• 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

Criguada

Pasha,

I really appreciate the work being done on os2ldr and the kernel, but please don't discard Netlabs just because of Voyager. The Voyager project is NOT about kernel replacement, so I think there is really no conflict between the two projects. Instead, I think that both are needed (and can cooperate) for a better OS/2 future.

What about the osFree project? Are you collaborating with them? I think we need to join forces as much as possible to succeed.

One last thing: I am concerned about the availability of sources. I understand that you need to keep the sources close at this time, but will they become opensource at some future point in time? Will you remove DDK dependencies? Otherwise, I fear we may fall into another cage (not IBM's, but just another cage nonetheless).

I am willing to betatest the loader and/or the kernel, if you need testers.

Thank you for your work!!

Bye
Cris

Carlo_Warp

What kind of improvements will bring the new os2ldr?

DavidG

#17
The new os2ldr has been uploaded to Hobbes Incoming for those that want to test it.

David

djcaetano

Quote from: Carlo_Warp on 2008.02.25, 19:41:06
What kind of improvements will bring the new os2ldr?

  The first improvement seems to be a human readable INI file to configure
the loading process, like selecting which kernel to boot without the need to
replace kernel files at all. Very interesting.
  Since it says it should not be used on production environments, I had not
installed in my machines yet (I will wait for some comments about it before
trying) but I'm thinking about install an OS/2 version on an emulator and try
it.

  BTW, I believe this is great news. I really hope the source code to be
released whenever the author get bored of updating it (or, at least, sell
its source to serenity systems). But it was really nice to see the readme
signature: " 2008, Team OS/4." he he. :)
  Anyway, I would like to congratulate our russian friends for their superb
work. :)

miturbide

I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

DavidG

Well, I just tried it on my eCS 2 RC4 and the boot process never got past loading the normal OS2krnl.  This system had ACPI 3.07 installed as it mentioned this as one of the requirements..

Now to boot to my other eCS partition and switch the os2ldr back.

David

El Vato

It boots in actual hardware, no ACPI, WSEB Internal Revision 14.105_smp  :)

Pavel,

please do not jail the binaries/code by selling it (or exclusively licensing) to a proprietary entity.  Having made these first steps, you and your team are (will be) in the best position to replace the proprietary source with open source equivalent.  Once the proprietary intellectual property (IP) hurdles are behind, you and your team might become the de facto maintainers of these OS/2-defining crucial core components (since you guys are also working in the kernel replacement).

If, as suggested by Iturbide (whose change of position surprised me, nonetheless) you select one of several open source licenses available for your OS/2 collective work, you may find that selecting a business model relevant of the collaborative modern Internet computing landscape that most suits your peculiar needs, interests, conditions, etc., will provide an adequate source of income.

As Chris suggested above, Voyager is (just one of) the wrappers (around your work) that might provide the user interface and application support;  but if your work is licensed under the GPLv3, there will be other possible ones that we could not even anticipate at the moment --the (F)OSS communities are quite creative but they snub suffocating clauses designed to place their work exclusively into a proprietary entity's interests, leaving the community(ies) out.

Wonderful work and best of luck in your Team OS/4 efforts.

pasha

Quote from: David Graser on 2008.02.27, 23:30:22
Well, I just tried it on my eCS 2 RC4 and the boot process never got past loading the normal OS2krnl.  This system had ACPI 3.07 installed as it mentioned this as one of the requirements..

Now to boot to my other eCS partition and switch the os2ldr back.

David

After, I find one bad things in acpi. Open ticket in acpi and  I send new version of test acpi to betazone. Or wait acpi 3.8.

AAA

 wish somebody explained me what are the benefits of opening the source of loader for Pasha.

As far as I know the current owner of ACPI is not in a hurry to do that, so are many other owners of the code.

Best regards,

djcaetano

Quote from: miturbide on 2008.02.27, 22:17:04
I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.

  I like the "opensource" solution better, also... but this decision is up to the authors.
I think we should support the effort one way or another. And Sasha should keep in
mind that a new closed-source loader and kernel should lead us to another dead end
in the future.
  Anyway, I believe it is a great achievement, and probably the guys behind the effort
are trying to make it work fully and properly before spending time and work preparing
the source to be released.
  I know many will argue that an open source project would evolve faster, but the authors
have the right to decide their way to go. That's all.

  Just my 2 cents.

