From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:09:48 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 159 ************************************************** Sunday 03 August 2003 Number 159 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) : Andrew Belov" 2 Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) : Andrew Belov" 3 Re: Thunderbird : Jeff Robinson 4 Re: Thunderbird : T.Sikora" 5 Re: Thunderbird : John Drabik" 6 Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) : T.Sikora" 7 Re: Thunderbird : T.Sikora" 8 Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) : Andrew Belov" 9 Re: Thunderbird : Dave and Natalie" 10 Re: Mozilla_build script : T.Sikora" 11 Re: Thunderbird : Stefan Neis 12 Re: Mozilla_build script : Jeff Robinson 13 Re: Mozilla_build script : Dave and Natalie" 14 Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Steve Wendt 15 Re: Mozilla_build script : Jeff Robinson 16 Re: Thunderbird : Alex Newman" 17 Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Dave and Natalie" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:01:45 +0300 (MSK) From: "Andrew Belov" Subject: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:15:54 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: >> They still haven't released the full source for their ALSA drivers. > >Isn't this it? http://www.innotek.de/products/uniaud/source/ Do they provide the source code for UNIAUD16.SYS? Innotek has played an elaborate trick by retaining the source code for UNIAUD16.SYS (as of Jan 2003). At close inspection, there is no violation of GPL: UNIAUD32.SYS comprises a stand-alone "main" part, and UNIAUD16.SYS is "just a wrapper" to interface ALSA with MMPM/2. However, the list of "officially supported" audio chips was locked and scrambled within UNIAUD16! By virtue of that, Innotek had the power to constrain the third-party efforts at introducing new hardware, and has thrown obstacles in the way of those compiling UNIAUD32.SYS for their own fun - no music unless one hacks into UNIAUD16.SYS to circumvent the explicit chipset check. Whatever the reasons for this decision were, it is undoubtedly not a fair practice in the Open-Source world. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:24:58 +0300 (MSK) From: "Andrew Belov" Subject: Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: >>Innotek has played an elaborate trick by retaining the source code for >>UNIAUD16.SYS (as of Jan 2003). At close inspection, there is no violation >>of GPL: UNIAUD32.SYS comprises a stand-alone "main" part, and >>UNIAUD16.SYS is "just a wrapper" to interface ALSA with MMPM/2. > >I disagree - they are not separate works if they rely on each other. The GPL is >pretty clear about this, I think. This relationship isn't mutual, hence it is a legitimate situation. In this case, we have a closed-source software (UNIAUD16.SYS) written for an Open-Source environment (UNIAUD32.SYS). It is clear we can design closed-source programs and drivers for Linux: think of UNIAUD16.SYS as of VMWare or DB2, and imagine that UNIAUD32.SYS is the Linux kernel. That's exactly the case. UNIAUD32.SYS does not know about UNIAUD16.SYS, it can load as a stand-alone driver. It will do the job if some application connects to UNIAUD32.SYS via the ALSA interface, however, there are no such software for OS/2. Not to hallow this "evil genius" approach, but in the GPL aspect it looks perfectly legal. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:28:31 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Thunderbird Stefan Neis wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Alex Newman wrote: > > >>Having up-to-date and *sane* libraries and toolkits that might be >>required (e.g., kde, gtk, qt, tcl, lesstif, et al.) is another thing >>too. The most up to date of these that I know of is the lesstif port by >>Alexander Mai, and even that's over a year old, I think. The gtk >>version that's most readily available is much older. As far as I know, >>an os/2 port of kde doesn't even exist. > > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) > > More seriously, I don't really care about kde or gnome or some not quite > as fancy window manager, but the libraries are sure interesting as they > are used by many applications. While I suppose that lesstif is reasonably > up-to-date, even if "old", there IMHO is a real problem with gtk. > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some > software packages will require it sooner or later. > > Regards, > Stefan > I tried a while back (probably a year ago now) to see how far I could get compiling the then-latest version of GTK, though I didn't get very far. Mostly the tools I was using were not the latest version necessary to do the task, though I think that has changed by now. One of the things that intrigues me about GTK is that on the Windows platform they have the library compiled to "run native" using Windows widgets for The GIMP, instead of having to run it in XFree86 on Windows. Not that using XFree is bad, mind you... I'd just like to be able to fire up The GIMP like other applications. Mind you, Everblue must have already tracked over some of this ground, since they released an older test version of The GIMP that did run directly on the PM... Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:48:05 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Thunderbird Alex Newman wrote: > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:26:31 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > > >>Alex Newman wrote: >> >>>The 0.1 alpha release of Thunderbird is out. I have seen a post that >>>suggests that Tbird/2 was built using gcc 3.2.2. >>> >>>Can anyone confirm or corroborate this? >>> >>>Alex. >>> >> >>I just saw the newsgroup posting about Thunderbird as well... it says >>that it requires the libc runtime from Innotek so it certainly seems >>that it would've been done with gcc 3.2.2. >> >>I haven't tried to it yet, so can't say 100% factually yet. > > > Whatever compiled it seems to have done its job nicely. TBird is fast, > and appears stable, even with all the plugins thrown at it. > > This bodes well for the future, e.g., building something like > OpenOffice, as is being (over-optimistically?) talked about on other > lists. If gcc can be used to build XFree86 and Mozilla, I can't see why > it couldn't be used for OO - at least in theory (presumably the Linux > version(s) at least are built with gcc). > > The management of such a large project, on the other hand, is something > else again. > > Having up-to-date and *sane* libraries and toolkits that might be > required (e.g., kde, gtk, qt, tcl, lesstif, et al.) is another thing > too. The most up to date of these that I know of is the lesstif port by > Alexander Mai, and even that's over a year old, I think. The gtk > version that's most readily available is much older. As far as I know, > an os/2 port of kde doesn't even exist. An older version does on os2ports.com ftp://os2ports.com/pub/os2/unix/xfree86/ports/KDE > > Does anyone have any thoughts one way or the other on this? > > Alex. > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:00:53 -0600 (MDT) From: "John Drabik" Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:18:18 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) > >KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome >sucks though. As a person who uses all three, I can comfortably say: 1) WPS is still the best 2) KDE sucks (too fat, slow, etc.) 3) Gnome is great (but they've broken the 2.0 install) Ah, life wouldn't be fun without a holy war over UI's. By the way, of the dozen or so Linux machines at my disposal here, half have KDE, and half have Gnome. So this isn't an idle war. I use both - but greatly prefer Gnome. John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:06:15 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) Steve Wendt wrote: > On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:24:58 +0300 (MSK), Andrew Belov wrote: > > >>In this case, we have a closed-source software (UNIAUD16.SYS) written for an >>Open-Source environment (UNIAUD32.SYS). It is clear we can design >>closed-source programs and drivers for Linux: think of UNIAUD16.SYS as of >>VMWare or DB2, and imagine that UNIAUD32.SYS is the Linux kernel. That's >>exactly the case. > > > The Linux kernel is useful for many other completely unrelated things, but > UNIAUD32 is not. I don't find your analogy convincing. > > > ----------- > "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, > while bad people will find a way around the laws." > - Plato (427-347 B.C.) > > > > GPL or not it's sleazy. Building on someone elses hard work. If they had a conscience it would be free. They missed the whole point about GPL and Linux. It's not a 'business model' for making money. Building an app like StarOffice, etc. can be forgivin but using the core to make you pay for drivers... No where in the GPL world do you pay for drivers. If the driver was part of a player say MP3 or such that would be acceptable. I think the quote from Plato above says it all. I'm finding it more and more difficult to have any respect for Innotek. I got a feeling that source for gcc will never materalize and if it does it will have more holes in it than swiss cheese. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:18:18 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Thunderbird Stefan Neis wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Alex Newman wrote: > > >>Having up-to-date and *sane* libraries and toolkits that might be >>required (e.g., kde, gtk, qt, tcl, lesstif, et al.) is another thing >>too. The most up to date of these that I know of is the lesstif port by >>Alexander Mai, and even that's over a year old, I think. The gtk >>version that's most readily available is much older. As far as I know, >>an os/2 port of kde doesn't even exist. > > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome sucks though. > > More seriously, I don't really care about kde or gnome or some not quite > as fancy window manager, but the libraries are sure interesting as they > are used by many applications. While I suppose that lesstif is reasonably > up-to-date, even if "old", there IMHO is a real problem with gtk. > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some > software packages will require it sooner or later. v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of apps. > > Regards, > Stefan > > > Time spent with KDE might be a better choice. It's pretty much the standard on Unix desktops. The tools they provide to build and debug apps is excellent. A simple gui frontend can be built in minutes.Unless the UX2BS is working with gcc-3.2.1 and the current EMX limitations staightened out or patched this is all a pipedream. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:59:33 +0300 (MSK) From: "Andrew Belov" Subject: Re: Re: ALSA/2 (was: Mozilla_build script) On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: >>In this case, we have a closed-source software (UNIAUD16.SYS) written for an >>Open-Source environment (UNIAUD32.SYS). It is clear we can design >>closed-source programs and drivers for Linux: think of UNIAUD16.SYS as of >>VMWare or DB2, and imagine that UNIAUD32.SYS is the Linux kernel. That's >>exactly the case. > >The Linux kernel is useful for many other completely unrelated things, but >UNIAUD32 is not. I don't find your analogy convincing. So is UNIAUD32.SYS. It conforms to GPL by exporting some open IOCtl/IDC interface, and it's not a static library. We just haven't written the software that would utilize the UNIAUD32 interface. However, GPL does not impose the requirement to supply any "application examples", does it? An example of how UNIAUD32.SYS can be useful alone would be playing sounds from a bootable floppy - on any of the supported soundcards. I believe, it has been mentioned many times that the provisions of GPL, despite their straightness, leave certain unresolved areas. With UNIAUD16.SYS, Innotek walks on the edge. The closed-source Linux drivers shipped by Taiwanese OEMs are quite another example; in fact, the challenge to GPL by the latter is more blatant. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:49:35 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:31:00 +1000 (EST), Alex Newman wrote: >> that it would've been done with gcc 3.2.2. >> >> I haven't tried to it yet, so can't say 100% factually yet. > >Whatever compiled it seems to have done its job nicely. TBird is fast, >and appears stable, even with all the plugins thrown at it. > >This bodes well for the future, e.g., building something like >OpenOffice, as is being (over-optimistically?) talked about on other >lists. If gcc can be used to build XFree86 and Mozilla, I can't see why >it couldn't be used for OO - at least in theory (presumably the Linux >version(s) at least are built with gcc). > >The management of such a large project, on the other hand, is something >else again. It might be simpler to build something like OpenOffice with Odin, at least you end up with an executable that will run on the desktop Dave **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:06:42 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script Jeff Robinson wrote: > Steve Wendt wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:15:54 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: >> >> Jeff I set up the ux2bs system with gcc-3.2.1 and installed their version of rc.exe. I already had the other dependancies satisfied. Does Mozilla use a patched src for OS/2 or just out of the box? Once you open up newgcc how do you usually build it? I remember you setting up an additional env varable for gcc. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:56:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Alex Newman wrote: > Having up-to-date and *sane* libraries and toolkits that might be > required (e.g., kde, gtk, qt, tcl, lesstif, et al.) is another thing > too. The most up to date of these that I know of is the lesstif port by > Alexander Mai, and even that's over a year old, I think. The gtk > version that's most readily available is much older. As far as I know, > an os/2 port of kde doesn't even exist. Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) More seriously, I don't really care about kde or gnome or some not quite as fancy window manager, but the libraries are sure interesting as they are used by many applications. While I suppose that lesstif is reasonably up-to-date, even if "old", there IMHO is a real problem with gtk. Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some software packages will require it sooner or later. Regards, Stefan **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:00:37 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script T.Sikora wrote: > Jeff Robinson wrote: > >> Steve Wendt wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:15:54 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: >>> >>> > Jeff I set up the ux2bs system with gcc-3.2.1 and installed their > version of rc.exe. > I already had the other dependancies satisfied. Does Mozilla use a > patched src for > OS/2 or just out of the box? Once you open up newgcc how do you usually > build it? > I remember you setting up an additional env varable for gcc. > > Mozilla has its own environment script that you run to set most the variables it needs; the script can be found at http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/os2build.html Then you have to setup your .mozconfig file in your "home" directory, to all the build options. Unpack your source and then got to CVS to get the latest changes (though I s'pose this step isn't totally necessary). Go into your Mozilla directory and run: gmake -f client.mk build renaming "make" to gmake helps to differentiate it from versions of make that may not work with Mozilla. Be forewarned that last time I tried building Mozilla it was very picky about the versions of the different tools used to build it (eg: one archive containing 'pwd' will return the path when executed, another version returns the path AND drive letter, which'll change things considerably). The exact