| Subject | : | Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 16 Oct, 2006 on 20:03 |
| http://voyager.netlabs.org/ I heard this mentioned at WarpStock Windsor. Could it be a future replacement of OS/2? If it is, perhaps it could be used by eComStation in a future version of eCS? It would be similar to what some companies do with Linux distributions; provide support and other software/support. What do you think? Inquiring minds want to know. BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org |
| Subject | : | Voyager and OSFree work together or in parallel? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 01:28 |
| Could thos working on the Voyager combine or work with those working on the OSFree project? Perhaps they could benefit from each others accomplishments and work in parrallel? What do you think?
--- BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager and OSFree work together or in parallel? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 13:41 |
| Hi BWG; although I would love to see them team up to get things done, I doubt that it is possible at all, because (I'll try to explain it this way): So you basically have two different approaches. Of course there are things they have in common to a certain extent, but not that much: That's the same as if some folks would rebuild a Ford Mustang entirely from scratch while others buy a Chrysler engine and frame that they only put a Mustang chassis on top that they have rebuild from scratch: BTW: Personally, I prefer the Voyager approach. Not only because it's a more "elegant way" but also, because I have doubts about the legal background of an open-source clone of an IBM product... I mean, come on: If you create something that looks like OS/2, works like OS/2 and is BINARY COMPATIBLE with OS/2... which to some extent means "is able to replace OS/2" what would you expect from big blue's lawyers? They wouldn't even give a damn about OS/2 not being manufactured or supported any longer: If they have a copyright, they will protect it (especially if it brings them money...) Benefits of the voyager approach: Among the (few) drawbacks of the Voyager approach, I see the problem with missing backwards compatibilty for OS/2 native code. But in ages of virtualisation technologies everywhere, that shouldn't be a problem OTOH. Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 14:33 |
| I believe that OSFree is using (or trying) to use the L4 kernel. Is this the same of 'starting from scratch'? The L4 kernel is also done some where else ( http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/L4/ ). Would cloning of OS/2 bring legal troubles the same way cloning of Windows would bring legal problems? ReactOS ( http://www.reactos.org ) is doing just that. ReactOS is a project where one can run Win programs without using Windows. Unlike Windows which Microsoft still supports and sells, would IBM be glad that there is a operating system to replace OS/2 since they do not want to support or sell Warp? One would think they would be glad to get all thos OS/2 users off their back(?). Could one benefit from the other? Thank you for your reply.
|
| Subject | : | Home of the L4 Kernel |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 14:46 |
| http://l4hq.org/ "About L4Hq.org This web site should become the central place of information about L4 and L4-related projects. It is hosted by the System Architecture Group at Universität Karlsruhe (TH). You might want to complain about the lack of information on this site. But hey, this is meant to be a community site. And those type of sites live through contributions made by the community. So, feel free to send contributions in HTML to Uwe.Dannowskiira.uka.de. Students at TUD, UNSW, and UKa have direct CVS access to the web pages of this site. Refer to the page editing guidelines for information on how to contribute to this site in CVS. "
|
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | flywheel flywheel@worldonline.dk |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 15:38 |
| Another thing is that OSFree is Open Source - Voyager will be partly closed source. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Chris W. cwmultimedia@cityweb.de |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 18:50 |
Just one single word: BS. There're *no* plans for Voyager being closed source. Not even partly. You won't find any such statements anywhere. Please, please, *please* before commenting read the Voyager pages instead of creating some new rumours and gossip. Regards |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 18 Oct, 2006 on 22:11 |
| Warpcafe did a very good compare/contrast of Voyager and OSFree in my estimation. Must point out, however, that there is no basis for the idea that IBM would have any legal case against OSFree. As BWG points out, ReactOS clones Windows in the same way, and has even gotten quite far with it, and Microsoft has not managed to mount any opposition. Attempts at stopping Samba on legal grounds have failed. There isn't any reason to think IBM would be more aggressive about an OS/2 clone. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 00:12 |
| Actually, the main advantage of the voyager approach is device drivers. OSFree will have to work more to keep up with drivers. If I were in charge of integration of the two projects, then OSFree would use voyager for the kernel and workplace, etc. OSFree would be providing backwards binary compatibility. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Fahrvenugen |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 04:34 |
| On the legal issues, I really don't think IBM cares enough about OS/2 to do anything regarding OSFree. Furthermore, with the legal position that IBM has been taking in the SCO vs IBM lawsuit, with IBM defending its involvement in open source and defending open source in general, I can't see IBM later taking a legal position to try and shut down an open source project. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | flywheel flywheel@worldonline.dk |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 05:53 |
I'm terribully sorry - I've made a mistake. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 06:56 |
This does not really make sense. 1. Voyager does not include drivers or a kernel, but aims to be OS-independent. OSFree cannot use a kernel from a project that does not include a kernel. 2. OSFree endeavors to use the L4 kernel, which can potentially make use of virtualized Linux drivers, so there is no need for OSFree developers to write hardware drivers. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Cris |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 12:04 |
| I frequently think people does not understand or misunderstands the range of the Voyager project. Voyager is trying to recreate some hi-level parts of OS/2, without reinventing the wheel (i.e. using (parts of) widely used open source projects where possible). OSFree is trying to use one of the available open source kernels to (at least initally) rebuild a layer of OS/2-compatible APIs on top of that. Since Voyager is built to be highly portable and fundamentally kernel-agnostic, why shouldn't they be able to cooperate? People often say they don't like Voyager because they don't want to run Linux... but AFAIK NOTHING in the Voyager project says that you will be running on Linux or a Linux kernel. Just my 2 cents. Bye |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 12:16 |
Cris: Absoultely right!! Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 15:21 |
Voyager is like a replacement for the PM (presentation manager)?
