Author Topic: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel  (Read 17155 times)

kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #30 on: 2008.04.22, 11:03:59 »
Well, regarding patents, when looking for OS/2 and WPS in USPTO's database one gets 14 entries and as you might see not all of them are related to OS2. But, I think that if we can point IBM to patents on code that we need and make a case out of that they actually own the patents it's harder for IBM to state that a part involves 3rd party.

  • 7,188,319 Displaying graphical information and user selected properties on a computer interface
  • 6,757,713 Method for including a self-removing indicator in a self-removing message
  • 6,711,608 Method for including a self-removing code in a self-removing message
  • 6,701,347 Method for including a self-removing code in a self-removing email message that contains an advertisement
  • 6,512,591 Multiple peripheral support for a single physical port in a host-based printing system
  • 6,487,586 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient
  • 6,324,569 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient
  • 6,311,058 System for delivering data content over a low bit rate transmission channel
  • 6,288,790 Mobility support for printing
  • 6,173,327 Object-oriented method and apparatus for information delivery
  • 5,819,263 Financial planning system incorporating relationship and group management
  • 5,812,129 Method and system for accessing functions of a user interface environment from processes running outside of the user interface environment
  • 5,778,226 Kernels, description tables and device drivers
  • 5,459,867 Kernels, description tables, and device drivers

And I'm quite sure that we should be able to dig out several more specific patents that we might need point on when talking to IBM. Also Adrian, Netlabs, has earlier mentioned that they have or planned to put together a list of specific patents that would be of interest; we could use that list now. Also suggestion would be that we start dokument and link together specific patents in the wiki.
« Last Edit: 2008.04.22, 14:24:30 by kimhav »

Robert Deed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Rob's Space
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #31 on: 2008.04.22, 16:58:29 »
Robert, you left out the fact that most of PMShell wasn't even written by IBM.  It was a project at a university (the exact one eludes me at the moment) and also contains code which is copywritten by our friends over at Apple.

I wish we could just ask for the code minus the contributed code in all places, however as this has been pointed out this is very hard to decipher.  The code has been changed many times probably since the original contributions, not to mention the time and money it would take for IBM to run it all through their legal departments.  I wish there was an easy way to make this happen, but I simply do not see it.

As for my wish lists, I would like to see MMOS2 released in source.  (even without the codecs) so that it could be extended, fixed and modernized (it is one of the best multimedia subsystems in any OS but a few small bugs (and large amounts of outdated 16bit code) hinder it.

How about a full open sourcing of GRADD.  Now that snap is going to be opened up (hopefully with the OS/2 codebase) we could benefit greatly by having the source to gradd.  We are going to be handicapped later on if we proceed with snap (which I think is our best option) if there is no way to fix bugs in gradd.  As most of us who were testers for snap can recall, there were quite a few fixes required to make snap stable.  As this is a component completely developed in house it shouldn't be impossible.

Now, making a business case for this is hard, IBM isn't going to be interested into a royalty payment off every copy of eCS which is sold, nor do I believe that Serenity could take a hit to their bottom line to pay substantially.

Another way of looking at this is to see what changes in components we require and working on our own replacements for it.  This would require a coordination which has not been seen before in OS/2.  This would mean all the people who are making various applications and drivers would need to work together.  Instead of having a video driver being written by one person, and a sound driver coming from someone else, we need to get these people working together.  MMOS2 wouldn't be that hard to tackle.  Nor would an up to date lan manager.  Alot of new operating systems have these components and in their first betas.  Samba is a good way to go, but we need a GUI configuration for it (like lan manager), and we need both server and client services to be available in this gui.  Perhaps the truth of it is we really need to make a subproject off of samba which is OS/2 specific.

There has been alot of talk about using cups to replace our printing system, however it hasn't actually happened.  I understand there is alot of work involved in this, but I believe if we pooled our resources this could get completed.

 

saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #32 on: 2008.04.22, 21:07:25 »
Re:
Quote

This means absolutely nothing.

    * IBM won't Open Source OS/2. Period. They have made that quite clear.
    * IBM won't just hand over the source for Symphony.
    * Comfetar Live seems a dead project, and you refuse to comment on it, it's current status, or anything indicating a relationship to OS/2.
    * Even if something about Comfetar is still "live", the references to OS/2 porting have been on IBM's site since BEFORE IBM pulled the plug on OS/2
    * You SEEM to be suggesting that someone seek funding... for something... what? And more importantly, WHO? Virtually all of us have day jobs. And as for Serenity, do you know anything about their business model or business circumstances to *think* they may be in a position to (or have a desire to) do so? What makes you think they wish to incur a large amount of debt, instead of proceeding in a fashion that wont potentially bankrupt them?

Just to repeat:
Quote
You SEEM to be suggesting that someone seek funding... for something... what? And more importantly, WHO?

Are you forgetting that there are quite a few "Bounties" that are currently in the "System" - including one for "A Port of Lotus Notes 8.0, Lotus SameTime 8.0... to the OS/2 Operating System. Do you know what is the Road Map
Quote
business model or business circumstances
for this particular "Port"; also, what the plans are for the achievement of objectives.  8)

« Last Edit: 2008.04.22, 22:45:03 by saborion2 »

Saijin_Naib

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • Birdie Num-Nums
    • View Profile
    • Synperz Domain
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #33 on: 2008.04.22, 21:57:58 »
Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it.  ;D How I love internet memes.


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: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #34 on: 2008.04.22, 22:23:15 »
Robert, you left out the fact that most of PMShell wasn't even written by IBM.  It was a project at a university (the exact one eludes me at the moment) and also contains code which is copywritten by our friends over at Apple.

Which would once again bring us back to the supposedly clean-room PPC PMShell.

I wish we could just ask for the code minus the contributed code in all places, however as this has been pointed out this is very hard to decipher.  The code has been changed many times probably since the original contributions, not to mention the time and money it would take for IBM to run it all through their legal departments.  I wish there was an easy way to make this happen, but I simply do not see it.

As for my wish lists, I would like to see MMOS2 released in source.  (even without the codecs) so that it could be extended, fixed and modernized (it is one of the best multimedia subsystems in any OS but a few small bugs (and large amounts of outdated 16bit code) hinder it.

There are quite a few subsystems that I really liked in the days I played with C++ on OS/2... MMOS2 was one... the whole GDI system was another. The whole handling of virtually any device context was something I was quite impressed with.



How about a full open sourcing of GRADD.  Now that snap is going to be opened up (hopefully with the OS/2 codebase) we could benefit greatly by having the source to gradd.  We are going to be handicapped later on if we proceed with snap (which I think is our best option) if there is no way to fix bugs in gradd.  As most of us who were testers for snap can recall, there were quite a few fixes required to make snap stable.  As this is a component completely developed in house it shouldn't be impossible.

And if that included any hardware accelerated graphics stuff that they wrote or own the rights to, it would make things even easier.

Now, making a business case for this is hard, IBM isn't going to be interested into a royalty payment off every copy of eCS which is sold, nor do I believe that Serenity could take a hit to their bottom line to pay substantially.

Hmmm... hadnt thought of a business case in that respect (a business case for IBM) but should have.

Another way of looking at this is to see what changes in components we require and working on our own replacements for it.  This would require a coordination which has not been seen before in OS/2.  This would mean all the people who are making various applications and drivers would need to work together.  Instead of having a video driver being written by one person, and a sound driver coming from someone else, we need to get these people working together.  MMOS2 wouldn't be that hard to tackle.  Nor would an up to date lan manager.  Alot of new operating systems have these components and in their first betas.  Samba is a good way to go, but we need a GUI configuration for it (like lan manager),

Which is where things (GUI config like lanman) fall apart without stuff like a full WPS/DSOM implementation. Every time I have to go "manage" (ie: fight with) one of our clients Windows Server 2003, I seriously wish it had the elegance of the DnD enabled "Administrative Tools" under Warp Server.

and we need both server and client services to be available in this gui.  Perhaps the truth of it is we really need to make a subproject off of samba which is OS/2 specific.

There has been alot of talk about using cups to replace our printing system, however it hasn't actually happened.  I understand there is alot of work involved in this, but I believe if we pooled our resources this could get completed.

Probably... I havent looked into CUPS lately, but I am wondering what OS/2 specific features may need to be added to prevent breaking other things. It is rare of late though that I DnD stuff onto a printer to print... not since I stopped using Describe or IBM Works.

