Author Topic: What is the future of this platform?  (Read 14136 times)

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #45 on: 2012.09.10, 23:06:52 »
Hi walking_x

I will consider OS/4 when:

1) once they are able to replace the IBM leaked source code. Using leaked source code is consider illegal. Abandonware is consider illegal. There is no future for a platform if it can not be also used for commercial use. Companies and individuals that works to make money don't want to have the risk of using an illegal platform.

2) When OS/4 kernel and loader turns open source. I don't know why some Russians thinks that Open Source only help the capitalist. Talking on the #OS2russian channel they told me "Open Source only works for making Mensys Millions of Dollars". But they don't think that turning the software open source (copyleft) also forces Mensys to give back the source code improvements.

About QSLoader, as far as I know it is original work (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it says on the license.
"Binary form of this package is freeware. Source code can be available by request, for non-commercial use only."

So, this loader do not has a future, and the license seems to be dedicated to Mensys. Not even the more radical people from the "Free Software Foundation" limits their source code for "non-commercial use only".  My suggestion is to make it open source under a copyleft license. Which mean that anybody that will modifying the source code will be forced to give back the changes. So in this case, if Mensys uses this loader for eComStation, any improved source code will have to be released public too.

I consider the OS/4 like a good team of developers and they are not motivated of making money (which I consider it good), but they need to formalize their work with an open source copyleft license. The OS/4 team need to stop having heart feelings against Mensys and think about the future of the platform.

« Last Edit: 2012.09.10, 23:31:14 by miturbide »
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #46 on: 2012.09.10, 23:35:04 »
But I still consider that working on cloning OS/2 from "Top to down" is the best idea.

When I mean "Top to Down" I mean trying to clone:
1) WorkplaceShell  (reusing as much of XWorkplace - GNU GPL )
2) SOM/DSOM
3) Presentation Manager (reusing as much of FreePM and the OSFree DLLs - FreeBSD)

Trying to clone this three components as Open Source over eComStation - OS/2 Warp 4.52, and later keep moving to go to the lower level components. I think it the same idea that the Voyager protect used to have.
« Last Edit: 2012.09.10, 23:46:42 by miturbide »
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 #47 on: 2012.09.14, 17:17:32 »
Would something like dbus be a staring point for a open source version of SOM?

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #48 on: 2012.09.16, 00:31:30 »
Being honest, I'm do not have deep technical knowledge to know if some dbus source code (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus)  can be used to create a clone of SOM/DSOM.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #49 on: 2012.09.19, 15:13:37 »
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.
Latest OS/4 kernel package contain both debug and retail kernels ;) Really retail - without kernel debugger code. COM port link still available, but optional - for logging...

1) once they are able to replace the IBM leaked source code. Using leaked source code is consider illegal. Abandonware is consider illegal. There is no future for a platform if it can not be also used for commercial use. Companies and individuals that works to make money don't want to have the risk of using an illegal platform.
I think - only one way is to annoy IBM every month and repeatedly ask to open OS/2 source code ;)

Quote
2) When OS/4 kernel and loader turns open source. I don't know why some Russians thinks that Open Source only help the capitalist. Talking on the #OS2russian channel they told me "Open Source only works for making Mensys Millions of Dollars". But they don't think that turning the software open source (copyleft) also forces Mensys to give back the source code improvements.
There is a small problem with Mensys - they cannot create working things ;) Multimac? Fine - it works 3 (three) seconds on full gigabit speed for me, then trap system ;) Uniaud? It mute forever after 1-2 sounds, on most of PCs near me. Azarewicz version. They put wrong versions of drivers to release (!) of OS. They create system app with funny default Borland Delphi icon, etc, etc...

Quote
About QSLoader, as far as I know it is original work (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it says on the license.
"Binary form of this package is freeware. Source code can be available by request, for non-commercial use only." So, this loader do not has a future, and the license seems to be dedicated to Mensys.
Gorbunov wrote a time ago on his forum: "we need to search source code available to put our copyrights on it" ;) This is clearly define "the way of Mensys", I think ;) May be I'm wrong, but I can promise to upload qsloader source code then it author became too tired of it.

