osfree.org

#301 From: "sandervl2000" <sandervl2000@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 7:37 pm
Subject: Linux + OS/2 layer sandervl2000
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
> If I'm to be 100% sure I cannot hardly accept source from anyone,
> can I ??
>
> Can any project to be 100% clean accept code when the secret of
> the "source leak" is out ??
You misunderstood me. osFree is the name the illegaly recompiled OS/2
kernel. How can you continue to use the same name and the same
mailinglist and try to avoid being associated with illegal activities?

> >You can add an OS/2 API interface for Linux, but I don't expect
many
> >people to use it for development.
> >IMHO it's basically a waste of time as you might as well migrate to
> >Linux completely.
> No, its a great place to try it out (an API layer) and see how hard
> it would be. You can do that by writing specification but you and
> I know that will never work.
> It must be tried out.
>
> And with Linux you can find out why it did not work.
What exactly do you people want to do with linux?
I can see a few options:
1) Build a Wine like 'emulator' for OS/2 applications; emulate
every OS/2/PM api call with standard linux/x11 functions

2) Use linux kernel + X11 as a base to basically build
a linux distribution with OS/2 appearance (+ application interface)
(similar to Lindows; linux distro meant as a windows replacement)

3) Only use the linux kernel (ignoring X11) and build your own PM &
WPS subsystem.

The first one seems pointless as there are not enough OS/2
applications to justify the work. Option 3 doesn't have much appeal
either.
The 2nd one seems the most interesting to me.
You'll still be stuck with base (kernel) that has an ancient (&
possibly incompatible) design.

Another possible hazard is the unclear future of linux. It might
be bright and shiny now, but I doubt it can ever compate with MS
on the desktop. Once people realize that, linux development might
grind to a halt. (I might be completely wrong though)
Driver availability is ok (I suppose) for Linux, but having
a NT/Win2k/XP compatible driver model ensures more and supported
drivers. (That's a definite plus for ReactOS)

> But starting another "build the best kernel" is idiotic. There are
> so many such projects. Better find the right one and coop with
> them.
If there is a kernel available that does all we need, then we should
by all means use it. However, I haven't found one yet.

And I didn't suggest we write everything from scratch. We can use
an existing (micro) kernel and extend it with an OS/2 personality.
If the whole project is covered by the GPL license, we can go around
'shopping' for usable code.

Sander

#302 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:37:50 -0000, sandervl2000 wrote:

>--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
>> If I'm to be 100% sure I cannot hardly accept source from anyone,
>> can I ??
>>
>> Can any project to be 100% clean accept code when the secret of
>> the "source leak" is out ??
>You misunderstood me. osFree is the name the illegaly recompiled OS/2
>kernel. How can you continue to use the same name and the same
>mailinglist and try to avoid being associated with illegal activities?
>
Alledged "illegaly recompiled OS/2 kernel".
Sorry but I prefer "innocent until proven guilty" instead of "I know, I
have the source myself".
It may very well be "illegal" and I will standaside from it. The website
is being updated and I have removed it from all sites I can control.

But, you are free to join one of the other opensource OS/2 projects.


>> And with Linux you can find out why it did not work.
>What exactly do you people want to do with linux?
>I can see a few options:
>1) Build a Wine like 'emulator' for OS/2 applications; emulate
> every OS/2/PM api call with standard linux/x11 functions
>
>2) Use linux kernel + X11 as a base to basically build
> a linux distribution with OS/2 appearance (+ application interface)
> (similar to Lindows; linux distro meant as a windows replacement)
>
>3) Only use the linux kernel (ignoring X11) and build your own PM &
> WPS subsystem.
>
We are very far from any of these now. We dont have a loader we dont
have a single line written in a API layer.

If you want 1 you should rather get VMware or VPS.
2 and 3 could very well be different stages of the same project.

>The 2nd one seems the most interesting to me.
>You'll still be stuck with base (kernel) that has an ancient (&
>possibly incompatible) design.
>
This is what I want to avoid by designing a portable (as portable as possible)
API layer/loader. Spending time on this will help us being less dependant
of the kernel and would allow us to switch kernel with less problems.

