#141 Re: [osFree] peace. [was:Re: OSFree and our future]
Expand Messages
JMA
Feb 21, 2002
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:09:33 -0000, poldi42 wrote:
>anyhow a decision will be made be the very small circle of people that
>are capable to do this part of the work (including for sure not me and
>probably neither of you as well [no offense meant!]).
>
>good luck to all!
>
Thanks, my EXACT thoughts !
I promised to keep quiet about what kernel to choose but I must say
I'm surprised how little people knows about kernel development.
Leave kernel talks to people that knows !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Part 5 - Feb 21 2002
Re: Part 5
#142 Re: [osFree] OSFree and our future
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi Adrian,
first of all, please understand that I understand what you mean, and I
would agree with you if we were not in this particular situation.
Second: please (to all), don't start building walls and fences (I won't
do that, that developer won't join, etc.), the OS/2 community is already
enough divided, and with few people in it this could be deadly.
> >When OS/2 2.0 was designed and a few years ahead the team had one
> >of the largest companies in the world backing them up. Also OS/2 was
> >at thet time extremly important for IBM.
> >I heard quotes that IBM spent almost $1 billion on OS2PPC !
>
> so what? Linux wasn't done like this and Be neither I guess (with money
> but with much less).
I know, and I agree with you. The point BTW is that Linux was built upon
an ultra-known design. I, and every other university student with a
background in informatics, have studied the unix design in the classes
about Operating Systems Design. Every student, given enough time, could
write a simple unix kernel in C. Most have done it for their exams.
Linus did more or less this, perhaps toying a little more with his
creation. There was NO other design after his kernel, and his design
wasn't even really smart (simply because the original unix design was
smart only if compared to the available non-mainframe OSes at that
time... and there were very few).
Designing a good OS today from the ground up is entirely a different matter.
Another consideration: on the FreeOS list, the two "leaders" have been
advocating this kind of approach (design first, coding after) from the
beginning. Look what happened there. The FreeOS list started in 1999,
they have produces a pile of words, and not a single line of code.
Worse, not even a line of DOCUMENTATION!
They were all debating over this or that design, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Now, the two cited leaders have this theory: "design first, otherwise
you'll have to face reimplementations".
Well, if you aren't an enterprise you can't afford the design of such a
big application as an OS, simply because people get bored about
designing, and because without a central and strong guide people only
goes on and on debating over the "best" design.
But you can have a good product (and good design) if you're not scared
about reimplementing. That's it: start coding, but keep as open as
possible to change. When you learn enough to think that you didn't take
the right approach, REIMPLEMENT without fear! You'll discover that the
reimplementation will take a tenth of the original implementation, you
will have a better (or "the best") design, and it will be done earlier.
NO AMOUNT OF FORETHOUGHT will give you the necessary mind-clarity about
what you're gonna do.
> Linux was started more than 10 years ago. No doubt that it will take
> long but I prefer to have something that works instead of something
> that works fast but does not perform in the future.
If you have an open source, and you keep sufficiently open while
developing, this is not a problem. Even Linux kernel have changed
radically from the start of its life.
> I personaly doubt that it makes sense to invest time in tools before we
> think about a design. Beside this the JdeBP tools and also GNU utils
> were mentioned already. That's enough about tools IMHO.
The GNU utils don't cut here, and regarding JdeBP, if he doesn't join
the project his work cannot be integrated. Have you ever heard about an
OS that does not have utilities because you have to download another
package from another author?
Sure, Linux uses GNU utilitites, but those are opensource, while JdeBP's
utilties are not.
> Believe me you are wrong. Money definitely counts as well but without
> *very* good relationships to IBM eCS wouldn't exist.
And in fact, eCS isn't what it could be, because IBM is too blind to
give their complete sources to Serenity.
Bye
Cris
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi Adrian,
first of all, please understand that I understand what you mean, and I
would agree with you if we were not in this particular situation.
Second: please (to all), don't start building walls and fences (I won't
do that, that developer won't join, etc.), the OS/2 community is already
enough divided, and with few people in it this could be deadly.
> >When OS/2 2.0 was designed and a few years ahead the team had one
> >of the largest companies in the world backing them up. Also OS/2 was
> >at thet time extremly important for IBM.
> >I heard quotes that IBM spent almost $1 billion on OS2PPC !