R
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #35 on: 2008.04.23, 04:51:14 »
Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it.  ;D How I love internet memes.



Hey "Saijin_Naib"; Guess one has to do what makes them "tick". 8) How about providing your email address there is some information that I would like for you to have since you appear to have lots of "spare time" at hand at a time of global economic uncertainties.  8)

BTW; Rest assured that the "Space Suite" has no relationship with the "four" illuminations that were seen last evening in Planet 3's atmosphere. (was that in the New Mexico's desert?) (with VOYAGER and CASSINI - yes). Hope you can begin to read between the lines. ;D Otherwise the "assimilation" is progressing well after the last descent from 35,000 feet. ;D ::) ;D

« Last Edit: 2008.04.23, 05:20:10 by saborion2 »

Robert Deed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Rob's Space
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #36 on: 2008.04.23, 06:19:33 »
??????????

I try not to read between the lines, I personally prefer to read the WORDS, and in this case, the words make NO SENSE.


Hate to be an arse, but this really calls for it.  ;D How I love internet memes.



Hey "Saijin_Naib"; Guess one has to do what makes them "tick". 8) How about providing your email address there is some information that I would like for you to have since you appear to have lots of "spare time" at hand at a time of global economic uncertainties.  8)

BTW; Rest assured that the "Space Suite" has no relationship with the "four" illuminations that were seen last evening in Planet 3's atmosphere. (was that in the New Mexico's desert?) (with VOYAGER and CASSINI - yes). Hope you can begin to read between the lines. ;D Otherwise the "assimilation" is progressing well after the last descent from 35,000 feet. ;D ::) ;D



saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #37 on: 2008.04.23, 07:16:35 »
Quote
I try not to read between the lines, I personally prefer to read the WORDS, and in this case, the words make NO SENSE.

Ghee whiz... Got to tell you dude - If only I could have understood the importance of learning those Cobol and Fortran principles that were in our apprentice diaries some forty or more years ago then I might have been a little happier. Got to tell you too - that the "word" "c-o-n-c-a-t-e-n-a-t-i-o-n" made no sense to me at one time. So, I would guess by now you will understand why the
Quote
numbers crunching
  is the in thing for me.  8)

Do ya think that you can use your programming skills and help me to pull it (COMFETAR - LIVE) off!  ::)

Peter Jespersen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #38 on: 2008.04.23, 14:10:03 »
I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.

The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.

But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.

saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #39 on: 2008.04.23, 16:20:37 »
I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.

The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.

But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatibility could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatibility was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.

This was well said "Peter Jespersen"; but, just to add - ("support your local Voyager/Cassini Developers. 8) In this way "Cassini" comes with the "features" (bells and whistles) that eluded Voyager's Developers). ;D

Best regards.


Robert Deed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Rob's Space
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #40 on: 2008.04.23, 16:25:30 »
A little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be.  I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes.  I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative.  That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.

I am rather sure that the eCS 2.0 (it ever) will be the last "real" version.
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.

The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.

But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatibility could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatibility was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.

This was well said "Peter Jespersen"; but, just to add - ("support your local Voyager/Cassini Developers. 8) In this way "Cassini" comes with the "features" (bells and whistles) that eluded Voyager's Developers). ;D

Best regards.



saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #41 on: 2008.04.23, 17:29:27 »
Quote
A little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be.  I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes.  I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative.  That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.

Now, why talk about
Quote
"an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative"
when OS/2 in itself was not developed from "scratch" when one take a look at the development of this OS:

Quote
http://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2Warp.html

and, this is why I am in total agreement with "Peter Jespersen" when he said:

Quote
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.

The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.

But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.

Surely, one does not necessarily have to re-invent the w-h-e-e-l in coming up with a sustainable solution to the OS/2 saga. The folks who are holding on to the Source-Codes (for dead) need to be shown that there can indeed be viable alternatives. 8) ::) 8)


Robert Deed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Rob's Space
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #42 on: 2008.04.24, 04:04:44 »
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.

I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code.  What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware.  The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved.  These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2.  I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.

