OS2 World Forum

Public Discussions => Off Topic discussions => Topic started by: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28

Title: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf (http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf)
"IBM and name-brand Linux operating system distributors Red Hat, Novell and Canonical/Ubuntu have disclosed their intentions to join forces with their hardware partners to create what they are calling "Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "

I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  8)
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.11, 23:29:53
Hey BigWarpGuy,

Re:

Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf (http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf)
"IBM and name-brand Linux operating system distributors Red Hat, Novell and Canonical/Ubuntu have disclosed their intentions to join forces with their hardware partners to create what they are calling "Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "

I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  8)

I firmly believe that there are certain experiences to be gained from participating in international sports (games) such as those like the Summer Olympics...; and, if there are things to be learned by this IBM collaboration with the Linux Distributions - "Red Hat, Novell and Canonical/Ubuntu..." then our company for one will be only too willing to wait and see if there is anything (are any experiences) that IBM will be "bringing back" to the OS/2 platforms. And, while we are at this, I believe that there are some already established arrangements between Microsoft and the "Linux" distributor - Novell.  8)

Kindest regards,

SAB
   
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: El Vato on 2008.08.11, 23:59:41
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28

[...]"Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "


BWG...let me just say that I was part of a given event at LinuxWorld 2008 related to your topic, where the the OS/2 issue was raised by an distinguished lady who purportedly had participated in the promotion of OS/2 in bygone years. 

She questioned whether the commitment to the recent release of IBM Lotus product family for the small to medium business (SMB), --like Lotus Connections (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/connections/), Lotus BlueHouse (https://bluehouse.lotus.com/) [Software as a Service (SaaS) offering], and Lotus Foundations (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/smb/build-your-business/)-- was indeed taken seriously and not happen as the OS/2 infamous example (of dropping support in the heat of the battle).  And the answer by the representative was somewhat as follows:

"Whereas the interface of other operating systems was refined and done by professional graphical user interface (GUI) designers (I recall his paradigm was the usual drivel about the BSD-based operating system GUI tainted by the apple's DRM/proprietary worm), that (GUI) of the OS/2 [with the orange color galore1] looked as if a couple of guys with a six pack had designed it.  And when they where done they stood back, looked at it and said, 'Yea!!!'"

When one observes, first hand, this kind of denigration of the OS/2 by the parent organization marketing representatives, one has to realize that:
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  8)

is simply an illusion (if you are thinking about support from those business entities involved in the statement that you quoted).

As is usually the case in herd behaviour, after such statement, there was the giggling/laughing noise of some/many in the audience who wanted to appear gracious to their hosts.

Evidently, the OS/2 beast is chained to a wall and against an approaching spade.

1Evidently, he was referring to Warp 3 and/or Warp 4 Server (based in the Warp 3 kernel).  Possibly this fellow never even tried (or it was convenient to leave out) subsequent OS/2 versions Warp 4 client and/or WSEB --which had a lot of blue embedded in the GUI.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 00:46:21
Re:

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.08.11, 23:59:41
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28

[...]"Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "


BWG...let me just say that I was part of a given event at LinuxWorld 2008 related to your topic, where the the OS/2 issue was raised by an distinguished lady who purportedly had participated in the promotion of OS/2 in bygone years. 

She questioned whether the commitment to the recent release of IBM Lotus product family for the small to medium business (SMB), --like Lotus Connections (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/connections/), Lotus BlueHouse (https://bluehouse.lotus.com/) [Software as a Service (SaaS) offering], and Lotus Foundations (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/smb/build-your-business/)-- was indeed taken seriously and not happen as the OS/2 infamous example (of dropping support in the heat of the battle).  And the answer by the representative was somewhat as follows:

"Whereas the interface of other operating systems was refined and done by professional graphical user interface (GUI) designers (I recall his paradigm was the usual drivel about the BSD-based operating system GUI tainted by the apple's DRM/proprietary worm), that (GUI) of the OS/2 [with the orange color galore1] looked as if a couple of guys with a six pack had designed it.  And when they where done they stood back, looked at it and said, 'Yea!!!'"

When one observes, first hand, this kind of denigration of the OS/2 by the parent organization marketing representatives, one has to realize that:
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  8)

is simply an illusion (if you are thinking about support from those business entities involved in the statement that you quoted).

As is usually the case in herd behaviour, after such statement, there was the giggling/laughing noise of some/many in the audience who wanted to appear gracious to their hosts.

Evidently, the OS/2 beast is chained to a wall and against an approaching spade.

  • The parent organization does not want to open source it --yet it promotes other products at the OS/2 expense.
  • The current sacred cows X or Y (to satisfy those who raise issues) are unable to bring it to meet modern challenges --yet with their outrageous pricing, effectively leave OS/2 out of the reach of those who would have the potential to rejuvenate and hack the internals of the operating system.
  • The two previous issues lead to the next conclusion: those prevent new blood from participating in the OS/2 experience; and those stifle enhancements to the operating system potential enabled by greater participation.

1Evidently, he was referring to Warp 3 and/or Warp 4 Server (based in the Warp 3 kernel).  Possibly this fellow never even tried (or it was convenient to leave out) subsequent OS/2 versions Warp 4 client and/or WSEB --which had a lot of blue embedded in the GUI.

If, there is one good thing about the U.S. Constitution "El Vato" - Then, you did not have to partake of the same "beverages" that the so-called company representative had partaken of. Hey; after all, the Summer Olympics are on and this time around it is "LENOVO" doing the sponsoring.

And, an "ROLLS ROYCE ENGINE" (and, OS/2 like Elvis) will always be an ROLLS ROYCE ENGINE (OS/2 like Elvis). And, from all appearances these must have been cases in which "share holder's value" must have been given priority over "engineering excellence...". I think you get the drift!  ;D 8) ;D

Best regards,

SAB
   
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: El Vato on 2008.08.12, 01:38:12
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 00:46:21
Re:

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.08.11, 23:59:41
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28

[...]"Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "
[...]As is usually the case in herd behaviour, after such statement, there was the giggling/laughing noise of some/many in the audience who wanted to appear gracious to their hosts.

[...]

[...]Then, you did not have to partake of the same "beverages" that the so-called company representative had partaken of.[...]

Where does it say that I was engaged in the same "beverages" partaking ???

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 00:46:21

[...] like Elvis[...] I think you get the drift!  ;D 8) ;D

Best regards,

SAB
   

The only Elvis I know of is my editor under XFRee86/2 and Linux/Unix's X Windows  :)

(http://read.jpg)
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 03:36:53
Re:

QuoteWhen one observes, first hand, this kind of denigration of the OS/2 by the parent organization marketing representatives, one has to realize that:
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  Cool

is simply an illusion (if you are thinking about support from those business entities involved in the statement that you quoted).

Also,

QuoteWhere does it say that I was engaged in the same "beverages" partaking  ???

Well, if the above quoted does not appear like a person with their hands on their heads.. then, what does? But then again, did we not hear that there is every likely hood that VOYAGER (also, with the possibility of CASSINI too) arriving. (Hint, Hint.... Contact Has Been Made) ;D  ;D  ;D

Regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 07:44:24
Re:

QuoteThe only Elvis I know of is my editor under XFRee86/2 and Linux/Unix's X Windows  :)

And, not to be off-topic.... So, where is the beef (the 64-bit OS/2 Alpha-Codes).

Quote

The Patriot Missile Failure

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html


What a rainy night in "Georgia" (according to yet another distant artiste) with Elvis not being the only one being dead (like OS/2) and still making money for their owners like (IBM) (sic); "beverages", "beverages", (like water, water...) everywhere and none to drink! ???

