Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:05:18 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 587 ************************************************** Tuesday 26 July 2005 Number 587 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Warp 4 in QEMU VM : Jon Saxton 2 Re: Warp 4 in QEMU VM : Neil Waldhauer" 3 Re: The OS/2 and eCS Ecosystem : billn 4 Re: 2 NICs in (virtual) OS/2 system (was Warp 4 in QEMU VM) : Jon Saxton 5 Re: The OS/2 and eCS Ecosystem : Jon Saxton **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:21:52 -0400 From: Jon Saxton Subject: Re: Warp 4 in QEMU VM I'm having similar issues under Microsoft Virtual PC. Specifically I cannot get DHCP working with the Microsoft Loopback Adaptor and I cannot get networking to operate at all with more than one NIC. Of course a Win2K guest OS works perfectly :-( which leads me to believe that the problem may be an OS/2 issue. I'm not fully convinced yet and I need to find someone who has a real machine with two NICs, the first using DHCP and the second with a fixed IP address to tell me if such a configuration is even possible. ecs user wrote: >I have not been able to get Warp4 networking working >in QEMU. Would be very intereseted in what your >results are. > >QEMU seems to be pretty fast and stable. If I could >get the networking going I could dump VirtualPC. > > > >>Brendan Oakley wrote: >>My present challenge (which I believe I can do given >>a bit more time) is getting networking working in >> >> >Warp > > >>4 under QEMU for Redhatter, .... >> >> > > > >____________________________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > > **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:46:14 -0700 From: "Neil Waldhauer" Subject: Re: Warp 4 in QEMU VM On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:21:52 -0400, Jon Saxton wrote: > I need to > find someone who has a real machine with two NICs, the first using DHCP > and the second with a fixed IP address to tell me if such a > configuration is even possible. Yes, I'm running that here. Neil -- Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:56:38 -0700 From: billn Subject: Re: The OS/2 and eCS Ecosystem It looks like we are close to a similar idea and environment. My main difference is that I have dumped C and C++ for Pascal and Ada. Ada looks a lot like Pascal, with a lot of extra capability. I've written a fair amount of Pascal, which is fairly easy to port to Ada if you don't try to bypass the restrictions. C++ gets a downcheck from me because of the ease with which you can shoot yourself in the foot (or higher). I feel, but cannot prove, that Ada will be more productive since the compiler won't allow chancy code. But all of this is a personal preference and not intended as a hit on C or C++. Right now I want to port some older Pascal programs to Ada and get them running on OS/2 and Windows, possibly other OS later. I've got what appears to be the latest GNU-Ada compiler for OS/2. For later, my main application objective will be to develop a system that can manage information on my multiple interests in a more organized form than a search engine and less restrictive than a database. I've got some design notes to work from and plan to develop a basic system and play with that. More later. BillN Jon Saxton wrote: > > G'day Bill > > If I understand you correctly, you're talking about a development for > general applications rather than one designed mainly for porting of > UNIX/linux applications to OS/2. If that is correct then I may have > something to contribute to this discussion. There are a lot of messages > on this topic and common sense should dictate that I read them all > before responding but I have to go to work soon ... > > Until my job was shipped off to India about three years ago, I made my > living writing applications software for doing document storage and > retrieval. My three application environments were OS/2, Solaris and > Windows NT/2000/XP. I expended some effort in setting up a development > environment such that I could develop and test on one system (OS/2) then > compile and deliver on the others. I managed close to 100% source code > portability across the three platforms and that was mostly a result of > the effort I put into setting up the build environments. > > I know nothing of the UNIXy tools such as configure and autoconf so I > don't use them. I use ordinary make files and I hide a lot of system > dependencies in the secondary make configuration files. That way my > makefiles as well as my source code can work without change on all > platforms. To me makefile maintenance is just as important and as > difficult as program source code maintenance. The makefile lives inside > my source code directory and I want to port the entire directory to > other systems. > > I write mostly in C++ and that isn't really handled well by ux2bs. (To > be fair, I haven't looked for a long time so that may have changed.) In > particular, I need to use compilers more modern than gcc 2.8.1. (So far > gcc 3.2.1 has been sufficient for my needs.) > > There used to be a script which would download and install three gcc > environments (2.8.1, 3.2.1 and Innotek). I no longer remember what that > was or even if it still works. Someone here may be able to address that > issue. Nowadays I preserve my emx/gcc tree on a backup disk and load it > whenever I need it, which is right now since I am setting up a new > (virtual) computer. > > That defines the "horizontal" (cross-platform) compatibility > requirements, but I also have a "vertical" (intra-platform) > consideration. I have some code which executes on OS/2 and Windows only > which needs the IBM Visual Age C++ (3.6.5) compiler. For one of the > projects in that category I have a development tool which only exists on > OS/2. Not a big deal, but something which I need to bear in mind. > > A while back I got a recent incarnation of dmake working on OS/2, > Windows and UNIX and I spent a lot of effort setting up the > system-specific and compiler-specific dmake configuration files. If I > were starting over I would look at GNU make but for now I am going to > stick with dmake. I think the syntax of make files is fairly similar > for both tools. My port of dmake is on Hobbes (but see next paragraph). > I have a modified version of makedepend which runs on OS/2. That saves > a lot of work in makefile maintenance. For UNIX I assume the compiler > environment exists (a pretty safe bet). For Windows I use mingw. On > OS/2 I have some shell scripts to establish the working environment for > each compiler. (I am looking at condensing them all into a single REXX > script.) > > My interest in all this was re-ignited recently when I was commissioned > to do a bit of programming in the same sort of environment as I have > described above. I am taking the opportunity to correct a few errors > and eliminate some redundancies from my earlier work. > > The point of all this is that if someone else is really interested in an > application-writing environment rather than a porting environment then > I'd be happy to share what I have. Your requirements may be different > from mine and it may be possible to make the work more general to > satisfy a broader range of needs. > > billn wrote: > > >The majority of computer owners are users, not developers. This holds > >true for business and personal use. The people on this list are a small > >minority of the full set of OS/2 users. Yet we are a critical subset. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:22:01 -0400 From: Jon Saxton Subject: Re: 2 NICs in (virtual) OS/2 system (was Warp 4 in QEMU VM) OK, so it can work. That is a checkpoint. I'll get back to this in a few days when I get the retail version of MS Virtual PC. Neil Waldhauer wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:21:52 -0400, Jon Saxton wrote: > > > >>I need to >>find someone who has a real machine with two NICs, the first using DHCP >>and the second with a fixed IP address to tell me if such a >>configuration is even possible. >> >> > >Yes, I'm running that here. > >Neil > > -- Jon Saxton Shopkeeper, Numismatist-in-training Developer of cross-platform software for UNIX, OS/2 and Windows U.S. Agent for Triton Technologies International Ltd http://www.triton.vg/ **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:13:01 -0400 From: Jon Saxton Subject: Re: The OS/2 and eCS Ecosystem G'day Bill If I understand you correctly, you're talking about a development for general applications rather than one designed mainly for porting of UNIX/linux applications to OS/2. If that is correct then I may have something to contribute to this discussion. There are a lot of messages on this topic and common sense should dictate that I read them all before responding but I have to go to work soon ... Until my job was shipped off to India about three years ago, I made my living writing applications software for doing document storage and retrieval. My three application environments were OS/2, Solaris and Windows NT/2000/XP. I expended some effort in setting up a development environment such that I could develop and test on one system (OS/2) then compile and deliver on the others. I managed close to 100% source code portability across the three platforms and that was mostly a result of the effort I put into setting up the build environments. I know nothing of the UNIXy tools such as configure and autoconf so I don't use them. I use ordinary make files and I hide a lot of system dependencies in the secondary make configuration files. That way my makefiles as well as my source code can work without change on all platforms. To me makefile maintenance is just as important and as difficult as program source code maintenance. The makefile lives inside my source code directory and I want to port the entire directory to other systems. I write mostly in C++ and that isn't really handled well by ux2bs. (To be fair, I haven't looked for a long time so that may have changed.) In particular, I need to use compilers more modern than gcc 2.8.1. (So far gcc 3.2.1 has been sufficient for my needs.) There used to be a script which would download and install three gcc environments (2.8.1, 3.2.1 and Innotek). I no longer remember what that was or even if it still