Author Topic: What is the future of this platform?  (Read 14050 times)

danielnez1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #30 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.

RobertM

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
    • View Profile
    • A.I.BuiltPC - using OS/2 Warp Server & eComStation for Custom Web and Database Solutions
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #31 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).
« Last Edit: 2012.08.15, 01:21:31 by RobertM »
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


RobertM

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
    • View Profile
    • A.I.BuiltPC - using OS/2 Warp Server & eComStation for Custom Web and Database Solutions
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #32 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:
    • no issues with path\path\path\filename>254 like Windows still has.

      (each portion of the entry can be the full length on OS/2 without various complaints or problems moving things - every time I perform a backup for a customer, I run into issues since their folder is named "G:\Customer Backups\YYYY-MM-DD - Customer Name" - and often, once Explorer touches things, it mangles them. When I moved my music collection onto my Windows laptop (from OS/2), it truncated names that were deep in sub-folders)
    • no issues/complaints about making a directory named ".MyDirectory"

    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]
    « Last Edit: 2012.08.15, 01:32:50 by RobertM »
    |
    |
    Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
    Star Trek New Voyages
    |
    |


    eirik

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 14
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #33 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:
    • eCS behaves in predictable ways (it does not attempt to "think" for you, which works very bad for me the way my brain works), and gives the user more control.
    • eCS has a modern file system, JFS (and HPFS) that cleans up the hard drive, keeps files together
    • eCS boots and shuts down faster
    • eCS is a much more secure system -- which is increasingly important as data is more frequently used everywhere, also for matters like net-anking etc.

    To stay competitive and become attractive to new users, eCS needs to:
    • be able to run alongside preinstalled systems, and here the new boot manager works beautifully
    • install easily (next to the preinstalled OS) which it does -- installation is actually far easier than for Win (at least on my PC)
    • support modern hardware - the ACPI project is imperative in this connection, and progress is steady - on notepads FnFX functionality is a must, and suspend/resume is highly desirable
    • support WiFi, BlueTooth and other "new ways" of communicating with other devices - here progress is limited, thouch the MultiMac project shows some promise
    • run frequently used software, where mail clients (like Thunderbird), browsers (like FireFox), and office suites (like Open Office), are most important and currently available
    • support Java and Flash as these are increasingly used on the WEB - here progress takes place and it looks like we soon will have solutions that are open source and hence "maintainable" as new WEB applications arrive
    • continue to support old software (like Lotus SmartSuite) as many older users like me have a lot of stuff stored in those software formats
    • improve streamlining installation of new software and its maintenance, where WarpIn in particular is excellent

    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.

    danielnez1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #34 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?

    miturbide

    • Global Moderator
    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1154
      • View Profile
      • OS2World
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #35 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.
    Martín Itúrbide
    OS2World.com NewsMaster
    Open Source Advocate

    Skype - martiniturbide
    Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

    danielnez1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #36 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.

    David McKenna

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 130
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #37 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

    miturbide

    • Global Moderator
    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1154
      • View Profile
      • OS2World
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #38 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, 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 (at the right column, down)

    The only MS patent I know about OS/2 is the HPFS which has 17 years. Is there any way to know if MS renew it ?
    Martín Itúrbide
    OS2World.com NewsMaster
    Open Source Advocate

    Skype - martiniturbide
    Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

    dryeo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 45
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #39 on: 2012.09.01, 05:39:54 »
    The only MS patent I know about OS/2 is the HPFS 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.

    danielnez1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #40 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.

    walking_x

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #41 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.

    danielnez1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #42 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.

    walking_x

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #43 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?

    abwillis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 325
      • View Profile
    Re: What is the future of this platform?
    « Reply #44 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.