Substituting "beverages", "beverages" for
QuoteXFRee86/2 and Linux/Unix's X Windows

And, as to why the OS/2 World Foundation in general has apparently put the issues with IBM with regards to enhancements to OS/2 on the "back-burner" is any one's guess.  8)

Regards.

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: El Vato on 2008.08.12, 20:06:35
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 03:36:53
[...]
QuoteWhere does it say that I was engaged in the same "beverages" partaking  ???

Well, if the above quoted does not appear like a person with their hands on their heads.. [...]


No...the above quoted does not appear like a person with their hands on their heads...SAB

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 07:44:24
[...] with Elvis not being the only one being dead (like OS/2) and still making money for their owners like (IBM)

Well the multi-platform Elvis editor (http://elvis.the-little-red-haired-girl.org/) is free to be used for coding/development by individuals and enterprises even if those lack venture capital funding.  Additionally, the editor --being open source-- is not benefiting any entity from an closed source restriction, like in the OS/2 case.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 07:44:24
(sic); "beverages", "beverages", (like water, water...) everywhere and none to drink! ???

Substituting "beverages", "beverages" for
QuoteXFRee86/2 and Linux/Unix's X Windows
[...]

And those "beverages" that derive from the Penguin can be partaken as is relevant to any business relationship with other entities.  Further, and continuing with your interpretaion of those above as "beverages", those have the potential to reinvigorate the OS/2.   Hence, do not close yourself to that possibility.

Sometimes you have to realize that one has to adapt to business strategies traced by one of the biggest puppies in the block and there should not be hard feelings.  Rather than spitting on those "beverages" --that now you associate with open source, learn to drink from those to enhance further your goals.  That is the value proposition that the Penguin offers commercial vendors, small and large alike.  In other words, when the Penguin does not offer any advantage in the market, it too, will be discarded.

I hope that with the above I have provided my opinion on the PM that you left me SAB.

Best regards.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
Hi El Vato,

You said inter alia:

Quote

Well the multi-platform Elvis editor is free to be used for coding/development by individuals and enterprises even if those lack venture capital funding.  Additionally, the editor --being open source-- is not benefiting any entity from an closed source restriction, like in the OS/2 case.


Your point is well taken; but, like it is with the case of the "eComStation Distribution"... why re-invent the "wheel". If Dr. Bernhard and his medical team could have succeeded in substituting the "heart" of a dying man then what is sooooo.... difficult that the world's best computer engineers and scientists cannot provide OS/2 with a new and improved "KERNEL"... but; then again we may have to name it OS/3, OS/4, OS/5.....  ;)

In any case - what has "functionality" (like in the case of the "human heart") got to do with whether its development is "Proprietary" or "Open-Source"? What did the "banks" knew then (when IBM recommended migration to Linux); also, what do they know now that they are not opening up the "vaults" to the "Team With (of) Linux Vendors on (with) 'Microsoft-Free' PCs"! You get the "90% Plus Market Share OOXML" Desktop picture. ???

And, by today's economic conditions (food, energy...) throughout the world - there is a factor to be considered; and, that is called - The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)! "Linux" (the Penguin Beverages) may be for free but its (their) services offerings are not!  8)

Regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: ModZilla on 2008.08.13, 00:07:33
THE sound of it RINGS TRUE, if its trully Blue, TRUE BLUE, that is ...so when you are MS free does that mean you are finally cured?
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 06:30:15
So it appears...

Re:

Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.13, 00:07:33
THE sound of it RINGS TRUE, if its trully Blue, TRUE BLUE, that is ...so when you are MS free does that mean you are finally cured?

Also;

Quote

Countries need to spend more to prevent food crisis from deepening poverty 

http://www.iadb.org/NEWS/articledetail.cfm?language=EN&parid=4&arttype=WS&artID=4718


And;

Quote

Golden Code Development

http://www.goldencode.com/corp/about.html


From the above three scenarios with one reflecting "Blue" and another "Gold" I believe that after reading about the
Quotenewly-released numbers on the potential impact of food prices by Inter-American Development Bank
should the choice of "color" for some people not be "green" for "Enterprise Warp" instead of "blue" or "gold"; and, instead of the word "cured"... how about "freedom" (having been released from being locked-in) by the Redmond captors over the years.  ;)

Best regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: El Vato on 2008.08.13, 10:53:04
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
Hi El Vato,
[...]
Dr. Bernhard [...]

I am not familiar with the fellow ...SAB

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
then what is sooooo.... difficult that the world's best computer engineers and scientists cannot provide OS/2 with a new and improved "KERNEL"...

When a tree has a caretaker and produces fruit, you will have many visitors who adulate the tree and compliment the caretaker.  Those will show an interest in the well being of the tree by removing some of the bugs around the fruit.

On the other hand, when the OS/2 tree has been left to wither by its caretaker no one gives a hoot, let alone the "best computer engineers and scientists."  Moreover, even if some cared to bring  back the OS/2 tree to life, its proprietary encapsulation prevents any meaningful enhancements --in effect restricting those fruits to personal use and not shared for the benefit of others.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
but; then again we may have to name it OS/3, OS/4, OS/5.....  ;)

In the proprietary scene, you do not have the flexibility and/or legal right to name others' creations by your choice.  You call those what name they were given (or licensed to be given) --this is not an either/or proposition.

If the OS/2 were open source, then, you can call your hack distribution whatever you want.  For instance, operating system X is a name given to a tainted BSD-based distribution.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
In any case - what has "functionality" (like in the case of the "human heart") got to do with whether its development is "Proprietary" or "Open-Source"?

The focus is not necessarily on the functionality aspect; the issue is more about who or what controls that functionality and its relevance to individual choice --as opposed to the large (or small) herd collective imposing their will upon you.

As a way of example, I might cite the glaring practices of proprietary vendors in the relatively nascent industry in the X86 space: that of virtualization.  Citrix (and possibly VmWare) offers free as in beer, as well as subscription based, a GNU/Linux-based virtualization layer that they call XenServer.  But in order to take advantage of that resource to create and manipulate all your virtual machines, you must have at least an proprietary operating system from MS, their most important partner, to control those virtual entities.  In other words, the functionality comes secondary to control.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
And, by today's economic conditions (food, energy...) throughout the world - there is a factor to be considered; and, that is called - The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)! "Linux" (the Penguin Beverages) may be for free but its (their) services offerings are not!  8)

Well, this simply shows that the MS massive anti-Linux campaign in online e-publications has began to penetrate your psyche.  It is an old issue, really, and it depends on the customers' and/or users' technical abilities and/or time dedicated to manage an IT infrastructure. 

This is where open source concept really shines, nonetheless.  If you are an user with relatively no computer experience, try Ubuntu --free download and free updates.  If you are a medium experienced computer user, try OpenSuSE and or Fedora  --free download and free updates.  If you are a relatively technical fellow, try Debian --free download and free updates.  The schemes above will be suitable even for small to medium business (SMBs).

Notwithstanding, if you want to be hand-held during your installation, use, and maintenance of your GNU/Linux derived software, you have the choice to buy a subscription from Cannonical, Novell, or any other provider of such like Metztli IT.  Needless to say, medium to large business entities demand a strict quality of service and will not settle for anything less than a fee-based subscription business model.  Why do you think that Symphony, based on the free OpenOffice, came to life ???

Furthermore, if you are the finicky kind, you have an immense variety of GNU/Linux based distributions that will likely satisfy that "finickyness" property.

Based on all of the above, I think that you will agree that an definite TCO( alluded in past/present  MS GNU/Linux massive bashing campaigns) is really an variable quantity that depends on the time, technical abilities, level of service desired, etc., etc., of the GNU/Linux adopters.

Would it not be cool to adapt and/or customize the OS/2 to just the right target user base, instead of offering a one size fits all offering ???

Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
Re:

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.08.13, 10:53:04
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
Hi El Vato,
[...]
Dr. Bernhard [...]

I am not familiar with the fellow ...SAB

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
then what is sooooo.... difficult that the world's best computer engineers and scientists cannot provide OS/2 with a new and improved "KERNEL"...

When a tree has a caretaker and produces fruit, you will have many visitors who adulate the tree and compliment the caretaker.  Those will show an interest in the well being of the tree by removing some of the bugs around the fruit.

On the other hand, when the OS/2 tree has been left to wither by its caretaker no one gives a hoot, let alone the "best computer engineers and scientists."  Moreover, even if some cared to bring  back the OS/2 tree to life, its proprietary encapsulation prevents any meaningful enhancements --in effect restricting those fruits to personal use and not shared for the benefit of others.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
but; then again we may have to name it OS/3, OS/4, OS/5.....  ;)

In the proprietary scene, you do not have the flexibility and/or legal right to name others' creations by your choice.  You call those what name they were given (or licensed to be given) --this is not an either/or proposition.

If the OS/2 were open source, then, you can call your hack distribution whatever you want.  For instance, operating system X is a name given to a tainted BSD-based distribution.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
In any case - what has "functionality" (like in the case of the "human heart") got to do with whether its development is "Proprietary" or "Open-Source"?

The focus is not necessarily on the functionality aspect; the issue is more about who or what controls that functionality and its relevance to individual choice --as opposed to the large (or small) herd collective imposing their will upon you.

As a way of example, I might cite the glaring practices of proprietary vendors in the relatively nascent industry in the X86 space: that of virtualization.  Citrix (and possibly VmWare) offers free as in beer, as well as subscription based, a GNU/Linux-based virtualization layer that they call XenServer.  But in order to take advantage of that resource to create and manipulate all your virtual machines, you must have at least an proprietary operating system from MS, their most important partner, to control those virtual entities.  In other words, the functionality comes secondary to control.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.12, 21:49:01
And, by today's economic conditions (food, energy...) throughout the world - there is a factor to be considered; and, that is called - The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)! "Linux" (the Penguin Beverages) may be for free but its (their) services offerings are not!  8)

Well, this simply shows that the MS massive anti-Linux campaign in online e-publications has began to penetrate your psyche.  It is an old issue, really, and it depends on the customers' and/or users' technical abilities and/or time dedicated to manage an IT infrastructure. 

This is where open source concept really shines, nonetheless.  If you are an user with relatively no computer experience, try Ubuntu --free download and free updates.  If you are a medium experienced computer user, try OpenSuSE and or Fedora  --free download and free updates.  If you are a relatively technical fellow, try Debian --free download and free updates.  The schemes above will be suitable even for small to medium business (SMBs).

Notwithstanding, if you want to be hand-held during your installation, use, and maintenance of your GNU/Linux derived software, you have the choice to buy a subscription from Cannonical, Novell, or any other provider of such like Metztli IT.  Needless to say, medium to large business entities demand a strict quality of service and will not settle for anything less than a fee-based subscription business model.  Why do you think that Symphony, based on the free OpenOffice, came to life ???

Furthermore, if you are the finicky kind, you have an immense variety of GNU/Linux based distributions that will likely satisfy that "finickyness" property.

Based on all of the above, I think that you will agree that an definite TCO( alluded in past/present  MS GNU/Linux massive bashing campaigns) is really an variable quantity that depends on the time, technical abilities, level of service desired, etc., etc., of the GNU/Linux adopters.

Would it not be cool to adapt and/or customize the OS/2 to just the right target user base, instead of offering a one size fits all offering ???


Hi El Vato,

From the way this is written... If nothing else one would conclude that you appear to have vested interest in the acceptance of a certain product line; but, it was not our company that helped the "banks"...

QuoteIBM, Bankers at Odds Over OS/2 Migration Path
Vendor advises OS/2 users to switch to Linux, but ATM makers are leading push to Windows

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html


with their decision to go in the direction of their choosing so much so that by you saying -
QuoteWell, this simply shows that the MS massive anti-Linux campaign in online e-publications has began to penetrate your psyche
you are concluding that this is true to circumstances as well as to fact in my/our own case which may very well be further from such a conclusion than you know.

BTW, Professor Christiaan Barnard (oops, spelt "Barnard" and not "Bernhard") is known to have
Quoteperformed the first human heart transplant on the third of December 1967

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/your_gov/5972/pubs/public_info/C/99478

.

The above reference to "Professor Christiaan Barnard" was made in the context that neither "Windows" nor "Linux" was the first Operating System in the world thereby demonstrating the fact that there can be a "work around" (by-pass to) the so-called (OS/2 Code-Base).

But, as the saying goes - "Whilst The Grass Is Growing The Horses Are Starving" (it all about the time we all seem to spend debating these issues and not getting down to the "real development work" that needs to be done)!  ???

And; with regards to

QuoteWhen a tree has a caretaker and produces fruit, you will have many visitors who adulate the tree and compliment the caretaker.  Those will show an interest in the well being of the tree by removing some of the bugs around the fruit.

What happens when that "tree" (OS/2) bears no "fruit" (makes no money for IBM et al) at all? Also, just when will this be taking some lessons from the "first human heart transplant operation". ???

There are certain determinants other than ourselves that are called - "Market Forces"!

Regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: El Vato on 2008.08.14, 05:35:28
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
Re:[...]

Hi El Vato,

From the way this is written... If nothing else one would conclude that you appear to have vested interest in the acceptance of a certain product line;

I have adapted to those market forces that you quote below.  And guess what ???  MS has began to realize that open source is an unstoppable force (or it has decided to implement another strategy instead of Ballmer's  IP FUD).   Ramji Says Microsoft's Heart Is in Open Source (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=423&nr=LOS) and *because* of that MS has become an platinum Apache sponsor (http://www.crn.com/software/209601097). 

Hummm ...interesting.  At a virtualization session that I attended at LinuxWorld 2008, given by an MS employee, he described his company's strategy that I could essentially summarize as follows: at one extreme support the ubiquitous Apache, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python web stack natively under Windows (that he called WAMP, but wait!  Did not the W stand for Warp ???);  or it could be Windows, IIS, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python; 

At the other extreme, if MS customers desired (or had already deployed)  GNU/Linux distributions, they expected to virtualize those customers' environments under their WinServer 2008 providing their proprietary operating system infrastructure as the management foundation.  If the conversion was not pragmatically feasible, then their partner GNU/Linux distributor, Novell, would virtualize their Win environments. That way MS could cover, albeit in a limited manner since it has only partnered with Novell, many situations where GNU/Linux were deployed or preferred.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
but, it was not our company that helped the "banks"...

QuoteIBM, Bankers at Odds Over OS/2 Migration Path
Vendor advises OS/2 users to switch to Linux, but ATM makers are leading push to Windows

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html


with their decision to go in the direction of their choosing so much so that by you saying -
QuoteWell, this simply shows that the MS massive anti-Linux campaign in online e-publications has began to penetrate your psyche
you are concluding that this is true to circumstances as well as to fact in my/our own case which may very well be further from such a conclusion than you know.

Recently, I visited a well known bank in San Francisco and handed out my business card.  The person on the other end read it and replied, as if by joking, "Well, how is Linux doing, I do not see it anywhere around here."  My reply: "its embedded in the infrastructure of the Internet together with Unix.  When you browse the Web, there is more than 50% likelihood that the page you are receiving comes from Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python (LAMP) stack.  What you see around is the client (WinXX) but you are using Linux everyday."