works. Someone here may be able to address that issue. Nowadays I preserve my emx/gcc tree on a backup disk and load it whenever I need it, which is right now since I am setting up a new (virtual) computer. That defines the "horizontal" (cross-platform) compatibility requirements, but I also have a "vertical" (intra-platform) consideration. I have some code which executes on OS/2 and Windows only which needs the IBM Visual Age C++ (3.6.5) compiler. For one of the projects in that category I have a development tool which only exists on OS/2. Not a big deal, but something which I need to bear in mind. A while back I got a recent incarnation of dmake working on OS/2, Windows and UNIX and I spent a lot of effort setting up the system-specific and compiler-specific dmake configuration files. If I were starting over I would look at GNU make but for now I am going to stick with dmake. I think the syntax of make files is fairly similar for both tools. My port of dmake is on Hobbes (but see next paragraph). I have a modified version of makedepend which runs on OS/2. That saves a lot of work in makefile maintenance. For UNIX I assume the compiler environment exists (a pretty safe bet). For Windows I use mingw. On OS/2 I have some shell scripts to establish the working environment for each compiler. (I am looking at condensing them all into a single REXX script.) My interest in all this was re-ignited recently when I was commissioned to do a bit of programming in the same sort of environment as I have described above. I am taking the opportunity to correct a few errors and eliminate some redundancies from my earlier work. The point of all this is that if someone else is really interested in an application-writing environment rather than a porting environment then I'd be happy to share what I have. Your requirements may be different from mine and it may be possible to make the work more general to satisfy a broader range of needs. billn wrote: >The majority of computer owners are users, not developers. This holds >true for business and personal use. The people on this list are a small >minority of the full set of OS/2 users. Yet we are a critical subset. > >OS/2 holds a slowly diminishing population of users in the broader >context of all computer users. This is not because the OS has become >obsolete even though we hear that from many people. > >In the broadest sense, OS/2 ecosystem is shrinking because its utility >to end users is shrinking. The utility, or usefulness to end users >depends on applications, something Microsoft recognized a long time ago >and used bundling of applications with the OS to develop a monopoly over >time. That's somewhat oversimplified, but a core issue. > >In reaction to this confining monopoly, Linux has attracted many OS and >application developers, and many of the applications have become very >powerful, more than enough for many uses, both personal and business. > >OS/2 has not kept pace with Linux for a number of reasons, but the >critical one is the lack of current level applications. Fix that, and >OS/2 becomes much more competitive. > >In order to expand the application portfolio for OS/2, we must have easy >to install and use development environments. OS/2 offers a market where >users still expect to pay for good software, unlike much of Linux. And >Linux has hampered itself from the business POV because of its rapid >rate of change which makes it appear unstable. > >Now you can get well tested Linux distros from Red Hat and Suse, but you >*will* pay for them. So the overall market choices are currently MS, >Linux, or for a few, OS/2 in its current form as eCS. OS/2 remains the >most stable OS for PC and server class systems. > >All of us routinely run our OS/2 systems for months at a time, servers >for years at a time, and we do not consider this unusual. The unusual is >when it *doesn't* run for long periods. > >I can't claim that making more and current applications available for >OS/2 will guarantee growth, though I think it will. However, it does >offer opportunity for developers to make money and eCS to grow by having >a better set of applications to sell. > >The kicker in all of this is getting more developers on board. In >particular, if we had an easy to install development environment that >would install on OS/2 *or* Linux, we could invite Linux developers to >build OS/2 versions of their current applications, and have the ability >to build custom applications w/o having to spend large amounts of time >in the install and tuning of a development tool. > >I see this current requirement for specialist knowledge in order to >configure the development environment as a major roadblock to broadening >the OS/2 application portfolio. IMNSHO, this is a critical obstacle to >stability and expansion of the OS/2 ecosystem. > >Therefore, the survival and growth of OS/2, not to mention employment >and income from writing applicatioons, is dependent on solving this >problem. This is why I originally wrote about the need for a simplified >install. > >I realize now that it makes more sense when you understand the reasons >behind the original post. > >BillN > > > > >