|
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Chris W. cwmultimedia@cityweb.de |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 18:15 |
There's even a FAQ entry answering the Linux question: "Is Voyager yet another Linux distribution?" The answer contains "...Since there's no decision for he kernel yet the rumours Voyager would use the linux kernel are just - rumours..." Sigh, what more can you do?? Nobody bothers to check the facts even when putting them directly in front of their faces. But I will add just another FAQ entry... Regards |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 18:26 |
Hi,
You know - when talking about "successor" or "future" of OS/2 or eComStation, people are picky and frightened and get into panic VERY fast. This means, that if you say "kernel", they expect the worst case: Linux. Sorry about describing our community members in that way, but hey... we have proven to be "difficult" in some ways, right? Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 20:47 |
I do not think the word "replacement" is precisely correct as it implies many things that are not strictly true. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 19 Oct, 2006 on 22:15 |
This is why I put it as a question. I will read more of it at the site. Thank you for the reply.
|
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Ben Dragon |
| Date | : | 20 Oct, 2006 on 03:11 |
| Voyager: A new Operating System geared to replace OS/2 and composed of existing Open Source and not yet written technologies . It offers some eCS/OS2 compatibility and feel, reduces driver creation overhead and can utilize new and forthcoming hardware. Source code availability enables ehancement and bug fixing. At least that's my understanding of it. ![]() |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 20 Oct, 2006 on 06:55 |
| I am reminded of a childhood story: http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3 |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 21 Oct, 2006 on 23:03 |
| If they got together and shared their perceptions, perhaps they would have a greater understanding of the elephant? Each would give information from their own perspective in a forum such as this.
--- BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 31 Oct, 2006 on 04:44 |
| Ok. Well writing here only as yet another blind man... Voyager is a road map. It has to be drawn because of recent changes in the status of OS/2. After the end of this year IBM is no longer a responsible developer of OS/2. This makes the already very significant Open Source developers for OS/2, as a group, now the most significant developers of OS/2. With any Open Source project, there is the challenge of maintaining a consensus about its specifications. Each one handles this in a different way. Voyager attempts to use the power of persuasion to put forth a central vision for the future of OS/2, for developers to get on board. The ever painful limitations of the aging base OS are draining and discouraging OSS development efforts. Voyager promises a brighter future by deprecating the base OS and proposing a platform whose beauty and function can reside on any OS. The unique and desireable traits of OS/2 can be quantified, and they can be applied to and with more modern software technology. Voyager promises a more beautiful, more powerful, and more mature implementation of the concepts behind OS/2. Voyager will run on OS/2. But it doesn't have to. These bright promises give OS/2's Open Source developers encouragement to stay in the OS/2 realm. They also give them every reason to conform and contribute to the Voyager vision. Likewise, Voyager depends on the conformance and contributions of the developers. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net |
| Date | : | 31 Oct, 2006 on 07:58 |
| The biggest problem being that OS/2 barely runs at all anymore. In the past 6 months I have had more non-hardware related crashes I have had over the past 13 years running OS/2. (it may be more, don't quote me on that). Especially apps like firefox and thunderbird which refuse to even run at the same time. It is quite silly actually. I like the skyos answer.. which is they made them a folder class =) yeah, think about that.. a half finished alpha of a probably never to be finished OS has a feature which sounds more like something OS/2 should have then the OS it exists in, but OS/2 doesn't. Without IBM, OS/2 is finished. I doubt alot that Serenity has the money it requires to get service contracts with IBM. Still running ecs.. though I find myself often thinking of replacements. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 31 Oct, 2006 on 08:42 |
| Sebadoh: As I have had no such crashes in the past 6 months, logic would seem to indicate that your problem is not with OS/2 because it is localized to your PC. It also seems an illogical leap to find a resolution to the problem in wrapping Mozilla applications a folder class. Further, it is highly unclear what any of what you said has to do with BWG's question about Voyager. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 31 Oct, 2006 on 10:01 |
| Hi, I must admit that I need all my strength to stay calm... okay...:
Assuming you didn't change your hardware the last 13 years, I agree. Otherwise: What makes you sure that it's not a picky memory chip on a module? A bad solder point on your motherboard? A temperature flaw in your controller? And don't tell me "any other OS is running fine on that machine..."