Point:  Open Source Software (OSS) was initially rejected by the capitalist mindset precisely because no one owns it.  However, since 1998, Big Blue and Oracle lead the way by gradually enabling their enterprise grade software to run on GNU/LInux.  And it is quite possible that those financial institutions business officers, from the low to the high end of the hierarchy, do not even know that their foundational business infrastructure is run on GNU/Linux.  So much for rejecting it initially for their client facing ATMs.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
BTW, Professor Christiaan Barnard (oops, spelt "Barnard" and not "Bernhard") is known to have
Quoteperformed the first human heart transplant on the third of December 1967

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/your_gov/5972/pubs/public_info/C/99478

.

The above reference to "Professor Christiaan Barnard" was made in the context that neither "Windows" nor "Linux" was the first Operating System in the world thereby demonstrating the fact that there can be a "work around" (by-pass to) the so-called (OS/2 Code-Base).

Indeed it is true.  Notwithstanding, (and using your own statement) "why reinvent the wheel."  And even if reinventing it were the way to go, where is the incentive for those "world's best computer engineers and scientists" to engage in the task ???

Nothing is created in a vacuum: GNU/Linux is a clone of Unix --that is Unix was used as an template.  What template will be used for a "new" OS/2 ???


Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
But, as the saying goes - "Whilst The Grass Is Growing The Horses Are Starving" (it all about the time we all seem to spend debating these issues and not getting down to the "real development work" that needs to be done)!  ???

Nobody is tying the fingers of anyone to start the task ...as far as I can tell.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
And; with regards to

QuoteWhen a tree has a caretaker and produces fruit, you will have many visitors who adulate the tree and compliment the caretaker.  Those will show an interest in the well being of the tree by removing some of the bugs around the fruit.

What happens when that "tree" (OS/2) bears no "fruit" (makes no money for IBM et al) at all? Also, just when will this be taking some lessons from the "first human heart transplant operation". ???
Why, it dies, of course! (a Briton would exclaim) and life goes on...

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
There are certain determinants other than ourselves that are called - "Market Forces"!
[...]
SAB


You follow the puck wherever those market forces take it, SAB.  As a captain of your own little ship you need to maneuver through those --engaging the help of the open source, like the GNU/Linux Penguin, using a similar strategy as the big puppies.  Hint:  check out a Lotus Foundations partnership --you do not have to know a great deal of GNU/Linux initially to benefit from the integrated product.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.14, 08:34:11
Re:

Quote from: El Vato on 2008.08.14, 05:35:28
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
Re:[...]

Hi El Vato,

From the way this is written... If nothing else one would conclude that you appear to have vested interest in the acceptance of a certain product line;

I have adapted to those market forces that you quote below.  And guess what ???  MS has began to realize that open source is an unstoppable force (or it has decided to implement another strategy instead of Ballmer's  IP FUD).   Ramji Says Microsoft's Heart Is in Open Source (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=423&nr=LOS) and *because* of that MS has become an platinum Apache sponsor (http://www.crn.com/software/209601097). 

Hummm ...interesting.  At a virtualization session that I attended at LinuxWorld 2008, given by an MS employee, he described his company's strategy that I could essentially summarize as follows: at one extreme support the ubiquitous Apache, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python web stack natively under Windows (that he called WAMP, but wait!  Did not the W stand for Warp ???);  or it could be Windows, IIS, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python; 

At the other extreme, if MS customers desired (or had already deployed)  GNU/Linux distributions, they expected to virtualize those customers' environments under their WinServer 2008 providing their proprietary operating system infrastructure as the management foundation.  If the conversion was not pragmatically feasible, then their partner GNU/Linux distributor, Novell, would virtualize their Win environments. That way MS could cover, albeit in a limited manner since it has only partnered with Novell, many situations where GNU/Linux were deployed or preferred.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
but, it was not our company that helped the "banks"...

QuoteIBM, Bankers at Odds Over OS/2 Migration Path
Vendor advises OS/2 users to switch to Linux, but ATM makers are leading push to Windows

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html


with their decision to go in the direction of their choosing so much so that by you saying -
QuoteWell, this simply shows that the MS massive anti-Linux campaign in online e-publications has began to penetrate your psyche
you are concluding that this is true to circumstances as well as to fact in my/our own case which may very well be further from such a conclusion than you know.

Recently, I visited a well known bank in San Francisco and handed out my business card.  The person on the other end read it and replied, as if by joking, "Well, how is Linux doing, I do not see it anywhere around here."  My reply: "its embedded in the infrastructure of the Internet together with Unix.  When you browse the Web, there is more than 50% likelihood that the page you are receiving comes from Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl-PHP-Python (LAMP) stack.  What you see around is the client (WinXX) but you are using Linux everyday."

Point:  Open Source Software (OSS) was initially rejected by the capitalist mindset precisely because no one owns it.  However, since 1998, Big Blue and Oracle lead the way by gradually enabling their enterprise grade software to run on GNU/LInux.  And it is quite possible that those financial institutions business officers, from the low to the high end of the hierarchy, do not even know that their foundational business infrastructure is run on GNU/Linux.  So much for rejecting it initially for their client facing ATMs.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
BTW, Professor Christiaan Barnard (oops, spelt "Barnard" and not "Bernhard") is known to have
Quoteperformed the first human heart transplant on the third of December 1967

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/your_gov/5972/pubs/public_info/C/99478

.

The above reference to "Professor Christiaan Barnard" was made in the context that neither "Windows" nor "Linux" was the first Operating System in the world thereby demonstrating the fact that there can be a "work around" (by-pass to) the so-called (OS/2 Code-Base).

Indeed it is true.  Notwithstanding, (and using your own statement) "why reinvent the wheel."  And even if reinventing it were the way to go, where is the incentive for those "world's best computer engineers and scientists" to engage in the task ???

Nothing is created in a vacuum: GNU/Linux is a clone of Unix --that is Unix was used as an template.  What template will be used for a "new" OS/2 ???


Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
But, as the saying goes - "Whilst The Grass Is Growing The Horses Are Starving" (it all about the time we all seem to spend debating these issues and not getting down to the "real development work" that needs to be done)!  ???

Nobody is tying the fingers of anyone to start the task ...as far as I can tell.

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
And; with regards to

QuoteWhen a tree has a caretaker and produces fruit, you will have many visitors who adulate the tree and compliment the caretaker.  Those will show an interest in the well being of the tree by removing some of the bugs around the fruit.

What happens when that "tree" (OS/2) bears no "fruit" (makes no money for IBM et al) at all? Also, just when will this be taking some lessons from the "first human heart transplant operation". ???
Why, it dies, of course! (a Briton would exclaim) and life goes on...

Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.13, 17:47:56
There are certain determinants other than ourselves that are called - "Market Forces"!
[...]
SAB


You follow the puck wherever those market forces take it, SAB.  As a captain of your own little ship you need to maneuver through those --engaging the help of the open source, like the GNU/Linux Penguin, using a similar strategy as the big puppies.  Hint:  check out a Lotus Foundations partnership --you do not have to know a great deal of GNU/Linux initially to benefit from the integrated product.

All of the above does very little for many others besides our company; and, here is why in a few simple words - "Economic Rate of Return (ERR) Functionality that is not yet integrated in 360 Plus (and counting) brands (kinds) of medicines (Linux Distributions) in additions to all of the various iterations of Windows. All of this having to do with a few additional simple words; namely: Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). So much kudos for that "one" little "blue" (eCS) pill that was unfortunately not available in time to give "Indelible Blue" a "booster shot" when it needed one! ;D

Besides, given that (in as much as) that the world's first recipient of another's heart did not survive; but, the Journaling File System -JFS (a functional organ of the "OS/2" body; and, not forgetting the financial life support taken away from OS/2) apparently will live on despite your ; re:
QuoteWhy, it dies, of course! (a Briton would exclaim) and life goes on...
perpetually.

