From the VOICE maillist robot tonight comes a blurb on Innotek noting that
it has released Beta2 of GCC for OS/2.  Scrolling down through this and
that in the Innotek Support Forum comes at least one pointer toward what
IBM is doing for compiler tools for OS/2 in that VAC++ for OS/2 isn't
supported no more.  Well .. there reportedly is a fix for yet some more
that Mike Kaply has gotten done one way or another for VAC++ in forcing
forward IWB for OS/2 and the MOZ 1.4.1 variation on the theme for OS/2. 
I'm pretty sure I have that fix here for my VAC++ for whatever.

But the curious point was exactly how the MOZ 1.5.# variation on the theme
was being worked in relation to compilers.  OK, from the Innotek forum and
the threads on GCC 3.2.2 there three things pop out.

    1.) Mike Kaply is using 3.2.2 in cooperation with Innotek to
        produce MOZ 1.5.# for OS/2.

    2.) The variation on the theme of GCC 3.2.2 from Innotek does *NOT*
        use an EMX toolset, as I read this!  Yet, in the lib0#.zip section
        on the GCC 3.2.2 deal, there is now a libc03.zip variation there
        too and it has to be there for use with MOZ 1.5.#.  Or at least
        SOME version of libc has to be there, at least for what is inside
        that archive ...

    3.) In the comments on Virtual PC, which has recent new text in it
        about VPC, there is now comment that since Microsoft now owns
        dis and dat .. the intent is to run OS/2 on WIN platforms,
        not the other way around, which is causing commotion since it
        appears to have been conveniently dropped .. after MS got all
        this.

        But one sentence has an interesting date in it.  They speak of
        "Sunset for OS/2 in 2006.."

Tell you what!  Three years is a *LONG* time in the saga of my operating
dog is bigger than your dog?  A lot of water can wash whatever of a tree
side between now and than, right?   Chuckle.

Now obviously all this and that talk and banter about whatever has been
going on for a LONG time now about Death for OS/2 .. but this is the first
widely public remark about a new date of 2006 .. which is two more years
beyond 4Q 2004 twas being bandied about for dis and dat ..  which was
widely circulated at Warpstock 2002 and elsewhere publicized.  Yet here we
are again with an admitted M/S oriented couple of words for 2006 now ...

The core issue around any operating system, in my personal opinion, which
heralds the practical presence of it, is the appearance of the first good
easily used compiler for it.

The real staying power of an established operating system is the continued
presence of an easily used and useful compiler for it, plus the continued
availability of new device drivers which can interface the operating system
on new hardware that appears.

Now that IBM is obviously getting out of the compiler business as I think
we know it today, not only for OS/2, but sort of for a lot of other
things,does that mean that the appearance of CGG 3.2.2 here via Innotek is
IBM's actual answer for what to do to support OS/2 into 2006 as noted?  No,
I don't expect you to answer that Bob.  But in that the issue with porting
MAX to LINUX is based, on, I think GCC 3.2.1 now, and here we are at a
3.2.2 now, how does all this fit together for somebody like Mikey?  I've
got a complete paid-in updated Watcom V 11 , plus I've also got the just
now released Version 1.1 Open Watcom complete.  It's headed for LINUX as
well and so on.

Other people may not need debuggers.  But I am sure not good enough to work
the programming game without one.

Just where does a poor waif like me go an plan on what to concentrate on
for producing code of any kind on OS/2 ... and whatever in the future, in
your opinion?

Advice?


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike {at} 1:117/3001



--- Maximus/2 3.01