osfree.org

#311 From: "Adrian Gschwend" <ktk@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:32 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer netlabsorg
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>So we can start a rewrite of PM/WPS, MMPM whatever right now
>and get a direct benefit (bugfixes/new features) and create
>the foundation whan it is time to switch kernels.
>May it be ReactOS, Linux, L4 based or something different we
>can see which'll offer the most HW/Driver support, develops
>into what direction.

That makes most sense for me, this really helps OS/2 *right now*, we
get things we don't have and can fix stuff noone else (at IBM) is gonna
fix.

Like this we learn a lot and can see which kernel fits best in our
plans of a free OS/2 compatible system.

cu

Adrian


--
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
ktk@...
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org

#312 From: "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:11 am
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future lynnmaxson
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Michal Necasek writes:
"Supplant? No. But if you don't think that experience, intuition
and creativity play an imortant role in programming then we have
nothing to talk about."

Well, we certainly do have something to talk about. While I do
not play down experience, intuition, and creativity the more
important role is matching the solution set to the problem. Even
more important is reflecting changes in the solution set at a rate
equal to their occurrence in the problem set.

That means the translation of the requirements of the problem set
into the formal specifications of the solution set. Experience,
intuition, and creativity may take place, but their major role is
to support the formal logic of the specifications. It is the
logical equivalence of the problem set to the solution set that
must be maintained. The major effort if the needs of the client
remain paramount lies in producing the logical equivalence at
minimal cost using minimal resources with minimal error achieving
maximum performance. Experience, intuition, and creativity come
into play only in so far as they support this.

Perhaps no text better expresses this than Michael Abrash's "The
Zen of Asssembly Language". It's how you build creativity from
the intuition gained from experience, but primarily provides a
metric to determine the best learned from experience. Like any
metric it includes a means of quantitative measure: performance.

I do believe that it is possible within both cost and time
constraints to produce the best system without compromise, one
whose solution set exactly matches the problem set and one whose
solution set can change as rapidly as the problem set. I have
used my experience to gain an intuitive grasp of the problem set
that I have applied creatively in proposing a solution set.<g>

#313 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 2:37 pm
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi Sander,

> Of course. All I'm saying is that you need to take into consideration
> that mulitple personalities are a requirement when designing it.
>
> Either you go the linux way and hope the OS/2 subsystem gets some
> acceptance or you design a new OS (or take a non-unix kernel) and
> rely on a win32 personality to run popular apps side by side with
> your favourite OS/2 apps & the WPS.

???
I just want to keep on using OS/2. And I think most people on this (or
the FreeOS) list want this.
If what I want is just using the WPS, wouldn't it be much more easy to
write a WPS clone on top of NT? (sorry JMA
The "favorite OS/2 apps" argument doesn't cut here... most of the "big"
OS/2 apps have been ported to Win32, and for the others I'm sure that
there are good alternatives.
The point is I like working on OS/2, I like the look'n'feel (which is
not just a matter of the WPS), I like the fact that it's snappy - what
you can't say about WInNT, and you can't say it about Linux either once
you put a complex GUI on it, besides the fact that I totally dislike
Linux design.

So YES, let's write a complete free opensource OS/2 replacement, but I
don't see the point in this "multiple-personality" issue. And I think it
would add a lot of sluggishness.

As for the connection with the osFree binaries, and all the issues about
legality, creating a new group, etc. I agree that we should build a
_clean_ clone, but all this suspects seems to me ridicoulus: given the
amount of "leakage", you can have the same amount of suspects about
*ALL* OS/2 software, so you should be stopping supporting *ANYTHING*
(already wrote it to os2bird, hope it is more clear now).

Bye

Cris

#314 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 3:03 pm
Subject: Coding guidelines criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi all,

I was about to repost the coding guidelines, but I'll wait until the
direction settles a bit...
Maybe we're coming to an end of this endless debate. Let's hope for the
best.

BTW: I agree with the latest message from Adrian Gschwend, even if I
don't see much difference from previous proposals. I still think BTW
that the dev groups can be started in parallel, so people can improve
the PM/WPS while others research about a new kernel, etc.

Bye

Cris

#315 From: "Allan Holm" <alh@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:24 pm
Subject: Re: Licence for this project. alh01dk
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:29:41 +0100, JMA wrote:

>Licence
>
>Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
>All rights reserved.

Right then, as you have already claimed, that you are not
part of the osFree Team - do you mind telling us,
who this Copyright belongs to ? Company ? People ?

I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
their own software/source away to.

Allan.


Allan Holm Operating -_-_ / / ____ _____ _____
Running OS/2 at _-_ _-_-_ // /-/ -_ -_ _ -__
Unleash 32-bit power! - -_-_-__/_/ -_ _ _ _ _ speed
alh@...

#316 From: Richard Gelderblom - Sun Microsystems <richard.gelderblom@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer zwitska
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Yes, I also agree with this.

And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source for
the mo').