Quote
The OS/4 team need to stop having heart feelings against Mensys and think about the future of the platform.
May be... but who started this "war"? Who asked hobbes to remove OS/4 loader (not kernel!)? Why? It really usable, for personal use, at least. Especially on modern PCs (with "holes" in memory). And who will really care about it's "source" if it is not distributed by Mensys? IBM? Are they remember such word at all? ;)

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #50 on: 2012.09.19, 16:18:21 »
Hi walking_x

I agreed with the removal of OS/4 kernel links from this forum, I don't want to shut down OS2World.com if I got a complain from copyright author. OS/4 kernel is a illegal software and I don't want to put in risk this site. I prefer to mitigate the risk at once, than having a remote possibility that IBM can sue us.  When OS/4 releases a legal version that can be uploaded at hobbes and shared with everyone it will be ok.

For the moment, I think that maintaining OS2World.com online is more important.

OS/4 community should try to clone OS/2 components and make them open souce (copyleft). It is more important to make the platform survive for everyone than complaining about Mensys or Gorbunov.

Contact the Loader clone author and tell him to turn the it open source under a copyleft license (maybe GNU GPL) and stop caring about Mensys. This will benefit the platform in the long term, and anybody that wants to recompile/improve/change the loader will also require to give the source back.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #51 on: 2012.09.19, 16:54:21 »
Here it is my strategy's business case for the "Savvy Businessman"



 :)

Lesson Learned: "Dreams may not have business cases."
« Last Edit: 2012.09.19, 19:45:53 by miturbide »
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

AAA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #52 on: 2012.09.19, 22:23:02 »
... OS/4 kernel is a illegal software ...

It would be very interesting to hear how you can prove this statement.

Criguada

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #53 on: 2012.09.20, 00:00:55 »
... OS/4 kernel is a illegal software ...

It would be very interesting to hear how you can prove this statement.

AAA, unfortunately you have your logic reversed. If you want your software to be distributable without legal issues, *you* have to prove it is legal, original work, not the other way around. If you cannot prove it (or give others a way of proving it e.g. showing your source code) nobody will ever risk his business (or even his site) by publishing it.

This may obviously not be true for an original, unseen piece of software, but OS/4 kernel is replicating exactly the functions of a commercial OS kernel, so the burden of proving it is clean is *yours*.

Bye
Cris

DougB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #54 on: 2012.09.20, 03:47:36 »
A few years ago, the OS/4 kernel was described, by the developers, as "rearranging chunks of the OS/2 kernel, to make it work better" (or something to that effect). That would mean that every "chunk" was somebody else's work (belonging to IBM), and it was being used in new work, without the original owner's consent. If that is not copyright infringement, I don't know what is. Of course, some people seem to think that copyright laws are meant to be broken, if it is inconvenient to obey them. In this case, it is very inconvenient to obey the law, but it is the law (right, or wrong), so you need to obey it, or get it changed.

I am not sure of the actual "corporate" status of OS2World, but Mensys is a business, and a business cannot afford to break the law. There is also the requirement to provide legal software to their customers. Since the OS/4 kernel has not (probably cannot) been proven to be original work, neither one of them can take the chance that it isn't.

For the record, I am not sure that something like the OS/4 kernel (assuming it is legal) needs to be open source. If a company can build such a thing, and can get their own copyright for it, I don't see any real problem with Mensys (or  any other entity that may end up with OS/2)  paying them a reasonable royalty for their work. The main problem with doing it that way, is that the company could suddenly decide to raise the cost, or they could go out of business, or decide to terminate the project. That, of course, should be properly handled in the contract with them, so that costs are controlled, and the source (and all rights) defaults to Mensys, if they go out of business, or terminate the project. So far, Mensys seems to be rather poor at making binding contracts, but that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #55 on: 2012.09.20, 21:12:01 »
Hi DougB

...The main problem with doing it that way, is that the company could suddenly decide to raise the cost, or they could go out of business, or decide to terminate the project. ..

You are exactly describing the risks of close source software. I prefer to have things open sourced (copyleft) instead of close source software. IBM has teach me (and I think all of us)  a lesson, no matter how bit or small the developer company is, you can always be left "High and Dry".  Open Source is a way to legally mitigate this risk.

