Dear Friends

We are afraid you seriously misinterpreted the title of the article.

It was dedicated to the issue of porting OS/2 applications to Linux.

2Kudankulam N. Tiruniveli: ". ... ........ ....... .......... . .......... .......... ?" (.) .. .......... ....... :-)

2 Kudankulam N. Tiruniveli: thank you for remark - I made a correction. Sorry, but this is an OS/2 site and we should interpret any event from point of view favourable for OS/2 community. Many companies have invested time and money into OS/2, so the initial interest in this articles - "how to port linux software -> os2?" , i.e. reverse purpose.

2 Kudankulam N. Tiruniveli: this is just another try of using "marketing"... this guys just hope, that users of this site are so stupid not to understand what's that article about.

we're all know, that neigher this site nor Serenity do not help OS/2 and eCS community anymore. often we can hear, that WE SHOULD help them. but what will think outside-world about this community after such "news"...

so just forget about it. no news, no help, no work. it's just better to work for yourself.

It would seem that Kudankulam N. Tirunivel and "Hamlet's Shadow" lack a sense of irony. No question as to the intent of the article or IBM's overall strategy in this area.

Also no question regarding the sense of advocacy which is the focus of this site. Things should be seen from this perspective.

As to help for the OS/2 - eComStation community, users are provided with a current version of the product in Russian, that's a help. Products are enhanced and made available for purchase and reasonable pricing, that's a help.

Serenity continues to fund development to make applications and features available to users, such as the funding of OpenOffice.org for OS/2, provided by Serenity Systems International. And this support for the community is on-going.

So, I tend to disagree with Hamlet's Shadow.

Regards,

Bob St.John

Serenity Systems International

To Bob St.John:

People from OS/2 community wants to know the future plans for eComStation product in technical aspects, not only marketing info. Something like IBM OS/2 Strategy.

For now I see only that independent developers software is declaring as Serenity Systems efforts even without notifying the original authors...

Another quite original thing is marketing policy which made eCS system in oppositional side of OS/2 people. Does it help to obtain new users? How much newbies were bought eCS? Why this info is not available for public?

What did Serenity Systems do for OS/2 & eCS improvement except new installer and collection of independant free/shareware software? We all are tired from SSI marketing junk.

To Bob St.John:

I agree with somebody accordin future plans of eCS development. Current situation become ugly and ugly. Some new API added, but no any documentation provided. New applications not integrated to OS or integrated ugly. Installation process requires LOT of reboots. Interface not standardised and lot of bugs in implementations. We need to know, will all whese mistakes/bug fixed or it's SSI strategy?

Bob St. John: where is all of you said?.. if the best, which Serenity could do is paying Innotek to make ODIN-port of OpenOffice - this is not much for OS-maker....

So... Manufacturers do not know about such OS (most of them thinks, that it is another linux)... moreover, as we can see Serenity tries to move everybody to linux with "their" brand virtual machine (which is really old twoOStwo machine with a new name).

No plans, no development, only interface and installer changes... thank you, serenity for doing great job...

We're all understand, that this company cannot make money on providing os/2 and ecs. so they make money by simplifying migration os2 -> linux. but not the other direction.

I'm tired of all of this lies from them.

To all:

First of all, please don't say something like "We all are tired...". Speak for yourself, that's the only safe thing to do, since you don't know about the rest of the users, apart for yourself and a few friends.

I can't say that I'm fed up with SSI marketing, though it could certainly be made better (but what COULDN'T be made better?).

Secondly, please keep in mind that eCS is the only real upgrade path for OS/2 users... IBM's plans are absolutely clear: push Linux! The article mentioned is just another confirmation of this fact.

So, I don't really want to scare off yet another OS/2 developer... how many developers where pushed off of OS/2 from our bad behaviour? Why OS/2 users always have to be so badly inclined? (Even though the reality is that not ALL OS/2 users are badly inclined, but those who are, are the most voicy).

Considered the lack of support from IBM, the fact that IBM still holds the source code for the OS, the fact that the OS/2 supporting community is so tiny, I think that SSI is doing a good job, or at least the best that can be made (SSI doesn't have even a fraction of the resources IBM has/had).

You have to consider that, to be profitable, you have to please the corporate users, which are the only ones that still have the economic power to sustain development. Look at Innotek, which is doing a lot of really good things for users: they're creating products to please the corporates, though it ultimately pleases the end-users too. How do you think they can release all (or nearly all) their software for free private use?