Let us hope that as the years go by that the "OS/2 genes" in both Windows and Linux do not become the dominant ones.

Notice carefully how as people get older how they seem to take on the features/characteristics of their parents.  8)

Hopefully, there will be eComStation still around to provide the "DNA samples".  ;D

Best regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.15, 03:26:34
I am hoping eComStation never becomes eGoneStation.  ;D
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.15, 04:54:00
Whooaaahhh....!

Re:

Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.15, 03:26:34
I am hoping eComStation never becomes eGoneStation.  ;D

That was cool BigWarpGuy  ;) Are you saying that "eComStation" might become "eGoneStation" without the giving us the 64-bit performance by the time "Windloze 7" arrives in 2010  ???

Quote

Windows 7 details to come in October

In an interview with CNET News in May, Sinofsky did disclose a few details--namely that it would use the same driver model and basic kernel approach as Windows Vista and that the company wanted the whole thing on the market by January 2010, three years after the mainstream release of Windows Vista. Microsoft also showed in May a glimpse at a new multi-touch interface that will be part of Windows 7.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10017441-56.html?tag=nefd.top


Best regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.15, 20:40:33
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.15, 04:54:00
Whooaaahhh....!

Re:

Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.15, 03:26:34
I am hoping eComStation never becomes eGoneStation.  ;D

That was cool BigWarpGuy  ;) Are you saying that "eComStation" might become "eGoneStation" without the giving us the 64-bit performance by the time "Windloze 7" arrives in 2010  ???

64 bit does not translate into performance in most cases. It translates into more (easily) addressable resources. Heck, 64bit isnt even required to access memory to 64GB (the Intel chipset already supports that on all PII and up using 36bit addressing).

The few places that a speed increase come in are in using 64bit structures (and related instructions)... the CPU only has to do one operation instead of two (to oversimplify). In cases like Windows64, there has been no noticeable speed improvement (there has been a slowdown noted though).

As a high availability, high load server, yes, eCS needs 64bit support (or some pretty intelligent programs to make up for the lack thereof)... for instance, I should be able to have 10,000 concurrent web connections running on a 4way SMP box - but the system can only handle up to 4095 threads, and that many connections would make extensive use of the disks (without me being able to set a cache size high enough).

It might also help in the rendering arena (ie: CGI/3D)... but nothing currently applies for eCS (NeoN has since stopped being made for OS/2 - or maybe entirely? - and Blender has yet to be ported from Linux to OS/2).

For the home user, I doubt it matter.

-Rob
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.16, 02:37:29
Not to mention anything other than serving data that would require that ammount of addressable memory would be most surely multimedia or 3d related, and eCS simply is beyond atrophied in those arenas. No hardware graphical acceleration for 3d rendering, no OpenGL, no DirectX, no FireWire, no hardware Overlay, etc etc etc. Robert hit it just right, 64-bit is not really an important thing yet, but it will be soon. Just like SMP is a big buzzword, but few OSs and programs are properly multi threaded to take advantage of SMP.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.16, 07:38:24
Re:

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.15, 20:40:33
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.15, 04:54:00
Whooaaahhh....!

Re:

Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.15, 03:26:34
I am hoping eComStation never becomes eGoneStation.  ;D

That was cool BigWarpGuy  ;) Are you saying that "eComStation" might become "eGoneStation" without giving us the 64-bit performance by the time "Windloze 7" arrives in 2010  ???

64 bit does not translate into performance in most cases. It translates into more (easily) addressable resources. Heck, 64bit isnt even required to access memory to 64GB (the Intel chipset already supports that on all PII and up using 36bit addressing).

The few places that a speed increase come in are in using 64bit structures (and related instructions)... the CPU only has to do one operation instead of two (to oversimplify). In cases like Windows64, there has been no noticeable speed improvement (there has been a slowdown noted though).

As a high availability, high load server, yes, eCS needs 64bit support (or some pretty intelligent programs to make up for the lack thereof)... for instance, I should be able to have 10,000 concurrent web connections running on a 4way SMP box - but the system can only handle up to 4095 threads, and that many connections would make extensive use of the disks (without me being able to set a cache size high enough).

It might also help in the rendering arena (ie: CGI/3D)... but nothing currently applies for eCS (NeoN has since stopped being made for OS/2 - or maybe entirely? - and Blender has yet to be ported from Linux to OS/2).

For the home user, I doubt it matter.

-Rob

Just to repeat,

Quote64 bit does not translate into performance in most cases. It translates into more (easily) addressable resources. Heck, 64bit isnt even required to access memory to 64GB (the Intel chipset already supports that on all PII and up using 36bit addressing).

The few places that a speed increase come in are in using 64bit structures (and related instructions)... the CPU only has to do one operation instead of two (to oversimplify). In cases like Windows64, there has been no noticeable speed improvement (there has been a slowdown noted though).

Well, in as much as you are quite entitled to your own views there is also the "Court (School) of Public Opinion"; and, if the following real world examples (and; there can be many more of such):

Quote

1. The Patriot Missile Failure

On February 25, 1991, during the Gulf War, an American Patriot Missile battery in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, failed to track and intercept an incoming Iraqi Scud missile. The Scud struck an American Army barracks, killing 28 soldiers and injuring around 100 other people. Patriot missile A report of the General Accounting office, GAO/IMTEC-92-26, entitled Patriot Missile Defense: Software Problem Led to System Failure at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia reported on the cause of the failure. It turns out that the cause was an inaccurate calculation of the time since boot due to computer arithmetic errors. Specifically, the time in tenths of second as measured by the system's internal clock was multiplied by 1/10 to produce the time in seconds. This calculation was performed using a 24 bit fixed point register. In particular, the value 1/10, which has a non-terminating binary expansion, was chopped at 24 bits after the radix point. The small chopping error, when multiplied by the large number giving the time in tenths of a second, led to a significant error. Indeed, the Patriot battery had been up around 100 hours, and an easy calculation shows that the resulting time error due to the magnified chopping error was about 0.34 seconds. (The number 1/10 equals 1/24+1/25+1/28+1/29+1/212+1/213+.... In other words, the binary expansion of 1/10 is 0.0001100110011001100110011001100.... Now the 24 bit register in the Patriot stored instead 0.00011001100110011001100 introducing an error of 0.0000000000000000000000011001100... binary, or about 0.000000095 decimal. Multiplying by the number of tenths of a second in 100 hours gives 0.000000095×100×60×60×10=0.34.) A Scud travels at about 1,676 meters per second, and so travels more than half a kilometer in this time. This was far enough that the incoming Scud was outside the "range gate" that the Patriot tracked. Ironically, the fact that the bad time calculation had been improved in some parts of the code, but not all, contributed to the problem, since it meant that the inaccuracies did not cancel....

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

2. The Explosion of the Ariane 5

On June 4, 1996 an unmanned Ariane 5 rocket launched by the European Space Agency exploded just forty seconds after its lift-off from Kourou, French Guiana. Ariane explosion The rocket was on its first voyage, after a decade of development costing $7 billion. The destroyed rocket and its cargo were valued at $500 million. A board of inquiry investigated the causes of the explosion and in two weeks issued a report. It turned out that the cause of the failure was a software error in the inertial reference system. Specifically a 64 bit floating point number relating to the horizontal velocity of the rocket with respect to the platform was converted to a 16 bit signed integer. The number was larger than 32,767, the largest integer storeable in a 16 bit signed integer, and thus the conversion failed....

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html


serves to convince others and not you so much so that when the "international standards" in relation to the issues of "INTEGER OVERFLOW" (as were pointed out in the above examples) are established then this action at the international level would have demonstrated the recognized need for the "64-bit capabilities" being talked about; and, that which will undoubtedly "inform the judgment" of folks like myself.

