• 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

Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel

Started by PAUL555, 2008.04.07, 05:45:52

Previous topic - Next topic

saborion2

#60
Re:
QuoteMODERATOR NOTE: Article snipped to avoid possible copyright issues. Please post a link to such info if it is published, instead of posting overly large snippets or entire documents.

The purpose of the post (apart from that of driving for an high degree of openness) was intended as a response to; and, contrary to
Quote
a now non-existant, defunct project and a VC group are the sudden salvation of OS/2
iCOMFETAR LIVE is actually a work-in-progress (please see OS/2 WF's Bounty System - Re: "Native Port of IBM's Lotus Notes 8.0, IBM's Lotus SameTime 8.0... to the OS/2 Operating System) with a relevant link here:

Quote

http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=14283&expand=true&lc=en


and to provide information of a known procedure to be followed for converting from financial to economic values with the "corresponding computing limitations" being attempted to be addressed over time as reflected in the below attached referenced 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication and which was also previously posted:
Quote
Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.

In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"

All for your kind information.

Thank you.


warpcafe

Guys,

I know it is important to you to express you either opinions... but... could you please try to do it somewhere else? This thread started on "Ecomstation 64Bit kernel". It has now 5 pages, which is a damn lot. If I strip the OT posts from it, it might cut down to 1 or 2 (in the max) pages.

Saborion2, I have started a dedicated thread for COMFETAR etc.
Please feel free to give us a ramp-up on that subject, pros and cons... and we'll gladly participate in a raging debate. But please let us do it there:
http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,977.0/

BTW, Sab... people are sometimes a little worried about your posts being hard to understand. I took this one from the current thread to show you what I (they) mean...:
Quote
Actually, I pondered for a while whether or not I should respond to your post but then again of what benefit would it be if I do not attempt to correct you with regards to some of your assumptions so much so even wanting to make a comparison with regards to time line of IBM Partner Membership in a public debate believing that such an issue is most trivial an uncalled for when more important issues should be the topic of the conversation; and, not to say the least that my earlier interface with the dumb terminal at the University of Sheffield, England during the mid-to-late nineteen seventies, the early nineteen eighties development banking and micro computing experiences through contact with Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations consultants, followed by micro-computing class instructions at Baruch College predates both of our relationships with regards to IBM Partner Membership (in my own case holding both IBM and Lotus Development Corporation Partner Memberships; but, so much for that.

THIS IS ACTUALLY *1* SINGLE SENTENCE! I checked it three times... it's ONE sentence!
I know it's sometimes hard to make your fingers follow a much quicker mind... but please... give a try on shortening these sentences, it makes it much more pleasant to read and thus will increase the number of people paying attention to it.

Cheers
Thomas
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that"
- G.H. Hardy

phaelonimaire

This is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up.  I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time.  This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel.  I understand why a 64 bit kernel is necessary, but I also know that at the moment, we do not have a (maintainable) kernel at all, 64 bit or otherwise!  Without a kernel, you don't have an operating system.  Without an operating system, it doesn't matter who has or doesn't have Lotus Notes, or any other application. 
It seems obvious that we're not going to legally get the kernel source, or any other aid from IBM.  We must either write a new kernel, or try to modify one that already exists.  Waiting for an IBM handout will kill us.

The Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers.  Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward.  We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us.  There are a number of projects in the works to do exactly what has been said here, yet we're behaving as if they do not exist.  osfree has plans to recreate OS/2.  Most importantly, they've actually worked at it, and have something to show for their work.  Even though their chosen path is a difficult one, it is much better than waiting on IBM to feel sorry for us.  I don't think sorrow is part of their corporate policy.
We know what we want - it's now a matter of making it happen. 

This topic can be summed up like this:
IBM no longer supports OS/2.  There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code.  There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress. 
Would you like to help?  This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.