Now THAT is nothing you can blame the OS for, neither your machine. It's a porting/build known limitation. However it can even be worked-around if you look into the common threads/forums a bit deeper. And - heck - even if not: I personally give a damn as I'm running SeaMonkey (aka the Mozilla Suite). If I need a browser AND a mail client, what is the sense then in taking 2 "standalone" programs if I can get a better all-in-one?? I didn't like that hype that was made about the LITTLE brothers of the suite. Since they came out, I look into the options dialogs from time to time and... still they cannot cope with the features of the suite. Point. I can only recommend you to try SeaMonkey instead.
Oh come on! No, no, no: Severe error here: OS/2 is finished BECAUSE OF IBM. Not because of Microsoft, not because of Linux, MacOS or anything else, not even because of the f***ing climate change, nope, Sir: It's only because of IBM, their arrogance, their errors, their neglects, their contracts, their ignorance and their stupidity.
Good lord! WHAT do you think is the reason that eCS exists? Serenity HAS GOT these contracts with IBM, otherwise they couldn't act as a "large customer" and come up with a "distro" on their own. The problem is that with the end-of-life, these contracts sooner or later are not even worth the paper their were printed on anymore. And this is why we need a FUTURE solution. Finally, well.... honestly: What do you do? Are you using an operating system? No. What you use is programs. So to hell with operating systems. Did anyone give a damn about Linux being under the hood of OS X? No. They didn't. It was sold millions of times because it "looked like Mac" and worked. Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 31 Oct, 2006 on 19:06 |
| Very well said warpcafe. One correction, though. Linux is not under the hood of OS X. Darwin is a BSD variant. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Jay jocke_pirat@lycos.com |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 01:42 |
| I just hope that I, along with the developers of OsFree, can reinvigorate this dead project. If Voyager and OsFree combine their efforts to make the clone, that would be fine with me as long as they can differentiate themselves from each other and the only difference not ending up being their 2 different locations like half the Linux distros. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Lee lwriemen@frogooa.com |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 03:32 |
Yes. If I was only interested in the applications, I would have left OS/2 a long time ago. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 07:14 |
This is a very valid point. However it depends on definitions. What is an operating system? I don't think warpcafe is saying the general user experience of OS/2, as compared to other platforms, is irrelevant. Rather I think he is intending to separate what we actually use from the underlying mechanics. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 11:47 |
Right, obiwan. I am running OS/2 (or rather eCS) because of its GUI and security features - although I have to admit that if millions of people would be running it, there would perhaps also be more viruses for it Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | melf mikaelelf@os2ug.se |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 17:05 |
I just have to agree with that. For my part, half of my engagement in OS/2 eComStation is about real things like multitasking capability, wps, responsiveness and beeing able to run with smaller resources and so on. The other half is psychology: identity, idealisation, its like a crazy love or like hanging to an old ideology...one you don't want to let go.
|
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Ben Dragon |
| Date | : | 01 Nov, 2006 on 18:35 |
| To me it boils down to one simple, overarching thing; ease of use. Everyone I know has countless troubles running Windows or whichever. They're worried to death about virii, about security flaws, about pushing their system too hard, about being able to afford the latest, cutting edge equipment just for acceptable performance, about stability, and about whether or not their updating software is gonna neutralize their, their, (bought and paid for), OSUsing eCS/OS2 quite simply, makes all those problems moot.I don't want a computer as a make-work project, I have enough work to do, I want it as a functional, transparent tool... something you can rely upon to do the job and is easy on the nerves. I know of no other OS that does this, though there are differing levels of success.--- ![]() |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Lee lwriemen@frogooa.com |
| Date | : | 02 Nov, 2006 on 03:42 |
I consider the underlying mechanics as the operating system. The WPS is just a GUI; the best GUI, but I don't think WPS on Windows would be as enjoyable as WPS on OS/2. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Lee lwriemen@frogooa.com |
| Date | : | 02 Nov, 2006 on 03:49 |
Please don't perpetuate that security myth the Windows crowd likes to state as fact. Most of the reasons Windows is so vulnerable lies in the implementation of Windows and not in the marketshare of Windows. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Lee lwriemen@frogooa.com |
| Date | : | 02 Nov, 2006 on 04:04 |
I went through the PC wars (Atari, Commodore, Apple, IBM PC, etc.) and the OS wars. In neither war did the best technology win. OS/2 is a reminder of what could have been, and a last stand. WPS on another OS is settling for something less. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 02 Nov, 2006 on 07:31 |
| I have to agree with Lee on all these points. But one question remains. OS/2 for PowerPC used a variant of the Mach kernel and replaced most of the "underlying OS." It allegedly performed very well and the GUI was nearly indistinguishable from the x86 version. Would not such a microkernel base be an improvement over what OS/2 has now? |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Lee lwriemen@frogooa.com |
| Date | : | 03 Nov, 2006 on 03:14 |
It's an interesting question. From the article at http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os2ppc/index.html |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | zman zirkle@wizard.net |
| Date | : | 03 Nov, 2006 on 11:12 |
| this is all very nice; but, i doubt time will stand still long enough for the applications. the advent of lucide gave a reprieve to the os/2 systems my company runs. our technical documents generally require reader version 6 or better. soon flash version seven will be useless due to version eight. this is a short list of essential apps for the future: current native java apps i have that need replacement: ceres sound studio i've looked into an intel mac; but, til virtualpc runs on it, i'll stick it out a little longer with os/2. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 03 Nov, 2006 on 14:26 |
Would OS/2 for PowerPC have a greater chance of being open sourced? Perhaps it could be the basis for both Voyager and OSFree?