To repeat an old adage - "Out Of One - Many; and, Out Of Many - One"!  8)

Regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.17, 20:32:56
SAB:

That's a programming error - not a need for 64bit CPUs. If such were the case, JFS would not work as it does with OS/2. You cannot use an programming error as justification for such a need...

Well, you can... but just like the "court of public opinion" it is entirely irrelevant. So... now that you know that, you can stop citing that same missile failure (which is programming error - oversimplified to something else) as you now hopefully understand the difference. 32bit CPUs have been handling 64bit values for quite some time - they just do it in more than one stage. And as JFS proves, there doesnt have to be a performance decrease in doing so.

Robert

Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.17, 21:54:50
Hi RobertM,

Re:

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.17, 20:32:56
SAB:

That's a programming error - not a need for 64bit CPUs. If such were the case, JFS would not work as it does with OS/2. You cannot use an programming error as justification for such a need...

Well, you can... but just like the "court of public opinion" it is entirely irrelevant. So... now that you know that, you can stop citing that same missile failure (which is programming error - oversimplified to something else) as you now hopefully understand the difference. 32bit CPUs have been handling 64bit values for quite some time - they just do it in more than one stage. And as JFS proves, there doesnt have to be a performance decrease in doing so.

Robert


Mindful of the "subject heading"... I am somewhat obliged to make a review of earlier posts concerned with this thread; but, in order to respond to your
QuoteWell, you can... but just like the "court of public opinion" it is entirely irrelevant. So... now that you know that, you can stop citing that same missile failure (which is programming error - oversimplified to something else) as you now hopefully understand the difference.
So, given the tendencies for people to forget somethings sometimes only to experience "disaster"... :( ; therefore, I may not at this time find it possible to be in agreement with you that the cases cited are rather oversimplified examples; but, as I had earlier mentioned there can me many more examples.

Re:

Quote

64-bit Programming and Optimization

There are several CPUs and operating systems on the market natively supporting 64-bit operations and adressing. This mode is especially beneficial for scientific and engineering applications dealing with big amounts of data. Probably the major advantage of the 64-bit mode is that huge address space is becoming available. Program can allocate twice more memory; easily maintain large database files, etc. There are also certain performance optimization advantages. Most of the articles on 64-bits computing concentrate on ability to address more than 4GB of memory. Current edition of BM  library does not address memory issue, but rather concentrates of performance aspects. The ability of 64-bit CPUs to perform bitwise operations 64 bits at a time can and must be exploited.

http://bmagic.sourceforge.net/bm64opt.html

64-Bit CPUs: What You Need to Know

Branches: Going Out On a Limb

The longer the pipeline, the bigger the train wreck if the processor mispredicts a branch. And Itanium has a fairly long pipeline, so the potential for performance-robbing disaster looms ever large. Predicting branches takes on paramount importance and to that end, IA-64 has a number of tricks to help it avoid the dreaded mispredicted branch.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1155604,00.asp


and, I for one would like to err on the side of "the court of public opinion" and "caution" and avoid "disasters" like the ones mentioned above.

Good luck to you.

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 00:01:03
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.08.17, 21:54:50
Hi RobertM,

Re:

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.17, 20:32:56
SAB:

That's a programming error - not a need for 64bit CPUs. If such were the case, JFS would not work as it does with OS/2. You cannot use an programming error as justification for such a need...

Well, you can... but just like the "court of public opinion" it is entirely irrelevant. So... now that you know that, you can stop citing that same missile failure (which is programming error - oversimplified to something else) as you now hopefully understand the difference. 32bit CPUs have been handling 64bit values for quite some time - they just do it in more than one stage. And as JFS proves, there doesnt have to be a performance decrease in doing so.

Robert


Mindful of the "subject heading"... I am somewhat obliged to make a review of earlier posts concerned with this thread; but, in order to respond to your
QuoteWell, you can... but just like the "court of public opinion" it is entirely irrelevant. So... now that you know that, you can stop citing that same missile failure (which is programming error - oversimplified to something else) as you now hopefully understand the difference.
So, given the tendencies for people to forget somethings sometimes only to experience "disaster"... :( ; therefore, I may not at this time find it possible to be in agreement with you that the cases cited are rather oversimplified examples; but, as I had earlier mentioned there can me many more examples.

32bit CPUs and operating systems, have, for the longest time, handled 64bit data structures (or larger). Period. And done it well. Period. The issue you listed is poor programming. Period. What you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. Reality does not care what you or anyone else thinks. Reality just is. And that (in teal above) is reality.

The "court of public opinion" truly doesnt matter. Think what you will. The Earth is not flat - no matter how much of the populace ("court of public opinion") thought it was.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.18, 05:13:32
Hi RobertM,

For convenience I thought that I would quote the initial comment on this thread by BigWarpGuy which reads as follows:

Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.08.11, 19:20:28
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf (http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=rear%20view%20camera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf)
"IBM and name-brand Linux operating system distributors Red Hat, Novell and Canonical/Ubuntu have disclosed their intentions to join forces with their hardware partners to create what they are calling "Microsoft-free personal computing choices."  "

I wish this 'Microsoft-free personal computing choices' would include OS/2-eCS.  8)

Hence my views for enhancements (including the development of 64-bit capabilities for the OS/2 Warp Server and Client Operating Systems to match those of the Linux, Windows... environments.

While in you latest comment you have said;

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 00:01:03

32bit CPUs and operating systems, have, for the longest time, handled 64bit data structures (or larger). Period. And done it well. Period. The issue you listed is poor programming. Period. What you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. Reality does not care what you or anyone else thinks. Reality just is. And that (in teal above) is reality.

The "court of public opinion" truly doesnt matter. Think what you will. The Earth is not flat - no matter how much of the populace ("court of public opinion") thought it was.

As can be clearly read from the attached information
Quote64-bit CPUs have existed in supercomputers since the 1960s and in RISC-based workstations and servers since the early 1990s. In 2003 they were introduced to the (previously 32-bit) mainstream personal computer arena, in the form of the x86-64 and 64-bit PowerPC processor architectures....

Pros and cons

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. This is not entirely true:

    * Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GB of RAM. This restriction is not present in 64-bit operating systems.
    * Memory-mapped files are becoming less useful with 32-bit architectures, especially with the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
    * Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit


In any case just why the apparent argument against the development of 64-bit capabilities for OS/2 when "64-bit PowerPC processor architectures" are already here.

BTW, in addition to the above quoted Pros and cons I will find it questionable not to want to "surf the "64-bit waves" just like the other surfers do"; and, as BigWarpGuy said in his opening comment - I would wish that my "64-bit skies" are OS/2-eComStation branded ones while surfing in the sea/ocean of "'Microsoft-Free' PCs".  8)

Quote

http://www.cnet.com/topic/64-bit-cpu.html


Best regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 05:20:52
It's just not feasible for OS/2. We don't have the source to the kernel! How can you not grasp this?
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 05:44:37
Hi SAB:

You have just quoted more common misconceptions. First, WinXP32 (and earlier) can address up to 64GB of RAM... not up to 4GB. They are artificially limited there by Microsoft - you just need to add the /PAE switch to the kernel which uses the Intel's 36bit memory addressing (oops, it isnt 32bit is it? It hasnt been for a long time - even in their older "fully" 32bit CPUs).

Heck, even OS/2 can address up to 64GB of memory - IBM just never implemented that support in the APIs or made it available in the kernel (without difficulty from a programming perspective) which pretty much once again makes people think that it too can only address 4GB.

The problem arises from a few things. One, MS doesnt enable it by default (maybe it is even buggier than their 32bit memory accessing APIs?). Two, 99% of people ("court of public opinion") dont know that Windows 32bit is capable of it on all but the most ancient (Pentium One) computers.