Now, a rant:  if you take a look at netlabs or osfree, you'll notice that their websites are all broken.  It would appear as if the community is gone.  If you dig deeper, you'll find that there are people working.  How do you expect to draw attention or developers when they can't even figure out if you're still alive?  I thought for sure osfree was dead, until I looked at the dates in svn.

saborion2

#63
Quote from: phaelonimaire on 2008.04.26, 18:45:36
This is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up.  I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time.  This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel.  I understand why a 64 bit kernel is necessary, but I also know that at the moment, we do not have a (maintainable) kernel at all, 64 bit or otherwise!  Without a kernel, you don't have an operating system.  Without an operating system, it doesn't matter who has or doesn't have Lotus Notes, or any other application. 
It seems obvious that we're not going to legally get the kernel source, or any other aid from IBM.  We must either write a new kernel, or try to modify one that already exists.  Waiting for an IBM handout will kill us.

The Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers.  Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward.  We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us.  There are a number of projects in the works to do exactly what has been said here, yet we're behaving as if they do not exist.  osfree has plans to recreate OS/2.  Most importantly, they've actually worked at it, and have something to show for their work.  Even though their chosen path is a difficult one, it is much better than waiting on IBM to feel sorry for us.  I don't think sorrow is part of their corporate policy.
We know what we want - it's now a matter of making it happen. 

This topic can be summed up like this:
IBM no longer supports OS/2.  There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code.  There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress. 
Would you like to help?  This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.

Now, a rant:  if you take a look at netlabs or osfree, you'll notice that their websites are all broken.  It would appear as if the community is gone.  If you dig deeper, you'll find that there are people working.  How do you expect to draw attention or developers when they can't even figure out if you're still alive?  I thought for sure osfree was dead, until I looked at the dates in svn.


First of all, an excellent post "phaelonimaire"; and, I am prompted to make the following observations; re:
QuoteThis is not the first, second, or third time that this topic has been brought up.  I've seen this topic more than once, and made comments each time.  This time it has come in the form of a 64 bit kernel

Is there a time line (period) with regards to instances in which
Quotethis topic has been brought up
in this way one reading your comment would have a better idea about the specific period of reference and the particular "topic" that you are talking about.

Also, you have stated;
QuoteThe Wine developers do not have source for the API which they recreated, nor do the ReactOS developers. Both groups have managed to get somewhere, and they did so by moving forward. We can argue about our knowledge of OS/2 history and who was where, but it doesn't help any of us.

As you will know, in most circumstances; and, from a dialectical point of view it may be necessary to know the history of something/behavior; as for example - our ancestral history (in this case the history of the development of the OS/2 Operating System) in order to know how we got where we are today; and, how to plan/prepare for the future; so, all in all it is felt that it is a good thing for a start that we know the "background experience" of the people that we are dealing with.... I am quite sure that you are quite familiar with the old saying - "Once Bitten, Twice Shy"  ;D ::) 8)

With regards to:
QuoteIBM no longer supports OS/2.  There will not be a 64-bit kernel for OS/2 from IBM.
We, as a community, are looking for ways to enhance OS/2 without IBM or IBM's code.  There are a number of groups working on this - some of which have made progress. 
Would you like to help?  This is a major task - we need all the hands we can get.

The IBM's response to the Second Petition Letter by the OS/2 World Foundation reads in part as follows:
Quote
As stated in our response to your September 2005 letter we have considered the positioning of OS/2 and open source several times in the past, and for a variety of business, technical, and legal reasons we have decided to not pursue any OS/2 open source projects.


IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate.

http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/1/


Please note carefully that
Quote
IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2
does not appear to be saying the same thing as you are saying in that you you have said; and, to repeat...
Quote
IBM no longer supports OS/2.

Do you care to clarify your statement on the above.  ;)

Thank you.

