From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:40:51 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 370 ************************************************** Wednesday 13 November 2002 Number 370 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 RE: eComStation : Christian Hennecke" 2 RE: eComStation : Dave Webster 3 Re: mailinglist & newsservers : John Poltorak 4 Re: mailinglist & newsservers : Jeff Robinson 5 Re: Autoconf 2.55 : Thomas E. Dickey" 6 Re: Should the default shell for unixos2 protect/modify backslashes in the PATH ? : Andreas Buening 7 Autoconf 2.55 : John Poltorak 8 Perl 5.8.0 : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:38:54 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: RE: eComStation On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:47:12 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >I guess that's all fine and well. All I need or want, is the base OS and >nice browser anyway. Can live without the apps as I'm a software developer >and have little use for Office Suites and other things of that sort. What I >do need, though is a reliable OS, with good device driver support with >drivers for the latest hardware delivered in a timely fashion, easy access >to the latest OS patches and a reliable, full featured TCPIP stack. Seems >to be taking a long time for an OS release that is being sold for it's >installation utility and not much else. They seem to be trying really hard to get licenses to include as many drivers from third parties as possible and that apparently takes a lot of time and nerves. Same was true for finding a boot method that would allow the CD to boot from most hardware. From what I heard they are also going to replace MINSTALL. Christian Hennecke **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:15:28 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: eComStation Well, I'm looking forward to it, anxiously. My Warp 4 is getting long in the tooth... -----Original Message----- From: Jack Troughton [mailto:jake at consultron.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:40 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: eComStation Dave Webster wrote: > I guess that's all fine and well. All I need or want, is the base OS and > nice browser anyway. Can live without the apps as I'm a software > developer > and have little use for Office Suites and other things of that sort. > What I > do need, though is a reliable OS, with good device driver support with > drivers for the latest hardware delivered in a timely fashion, easy access > to the latest OS patches and a reliable, full featured TCPIP stack. Seems > to be taking a long time for an OS release that is being sold for it's > installation utility and not much else. First... I'm the Canadian distributor, so accusations of bias are probably correct;) Well, my point of view on it is that we'd much rather take our time and do it once properly rather than doing it fast and releasing something broken. I think you'll also find it's not being sold for just its installation utility. Finally, the reason why we have put so much emphasis on the installation utility is simple: People, when introduced to warp on a running system, and given the chance to use it, tend to end up really liking it. My mom is one good example of this phenom... I put it on a PC for her, and now she uses it all the time in preference to Windows because her needs are simple and it doesn't break like Windows does. Her install is almost two years old now and going strong... Windows used to be reinstalled at least every six months at her house. She likes that... gets to write letters, do email, etc and has gotten over her fear of fscking it up. However, were she to be faced with trying to install it... forget it. We want to reach people like that. We can only reach people like that if the install routine is as easy as or easier than Windows. eCS 1.0 was definitely not like that... if you didn't follow the (voluminous) instructions to the letter you could end up with a very badly pooched install. Also, there are a lot of machines where the CD boot didn't work at all, which meant it was time to start messing around with floppies etc... most people simply won't bother. Hell, a fair number (I can think of at least six) of eCS customers when faced with that very situation didn't bother. If we want the platform to survive more than another few years, we need to grow the userbase. There's no way around it... if the userbase continues on its current path, the platform will be gone (killed by IBM) in two to three years. The only way we can forestall that eventuality is by attracting new users... and that means that the install can't be a pig. Another way to put it... if we don't get the install right, it will in essence mean that there is zero chance for the platform to survive in the medium term (let alone the long term). If we get it right, the chances are still not fantastic, but they are at least >0. We all think it's _very important_ that we get it right. Besides, how can you hate an install that's going to let you put drivers on a floppy disk and use them whilst booting off the CD? It'll be a while before the driver set you'll need to boot that new petaherz system's going to fill up your fave love-to-hate removable media:) Regards, Jack **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:17:21 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: mailinglist & newsservers On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:54:32PM -0600, Jeff Robinson wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > I am not aware of anyone porting INN so far, but I would be interested in > > trying out a port. If it is written properly, should there be much > > trouble in getting it compiled on OS/2? We already have ports of many > > Unix daemons such as Sendmail, Apache, BIND, INETD. Not sure why INN > > would be any trickier... > > > > > > Maybe this would be another suitable project to lump into UnixOS2 > then... see what tools are needed to compile INN and use it as sort've a > test-case. Sort've just a project to focus on for a while that might > also expose some things we haven't really come across yet (needed tools, > "environment concerns", etc.) Sounds reasonable... Do you want to take the lead on this? :-)... > I think it would be interesting as well to have everything needed to > support the UnixOS2 project compiled as part of it. Yes, that's what I've been trying to do, but progress is very slow. > Just a thought, > > Jeff > > > -- > ---------------- > Whatza JamochaMUD? > http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca > > Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik > ----------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:43:11 -0600 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: mailinglist & newsservers John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:54:32PM -0600, Jeff Robinson wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: > > >>>I am not aware of anyone porting INN so far, but I would be interested in >>>trying out a port. If it is written properly, should there be much >>>trouble in getting it compiled on OS/2? We already have ports of many >>>Unix daemons such as Sendmail, Apache, BIND, INETD. Not sure why INN >>>would be any trickier... >>> >>> >> >>Maybe this would be another suitable project to lump into UnixOS2 >>then... see what tools are needed to compile INN and use it as sort've a >>test-case. Sort've just a project to focus on for a while that might >>also expose some things we haven't really come across yet (needed tools, >>"environment concerns", etc.) > > > Sounds reasonable... Do you want to take the lead on this? :-)... > Drat... should've seen that one coming a mile away, huh? I'll see if I can do some work on it this weekend (it'll also help me step through the UnixOS2 "Getting Started" HOW-TO that I'm working on as well). Right up-front I'll acknowledge that I'm not the most skilled with a compiler but I can work my way through a fair bit of stuff. Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:34:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.55 On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > The latest Autoconf (v2.55) has just been released and is available from:- > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.55.tar.gz > > Do we need any updates to enable this to work properly for us on OS/2? I haven't noticed any comments related to OS/2, and it is not long since 2.54 (would expect no major improvements for OS/2). -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:53:04 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Should the default shell for unixos2 protect/modify backslashes in the PATH ? Michael Zolk wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:43:59PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > [directory separators] > > > To be more exactly: A file /etc/unixroot/config.site should > > be part of the UnixOS/2 base package with the recommendation > > for all developers (i.e.: it's an optional env. var.) to set > > CONFIG_SITE=$UNIXROOT/etc/unixroot/config.site. > > If config.site is a part of autoconf which is only needed when compiling > apps, then it should not go into the base package IMO. No, config.site is a file that is read by every configure script if CONFIG_SITE is set. You can put system dependend stuff there, e.g. transform '\' into '/' in your PATH, setting ac_executable_extensions. It's not a must have, but it's neither a part of the "real" system (/usr) nor it's some kind of "variable data" (/var). I would consider it as a "configuration file that can be edited by the user" (/etc) and is optional. It doesn't really belong to anything so I'd prefer to put it into the core package of the UnixOS/2 core packages. ;-) We might also get some other files (docs, howtos, system config files) that don't belong anywhere else. Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:05:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Autoconf 2.55 The latest Autoconf (v2.55) has just been released and is available from:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.55.tar.gz Do we need any updates to enable this to work properly for us on OS/2? -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:17:06 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Perl 5.8.0 A few months ago a number of people attempted to come up with a definitive build of Perl 5.8.0 and we got quite close a complete pass of all the tests, although a couple of tests did fail. What I'd like to do now is get to a point where we can actually arrive at something which will end up as a UnixOS/2 Perl package. I'll try to make the build scripts available in the next couple of days so that everyone who is interested can attempt a build from exactly the same script. Can anyone suggest how to go about storing results for comparative purposes? -- John