As for the installation: for my work I do a lot of installations of M$ OSes (mostly server editions). Lately I have done a lot of installations of OS/2 and eCS too, to try out the 2OS2 and SVISTA softwares. I find the eCS 1.1 installation to be one of the most pleasing experiences: easy and FAST, even when working in a virtual machine. Sure, it reboots three times, but it does everything automatically.. You make all the choices in the first part, and then you can leave it running and get back when it's all done. So where's the problem? Considered that you'll hardly ever have to reinstall the thing, I find it to be convenient the way it is. M$ OSes (especially the client OSes) have to be reinstalled frequently, even now with XP.

If I have to complain about reboots, then I would complain about the ones I have to do when I change screen resolution or skin, but given the architecture of the underlying OS and of PM, there's nearly nothing you can do about it.

So, until IBM releases the sources in the public domain or gives the sources to SSI under a NDA, I think SSI is doing almost all they can do.

Well... nearly... there is ONE thing they could do, in my view: they should push hard OSFree, they should attract deveopers and resources to OSFree, they should collect the remains of the OS/2 developers' community around this one project. They could start revamping the eCS developer's site, focusing it in this way.

Well, just my 2 eurocents...

Bye

Cris

2 Cris: well. i'd recomend you to start uderstanding what are we talking about.

there are no developers in SSI, who will be able to continue development of operating system. all they can do is already shown - REXX-based installer and maintance tool.

just come down from sky back to earth. there's no way, when SSI can help in serious development.

moreover, whithout IBM's support no one else can continue working on OS/2.

sources of kernel, PM, MMOS2 already available on P2P networks and most developers use them to understand logic of an OS/2.

moreover, SSI has no specialists, who can think about architecture of a new generation of OS. even their directory standart is piece of crap. linux-based directory structure...

so, Cris, don't be fanatic. We're all use OS/2 (or eCS), but we can't affect SSI to develop an OS better than IBM did.

most of us will continue using OS/2 even when support will be canceled... so, we should think about ourselves, not about "SSI's support" (which was never seen).

Hamlet: I DO understand what we're talking about here, ask Yuri if you don't think so.

I have some doubts about your understanding. And you shouldn't be starting screaming "fanatic" just because someone is not thinking the same way as you do.

SSI *is* supporting us, even if it's not the way you'd like to see. I'm happy to have a way to install OS/2 and download IBM's updates without paying the stellar fees that IBM wants. I'm happy to have a *single package* with the OS, some of the nicest third party enhancement softwares around, and a pretty good installer and maintenance tool. All this things make *my* life with OS/2 easier.

There is no way SSI will be enhancing the core OS, you're right. I stated it clearly in the previous msg. So why are you screaming against them? They're doing what they can, and I'm grateful.

As for your suggestion that SSI can't help in serious development, I don't think so. They may be no developers, but they do have some resources, and some credible audience in the OS/2 community, despite what you think.

Let's not talk about the available sources for OS/2 that are floating around: I know much better than you the matter, I can assure you. You can use them to understand the underlying architecture, but that's all you can do.

All in all, you still fail in explaining what you'd want from SSI, rather than complaining about this and that. You say that SSI can't further development in OS/2. You say they are no specialists. You say they can't give support. Well, so what? Leave them alone and stay with OS/2 from IBM. I bet in five years you won't be using OS/2 anymore, in one form or another.

Bye

Cris, since you don't know me, you couldn't know what DO I KNOW about sources and so on (and I can assure, I know enough about SSI and IBM). I don't want to say something bad to you, or any other people...

I bet in five years - there will be no eCS (based on OS/2 technologies). it will be possible, that eCS 2.0 will linux with some kind of virtual machine. and many SSI heads were speaking about that.

You know I would like not to see to SSI, but this site and SSI itself blowing up OS/2 community. They do nothing, but they hope, that everybody will support THEM. Even mr. Eugene Gorbunoff often says such things.

Now let's see. Original post contained not a mistake, but PR. They misinterpreted the article... And even made some resolutions, telling that everything is fine. But current situation is close to disaster. Soon SSI will have to move from OS/2 to Linux, because they will never get sources of OS/2 from IBM.

And you will be protecting "new" eCS, based on linux + virtual machine. so it just another attempt to get money from os/2 community. that's why we can't just shut up and see, what SSI will do next.