Kindest regards

SAB.



phaelonimaire

The topic I have mentioned would be kernel replacement, and general advancement of OS/2 as an operating system.  Shortly after the announcement of the Voyager project, there was a thread on this website about what kernel to use.  The debate was over rather it mattered which kernel was to be used.  Shortly afterward, the topic of why we weren't using the Linux kernel and GNU software was raised.  When the 64-bit x86 CPUs were 'new' a couple years ago, another topic surfaced about building a 64-bit OS/2 kernel.  At that time, osfree.org was mentioned as a possible avenue. 

History is a very broad category.  There is the history of OS/2, which is important.  There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant.  When one looks to the future, one must also study the past.  However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion.  What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.

"...IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate."

We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right?  Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"?  If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get?  Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux.  If I wanted to do that,  I would have done it by now.

True, IBM says they support OS/2.  The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us?  Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version. 

Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM.  It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.

Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward? 

saborion2

#65
Quote from: phaelonimaire on 2008.04.27, 04:40:44
The topic I have mentioned would be kernel replacement, and general advancement of OS/2 as an operating system.  Shortly after the announcement of the Voyager project, there was a thread on this website about what kernel to use.  The debate was over rather it mattered which kernel was to be used.  Shortly afterward, the topic of why we weren't using the Linux kernel and GNU software was raised.  When the 64-bit x86 CPUs were 'new' a couple years ago, another topic surfaced about building a 64-bit OS/2 kernel.  At that time, osfree.org was mentioned as a possible avenue. 

History is a very broad category.  There is the history of OS/2, which is important.  There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant.  When one looks to the future, one must also study the past.  However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion.  What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.

"...IBM has service offerings that continue to be available for customers who need ongoing support for OS/2, although IBM has no plans for product enhancements. IBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate."

We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right?  Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"?  If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get?  Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux.  If I wanted to do that,  I would have done it by now.

True, IBM says they support OS/2.  The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us?  Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version. 

Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM.  It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.

Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward? 

Hey "phaelonimaire"! Thank you for that confirmation as we prepare to lay down the plans for the enhanced interface; as with regards to:

Quote

"ACPI (short for "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface") is a standard that defines power and configuration management interfaces between an operating system and Hardware. It is meant to supersede the older APM standard (for power management) and provide a generic interface for recognition and configuration of hardware devices."

http://www.os2world.com/content/view/17964/2/

with particular reference to; and, bordering on the orientation of those of the early players that were "trusted" with the development of the design and development of the earlier "kernels"...; and, this is the considered opinion of what can be ascribed to the mis-orientation of the earlier developers of the early "kernels" - the incorrect assumptions of the ways in which the "international project analysts" should do their work in order to complete the tasks at hand rather than sitting down with them in the first instance and finding out the ways in which decision-making are arrive at; and, those are done - after results of well considered "reports/analyses" have been generated (with the computing tools provided) and presented.

You have said; re:
Quote
History is a very broad category.  There is the history of OS/2, which is important.  There is also the history of one's personal experience regarding something related to OS/2 - this is somewhat irrelevant.  When one looks to the future, one must also study the past.  However, you have to evaluate what history you are following, and if it is helpful in arriving at a conclusion.  What I've seen so far seems to have little to do with what to do about getting a 64-bit kernel, which I though this topic "Ecomstation 64 Bit Kernel" was about.

Considering the UNIDO's "COMFAR" as well as the "Software For Economic Evaluation" (SEE) cases do you care to explain what are the irrelevancies of the development of these applications (if these are the referenced experienced being mentioned) to either the Windows or OS/2 Operating Systems. See details below...

Quote
COMFAR III Expert is operable under Windows 3.11, Windows 95/98 and Windows NT. For details, please refer to the Hard- and Software Requirements.

http://www.win2biz.com/comfar/default.htm


Also
Quote
We were talking about a 64-bit kernel, right?  Do you count that as "support" or an "enhancement"?  If I call IBM tomorrow and tell them that there is a bug in the USB Mass Storage, what kind of support do you think I will get?  Most likely, they will try to help me "migrate" to Windows or Linux.  If I wanted to do that,  I would have done it by now.

