#1281 ROS and OSFree?
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 6, 2005
Can ReactOS be compiled with Open Watcom in
eComStation and be used as a bsis fro an
OSFree kernel?
TomLeeM
http://www.reactos.org
http://www.osfree.org
TomLeeM
Part 43 - Aug 14 2005
Re: Kernel selected?
#1282 Re: Kernel selected?
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Oct 6, 2005
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
> "
> Kernel selected. It is L4 Microkernel [3].
> Most probably ReactOS will be ported to L4
> also (things happen). As result we can have
> 'Virtual drivers' like from L4Linux [4].
> "
>
> Does anyone know more about this kernel?
> Is it a good kernel to base OSFree on?
>
> http://l4ka.org/
>
> http://l4ka.org/projects/virtualization/drivers.php
>
> TomLeeM
Good, I voted for this kernel. L4 is a second generation of
microkernels and there are a lot of spin offs of this kernel. One of
them is Pisttachio. I have it running under VPC on OS/2 and I really
believe it's a good alternative.
Virtual drivers are a must. There should be a kernel level subsystem
to handle a emulation layer of todays drivers under x86 platform.
There should be another I/O subsystem to support a new drivers model
much like the I/O kit under MacOS X so new drivers can be written in C
or C++ and the ASM code is small and portable to other platforms.
Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
of PPCs procesors.
I guess there is someone already working on this port (OS/3). There
are groups working on a Linux over L4 and Windows over L4.
Leonardo Pino
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Oct 6, 2005
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
> "
> Kernel selected. It is L4 Microkernel [3].
> Most probably ReactOS will be ported to L4
> also (things happen). As result we can have
> 'Virtual drivers' like from L4Linux [4].
> "
>
> Does anyone know more about this kernel?
> Is it a good kernel to base OSFree on?
>
> http://l4ka.org/
>
> http://l4ka.org/projects/virtualization/drivers.php
>
> TomLeeM
Good, I voted for this kernel. L4 is a second generation of
microkernels and there are a lot of spin offs of this kernel. One of
them is Pisttachio. I have it running under VPC on OS/2 and I really
believe it's a good alternative.
Virtual drivers are a must. There should be a kernel level subsystem
to handle a emulation layer of todays drivers under x86 platform.
There should be another I/O subsystem to support a new drivers model
much like the I/O kit under MacOS X so new drivers can be written in C
or C++ and the ASM code is small and portable to other platforms.
Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
of PPCs procesors.
I guess there is someone already working on this port (OS/3). There
are groups working on a Linux over L4 and Windows over L4.
Leonardo Pino
Re: [osFree] Re: Kernel selected?
#1283 Re: [osFree] Re: Kernel selected?
Expand Messages
Kenn Yuill
Oct 6, 2005
pinoozzyid wrote as follows on 06/10/05 13:20:
> Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
> after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
> of PPCs procesors.
IIRC, the quantity of PPCs used by Apple was not very large compared to
the use of these processors in other devices, e.g. sophisticated
controllers with QNX.
--
Ciao,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.
- Henri L. Bergson
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.057 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>
Expand Messages
Kenn Yuill
Oct 6, 2005
pinoozzyid wrote as follows on 06/10/05 13:20:
> Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
> after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
> of PPCs procesors.
IIRC, the quantity of PPCs used by Apple was not very large compared to
the use of these processors in other devices, e.g. sophisticated
controllers with QNX.
--
Ciao,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.
- Henri L. Bergson
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.057 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>
Re: [osFree] Re: Kernel selected?
#1284 Re: [osFree] Re: Kernel selected?
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 6, 2005
pinoozzyid wrote:
> --- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
> > "
> > Kernel selected. It is L4 Microkernel [3].
> > Most probably ReactOS will be ported to L4
> > also (things happen). As result we can have
> > 'Virtual drivers' like from L4Linux [4].
> > "
> >
> > Does anyone know more about this kernel?
> > Is it a good kernel to base OSFree on?
> >
> > http://l4ka.org/
> >
> > http://l4ka.org/projects/virtualization/drivers.php
> >
> > TomLeeM
>
> Good, I voted for this kernel. L4 is a second generation of
> microkernels and there are a lot of spin offs of this kernel. One of
> them is Pisttachio. I have it running under VPC on OS/2 and I really
> believe it's a good alternative.
> Virtual drivers are a must. There should be a kernel level subsystem
> to handle a emulation layer of todays drivers under x86 platform.
> There should be another I/O subsystem to support a new drivers model
> much like the I/O kit under MacOS X so new drivers can be written in C
> or C++ and the ASM code is small and portable to other platforms.
> Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
> after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
> of PPCs procesors.
>
> I guess there is someone already working on this port (OS/3). There
> are groups working on a Linux over L4 and Windows over L4.
>
> Leonardo Pino
>
>
>
Thanks for the information. It will be interesting to
find out who is working 'os/3'.
TomLeeM / BigWarpGuy * * * * * * * *
OS2eCS.org Director of Communications *
* * * * OS/2 Warp - eComStation Org * * * *
* * * * http://www.os2ecs.org * * * * * * * * *
Supporting Past OS/2 Uers and Future eCS Users
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 6, 2005
pinoozzyid wrote:
> --- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
> > "
> > Kernel selected. It is L4 Microkernel [3].
> > Most probably ReactOS will be ported to L4
> > also (things happen). As result we can have
> > 'Virtual drivers' like from L4Linux [4].
> > "
> >
> > Does anyone know more about this kernel?
> > Is it a good kernel to base OSFree on?
