| Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 277 since: 10 Aug, 2004 |
|
21. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
| While I agree the API is important, the one thing which would be offered with binary compatibility is allowing us to keep using all those applications for which the source isn't public, or the source is no longer available. There are a lot of apps which I have installed on various OS/2 machines that I'd love to continue to use *but* if it becomes a matter of needing to recompile them, that's just not likely to happen. Examples include: TrueSpectra's Photo<Graphics, Dadaware's Embellish, AWE (yes, I still use AWE in a lot of web development), the older (but still quite useable, and sometimes will do stuff that the newer version won't do) StarOffice 5.1a, etc... |
| Date: 20 Apr, 2006 on 20:10 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 31 since: 03 Feb, 2004 |
|
22. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
..So Voyager is going to have a 64-bit reproductions of the current GPI and Win API Calls? Are you going to reproduce the bugs (intentionally) so your apps will recompile? What functions are you lumping into "WPS", anyhow? You're going to end up recreating the whole GUI system if you plan on any OS/2 PM apps to recompile and work (which may be none if your API is 64-bit). Remember that there is a difference between PM apps and WPS apps. |
| Date: 20 Apr, 2006 on 21:07 |
|
|
Normal member in user
       posts: 72 since: 29 May, 2001 |
|
23. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
| How easy would it be to obtain OS/2 binary compatability via virtualisation (fx Xen port + installed OS/2) ? And then scrap OS/2 32-bit compatability on Voyager itself, concentrating on new 64-bit API's And would it present an acceptabel solution (Haven't used Xen, haven't the foggiest idea on how it actually works) ?? |
| Date: 21 Apr, 2006 on 16:10 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 31 since: 03 Feb, 2004 |
|
24. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
The problem with binary compataibility is that to do it properly, one would also have to create a 32-bit API that is exacly identical to the IBM version we use now. I suppose something like the ODIN project could be developed to allow us to use the actual DLLs from OS/2, but that, too, would be difficult. The root problem is that no one has made an effort to say what it is that this new version will be. Voyager is focusing on the WPS, however that is only a very small ammount of the puzzle. Linux kernels can give you hardware support, but who's to say what file system will be used? Will there be EAs? Is everyone ready to recompile their kernel when changes need to be made? Spend some time running Slackware Linux and tell me that this is what you want. Unless you just make a pretty window manager for (some) Linux, this is what you will have to look forward to. (Except it will be much worse) Personally, I would be more interested in a entirely new operating system - something that is 64-bit only, and is designed to take advantage of new hardware. Some things can be borrowed from other places, but I think that the only true replacement for OS/2 is something that is truely as ground-breaking and robust as ..OS/2. I am not against the Voyager project - I just think that we need to realise that there is no way we're going to piece-meal an OS out of stuff laying around on the internet ... And it be worth anything. ..Let alone being called the true successor to OS/2. Voyager in itself is a massive undertaking. When I said that there may need to be two (or more) camps of development, I meant that there may need to be a core OS group, and a GUI group. This would follow along the lines of OS/2 1.0. You don't have to worry about hardware support, either. If the design is done properly, new hardware will be simple to add, and with Linux being open source, the handling routines can be easily added. It is very easy to make a device driver. ..It's hard to make an OS/2 device driver because of the lack of information and tools. Remember: The hardest thing to work with is something that someone else made. We're not going to come up with a solution tomorrow. Or next week. I don't even own a 64-bit machine. However, this kind of project, properly managed, will increase interest in OS/2, not decrease. All I have remaining to say is this: IF somone is to make a new OS/2-like OS, let's at least attempt to do it right. I am ready to discuss and move forward. If things work out, even write code. My resources are available. All I need is a catalyst. |
| Date: 21 Apr, 2006 on 19:31 |
|
|
Premium member in user
       posts: 198 since: 10 Apr, 2001
 |
|
25. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
Do you happen to have an application which requires more then 2gb or ram? or is there some other reason you need 64 bit OS? heh.. I've got a sweet athlon64 setup right here, running fine on OS/2. (btw.. it runs better then xp64 speed wise.. though firefox is infinently faster in windows) flywheel (20 Apr, 2006 19:33): Neither OS/2 nor eCS has what you might decribe as a long term based future. I will keep eCS on my desktop (And I've planned to put it on my home server, when I have saved up enough to buy some new hardware). But the thought of going GNU or Mac scares me a little.I personally welcome the Voyager project, and hope that many of you will do that also. It is good that they do not suffer from the dillution that everything have to be written from scratch but want's to reuse as much as possible. 32-bit OS/2 binary compatibility IMO is not immediately necessary, as long as the OS/2 APIs are supported making it possible to recompile the applications for Voyager. But IMO - going for the next world (AMD64) would be prefeable, instead of just replacing one 32-bit system with another.
|
| Date: 23 Apr, 2006 on 04:33 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 31 since: 03 Feb, 2004 |
|
26. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
| Do I have programs which require more than 2GB of ram? Well, no - I use OS/2. |
| Date: 23 Apr, 2006 on 15:21 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 152 since: 16 Aug, 2004 |
 |
27. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
| Very true... I dont have any true Warp (ie: not Win ported) programs that require such massive memory requirements, though I do have a few that use them (or that the capability to is appreciated) such as MySQL, numerous REXX scripts, audio and image editing software, etc. It is nice to know that the apps involved generally take a few megabytes of RAM allowing the rest to be used by them. On another note, to the Voyager team... please work on HPFS/HPFS386 support even if it's as an IFS. JFS would be my second choice, but I still find the HPFS line more stable, and HPFS386 far faster and less quirky in many respects. Everyone else (including me) has already mentioned the thread and process handling in OS/2 that is second to none (out of currently available OS's), as well as it's multi-CPU scaling capabilites... so I wont mention that again. 
- Robert |
| Date: 24 Apr, 2006 on 14:51 |
|
|
Normal member in user
       posts: 72 since: 29 May, 2001 |
|
28. Re:Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
last updated at 24 Apr, 2006 19:51 (1 times)
Sebadoh (23 Apr, 2006 04:33): Do you happen to have an application which requires more then 2gb or ram? or is there some other reason you need 64 bit OS? heh.. I've got a sweet athlon64 setup right here, running fine on OS/2. (btw.. it runs better then xp64 speed wise.. though firefox is infinently faster in windows)
Well actually no - but is that the only reason to embrace AMD64 ? We are talking about the portential birth of a new operating system, whoose binary OS/2 binary compatability most likely will emerge through a Xen solution anyway. I say, if Voyager is going to be a fresh start - lets make it a real fresh start - leaving the struggle of implementing 486xs compatability in the trash can. Also - what is going to stop it from being used in a server role ? Then wouldn't it be nice not to have to alter (AFAIR there is a hack that you can add to your programcode, that circumvend the 2Gb limit.) your applications in order to enable a more-than-2Gb-limit ? Hell no - we won't port our applications to IA64 - Itanic runs IA32 just fine. (OK, a bad example - HAH!) And no - actually everything runs on K6 & K7 processors in this house. |
| Date: 24 Apr, 2006 on 19:26 |
|
|
| Voyager and taking over the world :-) |
|
|
| All times are CET+1. |
< Prev. | P. 1 2 | Next > |
|