True, IBM says they support OS/2.  The question is, do they support OS/2 in a way that helps us?  Perhaps if they will support OS/2, perhaps we should petition for a new version. 

Or, perhaps we should continue on without IBM. It will not be easy, but at least we are free to succeed or fail. At the moment, we don't seem to be doing much of anything.


I live in the United States; but, while it is not certain in which country in the world you live and work... it is the general understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America preventing any individual or group of people living in the United States from coming up with the design and development of their own "mouse trap" (Computer Operating System) when considering a strategy for us to
Quotemove forward.

Anyway, here is an hint that should be consider at the earliest - what do present day users want the "Computer Operating System" to do for them.; and, this should serve as a guide for us moving forward  8)

Kindest regards.

   

saborion2

#66
Hi "phaelonimaire"; You stated earlier...

Quote

Now that I have clarified my point of view, how do you suppose we move forward?


And, it is very much believed that this was said before; what if there is a work around of the OS/2 Kernel by let us say - a few "smart" American, Russian, Indian, Guyanese, Brazilian.... developers will this still be an OS/2 Kernel; or, thinking in terms of "moving forward"... one might suppose it can be called an OS/3 (Third Generation) Kernel; additionally, what bearing will this have on an organization such as the OS/2 World Foundation. Will this organization now be renamed the OS/3 World Foundation.... Not to mention the establishment of an OS/3 World/Software Alliance

Just my two cents.  ;)

Kindest regards.

SAB

   

saborion2

Additionally ""phaelonimaire";

One may need to look at the rationale for the development of an "64 Bit Kernel" for the "OS/2" or "OS/3"XX...  - eComStation 2.0 Operating Systems from the standpoint that these are already available for the Windows and Linux Operating Systems among others it is believed.

Playing "catch-up" if one wishes to call it that.  ;)

Regards.


phaelonimaire

Since these features are already available on other operating systems, why is it that we're here - talking about OS/2?  While other operating systems may provide advanced feature sets and "better" hardware support, that doesn't mean their method of implementation works for every situation.  There are a number of markets where OS/2 seems far easier to use than Linux or Windows.  When it comes to industrial control PCs, kiosks, or ATMs, OS/2 is much easier to set up.  It is possible to have it easily run only the GUI (PM) app you want (unlike Windows XP and the dreaded winlogon API), and is far less complicated than trying to both learn and then customize the standard linux distribution. 

From the application development point of view, working with OS/2 is easier than Linux in some respects.  I've found that writing OS/2 (and even Windows) GUI applications is much easier than trying to develop with GTK or other toolkits.  I write mostly in C and Assembly, so packages such as wxWidgets and Qt do little or nothing for me.  Keep in mind that this applies only when portability to other operating systems is not an issue.

The kernel and API are important to an operating system because they do far more than control the hardware and provide access to it.  The way the kernel handles memory and I/O will dictate how the OS feels and performs.  The way the API is designed will impact the way a developer writes an application, and may even contribute to its overall stability.  A good example is the X11 event loop versus the Windows event loop.  With X11, you can use select() to monitor the event loop and any other socket.  With Windows, you must either use PeekMessage with a timeout/loop, or you have to create a separate thread to handle other sockets, which may or may not be the best solution. 

I completely understand what you're saying about "playing catch-up".  This is why everyone I know that used to run OS/2 now runs something else.  Although there have been a number of great enhancements made to OS/2 since the start of the "Convenience Pak" days, we have not seen any major development on the core OS.  This is not going to change until either the complete source code meets someone who will maintain it, or a replacement is written.  Until then, the gap between OS/2 and the other operating systems will continue to grow. 

As stated before (in this thread and numerous other places), something has to be done.  We can either keep patching what IBM gave us, support those who are already working on an alternative (Voyager / osfree.org), or start from scratch and hope for the best.