| Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
|
1. Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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
|
| Date: 16 Oct, 2006 on 20:03 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
 |
2. Voyager and OSFree work together or in parallel? |
|
|
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
|
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 01:28 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
3. Re:Voyager and OSFree work together or in parallel? |
|
|
| 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): While OSFree tries to recreate OS/2 from scratch (especially its kernel), the Voyager project tries to "rebuild the WPS on top of a different OS kernel" - like Apple did with MacOS X for example. 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: Basically, you end up with a home-made Mustang but there's different work "under the hood" so to say;-). What they have in common is, that it takes a lot of work and folks need to be mechanics. 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: - "Less" work for developers because kernel is done "somewhere else" - more up to date (contemporary kernel: 64bit, etc...) - legally safer (kernel is proven (L)GPL etc.) - better choice/quality in toolkits, docs, compilers - there's more people knowing about programming for Linux than OS/2 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 Thomas |
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 13:41 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
 |
4. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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.
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org
|
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 14:33 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
|
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. "
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org
|
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 14:46 |
|
|
Premium member in user
       posts: 72 since: 29 May, 2001 |
|
6. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| Another thing is that OSFree is Open Source - Voyager will be partly closed source. |
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 15:38 |
|
|
Premium member in spoc
       posts: 24 since: 14 May, 2002 |
|
7. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
flywheel (18 Oct, 2006 15:3 : Another thing is that OSFree is Open Source - Voyager will be partly closed source.
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 |
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 18:50 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 164 since: 30 Aug, 2006
 |
|
8. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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. |
| Date: 18 Oct, 2006 on 22:11 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 135 since: 21 Mar, 2003 |
|
9. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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. |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 00:12 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 277 since: 10 Aug, 2004 |
|
10. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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. |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 04:34 |
|
|
Premium member in user
       posts: 72 since: 29 May, 2001 |
|
11. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
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.
I'm terribully sorry - I've made a mistake. I must have been tired, I spent an hour reading the DOV document, on the way home from work. |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 05:53 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 164 since: 30 Aug, 2006
 |
|
12. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
abwillis (19 Oct, 2006 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.
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. |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 06:56 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 124 since: 20 Nov, 2003
 |
|
13. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| 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? I don't mean cooperate at the team level.. I don't think that's possible or even a good thing. But nothing prohibits to use the OSFree kernel to run the Voyager desktop. 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 Cris |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 12:04 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
14. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
Cris (19 Oct, 2006 12:04): 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.
Cris: Absoultely right!! I cannot tell HOW MANY times I've heard people talking about "Voyager means Linux". I must admit that I also thought "L4 is Linux" at first because I didn't hear of it before. I think netlabs should take the occasion to stress and make clear that there's no mandatory Linux with Voyager - maybe by calling it "VNU" for "Voyager's Not Linux" ? ) Greetings Thomas |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 12:16 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
|
15. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
Cris (19 Oct, 2006 12:04): Since Voyager is built to be highly portable and fundamentally kernel-agnostic, why shouldn't they be able to cooperate? I don't mean cooperate at the team level.. I don't think that's possible or even a good thing. But nothing prohibits to use the OSFree kernel to run the Voyager desktop.Bye Cris
Voyager is like a replacement for the PM (presentation manager)?
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org
|
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 15:21 |
|
|
Premium member in spoc
       posts: 24 since: 14 May, 2002 |
|
16. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
warpcafe (19 Oct, 2006 12:16):
Cris (19 Oct, 2006 12:04): 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.
Cris: Absoultely right!! I cannot tell HOW MANY times I've heard people talking about "Voyager means Linux". I must admit that I also thought "L4 is Linux" at first because I didn't hear of it before. I think netlabs should take the occasion to stress and make clear that there's no mandatory Linux with Voyager - maybe by calling it "VNU" for "Voyager's Not Linux" ? ) Greetings Thomas
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 |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 18:15 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
17. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
Chris W. (19 Oct, 2006 18:15): 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...
Hi,  what I meant is maybe a very "rude" way instead: For papers and docs meant for "OS/2"-people. simply put a LARGE sentence on top at the first page: Voyager is not Linux.
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. and they stop reading (and thinking...) immediately to have free resources to start complaining, whining, yelling and creeping. At that point, they are so close to suicide or at least total refuse of anything that you can tell whatever you want - they won't listen anymore. Just like cattle on a stampede. So it's VERY important to make everyone understand the most idiot detail AT FIRST. Sorry about describing our community members in that way, but hey... we have proven to be "difficult" in some ways, right?  Greetings Thomas |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 18:26 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 164 since: 30 Aug, 2006
 |
|
18. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
BigWarpGuy (19 Oct, 2006 15:21): Voyager is like a replacement for the PM (presentation manager)?
I do not think the word "replacement" is precisely correct as it implies many things that are not strictly true. |
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 20:47 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
|
19. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
obiwan (19 Oct, 2006 20:47):
BigWarpGuy (19 Oct, 2006 15:21): Voyager is like a replacement for the PM (presentation manager)?
I do not think the word "replacement" is precisely correct as it implies many things that are not strictly true.
This is why I put it as a question. I will read more of it at the site. Thank you for the reply.
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org
|
| Date: 19 Oct, 2006 on 22:15 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 139 since: 15 Apr, 2004
 |
|
20. Re:Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
last updated at 20 Oct, 2006 03:25 (1 times) 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.
|
| Date: 20 Oct, 2006 on 03:11 |
|
|
| Voyager; Future Replacement of OS/2? |
|
|
| All times are CET+1. |
< Prev. | P. 1 2 3 | Next > |
|