Then eventually one could go completely 32-bit and there will be no need to
rewrite all the 'old' 16-bit stuff as well.
Also saves a lot of effort and *time* !

I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit APIs),
but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're asked
to update their apps for a 'good cause'

Just my E 0,02
rg,rg


+>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
+>
+>>So we can start a rewrite of PM/WPS, MMPM whatever right now
+>>and get a direct benefit (bugfixes/new features) and create
+>>the foundation whan it is time to switch kernels.
+>>May it be ReactOS, Linux, L4 based or something different we
+>>can see which'll offer the most HW/Driver support, develops
+>>into what direction.
+>
+>That makes most sense for me, this really helps OS/2 *right now*, we
+>get things we don't have and can fix stuff noone else (at IBM) is gonna
+>fix.
+>
+>Like this we learn a lot and can see which kernel fits best in our
+>plans of a free OS/2 compatible system.
+>
+>cu
+>
+>Adrian
+>
+>
+>--
+>Adrian Gschwend
+>@ OS/2 Netlabs
+>
+>ICQ: 22419590
+>ktk@...
+>-------
+>The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
+>http://www.netlabs.org

#317 From: "sandervl2000" <sandervl2000@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 7:13 pm
Subject: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) sandervl2000
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- In osFree@y..., "criguada@l..." <criguada@l...> wrote:
> So YES, let's write a complete free opensource OS/2 replacement, but I
> don't see the point in this "multiple-personality" issue.
So you only want to run OS/2 applications on that system. Guess what,
there aren't that many left. Supporting other systems (windows or
maybe linux) is inevitable.

> And I think it would add a lot of sluggishness.
And this opinion is of course based on your experience writing
operating systems? No? I thought so, because it doesn't make any sense.

I'm getting so tired of people with opinions about subjects they know
little or nothing about.

Users can say all they want, but it is up to developers investing their
precious spare time to decide how to design and implement it.

Well, this is my last message on this mailinglist for now. I'll get
back in a few months to see if something has actually happened.

Sander

#318 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi Sander,

> So you only want to run OS/2 applications on that system. Guess what,
> there aren't that many left. Supporting other systems (windows or
> maybe linux) is inevitable.

Surprise surprise, I happen to *know* which applications are available
on OS/2, since I am an OS/2 user, and a satisfied one. I'm not satisfied
about IBM behaviour, but that's another problem.

> > And I think it would add a lot of sluggishness.
> And this opinion is of course based on your experience writing
> operating systems? No? I thought so, because it doesn't make any sense.
> I'm getting so tired of people with opinions about subjects they know
> little or nothing about.

Well, surely I am not qualified to tell anything about OSes *with
multiple personalities*. I presume you wrote a lot of them.
BTW, if you can't stand people that express opinions, that's your problem.

When I talk to someone I'm not usually upset by being corrected about
something I say, but there are many forms of making a correction. And I
usually don't flame anyone because he speaks about something he doesn't
*perfectly* knows. If you do, you'll soon be talking to noone.

> Users can say all they want, but it is up to developers investing their
> precious spare time to decide how to design and implement it.
>
> Well, this is my last message on this mailinglist for now. I'll get
> back in a few months to see if something has actually happened.

What a constructive point of view.

Bye

Cris

#319 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: Licence for this project. drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>
> >Licence
> >
> >Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
> >All rights reserved.
>
snip
>
> I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
> their own software/source away to.
>
Actually that Copyright line shows again lack of legal
understanding of copyright issues.
The Copyright of a sourcefile stays always with the author(s).
You can't give away your copyright, thats not legaly allowed.
You can put source under GPL, and make it free to use etc,
but thats a different. Even if you write code for your
employer, you have the copyright, the employer "only" the IP.

#320 From: "W. Schmid" <ws@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 12:06 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer ws@...
Send Email Send Email


On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>I know a kernel which fits, it's the current OS/2 kernel.
>So if you want to write an portable OS/2 API layer why not
>use the OS/2 kernel.
>Benefit 1, You can start by rewriting single APIs or API
>groups and test them in an existing OS/2 system checking
>that everthing is still working. (Look at EDM/2 for an article
>about forwarder DLLs)
>Benefit 2, You can fix bug in existing components like PM/WPS
>or add new components (IPv6) which can be used by everbody
>running OS/2
>Benefit 3, no need to waste developing power on things like
>format.exe cmd.exe as a starter.
>Benefit 4, No need to port the DosXXX APIs till a kernel new
>kernel is ready/selected. Dos APIs are the KAL (Kernel
>Abstaction layer) and closely related to kernel structures
>so if you want to run on multiple kernels those APIs need
>most likely to be adapted.
>
>So we can start a rewrite of PM/WPS, MMPM whatever right now
>and get a direct benefit (bugfixes/new features) and create
>the foundation whan it is time to switch kernels.
>May it be ReactOS, Linux, L4 based or something different we
>can see which'll offer the most HW/Driver support, develops
>into what direction.

This is one of the best idea posted in this list.
Let think about it.

Regards,
Wolfram