Oddly, one thing that you will notice is that OS/2 runs with far more free memory on the same 4GB system, while using 32bit memory addressing mode... Vista is limited to about 3GB (the rest being assigned - supposedly - to other hardware's addresses), while OS/2 seems to make virtually the entire 4GB available (at least it does on my Netfinity).

So once again, it's just another misperception. Check out the EDM/2 articles on the kernel design, or look up /PAE NT kernel for confirmation.

So, my argument stands - regardless of the "court of public opinion's" beliefs.

Robert
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 06:02:15
But OS/2 runs out of shared memory regardless of how much free RAM you have, and that's an annoyance I should never have to bear. You may call XP buggy, but that's an issue I've never had there, even with my paltry 2gb of RAM.

But yes, XP can address 64gb of RAM as Robert described, and it's also not a huge deal. Yes, 64-bit can improve performance as it is basically 2 32bit instructions per clock, but it really isn't necessary on a platform like OS/2 that just doesn't support the apps that would benefit it.

Hell, if you want 128bit processing, grab yourself a Dreamcast and load up linux and fly away on its 200mhz CPU :P

Actually, I wonder if eCS can boot on a dreamcast? Hrmm...
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.18, 07:25:31
Hi Saijin_Naib,

Re:

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 05:20:52
It's just not feasible for OS/2. We don't have the source to the kernel! How can you not grasp this?

One might suppose that it all depends how the situation could be approached and since

QuoteOS/2 PPC was a hybrid halfway between Warp 3 and Warp 4. The user interface looked like Warp 3, but many of the features of OS/2 PPC later showed in Warp 4 on Intel. One of them was the not very popular Feature Installer:

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os2ppc/index.html

In 2003, BAE SYSTEMS Platform Solutions delivers the Vehicle-Management Computer for the F-35 fighter jet. This platform consists of dual PowerPCs made by Freescale in a triple redundant setup

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/F-35_Lightning-1.jpg/800px-F-35_Lightning-1.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC


and this;

Quote

OS/2 Meets 64-bit Opteron

Performance

So what about performance? Well, here are some comparisons running the same OS/2 software on an Athlon XP 1700+ system and the Opteron system.

Rendering the POVRAY v3.5 demo on Virtual PC 5.1 required 5.5 seconds on the Opteron 240 versus 7.9 seconds on the Athlon XP 1700+. The StarOffice desktop loaded in about 7 seconds versus 11 seconds on the XP 1700 system. Launching the Win-OS2 desktop required 3.8 seconds on the Opteron 240 versus 5.5 seconds on the Athlon XP 1700. Generally speaking, the Opteron performance was very good. The OS/2 desktop was particularly snappy and responsive in the 1280 x 1024 mode with 16M colors which may have been a benefit of the dual-channel DDR memory of the system or the video card or both.

The bottom line for the Opteron system is that OS/2 will run very well on it with no apparent compatibility issues other than the memory issue for DOSCALL1. I have been using the system for nearly a month and it has been a very stable and smooth performer. So why purchase a 64-bit system rather than a 32-bit system? Well, the biggest reason is that 64-bit stuff is likely to become available sometime during the expected 3-year life of the machine so the machine will be more useful during its life if it has the capability to run in 64-bit mode. It is even possible that 64-bit OS/2 plugins might become available at some point or even...(hey we can hope, can't we?), a 64-bit OS/2 kernel. Also, AMD is moving to having all of their processors be X86-64 so it is likely that at some point you will be buying one of these if you buy an AMD processor. If so, it appears that you can be confident that it will run OS/2 with very nice performance and compatibility.

http://www.os2ezine.com/20030916/page_6.html


"Never say never"!  8)

Regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 16:31:02
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 06:02:15
But OS/2 runs out of shared memory regardless of how much free RAM you have, and that's an annoyance I should never have to bear. You may call XP buggy, but that's an issue I've never had there, even with my paltry 2gb of RAM.

Ah yes, but shared memory arena is something else entirely... which has been addressed to some extent via using the VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT statement in OS/2. And of course, keep in mind, Vista's exhorbitant memory footprint makes 32bit memory access an even worse joke. I'm still trying to find out whether Vista still supports /PAE addressing. Everything I have found so far points to XP and earlier.


Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 06:02:15
But yes, XP can address 64gb of RAM as Robert described, and it's also not a huge deal. Yes, 64-bit can improve performance as it is basically 2 32bit instructions per clock, but it really isn't necessary on a platform like OS/2 that just doesn't support the apps that would benefit it.

Ah... but there's the other misconception... a 64bit CPU running a 64bit OS can only run two 32bit instructions if the OS is designed to handle such (and, in the case of XP, Vista, etc; the app as well). So instead, a 64bit CPU with a 64bit OS (such as XP 64, Vista 64) actually run slightly slower when using 32bit apps.

A 64bit app on it could theoretically run faster - but that happens if the 32bit version was making use of 64bit data structures... instead of more than one 32bit instruction (or cycle) on the 32bit OS, the instruction now gets done in a single 64bit one.

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.08.18, 06:02:15
Hell, if you want 128bit processing, grab yourself a Dreamcast and load up linux and fly away on its 200mhz CPU :P

Actually, I wonder if eCS can boot on a dreamcast? Hrmm...

It would be nice...  :D
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 16:33:52
"It is even possible that 64-bit OS/2 plugins might become available at some point or even..."

Hmmm... my favorite one is called JFS...  ;)
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: ModZilla on 2008.08.18, 16:37:37
dont want to get too deep ::) here or renegade this thread, but I will take a shot even as I am no code warrior ;D  and I may add...after a somewhat breif perusal-too bad really microsoft just dozint get out of the hardware business ala cart. I know they could do it and they now build and plan to market their own smart chipped mobos; why? You tell me! Bubble memory was squelched by MS in the mid 80's as it would have resulted in a totally different standard to build upon, not xX86. We wouldnt be talking MS free PC vs . [and/or] openSOURCE "anything" .../as the opposion would be MS A_NON...)and all their registry crap(...they would like nothing better than to control the hardware AND software market direction which I beleive MS is attempting to do and which BTW is why IBM is spending buku on the LINUX connection with their large- servers dev,  et al. Its not that Balmers image turned upside down makes a pretty good, err bad um likeness to BEEZEL_BUB, its that NTFS still has so much control itself over what goes on consequently with your computer when you insta VISTA/XP? MS is not trying to get rid of the 8/16 bit architecture or even DOS completely, not really, they just dont want people seeing the console button, hence learning what you can do to a network over a command line hack session)dont get me started on XP installs though why do they warn you not to use NTFS if installing "OTHER" Oses on the same machine...me, I am in favor of a multi boot platform VM loader on every machine,  as a universalist :-*,  dont want to step on anyones toes... :'(  furthermore, before I go completely 'planet Z'- I would personally like to thank Rob for his posts and insight therein/therupon, I liked the part of one of your post as: i.e., your reference to NeoN [no longer...or?] for OS/2-NEVER HEARD of it so I did some searching, and found "[NeoN] can construct 3D objects by combining simple shapes, or by extruding or spinning 2D curves..." reminds one of AutoCAD v10 or IGDS

MZ
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 16:47:33
Something interesting I found on another forum... someone there is claiming OS/2 was modified ages ago to support PAE mode...

http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=7281787

The post is by "Old Salt" near the end of the page...

