Basil Fernie wrote:
> The subject of the cartoon must be the only OS/2 user in the universe 
> not to know that IBM does this every year or two. Must be a clause in 
> their agreement with M$.
> 
> BTW what is the buzz concerning possible prospects for a 64-bit kernel?

Hmm, that might relate to the OS3 developer, Samuel A. Falvo...
http://www.falvotech.com/projects/os3.php>

Tom Lee Mullins posted to OSFree on 15-JUL-2005 {at} 10:08 AM

===========================================================================
It is from a post (copied it) at the forum
at http://www.os2world.com.
"
The osFree group have choosen the
kernel for the new OS/2 -- it will be the
L4 microkernel. (See the last news
at the http://www.osfree.org/ website). The
osFree team now has a developer which
has an experience in L4 programming.
It's Samuel A.Falvo. See his page on
OS/3 developing: http://www.falvotech.com/projects/os3.php .
Now Samuel is writing an OS loader as an alternative
for GRUB bootloader, which is traditionally used
for loading L4 with initial servers. Also he's
finished the 'format' utility. The new OS will
use the LEAN filesystem as an example of the
simple but superior to FAT filesystem, other than HPFS.
It's very interesting perspective for OS/2 Community
to get a successor for OS/2, which will support
portability across many processors, SMP support
"out of the box", capability to easy create
distributed clusters, easy drivers reuse from
linux, orthogonal persistense, running many OS
personalities in paralell, fast Inter-process
communication which allow to create systems as
fast as traditional monolithic systems and also
device drivers running in user space which can
be killed and restarted as well as ordinary
user applications! This technology is far
superior (and faster) than Mach microkernel
(on which are based MacOS X, OS/2 PowerPC,
WinNT 3.50 and many others) and considering
that, osFree team decided to no more use
ReactOS as the base for OS/3 system. I
installed ReactOS under VirtualPC and it is
several times slower than WinXP and eats about
64 Mb of RAM. It is monster (as the WinNT is)
and i don't know what perspectives would have
an OS/2 successor based on it

And another question: Opensourcing OS/2 is
good thing. And the hope dies the last. --
Our hope is that IBM will eventually open
the sources, at least partially. I know two
petitions to opensource OS/2, and signed both.
One petition is on this site and is quickly
getting the new voices. But 8000+ voices is
not very much. I can suggest to join voices
with another petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/OS24FREE/
Another suggestion is to ask help from linuxoids
to get their voices. OS/2 is getting many
software ported from Linux, and linux users
probably wish to get some parts of OS/2
ported to linux. Their thread scheduler
is worse than OS/2's and they don't have
anything like the WPS. KDE and GNOME is
worse. They are already have JFS. You can
say that this is the deal with devil, but
we can get them interested only if they get
their profits. And we will get OS/2 opensourced
instead. And the last suggestion: We can add
the addition to the Petition that if IBM can
not opensource OS/2 (intel) at all, we could
ask IBM to release OS/2 PPC sources as they were
developed solely by IBM and surely have no
Micro$oft code in them. The OS/2 PPC sources
could be ported to L4 as the GNU HURD, which
was ported to L4 from Mach. (And very
successfully, L4 version has good performance
compared with the Mach version)
WBR,
valery
Long live OS/2! Good ideas don't die.
"

TomLeeM


===========================================================================


MarkO


> 
> Oh, and hi, everybody...
> 
> Basil Fernie
> 
> 
> Mark D. Overholser wrote:
> 
> 
>>UserFriendly, Cartoon (18-JUL-2005)
>>http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050718&mode=classic>
>>
>>
>>MarkO
>>
>>



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

 To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/os2user/

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    os2user-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



---