#920 From: "email@example.com
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: Digest Number 203 criguada
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Frank Griffin wrote:
> You can't have it both ways. I wasn't talking about you personally (in
> fact, I wasn't even aware that you lurked this list), but unless you
??? What are you talking about?
Did you notice this thread started from a message of mine, or what?
> want to claim to know something about kernel programming I'm afraid you
> can't make "blanket" statements like "I don't like the traditional
> unices kernel design" or "Linux doesn't really deviate much from that"
??? "traditional unix design" is something that every student of an information
technology course at every university knows.
BTW, you're right about the "Linux doesn't deviate" argument. I'm not talking
from personal experience, but from several statements by people whose statements
I consider valuable: people that have made several contributions to OS/2 and the
OS/2 community in a way that lets everyone sure about their technical skills.
I'm sorry but I can't say the same thing about you, though you may be the most
skilled person in this list.
> Since this is exactly what you said back in the FreeOS days, I have a
> sneaking suspicion that your knowledge of how Linux deviates from
> "traditional Unix" isn't based on any current source base. In fact
I think you're mixing up things. I was mostly there in "lurking mode" at the
time of FreeOS. I may have posted a few messages at the time of the litigation
that led to the split, but I was not among the most active writers. You're
probably thinking about the original founder of the FreeOS project, which was a
Brasilian guy (IIRC) of which I don't remember the name (but I can find it if
> I'm sorry, but it is of extreme interest for this discussion.
This is of NO interest. The fact that the Linux kernel is positively using
recent Intel improvements doesn't shed any light on the difference among the two
kernels or their compared performance.
I'm still much more favourable to a tabular comparison among the different
kernels which are available to settle the question.
> Serenity has no access to kernel source code that I've ever seen them
> post about. Nor have I ever read a post indicating that they are
> allowed to modify the kernel.
-- start of quote --
Ok, among other there is mentioned a smp fix, bsmp8603.zip, that someone at
Intel has tested on their free time for Serenity. So I would like to get that
fix if possible. The rest of the thread doesn't really say anything if anypne
outside Intel than has manage to pull the same stunt off, ie getting OS2 to
-- end of quote --
All the thread is available at the following adress:
http://www.os2world.com/cgi-bin/forum/U ... 61&TID=429
I hope you're following OS/2 and eCS with as much devotion as it seems you're
> I think this is the crux of your argument. You appear to care less that
> OS/2 survive than that it survive on your terms, i.e. not have to
> collaborate with any other software you see as a competitor.
> I'd just like to see it survive. Goldencode's and Innotek's support for
> Java have gone a very long way towards making me feel better about
> OS/2's survival than I used to.
This is obviously THE argument, and it would be for anybody who is concerned
about OS/2 survival, unless you want to have yet another Linux distribution with
some OS/2 flavor.
Having some kind of OS called OS/2 or osFree just to say "OS/2 is alive" is of
no interest to me. If I'd want to have some kind of OS/2ish Linux, it would be
better for me to switch directly to one of the excellent Linux distributions out
And since I see (from the other messages in the list) that you want to base PM
on top of GTK or one of the other toolkits which in turn work on top of X, I
suspect that what you want is exactly this. Sorry, I'm not interested. If this
will be the choice of this team (I don't think so), so OK, go for it.
>>- I don't want to mess with kernel recompiles just to add devoce driver
>>to the OS.
> It hasn't been necessary to recompile the kernel to add device driver
> support for at least five years now, probably more like ten. Most Linux
> distributions include third-party binary drivers which are compiled by
> vendors and just included as modules.
Either you're very lucky, or you don't mess very much with Linux.
I had to mess with RH9 kernel just a month ago trying to install on an elder
system, and I see I'm not alonem judging from the messages that have been posted
With OS/2 you NEVER have to mess with the kernel. If a device is supported by
the system you just install the driver and you're done.
> You're probably thinking of the OS/2 port of the ALSA project, which
> requires both kernel and module support. That's because ALSA is not a
> driver, it's a kernel-based sound card driver architecture. The code in
> the kernel just manages the drivers; all the drivers are modules.
It's not important if it's a driver or not as long as you need to mess with the
>>- I want a "multiple roots" file system model, not the "single root" model
>>Linux. I don't know how deeply this is rooted in the kernel. Would be nice to
>>hear about this.
> This was also discussed in the FreeOS days. There is absolutely no
> difference between a "drives" (multiple-root) filesystem and a
> single-root filesystem whose root directory contains mount points
> (subdirectories) called "c-drive", "d-drive", etc. Just as under OS/2 a
> partition can be mounted as X:, the same partition can be mounted as a
> subdirectory *anywhere* on another filesystem.
> An example under OS/2 would be that you could install Java 1.1, Java1.3,
> and Java 1.4 on separate paritions, and mount (attach) them to your C:
> drive as C:java11, C:java13, and C:java14.
I think that the concept of multiple roots and single root is absolutely clear
to anybody on this list, at least those that have some experience on Linux or
other unices. It's not necessary to explain it.
And how you can state that "there is no difference" between having separate
partitions, each one with its own root, and having a single root where you mount
partitions under subdirectories, well it really beats me.
>>- I want OS/2 global consistency permeating the whole system, not Unix' mess.
>>don't know how deeply this is rooted in Linux' kernel, probably little or
>>nothing. Would be nice to hear about this.
> It's hard to address this without knowing what you mean by "Unix mess",
> but you're correct in saying that the Linux kernel has virtually nothing
> to do with any aspect of the user interface. Aside from GNOME and KDE,
> there are about a dozen other window managers for Linux, most of which
> have multiple "personalities" (even Warp 4 !).
Sure, I'm correct about saying that it's not related to the kernel, but what you
say is resembling more and more a Linux distro with the capability to run OS/2
apps, not a new OS based on Linux kernel.
And talking about the mess, obviously I'm not talking about window managers.
What do you say about the lack of a global system clipboard, like in OS/2 and
Win? Yes, I know that there is some software that tries to address the problem.
What do you say about the lack of global keyboard mappings?
What do you say about the lack of a system registry, instead of each application
trying to solve the problem with it's own (often baroque) config files?
> Not correct. X is the underpinning for every Window Manager on Linux
> today, is under active development, and isn't going anywhere. It is the
> primary and sole source of video hardware support for Linux, sort of
> like Scitech for OS/2.
You're obviously ignoring projects aimed at replacing X. Just do a google search
for "xfree replacement" and you'll find a few, some quite advanced and some just
> But nobody programs to the X API, which is considered very low-level.
See UDE for an example (Unix Desktop Environment).