That's why releasing software as open source will legally allow anybody (individuals and companies) to keep developing the software, no matter if the original developer exists or not.

Currently OS/2 is in survival mode. If we want to platform to have a long term future we need to make an open source clone of it, otherwise, the Mensys updates on eComStation will end with the last corporate customer migrating to Windows/Linux.
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 #56 on: 2012.09.21, 23:32:28 »
I would like to see osFree take off as it does appear to me to have the most potential, plus their intention to try to use Linux drivers would help delegate the need to support the huge variety of devices to a certain degree.

Other "clone" projects like ReactOS and Haiku have come a long way but have taken years to develop to the stage they are now and likewise starting a OS/2 clone from the ground up wold be the most time consuming and resource intensive option.

Joop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
    • My homepage about OS/2-eCS - Wacom Bamboo driver and some other solutions.
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #57 on: 2012.09.22, 14:17:15 »
Currently OS/2 is in survival mode. If we want to platform to have a long term future we need to make an open source clone of it, otherwise, the Mensys updates on eComStation will end with the last corporate customer migrating to Windows/Linux.

I don't think this will happen, OS/2 is unique and once installed correctly rock solid, a factor very important in production plants and if you watch the customer list you can read that there are many of them. Also it seems that certain options are ruled out in Windows like having more than two serial ports. OS/2 still supports the original XT specs which is standard 4 items of all hardware, so 4 hard drives, 4 tape drives, 4 floppy drives, 4 serial ports, 4 parallel ports,  full support scsi, many mice (there is not given a number, but I have had four working at a time). This is because OS/2 is true multitasking and Windows is certainly not. You can find that out by installing a four floppy drive card and format four diskettes or floppy's same time with different format if you like. Windows goes one by one, OS/2 goes 4 same time, but each a small amount of time, so you see four diskette drives light up one after another. This is because the driver can only handle one at the time. Same for software, had rebuild a site with over 100 pages with batch editor. Thought it would took hours to do, but it was forbidden to blink with your eyes, OS/2 rebuild 100 pages next to each other!. I didn't believe this response, it took me over a week to investigate, all files were rebuild correctly. You won't get this performance from Windows by far.

So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development, so more users can program or migrate foreign software from other platforms. There is much work to do in this respect. So developers, please, add a file with first steps and how do you do that.

Regards,
Joop

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #58 on: 2012.09.22, 18:01:25 »
Joop, I have to agree with you regarding the use of OS/2 in industry.

I have two engineering works as clients where all the machinery is operated by OS/2 and in one case the office uses OS/2 as well.  There is no way they will change to anything else to run the machinery but it would be nice if we were able to update the input and output filters for DeScribe which is their main word-processor.  I have setup Libre Office running in Virtualbox - that needs updating as well - to do document conversion for them, and no, the port of Open Office does not cut it yet for real world use.

I also agree we need more information on porting software.  I am not a programmer but I would be prepared to try IF I knew where to begin.  For example, I use Sigil to produce epubs of the manuals we produce, thanks to Paul we have a port of it but it is version 0.2 and rather short of the features of the latest version 0.5.  If I knew how to start and setup what is necessary to port version 0.4.5 which is the last version possible because of QT4 restrictions, I would try and see if I could port it.

DougB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: What is the future of this platform?
« Reply #59 on: 2012.09.22, 19:07:34 »
Quote
So we have to invest in "how do you do that" in development

Quote
I also agree we need more information on porting software.

Paul Smedley actually released his whole build environment, and others have been using that to port things. I don't know what the details are now, I got the package when it first appeared, and it does work. I am pretty sure that you need to request the package, and possibly pay a modest fee, to get it now. The package does contain a very brief set of instructions on how to use it, but a user does have to do some serious digging, to learn how to go about porting software, especially when it won't build without modifying the code.

Unfortunately, it is probably not as simple as saying "do this..." with a set of instructions. Each program could require something different, so you would need a set of instructions for each program. The trick is, to get good enough at doing the job, that you can write your own instructions, but learning how to do it, is a lot of work.