I'm no kernel developer but I dont think doing a relativly portable layer would
be that hard. We know exactly what the API's need to run and if there are
any doubts it would be possible to debug through an existing OS/2 to see
how it works.

Most or all relativly modern kernels has the same specified set of features,
they may be harder or easier to graft the API/loader ontop but they support
most likely what what we need.

Sure running highly multithreaded OS/2 apps on a Linux kernel would
be a long way from good performance but that does not mean it would
not work at all.

>Another possible hazard is the unclear future of linux. It might
>be bright and shiny now, but I doubt it can ever compate with MS
>on the desktop. Once people realize that, linux development might
>grind to a halt. (I might be completely wrong though)
>
This is silly, we are talking about taking OS/2 an OS hardly used
by anyone. Do you think an open OS/2 would attract the whole world
and rip 20% of the desktop market ?
We must be real, if an Open OS/2 gained 5% of the Linux market
it would be a huge success.

>Driver availability is ok (I suppose) for Linux, but having
>a NT/Win2k/XP compatible driver model ensures more and supported
>drivers. (That's a definite plus for ReactOS)
>
Yes, and thats why I want a portable api/loader layer. It would be great
to be able to run on both and from there decide what kernel to go for.
What can be better than do a real live test instead of reading docs
and trying to find out what would be best.

Also, ReactOS as built for many "personalities" should be easy to
graft a API/loader layer upon so why not try to do it ?


>> But starting another "build the best kernel" is idiotic. There are
>> so many such projects. Better find the right one and coop with
>> them.
>If there is a kernel available that does all we need, then we should
>by all means use it. However, I haven't found one yet.
>
But you cannot find that out by reading specifications.

The only way is to try it out.

Lets say a kernel lacks two things we "must" have. Therefore we skip
it. Had we tried we might have found out that all other things are so
good that we should add the missing features ourself.

Reading specis is for the FreeOS group...




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#303 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 06:33:37 -0800 (PST), Jason Filby wrote:

>MS pushes code into ring 0 that, if it crashed, would be just as good
>as if the kernel crashed. The GDI, for instance, is always used since
>Win NT is a graphical OS. So why not have it in ring 0 for extra
>performance? Besides -- the GDI, in fact, most of the code in ring 0
>almost never crashes. Badly written drivers, for the most part, are
>responsible.
>
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. If you want the very best performance,
you need to run video code in Ring 3. Then you need NO context switches.
That's how OS/2 works (with some drivers at least). I know it's not
really possible on NT but we're talking about OS/2 here

And the argument "if video screws up you're hosed anyway so the
machine might as well bluescreen" is pretty feeble, don't you think?

Customers really don't care if their system crashed because
of a bug in the OS itself or "just" a driver. The more code you
stuff into Ring 0, the more bluescreens you'll get. It's as simple
as that.


Michal

#304 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 9:41 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:01:28 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:

>Michal Necasek writes:
>"Would you try to apply manufacturing processes to music, movies,
>books?"
>
>Certainly.
>
That seems absurd to me.

>I take it that you feel that programming is a creative process,
>more an art form than one of science.
>
I never said that. You're jumping to conclusions.

>That's strange for something 100% based on logic to
>believe that art can supplant science.
>
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.


Michal

#305 From: Jason Filby <jasonfilby@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) jasonfilby
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- Michal Necasek <michaln@...> wrote:
>And the argument "if video screws up you're hosed anyway so the
>machine might as well bluescreen" is pretty feeble, don't you
>think?

No, I don't. Besides, the code that is likely to screw up is the
video driver itself, not the GDI.

>Customers really don't care if their system crashed because
>of a bug in the OS itself or "just" a driver. The more code you
>stuff into Ring 0, the more bluescreens you'll get. It's as simple
>as that.

It only matters if you are planning on not using the graphical
subsystem AT ALL. If GDI crashes it doesn't matter which ring its in,
since a GUI OS depends on it. Unless, of course, you're running in
console mode. But then, you're not calling the GDI anyway.