> >
> > http://l4ka.org/
> >
> > http://l4ka.org/projects/virtualization/drivers.php
> >
> > TomLeeM
>
> Good, I voted for this kernel. L4 is a second generation of
> microkernels and there are a lot of spin offs of this kernel. One of
> them is Pisttachio. I have it running under VPC on OS/2 and I really
> believe it's a good alternative.
> Virtual drivers are a must. There should be a kernel level subsystem
> to handle a emulation layer of todays drivers under x86 platform.
> There should be another I/O subsystem to support a new drivers model
> much like the I/O kit under MacOS X so new drivers can be written in C
> or C++ and the ASM code is small and portable to other platforms.
> Maybe one day we will have OS/2 working under PPC again, although
> after Apple's move I have serious doubts about the commercial future
> of PPCs procesors.
>
> I guess there is someone already working on this port (OS/3). There
> are groups working on a Linux over L4 and Windows over L4.
>
> Leonardo Pino
>
>
>
Thanks for the information. It will be interesting to
find out who is working 'os/3'.
TomLeeM / BigWarpGuy * * * * * * * *
OS2eCS.org Director of Communications *
* * * * OS/2 Warp - eComStation Org * * * *
* * * * http://www.os2ecs.org * * * * * * * * *
Supporting Past OS/2 Uers and Future eCS Users
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
How will L4 Kernel be compiled?
#1285 How will L4 Kernel be compiled?
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 10, 2005
What will be used to compile the L4 kernel
so it can be used as a basis for OSFree?
What would be used to compile it?
Will it be used as is or will there be
modifications be made?
TomLeeM
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 10, 2005
What will be used to compile the L4 kernel
so it can be used as a basis for OSFree?
What would be used to compile it?
Will it be used as is or will there be
modifications be made?
TomLeeM
Which parts would be chosen?
#1286 Which parts would be chosen?
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 18, 2005
If IBM decides to open source parts
of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
TomLeeM
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Oct 18, 2005
If IBM decides to open source parts
of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
TomLeeM
Re: Part 43 - Aug 14 2005
#1287 RE: [osFree] Which parts would be chosen?
Expand Messages
John P Baker
Oct 18, 2005
First and foremost, SOM. Both the 2.x version provided in OS/2 and the 3.x version made available separately.
Second, the Workplace Shell, which is based upon SOM.
These should be easy to release to the open source community, since they were developed wholly by IBM.
John P Baker
Software Engineer
Expand Messages
John P Baker
Oct 18, 2005
First and foremost, SOM. Both the 2.x version provided in OS/2 and the 3.x version made available separately.
Second, the Workplace Shell, which is based upon SOM.
These should be easy to release to the open source community, since they were developed wholly by IBM.
John P Baker
Software Engineer
From: osFree@yahoogroups.com [mailto:osFree@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Lee Mullins
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 18:50
To: osFree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [osFree] Which parts would be chosen?
If IBM decides to open source parts
of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
TomLeeM
RE: [osFree] Which parts would be chosen?
#1288 RE: [osFree] Which parts would be chosen?
Expand Messages
John P Baker
Oct 18, 2005
First and foremost, SOM. Both the 2.x version provided with OS/2 and the 3.x version made available separately.
Second, the Workplace Shell.
These should be easy to release to the open source community since they were developed wholly internal to IBM.
John P Baker
Software Engineer
Expand Messages
John P Baker
Oct 18, 2005
First and foremost, SOM. Both the 2.x version provided with OS/2 and the 3.x version made available separately.
Second, the Workplace Shell.
These should be easy to release to the open source community since they were developed wholly internal to IBM.
John P Baker
Software Engineer
From: osFree@yahoogroups.com [mailto:osFree@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Lee Mullins
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 18:50
To: osFree@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [osFree] Which parts would be chosen?
If IBM decides to open source parts
of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
TomLeeM
Any News on Release OS/2 to Open Source [Was: Which parts would be chosen?]
#1289 Any News on Release OS/2 to Open Source [Was: Which parts would be chosen?]
Expand Messages
Kenn Yuill
Oct 18, 2005
Certainly, I don't know enough about the innards of OS/2 to guess, but
presume that it would be those portions developed solely by IBM.
However, do you know if there was any response from IBM to the recently
submitted petition on releasing OS/2 to open source?
Tom Lee Mullins wrote as follows on 18/10/05 18:49:
> If IBM decides to open source parts
> of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
--
Ciao,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
The best way to solve the traffic problem would be to pass
a law that sez ya cain't drive a car that ain't paid for.
- Will Rogers, American satirist
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.057 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>
Expand Messages
Kenn Yuill
Oct 18, 2005
Certainly, I don't know enough about the innards of OS/2 to guess, but
presume that it would be those portions developed solely by IBM.
However, do you know if there was any response from IBM to the recently
submitted petition on releasing OS/2 to open source?
Tom Lee Mullins wrote as follows on 18/10/05 18:49:
> If IBM decides to open source parts
> of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
--
Ciao,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
The best way to solve the traffic problem would be to pass
a law that sez ya cain't drive a car that ain't paid for.
- Will Rogers, American satirist
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.057 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>
Re: Which parts would be chosen?
#1290 Re: Which parts would be chosen?
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Oct 19, 2005
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
>
> If IBM decides to open source parts
> of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
>
> TomLeeM
>
All MMOS2 (was develop by IBM as a add on for OS/2 2.0).
Leonardo Pino
Expand Messages
pinoozzyid
Oct 19, 2005
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@c...> wrote:
>
> If IBM decides to open source parts
> of OS/2, which parts would be desired?
>
> TomLeeM
>
All MMOS2 (was develop by IBM as a add on for OS/2 2.0).
Leonardo Pino