[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: OS/2 Porting




PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A FLAME!

compexpr@aol.com (CompExpr) writes:

>I just have to respond to all of the OS/2 people saying that an OS/2 port
>would be the best thing for ARDI to do...

>While I like OS/2, own it (though I'm not currently running it...) and
>think that it should be much more widespread than it is. I don't agree
>that ARDI should put a priority to porting Executor to OS/2.

>Unfortunately my take on situation is IBM is not willing to do the right
>job in getting OS/2 out there, and are likely to cut their losses and drop
>support of the system altogether.

Let me guess.. your primary system is NT.
Have you spent any time reading about Merlin? Is that dropping support?

>IF IBM were to somehow give ARDI some financial incentive to develop an
>Executor/2, I think that would be great.

This would be nice, but I don't see it happening with *any*  copany.

>And I do indeed agree that OS/2 would be a much more stable platform for a
>native port of Executor than Win 95, except that there are much less
>people using OS/2 than there are Windows, Windows NT and Windows 95. It's
>unfortunate but true...

If I were ARDI, I would spend most of my time trying to integrate
Executor into a Win 3x app.  BUT (as I will discuss below ), an OS/2 
port would be SOOOOOOOOOO easy.

>I would like to see ARDI continue it's efforts to complete the
>Executor/DOS, Executor Linux and Executor Next Step (Yes, there is
>probably a smaller installed base of NextStep people than OS/2, but ARDI
>has a desire to support/respect their roots.) ports.
Hey.. I love Next Step, but you are saying *probably*? How about
definitely 8-)

>I think once 2.0 is out, and perhaps even 3.0 (with full Sys7 drop-in
>support, Serial Support, Sound, Networking, etc..) and the money is
>flowing (hopefully... and deservedly..) then they should scope out the
>existing market for native ports.

>By that time NT 4.0 will be out, as well as Win 97(?). Also at this point
>IBM will either have released OS/2 4.0 or canned it.

>I hope all the loyal OS/2'ers won't flame me, but I think we all want
>Executor and ARDI to succeed, even if some of us don't get everything we
>want! (How about Executor Minix! Executor BSD! Executor CP/M-86!
>Executor/SCO, Executor System V! ... It could go on forever!)

>- Al Hartman, Computer Expressions -

The point of many OS/2 users asking, at least for me, is that *all* of 
the development tools are there. A port could be literally done in a day.
OS/2 Warp has GCC, SVGA lib, and XFree86 and E/L to E/OS2 would be
trivial. The SVGAlib port is even DIVE... 

I believe that CLiff is speaking in earnest about the OS/2 port.  They 
have very limited resources,  and must keep them on task.

I am a bit dissapointed though that they don't just make a quick port to shut
people up for awhile, placing an all caps label THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED
AT THIS TIME on startup. 8-)

I have offered to compile this port, but Cliff insists that they need to
wait for Version 2.0 to ship.

Oh well,

Charles Hunter 

-- 
Charles R. Hunter 	 	
Purdue University School of Science             huntercr@cs.purdue.edu
West Lafayette, IN                              mechainc@expert.cc.purdue.edu


References: