osfree.org

#795 From: Dale Erwin <daleerwin@...>
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2003 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? dale_erwin
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Andrew Belov wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 22:30:30 -0000, Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
>
>
>>I posted a suggestion at the forum at
>>http;//www.ecomstation.com of Serenity Systems
>>getting involved with OSFree (they could be to
>>OSFree what RedHat [which sells a version of
>>Linux] is to Linux]). If they do get involved,
>>they could host the site (like Scitech Software
>>[ http://www.scitechsoft.com ] hosts Open Watcom
>>[ http://www.openwatcom.org ]?
>
>
> I fear SSI will not support this development after the fiasco of the
> first edition of osFree. SSI representatives were among its strongest
> opponents (see the archives of this group).

Right! That would be like asking Microsoft to support Open Office.

--
Dale Erwin
Salamanca 116
Pueblo Libre
Lima 21 PERU
Tel. +51(1)461-3084
Cel. +51(1)9743-6439

#796 From: "Tom Lee Mullins" <tomleem@...>
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2003 11:20 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? bigwarpguy
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


....
> No, the reasons were stated clearly as the refusal to
> deal with that kind of "grey area" project. Check the
> archives from Feb'2002. If you are new to this group
> and need a brief history of osFree, I can outline
> it here.
>
No need to look into the history when one is hoping for a
future for OSFree.

> >Perhaps if they could see it as a way to make money they would
> >have more interest in it?
>
> Unlikely. SSI comprises about 1/50th of RedHat's resources.
> A company like that can't justify the expenditures of any
> part of this venture.
>
> >Linux is a free operating system and open source but Red Hat
> >(and others like it) make money off it (by selling extras, features
> >like support and it being on a cd, etc)? Perhaps if one could appeal
> >to how they could profit from supporting OSFree that they might
> >have a change of mind? (just a thought).
>
> Very unlikely, as there is no code that can be readily "supported" so
> far, therefore I advise to not waste time on solving organizational
> issues (there's FreeOS for that), and rather use the osFree group to
> comment on any developments directly related to the OS/2 redesign.

The FreeOS group here at Yahoo - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeos
has no activity. The FreeOS site no longer exists
(http://www.freeos.cjb.net is no longer there ). There is a FreeOS
site but it is mainly for Linux - http://www.freeos.com .

BigWarpGuy

#797 From: "Andrew Belov" <andrew_belov@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 12:46 am
Subject: Re: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? a_belov2001
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:20:09 -0000, Tom Lee Mullins wrote:

>> No, the reasons were stated clearly as the refusal to
>> deal with that kind of "grey area" project. Check the
>> archives from Feb'2002. If you are new to this group
>> and need a brief history of osFree, I can outline
>> it here.
>>
>No need to look into the history when one is hoping for a
>future for OSFree.

It is the historic roots of osFree that made its future so bleak. I
strongly encourage to get acquainted with the first postings on this
group to get a realistic picture of what has been attempted.

>> Very unlikely, as there is no code that can be readily "supported" so
>> far, therefore I advise to not waste time on solving organizational
>> issues (there's FreeOS for that), and rather use the osFree group to
>> comment on any developments directly related to the OS/2 redesign.
>
>The FreeOS group here at Yahoo - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeos
>has no activity. The FreeOS site no longer exists
>(http://www.freeos.cjb.net is no longer there ).

So they have already learned this lesson, and I can't see why one should
reinvent the wheel.

To conclude:

1. osFree TPE is still proceeding clandestinely on an isolated machine
here in Russia (weekly builds with the bootable 9.023 kernel are up, and
minor kernel updates continue to flow).
2. osFree "2nd edition", which was about command-line tools, has
generated zero developer interest with its December build, and has been
shelved on Hobbes.
3. There is no ground for sparing any effort on the 3rd incarnation of
this project unless some usable developments come in.

#798 From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" <ShadoW.FmC@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 12:47 am
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? shadow_fmc
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:09:54 -0400, Dale Erwin wrote:
>Andrew Belov wrote:
>> I fear SSI will not support this development after the fiasco of the
>> first edition of osFree. SSI representatives were among its strongest
>> opponents (see the archives of this group).
>
>Right! That would be like asking Microsoft to support Open Office.

Not at all. (IMHO) Serenity Systems would love to have an open source
OS/2 clone available. They pay expensive fees to IBM for OS/2 licenses
and support. And IBM announces to kill OS/2 nevertheless. But SS won't
have enough money and other priorities!

Sebastian

#799 From: "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 3:49 am
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? lynnmaxson
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Sebastian Wittmeier writes:
"Not at all. (IMHO) Serenity Systems would love to have an
open source OS/2 clone available. They pay expensive fees to
IBM for OS/2 licenses and support. And IBM announces to kill
OS/2 nevertheless. But SS won't have enough money and
other priorities!"