|
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | Fahrvenugen |
| Date | : | 03 Nov, 2006 on 18:31 |
| From what I understand, there would be fewer licensing issues for IBM to open-source OS/2 for the PPC then there are with the Intel version of OS/2. IBM did a lot of the development of the PPC version internally, so presumably they own most of that code. On the other hand word has it that there were a lot of external developers who contributed code to the Intel version of OS/2, so open sourcing that code would require a lot more effort and money. But the real difficulty that I see is that for IBM to open source *any* code relating to OS/2, there needs to be a *strong business case* for doing so. IBM is a business, they are not going to invest time and money to open source code unless they can see a strong *business reason* for open sourcing that code, and that business case needs to include a return on their investment (the cost of open sourcing the code at a minimum). To understand what I'm talking about, just look at some of the code they have chosen to open source. Example: JFS: Remember that JFS originally came from AIX and was ported to OS/2. When IBM did eventually open source JFS for use in Linux, they used the OS/2 code base (which had been improved from the AIX base), however they took the OS/2 specific stuff out of it (at least that's what I understand). But what's the business case and return on investment for open sourcing JFS? Simple. It allows companies who have a big investment in AIX who were asking about Linux to be able to use Linux and keep the same file system. Less worry for those companies. IBM gets to keep them as AIX customers and if they play their cards right they'll be able to gain contracts to maintain those Linux systems. It makes sense, and the return on the investment compared to the cost of open-sourcing JFS is probably quite significant. Object REXX: Keep in mind that REXX was originally designed to offer a cross-platform scripting language, which could run on IBM mainframes, servers, and other IBM offerings. By open sourcing Object REXX it can help to ensure that Linux (or any other OS for that matter) can have an up to date implementation of REXX, helping to give continued life to those IBM mainframes and servers by helping to ensure that REXX stuff can run on the latest Linux boxes and the older IBM stuff. Again, it keeps the customers happy, and is more likely to keep them with IBM. The reality is, I havn't yet seen a strong *business case* for open sourcing PPC OS/2. It would cost IBM money to do this, and if I were an IBM manager, I'd ask "what return on our investment will we get by open sourcing this code?". Remember that PPC OS/2 had almost no customer base. I'm sure the PM, SOM, and WPS code would be useful in trying to get a WPS equivelant running on top of another kernel. But in my opinion before IBM even considers releasing this code, the question that needs to be answered is "how would this benefit IBM?" What return would they get for offering this code? How would it help keep current IBM customers with IBM, how would it bring something to Linux (keeping in mind that IBM's current strategy is based on Linux) that would be a benefit to IBM customers considering Linux? And how could it bring new customers to IBM? So far I havn't seen any of these questions really adequately answered, and as long as they remain unanswered, I think it is unlikely that any of this code will be released. Of course I could be wrong. |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 03 Nov, 2006 on 19:31 |
Hey, Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 04 Nov, 2006 on 02:38 |
I believe this question of ability to run the current set of "essential apps" for continued interoperability with the rest of the world is one of the big reasons for the Voyager push. Importing these things to OS/2 is becoming increasingly difficult. So both Voyager and OSFree aim, in their respective ways, to export "OS/2 goodness" to a place where it can be experienced with native or near-native compatibility with other platforms. Voyager, by being in itself not bound to a single OS, and OSFree by basing it on a microkernel with broad virtualization possibilities. Neither seems to expect that the Adobes and Suns of the world will embrace it as yet another port target. |