- Jason







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

#306 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:07 am
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:49:00 -0800 (PST), Jason Filby wrote:

>>Customers really don't care if their system crashed because
>>of a bug in the OS itself or "just" a driver. The more code you
>>stuff into Ring 0, the more bluescreens you'll get. It's as simple
>>as that.
>
>It only matters if you are planning on not using the graphical
>subsystem AT ALL. If GDI crashes it doesn't matter which ring its in,
>since a GUI OS depends on it. Unless, of course, you're running in
>console mode. But then, you're not calling the GDI anyway.
>
Nonsense. Here's a real world example: you're running a "mission
critical" machine. A screensaver kicks in. It uses random modules
and runs for a few hours. Then BOOM, page fault. We have two
possible scenarios:

A) Graphics driver was running in Ring 0. Box bluescreens, all
work is halted (the machine might be a network server). Tough
luck. Graphics in Ring 0 is supposed to be good.

B) Graphics driver was running in Ring 3. The screensaver process
is terminated, no real harm done. Machine goes on running.


Now if you're claiming that A) is better then I really don't
know what to say.


Michal

#307 From: Jason Filby <jasonfilby@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:28 am
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) jasonfilby
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


My mistake -- I thought we were just talking about the GDI being in
kernel or user mode. Maybe we'll bring out a ReactOS edition with the
graphics in user mode in the future.

- Jason

--- Michal Necasek <michaln@...> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:49:00 -0800 (PST), Jason Filby wrote:
>
> >>Customers really don't care if their system crashed because
> >>of a bug in the OS itself or "just" a driver. The more code you
> >>stuff into Ring 0, the more bluescreens you'll get. It's as
> simple
> >>as that.
> >
> >It only matters if you are planning on not using the graphical
> >subsystem AT ALL. If GDI crashes it doesn't matter which ring its
> in,
> >since a GUI OS depends on it. Unless, of course, you're running in
> >console mode. But then, you're not calling the GDI anyway.
> >
> Nonsense. Here's a real world example: you're running a "mission
> critical" machine. A screensaver kicks in. It uses random modules
> and runs for a few hours. Then BOOM, page fault. We have two
> possible scenarios:
>
> A) Graphics driver was running in Ring 0. Box bluescreens, all
> work is halted (the machine might be a network server). Tough
> luck. Graphics in Ring 0 is supposed to be good.
>
> B) Graphics driver was running in Ring 3. The screensaver process
> is terminated, no real harm done. Machine goes on running.
>
>
> Now if you're claiming that A) is better then I really don't
> know what to say.
>
>
> Michal
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> osFree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

#308 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 2:29 am
Subject: Licence for this project. mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Licence
(Our licence is based of the BSD License)

Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the osFree nor the names of its contributors may be
used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

<MODERATOR>




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#309 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 2:33 am
Subject: Rules mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


If you want to participate as developer in this project the following rules
must be followed:

- All submitted code must be written by you or be existing opensource code.

- All code written and submitted by you must follow the osFree licence.

- All code developed by others must be opensource and credits must be kept
and not be changed in any way.

- The following people may NOT participate in developing code for this project:

Former or current IBM employees unless they can positivly prove they will
not breact any of the rules in their employment contracts.

People who have admitted to be involved in illegal activites regarding OS/2
related materials thuns proven to participate in illegal activities.

People bound by contracts with IBM that gives them access to things that
would be concidered illegal or doubtfull for inclution in this project.

*** Its up to the osFree team to accept or turn down submissions. ***

People that fits in these categories may however participate in documentation,
writing specification or non code related activities (building webpages etc.)
as
long as they dont inflict their contracts with IBM.





Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#310 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 3:43 am
Subject: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


> The only way is to try it out.
Who tells you that he didn't try?
>
> Lets say a kernel lacks two things we "must" have. Therefore
we skip
> it. Had we tried we might have found out that all other
things are so
> good that we should add the missing features ourself.
>
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.