Part 12 - Feb 26 2002
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:47 pm
#331 From: "poldi42" <poldi42@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 12:54 pm
Subject: purpose of ML (was: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS)) poldi42
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
(A)
>
> Returning to the osFree subject. I and some other programmers I know
> will never work on osFree or a derative of this project.
(B)
> A lot of
> people on this list have strong opinions and ignore all legal issues.
is (B) the [only] reason for (A)?
> FreeOS isn't the solution either as (some) people on that list prefer
> to
> talk and pretend they have what it takes to design and implement
> an operating system.
I don't think that it is all that clear, _what_ freeos is or hopes to
be. so I guess it is a bit unfair to say it is no solution...
>
> In my opinion the best option is to either use an existing mature
> operating system (linux/freebsd) or write one from scratch that is
> flexible enough to support multiple operating system personalities
> (application & driver). The latter could for instance be based on
> the l4ka micro kernel (http://l4ka.org)
>
and noone has yet decided otherwise AKAIF. the problem on this list is
that on this list far too different things are getting discussed -
makes it different to see clearly, at last for me.
among the main topics seem to be at least:
- stratagical goals in building an OS/2 clone
- theoretical legal issues concerning the ways to do this
- practical legal issues concerning the binaries recently uploaded on
hobbes and how they were produced
- esotherical sowftware development methods of the next century (sorry
- could not resist )
- organisation of managing all these affords.
- concrete development of drop-in replacements for OS/2-parts on
application and "high-level-API" level
- concrete development of a replacement kernel
details on the last one are completely undecided right now. I guess
there are not even more than 3 people involved in the discussion that
could decide or work on this matter. even worse, 1 of them just
declared he won't do so.
Sander & Achim: while you are still on this list, I'd like to ask you
2 favors:
- legal issues that everyone wants to be resolved aside, will you
please name reasons for not contributing? is this complete nonsens to
you or are we just missing something?
- as Innotek seems to be magnet for ex-IBMler - to you know whom to
contact regarding any OS/2 clonage project. not for help, but to bring
it to IBMs attention and ask for a statement regarding IBMs position?
if there is some hammer to go down on this it'd better be ASAP.
regards,
Carsten
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 12:54 pm
Subject: purpose of ML (was: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS)) poldi42
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
(A)
>
> Returning to the osFree subject. I and some other programmers I know
> will never work on osFree or a derative of this project.
(B)
> A lot of
> people on this list have strong opinions and ignore all legal issues.
is (B) the [only] reason for (A)?
> FreeOS isn't the solution either as (some) people on that list prefer
> to
> talk and pretend they have what it takes to design and implement
> an operating system.
I don't think that it is all that clear, _what_ freeos is or hopes to
be. so I guess it is a bit unfair to say it is no solution...
>
> In my opinion the best option is to either use an existing mature
> operating system (linux/freebsd) or write one from scratch that is
> flexible enough to support multiple operating system personalities
> (application & driver). The latter could for instance be based on
> the l4ka micro kernel (http://l4ka.org)
>
and noone has yet decided otherwise AKAIF. the problem on this list is
that on this list far too different things are getting discussed -
makes it different to see clearly, at last for me.
among the main topics seem to be at least:
- stratagical goals in building an OS/2 clone
- theoretical legal issues concerning the ways to do this
- practical legal issues concerning the binaries recently uploaded on
hobbes and how they were produced
- esotherical sowftware development methods of the next century (sorry
- could not resist )
- organisation of managing all these affords.
- concrete development of drop-in replacements for OS/2-parts on
application and "high-level-API" level
- concrete development of a replacement kernel
details on the last one are completely undecided right now. I guess
there are not even more than 3 people involved in the discussion that
could decide or work on this matter. even worse, 1 of them just
declared he won't do so.
Sander & Achim: while you are still on this list, I'd like to ask you
2 favors:
- legal issues that everyone wants to be resolved aside, will you
please name reasons for not contributing? is this complete nonsens to
you or are we just missing something?
- as Innotek seems to be magnet for ex-IBMler - to you know whom to
contact regarding any OS/2 clonage project. not for help, but to bring
it to IBMs attention and ask for a statement regarding IBMs position?
if there is some hammer to go down on this it'd better be ASAP.
regards,
Carsten