Quote
A little premature to be looking beyond the first release of a project which may well never come to be.  I personally have said before that Voyager if they follow the easiest route will be the end of the road for me as far as OS/2 goes.  I may still develop my personal software for legacy and true OS/2, but I am in no way interested in an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative.  That makes as much sense to me as Mac OS X makes, and that is none at all.

Now, why talk about
Quote
"an OS/2 compatibility layer thrown on top of any unix derivative"
when OS/2 in itself was not developed from "scratch" when one take a look at the development of this OS:

Quote
http://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2Warp.html

and, this is why I am in total agreement with "Peter Jespersen" when he said:

Quote
Move on - the source code will never be released under any open source license - period.

The BeOS community has been in somewhat the same situation, where ZetaOS where their eComStation. But they have moved on with HaikuOS. The eCS community should do the same.

But there's no need to reinvent the entire system - in short - Support your local Voyager developer
Lets have a system build on an existing kernel - at first API compatibility should be accomplished, then later on the binary compatability could be introduced using somewhat the same technique as in McVista or as Win16 compatability was done in OS/2 - using a VM. That also have the advantage of tightening the security - but it should be optional when installing system as in OS/2.

Surely, one does not necessarily have to re-invent the w-h-e-e-l in coming up with a sustainable solution to the OS/2 saga. The folks who are holding on to the Source-Codes (for dead) need to be shown that there can indeed be viable alternatives. 8) ::) 8)



saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #43 on: 2008.04.24, 05:33:55 »
Re:
Quote
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.

This is what was gleaned over the internet with regards to the morphing/development of the OS/2 Operating System; and, it is supposed that "IBM" would be the best source for confirmation.  8)
Quote
A Short History of OS/2

http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html


Quote
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code.  What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware.  The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved.  These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2.  I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.

What is "eComStation" may I ask?  ;)

Quote

"eComStation is fully OS/2 compatible and will run your existing OS/2 applications!"

http://www.ecomstation.com/



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: Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel
« Reply #44 on: 2008.04.24, 06:08:21 »
Re:
Quote
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.
This is what was gleaned over the internet with regards to the morphing/development of the OS/2 Operating System; and, it is supposed that "IBM" would be the best source for confirmation.  8)

Actually, nothing you point to says anything similar. Actually, if you read into some of those articles (and others on the Internet), you will see that early NT morphed from early OS/2 code. While OS/2 was written from the ground up to be a replacement for DOS based operating systems.

Regardless, we dont need to wait for IBM for an answer... the core components of OS/2 (ie: not including the device drivers and added subsystems) all hold IBM or IBM/MS or (in the most recent version) IBM/"Others" (as IBM started referring to MS) copyrights - and there are a list of IBM patents out there that are for OS/2 technologies and tied chronologically with it's development.

Certain things were ported to OS/2 after it was already long since a mature, stable OS (like the AIX firewall) - while others were re-written, nearly in their entirety based off designs and concepts from AIX (like JFS - which if memory serves, was then ported BACK to AIX as JFS2 with larger per file size limits).

Quote
A Short History of OS/2
http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html
Which as referenced at the link below (which you already posted just a little earlier) is just a better formatted version of the new link you posted. Have you even read the articles? Just curious. Because you have just posted a link (to a different site) containing the same article and pretending it is new evidence of your point. The first link (which I re-listed below) wasnt - and the link above that you just posted - which goes to a better formatted version of the article thus is not either.

http://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2History.html
- Thus, another redundant post from you, which proves nothing more than the first. Congrats! Better formatting of the same thing does not help prove a point the initial article couldnt.


Quote
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code.  What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware.  The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved.  These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2.  I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.

What is "eComStation" may I ask?  ;)

"eComStation is fully OS/2 compatible and will run your existing OS/2 applications!"

http://www.ecomstation.com/


eComStation IS OS/2. It is NOT Linux or some other OS/kernel masquerading as OS/2. So, I dont see what you are trying to point out. Robert was discussing a Linux based implementation designed to look and feel like OS/2 as a successor he does not feel viable.

From someone who has seen what the threading model in OS/2 (and the still in progress one in Linux) can do, and the amazingly large amount of control a program or user has over thread and process priority under OS/2, I dont blame him.
« Last Edit: 2008.04.24, 06:15:06 by RobertM »
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|