I dont think it accurate though (unless it is a more recent change than 1999/200), since various Netfinity units from that time said in their docs that OS/2 was limited to 4GB even though the systems were limited to 8GB for the models I was looking at.
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: ModZilla on 2008.08.18, 17:13:40
I read and was told about those limitations in the HPFS and OS relationship with HD sizes and reading big drives, so would the work around be an OS/2 program that could use virtual partitions on the fly, controling the BIOS? and I quote:  "IBM is bringing a Journaled File System (JFS) to the next version of OS/2 Warp Server, code
named Aurora" end.quote, but this was done for speed and access times not so much for disk size as there is no solution when only one partition is used, one partition computing is stupid. just plain...well that. Blade server arrays hold terrabytes of enterprize based data strorage hence huge data streams/access, not for the home or even SOHO user especially when the SOHOs dont do alot of big scale networking and even small to mid sized corps buy up  and use tensX 10GB thumb drives and swap same betwn cubicles routinely...after all since there are typically so many Corp_SysOPs AATW who wants to bother them anyway for more diak space...MZ all smileys   

 
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.08.18, 19:02:31
Re:

Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.18, 16:37:37
dont want to get too deep ::) here or renegade this thread, but I will take a shot even as I am no code warrior ;D  and I may add...after a somewhat breif perusal-too bad really microsoft just dozint get out of the hardware business ala cart. I know they could do it and they now build and plan to market their own smart chipped mobos; why? You tell me! Bubble memory was squelched by MS in the mid 80's as it would have resulted in a totally different standard to build upon, not xX86. We wouldnt be talking MS free PC vs . [and/or] openSOURCE "anything" .../as the opposion would be MS A_NON...)and all their registry crap(...they would like nothing better than to control the hardware AND software market direction which I beleive MS is attempting to do and which BTW is why IBM is spending buku on the LINUX connection with their large- servers dev,  et al. Its not that Balmers image turned upside down makes a pretty good, err bad um likeness to BEEZEL_BUB, its that NTFS still has so much control itself over what goes on consequently with your computer when you insta VISTA/XP? MS is not trying to get rid of the 8/16 bit architecture or even DOS completely, not really, they just dont want people seeing the console button, hence learning what you can do to a network over a command line hack session)dont get me started on XP installs though why do they warn you not to use NTFS if installing "OTHER" Oses on the same machine...me, I am in favor of a multi boot platform VM loader on every machine,  as a universalist :-*,  dont want to step on anyones toes... :'(  furthermore, before I go completely 'planet Z'- I would personally like to thank Rob for his posts and insight therein/therupon, I liked the part of one of your post as: i.e., your reference to NeoN [no longer...or?] for OS/2-NEVER HEARD of it so I did some searching, and found "[NeoN] can construct 3D objects by combining simple shapes, or by extruding or spinning 2D curves..." reminds one of AutoCAD v10 or IGDS

MZ

Hey ModZilla,

I am quite sure that you have heard about acronym "WYSIWYG"; then, according to this article "OS/2 Warp, PowerPC Edition":

QuoteIf you look closely, you'll see that OS/2 PPC included a full fledged PC emulator, which supplied a virtual x86 CPU as well as common PC hardware. Interestingly, the DOS support in OS/2 PPC was based around PC-DOS 7 and not the outdated DOS 5 level code that OS/2 on Intel is stuck with. The OS/2 PPC DOS boxes thus had for instance the DOS E editor (very similar to TEDIT) or REXX support. Why IBM never updated the DOS support on the Intel side is beyond me. OS/2 PPC supported both windowed and full screen DOS sessions. The full screen sessions always ran in graphics mode, even when the emulated DOS application was using text mode.

Not satisfied with "just" DOS emulation, IBM also supported Win-OS/2, both full screen and windowed:

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os2ppc/index.html


Therefore, if we were Microsoft and we were still getting "milk" from the "heifer" ("8/16 bit architecture or even DOS") why on Earth would we want to herd it (them) ("8/16 bit architecture or even DOS") to the slaughter house. You know, it is a funny thing; but, I am curious to know what are the amounts reflected in the "Data Bases" of the US Health Care, Housing, Financial Markets et cetera, et cetera (leaving out the "National Debt Figures". Do you get the clear "Microsoft-Free' PCs" Desktop Picture - It looks "fuzzy" to me. So, I gather that some could be stuck with the "OS/2 Warp, PowerPC Edition" for now until eComStation 2.0 arrives.  8)

Its called - The OS/2 Warp Economic Fightback!  ;) ;D

Best regards,

SAB
Title: Re: IBM To Team With Linux Vendors on 'Microsoft-Free' PCs
Post by: RobertM on 2008.08.18, 23:02:07
OS/2 barely (if at all) uses the BIOS after boot. HPFS has a partition size limit (64GB) and a file size limit (2GB), both of which are due to "artificial" limitations in the code itself... the "descriptors" can handle more than that... a lot more. I have yet to run into a hard drive size limit under OS/2.

If you add /V after your IDE driver (assuming you have an IDE system), you will see that OS/2 maps the drive using it's own methods (not the BIOS methods) even though it is aware of how the BIOS maps the drive. That allows OS/2 to (1) overcome any BIOS limitations, and (2) allows moving the drive to a machine with a BIOS that maps the drive differently (since OS/2 will use it's own mapping - not the BIOS mapping).

The lines in question are one of these:
BASEDEV=IBM1S506.ADD /V
BASEDEV=DaniS506.ADD /V


The first is the original IBM driver (default Warp 4, WSeB, Warp 3, etc install). The second is the driver updated by Daniella E, which, among other improvements, supports SATA (in non-RAID mode) and more IDE/SATA chipsets than the original IBM driver.

JFS was also designed to handle larger disks - it wasnt just a performance thing (though that was part of it, due to the exorbitant cost of licensing/buying HPFS386... it probably wasnt worth rewriting/modifying HPFS & HPFS386 to handle larger disks when IBM already had JFS implemented a decade before on AIX).

Either one supports spanning partitions across drives (to create a volume), and both have their advantages. All in all, I usually prefer HPFS386 (it's tried, tested and stable for over a decade) except for it's file and partition size limits. But, I have found that JFS handles certain writes better (probably due to the lack of overhead in ensuring the files arent fragmented). For instance, using Ceres Sound Studio, which makes extensive use of the HDD to write "undo files" on every action you do, JFS is far faster than HPFS386 with small to medium cache sizes. HPFS386 beats it if it has a very large cache and very long lazywrite time (which isnt something recommended for for JFS (the long lazywrite times).

For stuff like that (Ceres) or Firefox or OpenOffice, I would prefer JFS. For stuff like web serving and FTP serving, I'd prefer HPFS386 - but sadly, HPFS386 has become unusable for me in that arena (customers needing to store too many >2GB files, which HPFS/HPFS386 cannot handle).

As for partitions, one of my favorite things to do in days of old, was to have 3 or 4 drive letters, and span them across 20 or more hard drives. OS/2 couldnt care less what types of drives they were. Using HPFS386, the system flew, and (total) disk access was only limited by the bus speed and the interface speed. But keep in mind, that was because I was using the setup for a web server, so the OS/2 server would often be using all 20 plus disks at once. The fact that they were SCSI also helped (since the CPU wasnt being overrun actually handling the disk access - which was for the most part offloaded to the SCSI controller). The machine, at one time, had 26 drives being used for 3 drive letters (Drive D, was spanned across all 26, Drive E was spanned across all 26, Drive F was spanned across all 26 - while Drive C was on the 27th drive which was internal on the machine on a different controller).

Rob

Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.08.18, 17:13:40
I read and was told about those limitations in the HPFS and OS relationship with HD sizes and reading big drives, so would the work around be an OS/2 program that could use virtual partitions on the fly, controling the BIOS? and I quote:  "IBM is bringing a Journaled File System (JFS) to the next version of OS/2 Warp Server, code
named Aurora" end.quote, but this was done for speed and access times not so much for disk size as there is no solution when only one partition is used, one partition computing is stupid. just plain...well that.