requirements are laid out at: http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/setup.html One of the reasons for porting bash2.05a ( http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/nonunixos2/bash-2.05a-ux2.zip ) was to have a bash where the built-in 'pwd' command returns the drive letter for building Mozilla. There are probably some others that are far more up to speed on building Mozilla now. I know that Javier Pedemonte has been working for quite a while with the building of Mozilla with gcc (not to mention Henry Sobotka, who has been a great help along the way!). Javier can often be reached via the netscape.public.mozilla.os2 newsgroup. There is a meta-bug open for GCC-related issues in building Mozilla here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177789 Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:06:41 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:00:37 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > >Mozilla has its own environment script that you run to set most the >variables it needs; the script can be found at >http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/os2build.html > >Then you have to setup your .mozconfig file in your "home" directory, to >all the build options. > >Unpack your source and then got to CVS to get the latest changes (though >I s'pose this step isn't totally necessary). I and others had problems with useing CVS on the source tarball and finally just used CVS to pull the whole thing > >Go into your Mozilla directory and run: gmake -f client.mk build > >renaming "make" to gmake helps to differentiate it from versions of make >that may not work with Mozilla. Be forewarned that last time I tried >building Mozilla it was very picky about the versions of the different >tools used to build it (eg: one archive containing 'pwd' will return the >path when executed, another version returns the path AND drive letter, >which'll change things considerably). The exact requirements are laid >out at: http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/setup.html Actually the new requirements are at http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html Dave **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:57:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Wendt Subject: Re: KDE vs. GNOME On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) > > KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome > sucks though. KDE is not inferior to the WPS? Maybe that's not what you meant, but regardless, let's not get into the KDE vs. GNOME flame wars here. Suffice to say that some prefer KDE (such as yourself), and some prefer GNOME. > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads > > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some > > software packages will require it sooner or later. > > v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of apps. I think that is rapidly changing. **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:42:51 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script Dave and Natalie wrote: > > Actually the new requirements are at http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html > > Dave > Whoops... I stand corrected on that one... and I recall seeing this page before too. What concerns me about this one is that I can't seem to find a link from the OS/2 build page to it.. or was this intentional? If not, perhaps we should drop Mike Kaply a line. Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:31:00 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:26:31 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > Alex Newman wrote: > > The 0.1 alpha release of Thunderbird is out. I have seen a post that > > suggests that Tbird/2 was built using gcc 3.2.2. > > > > Can anyone confirm or corroborate this? > > > > Alex. > > > > I just saw the newsgroup posting about Thunderbird as well... it says > that it requires the libc runtime from Innotek so it certainly seems > that it would've been done with gcc 3.2.2. > > I haven't tried to it yet, so can't say 100% factually yet. Whatever compiled it seems to have done its job nicely. TBird is fast, and appears stable, even with all the plugins thrown at it. This bodes well for the future, e.g., building something like OpenOffice, as is being (over-optimistically?) talked about on other lists. If gcc can be used to build XFree86 and Mozilla, I can't see why it couldn't be used for OO - at least in theory (presumably the Linux version(s) at least are built with gcc). The management of such a large project, on the other hand, is something else again. Having up-to-date and *sane* libraries and toolkits that might be required (e.g., kde, gtk, qt, tcl, lesstif, et al.) is another thing too. The most up to date of these that I know of is the lesstif port by Alexander Mai, and even that's over a year old, I think. The gtk version that's most readily available is much older. As far as I know, an os/2 port of kde doesn't even exist. Does anyone have any thoughts one way or the other on this? Alex. **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:36:17 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: KDE vs. GNOME On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:04:23 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >Well I'm ready to try mozilla got my fingers crossed. Let us know how it goes Dave