>
> so what? Linux wasn't done like this and Be neither I guess (with money
> but with much less).
I know, and I agree with you. The point BTW is that Linux was built upon
an ultra-known design. I, and every other university student with a
background in informatics, have studied the unix design in the classes
about Operating Systems Design. Every student, given enough time, could
write a simple unix kernel in C. Most have done it for their exams.
Linus did more or less this, perhaps toying a little more with his
creation. There was NO other design after his kernel, and his design
wasn't even really smart (simply because the original unix design was
smart only if compared to the available non-mainframe OSes at that
time... and there were very few).
Designing a good OS today from the ground up is entirely a different matter.
Another consideration: on the FreeOS list, the two "leaders" have been
advocating this kind of approach (design first, coding after) from the
beginning. Look what happened there. The FreeOS list started in 1999,
they have produces a pile of words, and not a single line of code.
Worse, not even a line of DOCUMENTATION!
They were all debating over this or that design, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Now, the two cited leaders have this theory: "design first, otherwise
you'll have to face reimplementations".
Well, if you aren't an enterprise you can't afford the design of such a
big application as an OS, simply because people get bored about
designing, and because without a central and strong guide people only
goes on and on debating over the "best" design.
But you can have a good product (and good design) if you're not scared
about reimplementing. That's it: start coding, but keep as open as
possible to change. When you learn enough to think that you didn't take
the right approach, REIMPLEMENT without fear! You'll discover that the
reimplementation will take a tenth of the original implementation, you
will have a better (or "the best") design, and it will be done earlier.
NO AMOUNT OF FORETHOUGHT will give you the necessary mind-clarity about
what you're gonna do.
> Linux was started more than 10 years ago. No doubt that it will take
> long but I prefer to have something that works instead of something
> that works fast but does not perform in the future.
If you have an open source, and you keep sufficiently open while
developing, this is not a problem. Even Linux kernel have changed
radically from the start of its life.
> I personaly doubt that it makes sense to invest time in tools before we
> think about a design. Beside this the JdeBP tools and also GNU utils
> were mentioned already. That's enough about tools IMHO.
The GNU utils don't cut here, and regarding JdeBP, if he doesn't join
the project his work cannot be integrated. Have you ever heard about an
OS that does not have utilities because you have to download another
package from another author?
Sure, Linux uses GNU utilitites, but those are opensource, while JdeBP's
utilties are not.
> Believe me you are wrong. Money definitely counts as well but without
> *very* good relationships to IBM eCS wouldn't exist.
And in fact, eCS isn't what it could be, because IBM is too blind to
give their complete sources to Serenity.
Bye
Cris
Re: Part 5
#143 Re: [osFree] peace. [was:Re: OSFree and our future]
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi Carsten,
THANKYOU very much for your message.
I completely agree, and I think this is the kind of disposition we all
should put in.
Thankyou
Bye
Cris
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi Carsten,
THANKYOU very much for your message.
I completely agree, and I think this is the kind of disposition we all
should put in.
Thankyou
Bye
Cris
Re: Part 5
#144 [osFree] Summing up !
Expand Messages
JMA
Feb 21, 2002
Thanks for all support (most) of your people have given !
I have a pile of letters to my personal mail address that I have yet to answer.
I will when work allows me.
The guys that released the binary distro managed to bring up a storm. It might
have been a dumb or even illegal **but** it did make people react !
So this is how I outline the continued project:
**osFree/Kernel**
A group with people who know how to build a kernel must be started. A few people
has told us they can help and I ask them to form and take the responsibility to
download the alternatives (ReactOS are interested of us).
**osFree/CPI**
The CPI API (Dos/Kbd/Mou/Vio etc.) has to be built.
osFree must have a code that at the OS/2 app side is as compatible as possible
and on the other side interfaces to any kernel. Or rather a layered approach would
be:
--Kernel_glue
--CPI internal code (yes some things are handled here, not only parameter conversion)
--API layer, allow OS/2 binaries to work.
**osFree/Docs**
We have a hosting (os2world.com). Now we need people that can do HTML pages
for it and start documenting things.
**osFree/CMD**
command line tools
I hope the JBP(?) tools will be opened for us. This will save us LOTS of work.
But if you dont understand why a) we need them or b) why they must be opensource,
then either ignore it and do something else or unsubscribe from this list.