El Vato

Quote from: AAA on 2008.02.28, 09:45:29
wish somebody explained me what are the benefits of opening the source of loader for Pasha.
I believe that I already hinted on the benefits  to Pavel and Team OS/4 if they succeeded in replacing the proprietary IP in OS2LDR and, subsequently OS2KRNL, effectively becoming themselves what Linus Torvalds and other maintainers are for the Linux kernel.

On the other hand, I can tell you also that if the subsequently cleaned and reengineered OS2LDR/OS2KRNL are released, say under the GPLv2, or best, GPLv3, the ACPI crowd relevant to these discussion --who still live in an proprietary cave watching shadows of proprietary virtual reality-- will not be able to touch Pavel and Team OS/4 source.

Pavel and Team OS/4, upon their successful independent recreation of the OS2KRNL, would have achieved something far more important than ACPI.  And if those owners/implementators of the latter want to survive in the 64-bit modern computing paradigm --towards where all other modern OSes are moving--  they would be forced to disclose the code (either within a mutual licensing agreeement or by following the F-OSS path) to Pavel and Team OS/4 if their ACPI is to survive.

I would venture to speculate, in a responsible manner, that if the OSS path is followed for the OS2LDR/OS2KRNL, possibly another organization far more creative and knowledgeable than that  which currently puts together the OS/2 truck  might even jump into the scene.  And I would simple say: Welcome back StarDock!  The Beast is free at last!*



Quote from: AAA on 2008.02.28, 09:45:29
As far as I know the current owner of ACPI is not in a hurry to do that, so are many other owners of the code.

...hummm, and who is the owner of ACPI ???  (now all in unison sing its name!)

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.02.28, 15:42:26
Quote from: miturbide on 2008.02.27, 22:17:04
I will prefer if the source code get released under any of the Open Source licenses available. I hope this happens.

  [...]
Sasha should keep in
[...]
  I know many will argue that an open source project would evolve faster, but the authors
have the right to decide their way to go. That's all.


It also means the difference between adoption and oblivion.  Linux was adopted faster because it had less restrictions than FreeBSD, although --arguably-- the latter was more secure.


* Note: For those whose psyche has been conditioned by one of the Judeo-Christian strands of influence, please do not associate my choice of words with your nemesis.  There is always an attempt to reduce ones meaning of words to a level not anticipated or meant by the writer.

Shai

do I understand this right: these guys are reverse engineering the OS/2 kernel (btw which one)?
hats off!

would be great if this will be a part of eComStation someday

saborion2

This does look like very good news folks. So, just what is "Unfortunate" about "This project do group programmers from exUSSR, I am coordinator of this project. Netlabs don't help and don't participation in this project. They have own voyager. Our group rewrite all as is. Mean, rewrite os2ldr - it must be compatible with IBM kernels. Rewrite doscall1.dll - it must be compatible with IBM os2ldr and os2krnl, rewrite os2krnl - it must be compatible with os2ldr and doscall1.dll (Note: It is in theory) . Now ending 1st part - os2ldr. Now it is full compatible, except - absent MCA support, absent EISA support, absent support for i4004, i8080, i8085, i8086, i8088, i80186, i80286, i80386, i80486. As you understand - need test. We writes according to docs from EDM/2, DebugHandbook, ifs.inf,omf.inf, DDK header, lxlite source and of course os2 debuger.." inter alia when we have:-

the Russian company "RUSAL mulling the establishment of an hydropower facility in Guyana, South America; with - refinery, smelter studies also on the cards".

"By Nicosia Smith
Thursday, February 8th 2007"

Please see the attached links:

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56513627

Here is the deal as was observed by your truly:

"A feasibility study for hydropower should not take so long, can't previous ones be re-evaluated?
Saturday, February 10th 2007"

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56513805

From the above therefore, it will appear that the OS/2 Community is very, very fortunate to have this project group comprise programmers from ex-USSR who it is quite certain will bring a wealth of expertise to such projects bordering on the enhancement of OS2LDR, OS2KRNL, Application & Distribution Layers....

It is a pity that these initiatives were not undertaken 5 - 10 years ago.

Lets think in terms of all the synergies et cetera et cetera...

The way to go TEAM OS/4 (assuming this to be Warp 4); or, should it be TEAM OS/5 (Warp 5.  ;)  ;)  ;)  ??? !


AAA

Version 0.2 on Hobbes

DavidG

#29
Well, I got further this time.  Last time I could not get past the eCS logo.  I am booting further, however, I am now Exception in module:  JFS  which is a trap D.

Unfortunately I am going out of town for a week and won't have the time to take a picture and upload it here right now.

David