Look, I still hope, that soon something change their behavior. But as I can see, there is no chances for that.

I'm not going to argue anymore, since SSI fanatics do not interest me. Just try to keep an open mind.

....... .. ....... ...-.... ......... ... ............. ........?

2 DDP: . ...... ..... ........ .......... . ....... .. .......... ...... PR.

....! .. ..... ...... ....... ..... .. .... eCS !

..-.. SSi ..... ....... . ... ....., .. ..... ..... ?

.. .... ..... ........ ......... ...... eCS ?

. ... ....... ......... SSI?

...... ..... uniaud.

...... ...... .. ft2lib

...... ..... ... OO/2

libc ...-.. .. ......

....... flash, acrobat ..... odin.

... ... ?

To Cris (and SSI):

As I see you agreed that SSI is not developer nor superseder of OS/2. The only things they do are marketing and OS/2 & eCS community management. The only problem is that I do not agree with the way how they manage the situation.

I completely agree with you that this is big advantage that now we have ability to buy OS/2 based operating system (which is still the best OS for PC by design) even with limited support from IBM like Software Choice access but (sic!) I still do not like when incompetent people tell me a tales about OS/2 future without giving any details for years.

This is why I do not like SSI and personally mr. Gorbunoff marketing and managing methods...

.............. .... ....... .. ......... - .. .... .. ....... ........ .........

2Alex G. ... .. Innotek ......, . .. SSI. .. .. . .... ..... :)

2Hamlet's Dad's Shadow Pls, don't say SSI and/or eCo Software dows nothing. We have OS with enhancement, we have russian version of OS. It's not NOTHING. And doesn;t matter is such things created by side developers or by company programmers. In most cases side developers has donatations from SSI and eCoSoft,. It's also SOMETHING.

According rumors according eCS 2.0. May it will virualized OS/2 or may be not. We know nothing about SSI future plans. IT'S a problem.

If we know nothing about SSI plans we know nothing about OS future development. IT'S a problem.

I consider OS/2 or eCS CAN have future, but we must stop fights and do something for OS/US not COMPANY(IES).

:-)

As I read Cris & H.D.Shadow are _know_so_much_ so we must don't worry about our future.

Another thing. As most of you know, OS/2 base system architecture changed so few since 1992 (from ver.2.2). It's more than ten years, and this mean this base is very well designed and implemented. I think, it will work future ten years, may'be even more.

The most _rasordable_ question is "first look". Yes, in most cases, when I install OS/2 for other people they made their opinion when see installer. Look at _ugly_ Merlin installer and at eCS one. See the differense (c). And this was done by SSI and _non_programmers_.

:-)

_Many_(much, more, insert yours)_ Linux software based on scripting languages (Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc.) Very small part of such soft is platform_dependent. So don't say "it's impossible" - yes it's reality - port language interpretter and we will have software, based on it.

Who said REXX is sucks? :-F When I hear such about Pascal, and I became so dangerous.

p.s.: ......., ..., .......... ......... ..... . ......... . .... .......... ... ..... ......... .......... - . .. ..... ....... ....., .... "_........_.._". ... 10 ... ... ........, .. ..... :-)

. .......... ...... ...........

to StVova - ........ ...... ...... .... ... ......., .... ... . 2007 .... ... ............ ...... ..... . ....... .......... .. ........... .... ........ ... . .. ..........., .. .. ........?

........ ...... .......... ........... .. .......,

.... ... ... ....... .. ..... ........ .. 64-... ..........., ... . ... ....... .. ........ ......... ACPI, ... ....... .. ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ...........

........ ...... ........... .. ......., .... ... ......... ... ..... ....... ... . .. ............

. ...... ...... (.......... .... .....)

. .. .......... .. .... ...... ..... .. ... ... ....... .... ... ....... ...... .-.. ... .........

ps. . ... ..... ... . .-.. .-.. .. .... ...... .. .. ....., .... .. ....... .. '.......' ;)

pps. . ......... - ........ ...... ..........., ... .. ......... .......... ....... ........ ..... ...... ...........

To DrGonzo:

... ... ........ .......... .. ........ 1995.....

. ...... ...., ... .......... .... ... ....... ........... .... . ...... ... ...... ... - .... ............... ... . 2007 .... ....... .. "...... ............ .....". ........ ... 64-......... .......... ..... ......... 32-...... ... - .. ...... . . 2008.

...... .... ...., .... ........ ...... . ..... ....... ;-)