**osFree/Build**
The environment for building our sources and how to share them (CVS). I got a name
Mikal Necasak (?) who supposidly knows Watcom and building large stuff !
Can he reply and help with this ??
I think this is how we should start !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Expand Messages
JMA
Feb 21, 2002
Thanks for all support (most) of your people have given !
I have a pile of letters to my personal mail address that I have yet to answer.
I will when work allows me.
The guys that released the binary distro managed to bring up a storm. It might
have been a dumb or even illegal **but** it did make people react !
So this is how I outline the continued project:
**osFree/Kernel**
A group with people who know how to build a kernel must be started. A few people
has told us they can help and I ask them to form and take the responsibility to
download the alternatives (ReactOS are interested of us).
**osFree/CPI**
The CPI API (Dos/Kbd/Mou/Vio etc.) has to be built.
osFree must have a code that at the OS/2 app side is as compatible as possible
and on the other side interfaces to any kernel. Or rather a layered approach would
be:
--Kernel_glue
--CPI internal code (yes some things are handled here, not only parameter conversion)
--API layer, allow OS/2 binaries to work.
**osFree/Docs**
We have a hosting (os2world.com). Now we need people that can do HTML pages
for it and start documenting things.
**osFree/CMD**
command line tools
I hope the JBP(?) tools will be opened for us. This will save us LOTS of work.
But if you dont understand why a) we need them or b) why they must be opensource,
then either ignore it and do something else or unsubscribe from this list.
**osFree/Build**
The environment for building our sources and how to share them (CVS). I got a name
Mikal Necasak (?) who supposidly knows Watcom and building large stuff !
Can he reply and help with this ??
I think this is how we should start !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 5
#145 Re: Fwd: [freeos] ReactOS
Expand Messages
maratcolumn1
Feb 21, 2002
Thank you, this is a very valuable proposal. I'm already trying to
find someone responsible for executable loaders in ReactOS.
I'd ask JMA and local people a little patience while I'll find other
group for this project. If any people are interested in this instead
of OS/2 command line utilities - please contact me at
marat_khalili@... .
Marat.
Expand Messages
maratcolumn1
Feb 21, 2002
Thank you, this is a very valuable proposal. I'm already trying to
find someone responsible for executable loaders in ReactOS.
I'd ask JMA and local people a little patience while I'll find other
group for this project. If any people are interested in this instead
of OS/2 command line utilities - please contact me at
marat_khalili@... .
Marat.
Re: Part 5
#146 Re: [osFree] Summing up !
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi JMA,
> **osFree/CMD**
> command line tools
> I hope the JBP(?) tools will be opened for us. This will save us LOTS of work.
> But if you dont understand why a) we need them or b) why they must be opensource,
> then either ignore it and do something else or unsubscribe from this list.
JdeBP has done the CPI also (a 32bit implementation with unicode
support), so I really hope he is willing to opensource it. I don't see
why he shouldn't, since his tools are already free.
But if he doesn't, than we'll have to redo it.
Bye
Cris
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Feb 21, 2002
Hi JMA,
> **osFree/CMD**
> command line tools
> I hope the JBP(?) tools will be opened for us. This will save us LOTS of work.
> But if you dont understand why a) we need them or b) why they must be opensource,
> then either ignore it and do something else or unsubscribe from this list.
JdeBP has done the CPI also (a 32bit implementation with unicode
support), so I really hope he is willing to opensource it. I don't see
why he shouldn't, since his tools are already free.
But if he doesn't, than we'll have to redo it.
Bye
Cris
Re: Part 5
#147 Re: [osFree] what is and what could be
Expand Messages
JMA
Feb 21, 2002
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:46:00 -0000, poldi42 wrote:
>my first impression yesterday was like some others':
>- a 1:1 clone would be less interesting than a ground-up new build
>based on more recent kernel-technologies
>
Not ground up, all(?) opensource kernels are based on the Unix kernel.
Ask anyone that took advanced computer classes in university.
>thinking about it, I have my mind made up a little different now. some
>ideas:
>- there are a lot more parts of OS/2 lying legally around:
> * DDTK parts,
> * some other toolkits might provide something (mmtk, ...)
> * LVM, BootManager and JFS are Open Source
> * SOM(2.0) as a base for re-implementing the WPS is available
> * SAMBA as a networking stack is available Open Source
> * (small) parts of the WPS got rewritten for XWP
> * AFAIK there is/was a free TCP/IP stack for OS/2 from pre-Warp
>times when you had to buy TCP/IP as a seperate product from IBM.