Look at the interval between the initial announcement and
eCS 1.0 and between eCS 1.0 and 1.1. That should give you
some clue about Serenity Systems' ability to step up to the
plate financially. Nor would a Red Hat trick work. Kim
Cheung has made it clear at every opportunity that Serenity
Systems remains a "for-profit" first corporation. It has no
interest in OS/2 beyond its ability to produce a profit. That
has nothing to do with preferring OS/2 as an operating system.
It has to do with surviving in a very competitive market,
finding your niche, and living within your means.

The osfree effort separated itself from the freeos effort
because of expressed weariness with the discussion-only
state of freeos. They wanted some action. The decided then
to leave issues of the OS/2 kernel replacement to freeos and
take on the remainder of the OS/2 package. To them talking
was something separate from doing.

If you go over to the projects on Netlabs, you will find most of
them unfinished and, for want of a better word, dormant. If
you did a tally of open source projects in general, most of
them have fallen into the same state of dormancy. That
speaks to a lack of progress, not interest.

It also speaks to how you engage in "predictive" project
management for an open source project dependent, one, on
volunteer support, and, two, on the use of internet
communication. Do we have to wait until video conferencing
becomes commonplace and cheap before our distributed
organization can match face-to-face competition?

We can't square the responses here with some assertion about
lack of interest. The interest remains. We may lack
leadership. We may lack a plan. We just simply may not have
the means currently to go forward. We may have to tread
water while sorting this out.

Even osfree may have to patiently get more people talking,
coming out of isolation or lurking mode, to see where we
agree and disagree on the way to building a consensus. We
simply need to understand that this medium of email and
disjointed conversations differs significantly from face-to-face
encounters. That difference lies mainly in the time it takes to
build a consensus, to make a decision, and then to organize
to implement it, knowing full well along the way we may
have to stop, go back in order to go forward.

I don't worry that the activity is low or things seem dormant.
I would only have concerns if lurkers stopped listening. When
the silent majority disappears, then you have a problem. Until
then you only have a situation.<g>

#800 From: "Zsolt Kadar" <kadzsol@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? kadzsol
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:46:46 +0400 (MSD)
> From: "Andrew Belov" <andrew_belov@...>
>
>1. osFree TPE is still proceeding clandestinely on an isolated machine
>here in Russia (weekly builds with the bootable 9.023 kernel are up, and
>minor kernel updates continue to flow).

Any chance on getting a public update?

Zs

#801 From: "Andrew Belov" <andrew_belov@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? a_belov2001
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:09:27 +0200 (CES), Zsolt Kadar wrote:

>>1. osFree TPE is still proceeding clandestinely on an isolated machine
>>here in Russia (weekly builds with the bootable 9.023 kernel are up, and
>>minor kernel updates continue to flow).
>
>Any chance on getting a public update?

No. Clandestine means clandestine. I'm sure one can't find a public
location where it will remain accessible for more than 24 hours.

#802 From: "Alan Duval" <amoht@...>
Date: Sat Sep 6, 2003 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: another OS amohtme
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi,

This site could be of interest to the osFree group.

<http://skyos.org/>


Alan Duval

#803 From: "Zsolt Kadar" <kadzsol@...>
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2003 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? kadzsol
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>>>1. osFree TPE is still proceeding clandestinely on an isolated machine
>>>here in Russia (weekly builds with the bootable 9.023 kernel are up, and
>>>minor kernel updates continue to flow).
>>Any chance on getting a public update?
>No. Clandestine means clandestine. I'm sure one can't find a public

Then why is it still being developed?

>location where it will remain accessible for more than 24 hours.

Well, the first release is still available on some public sites. ))

Zs

#804 From: "Andrew Belov" <andrew_belov@...>
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2003 12:30 am
Subject: Re: Re: OSFree and eCS/Serenity Systems? a_belov2001
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:08:30 +0200 (CES), Zsolt Kadar wrote:

>>>Any chance on getting a public update?
>>No. Clandestine means clandestine. I'm sure one can't find a public
>
>Then why is it still being developed?

I can't say about it being "developed", it's more about being
"maintained". There are some sporadic activities for certain internal
needs, perhaps. One of my "production" laptops runs that very kernel,
and I've got my hands on a Linux port of HPFS CHKDSK (hpfs.fsck) this
April.

With a carefully arranged set of PM DLLs, the osFree TPE kernel can run
Odin, and presumably Virtual PC and more that of "high-end" stuff, so
it's not that useless. Adding GRADD support would immediately blow the
IBM's kernel off two more machines sitting next to me.

>>location where it will remain accessible for more than 24 hours.
>
>Well, the first release is still available on some public sites. ))

Somehow I knew that. But it's clear that the hunt will resume as soon as
there is another binary release out of the door.