OS/2 and eCS, HPFS386 costs extra.

I have been using both JFS and HPFS386 in the past years. I have found both to be fast and reliable - those are my own experiences, I can't speak for anyone else.

My personal choice is JFS for one simple reason: HPFS386 is a dead end. It is partially owned by Microsoft and no one can seriously expect any new development to be done on it. That was the reason why IBM decided to include JFS in WSeB after all. JFS on the other hand is available in source code and JFS support was added to Linux. In other words - nobody can take JFS away which is more than can be said for HPFS386.

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/os2/os2fsperf.html


Why not simply choose "JFS" as it is in the Linux cases.  ???

Kindest regards,

SAB

Saijin_Naib

I fail to see where HPFS is better than NTFS Ab, but whatever. And as Sab points out, we have bootable JFS thats currently under development, why not stick with this free and [so far] superior [to HPFS] filesystem?

saborion2

#18
Re:

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.07.04, 00:20:37
I fail to see where HPFS is better than NTFS Ab, but whatever. And as Sab points out, we have bootable JFS thats currently under development, why not stick with this free and [so far] superior [to HPFS] filesystem?

You are right on the money "Saijin_Naib", ;) It says it right here:

Quote

eComStation 2.0 will offer unparalleled performance with Bootable JFS and support for multi-core CPUs.

http://www.ecomstation.com/


Besides, the "savings" on license fees to Microsoft for use of "HPFS386"... can be used for "gas"!

Best regards.

SAB

The Blue Warper

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.07.04, 00:20:37
I fail to see where HPFS is better than NTFS Ab, but whatever. And as Sab points out, we have bootable JFS thats currently under development, why not stick with this free and [so far] superior [to HPFS] filesystem?

Hi, Saijin_Naib!
Sorry, but El Vato and abwillis were talking about HPFS386 (32-bit), NOT plain HPFS (16-bit).  HPFS386 is a ring0 IFS, while HPFS is ring3.  So the former directly interfaces with the kernel.  Moreover, it doesn't have built-in cache size limits, it has local security support and fault-tolerant protection mechanisms.  Everyone who tried it can confirm that HPFS386 is way FASTER than plain HPFS (and maybe even JFS).  I had the opportunity to use an HPFS386 system for a while too, and, yes, HPFS386 is definitely very fast!
One feature HPFS386 is missing as compared to JFS (which seems very stable now) is journaling.  Another limitation is the max volume size allowed, which should be 64GB, though Bas Heijermans reported a 16TB partition limit too, in an OS/2 eZine article.

Some useful references for everyone interested:

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/os2/os2fsperf.html
http://www.os2ezine.com/20030616/pf_5.html
http://www.ecomstation.com/edp/mod.php?mod=faq&op=show_answer&faq_id=136

saborion2

Re:
Quote
I have had a re-look at "the latest Voyager Presentation held at the developer workshop 2008 from Netlabs" and to be honest... after years and years of waiting on IBM, Microsoft as well as Serenity Systems International to deliver on OS-eComStation it it felt that it is about time that something to be done particularly now that the "housing, energy and food" situations are affecting so many around the world (who does not know about the "housing crisis" that many American families are faced with; and, where were the homes of our beloved Operating Systems. ???

Additionally, as we all know IBM has quite clearly stated in its response letter to the OS/2 World Foundation that it cannot release the Source-Codes for OS/2 to the community; and, so far the development of the Voyager Project in comparison to that of Linux is considered disappointing at best. Hence, the rationale for the possibly "bank" funded/supported Cassini Project that is intended to be a follow-up behind the OS/2 World Foundation's Petition Letter to IBM.  ;D ::) ;D

Also; where and if possible, the Cassini Project will attempt to bring on board the "world's best and brightest" to challenge the current Microsoft's "desktop" prowess in only a way OS/2-CASSINI can.   8) 


The below referenced are some of the reasons for OS/2-CASSINI taking into consideration the inabilities of Windows, Linux, eComStation et al to deliver over the years.

QuoteThe IDB and CDB are also designing a program in support of private sector development and competitiveness in areas such as access to finance, trade facilitation and trade negotiation capacity, innovation and value chain integration.

The IDB also plans to launch a US$500 million fast-disbursing credit facility to help countries strengthen their social protection networks and boost agricultural productivity...........

http://www.iadb.org/NEWS/articledetail.cfm?artid=4681&language=En

http://www.iadb.org


Regards.

SAB

saborion2

#21
Hello All,

I happen to be reading this article re: "Brief Arguments"

Quote

The OOXML is dependant on the Windows technology platform. Its specification is written to be fully implementable only on the Windows platform, which means other existing platforms cannot implement or use the standard and the customers will be literally stuck on the Windows technology from the first day they start to use OOXML in their Office.

http://www.noooxml.org/argu-brief


about the Open Document Format ODF) Standards and OOXML and is prompted to ask: Will not a presentation on XML for OS/2 (previous held at Warpstock in years gone by) at Warpstock 2008 be of compelling interest "to potential Warpstock attendees"!  ;)

Kindest regards.

SAB