Yes.
But you need something to run these on.
I DEFINITLY hope someone soon gets hold of the latest BSD (TCPIP)
stack and makes it run on OS/2. That would give us full opensource
tcpip/internet access !
>- using XFee86 on it there would be instant access to a lot of
>graphical software...
>
That should be step one !
Make our kernel/CPI/cmd line tools run xFree and we have an open
OS than can be worked further on.
The unixos2 project are doing somthing similar but choose to use
a closesource comercial OS and API layer (hint from IBM
Together we can do really great things.
>- please consider what Serenety could have done better concerning eCS,
>if they had the sources from IBM (and the manpower to do something
>with it) what comes instantly to my mind is OS/2s/eCS' historically
>grown directory-structure that could have been changed only with
>modificacions to many hard-coded parts of OS/2s subsystems...
>
Had Serenity gotten the source no-one would be here now.
I really wish they had the source but I dont see it as possible in a
long time if ever.
God, I hope Bob and Kim would prove me wrong !
(Dont get your hopes up on this)
>this is IMHO one basic question if it come to the usefullness of such
>a clone: how much better could a distribution like eCS have been made
>with full access to the OS' sources? IMHO a lot.
>
Enourmously better, Kim/Bob are guys that really seek our help.
It would be the next best thing to IBM opensourcing.
But, as I said, dont get your hopes up. Ask Kim or Bob and they will
give you IBM's response to them.
Thanks for your support !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Expand Messages
JMA
Feb 21, 2002
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:46:00 -0000, poldi42 wrote:
>my first impression yesterday was like some others':
>- a 1:1 clone would be less interesting than a ground-up new build
>based on more recent kernel-technologies
>
Not ground up, all(?) opensource kernels are based on the Unix kernel.
Ask anyone that took advanced computer classes in university.
>thinking about it, I have my mind made up a little different now. some
>ideas:
>- there are a lot more parts of OS/2 lying legally around:
> * DDTK parts,
> * some other toolkits might provide something (mmtk, ...)
> * LVM, BootManager and JFS are Open Source
> * SOM(2.0) as a base for re-implementing the WPS is available
> * SAMBA as a networking stack is available Open Source
> * (small) parts of the WPS got rewritten for XWP
> * AFAIK there is/was a free TCP/IP stack for OS/2 from pre-Warp
>times when you had to buy TCP/IP as a seperate product from IBM.
Yes.
But you need something to run these on.
I DEFINITLY hope someone soon gets hold of the latest BSD (TCPIP)
stack and makes it run on OS/2. That would give us full opensource
tcpip/internet access !
>- using XFee86 on it there would be instant access to a lot of
>graphical software...
>
That should be step one !
Make our kernel/CPI/cmd line tools run xFree and we have an open
OS than can be worked further on.
The unixos2 project are doing somthing similar but choose to use
a closesource comercial OS and API layer (hint from IBM
Together we can do really great things.
>- please consider what Serenety could have done better concerning eCS,
>if they had the sources from IBM (and the manpower to do something
>with it) what comes instantly to my mind is OS/2s/eCS' historically
>grown directory-structure that could have been changed only with
>modificacions to many hard-coded parts of OS/2s subsystems...
>
Had Serenity gotten the source no-one would be here now.
I really wish they had the source but I dont see it as possible in a
long time if ever.
God, I hope Bob and Kim would prove me wrong !
(Dont get your hopes up on this)
>this is IMHO one basic question if it come to the usefullness of such
>a clone: how much better could a distribution like eCS have been made
>with full access to the OS' sources? IMHO a lot.
>
Enourmously better, Kim/Bob are guys that really seek our help.
It would be the next best thing to IBM opensourcing.
But, as I said, dont get your hopes up. Ask Kim or Bob and they will
give you IBM's response to them.
Thanks for your support !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 5
#148 Re: OSFree and our future
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Feb 21, 2002
> The FreeOS list started in 1999,
> they have produces a pile of words, and not a single line of code.
> Worse, not even a line of DOCUMENTATION!
>
> They were all debating over this or that design, and did ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING.
I agree, but they DID produce documentation about memory management
design.
Just to set the record strait
Leonardo Pino
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Feb 21, 2002
> The FreeOS list started in 1999,
> they have produces a pile of words, and not a single line of code.
> Worse, not even a line of DOCUMENTATION!
>
> They were all debating over this or that design, and did ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING.
I agree, but they DID produce documentation about memory management
design.
Just to set the record strait
Leonardo Pino
Re: Part 5
#149 Re: [osFree] OSFree and our future
Expand Messages
ShadoW
Feb 21, 2002
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:19:56 +0100, criguada@... wrote:
>And in fact, eCS isn't what it could be, because IBM is too blind to
>give their complete sources to Serenity.
Serenity doesn't has the resources to handle the complete sources.
And the _full_ community wouldn't support Serenity, because it wouldn't be GPL.
It is possible to get some source from IBM. Look at this.
I forward a message from the FreeOS mailing list:
*****************************************************
Hide message history
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:50:11 -0300, Leonardo Pino Werlinger wrote:
>What do you mean?. If the petition is accepted he will help?
No, independently of the petition. He posted that on www.os2.org. I try to translate.
http://de.os2.org/news/?id=42744&newsid=3911&area=1
Before Patrick Haller wrote that IBM did even nowadays more for OS/2 than the left developers
(those who
aren't involved in other OS/2 Open Source projects) could do (e.g. the National Language
Support).
Now Oliver Stone (ostein@...):
*** start of translation ***
I see that similar. After all we aren't in 2006... The problem is, it costs "vast sums" to
prepare the code
for OpenSource and to "pull" it through the legal department... and then the question will
always be, how
many money IBM would earn through it? Had to be more than the publication costs, otherwise
nobody would do
it anyway...
The next question is, which parts of the OS/2 code would profit from opensourcing? In my eyes
above all the
PM, and unfortunately it is not completly free of third party rights... MMPM could be
considered, but
otherwise??
If somebody has interest in (free of charge) development of individual OS/2 components, he
should let me
know, then I'll see what I can do...
*** end of translation ***
Sebastian
Expand Messages
ShadoW
Feb 21, 2002
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:19:56 +0100, criguada@... wrote:
>And in fact, eCS isn't what it could be, because IBM is too blind to
>give their complete sources to Serenity.
Serenity doesn't has the resources to handle the complete sources.
And the _full_ community wouldn't support Serenity, because it wouldn't be GPL.
It is possible to get some source from IBM. Look at this.
I forward a message from the FreeOS mailing list:
*****************************************************
Hide message history
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:50:11 -0300, Leonardo Pino Werlinger wrote:
>What do you mean?. If the petition is accepted he will help?
No, independently of the petition. He posted that on www.os2.org. I try to translate.
http://de.os2.org/news/?id=42744&newsid=3911&area=1
Before Patrick Haller wrote that IBM did even nowadays more for OS/2 than the left developers
(those who
aren't involved in other OS/2 Open Source projects) could do (e.g. the National Language
Support).
Now Oliver Stone (ostein@...):
*** start of translation ***
I see that similar. After all we aren't in 2006... The problem is, it costs "vast sums" to
prepare the code
for OpenSource and to "pull" it through the legal department... and then the question will
always be, how
many money IBM would earn through it? Had to be more than the publication costs, otherwise
nobody would do
it anyway...
The next question is, which parts of the OS/2 code would profit from opensourcing? In my eyes
above all the
PM, and unfortunately it is not completly free of third party rights... MMPM could be
considered, but
otherwise??
If somebody has interest in (free of charge) development of individual OS/2 components, he
should let me
know, then I'll see what I can do...
*** end of translation ***
Sebastian
Re: Part 5
#150 Re: Official WWW ?
Expand Messages
khaverblad
Feb 21, 2002
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
> The website is on its way. It will be hosted on
os2world.com but we need someone
> that can do the pages.
Well, since I can't really support the team with
any developer skills; I can then always start to
build up a basic homepage for osFree so people that
have interest in this project can find
documentation and downloads.
/Kim Haverblad
Expand Messages
khaverblad
Feb 21, 2002
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
> The website is on its way. It will be hosted on
os2world.com but we need someone
> that can do the pages.
Well, since I can't really support the team with
any developer skills; I can then always start to
build up a basic homepage for osFree so people that
have interest in this project can find
documentation and downloads.
/Kim Haverblad