What kind of browser can we expect in the future now that SM / FF is officially dead?

[Christer Jacobsson]

As Salaam Aleikum!

Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future? Opera 5.2
for os/2 still exist, but it's so outdated that there is not much that
can be done with it. And we os/2 / eCs afficionados  - like me who began
my os2 career with the 2.0beta and through all it's incarnation via
Warp, WSeB and the Convenient Packs (which is my default OS in BM() -
what can we expect to happen in the future browser-way?


Cul8er alligator!
gaea - feminist & chunkawakan
--
/GAIA (Insulin User - 18th Anniversary :-)  Ex-wife deceased :-(
       Team OS/2      e-mail:  [hidden email] (Primary)
       Team eCs       e-mail:  [hidden email]   (Alternate)
       Team DRW       Dare Refuse Windows
       Chunkawakan    Lakota/Sioux: Horse

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Steve Wendt]

On 5/6/2014 1:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:

> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?

I believe the only possibilities for the foreseeable future are:

1) New unofficial Mozilla builds from the forked Bitwise codebase; they
are currently working on Gecko 24 support.

2) Various browsers based on QtWebKit, such as Qupzilla.  These are
mostly front-ends, and are dependent on the underlying Qt library being
updated to get new core features.  I doubt there will be much progress
there anytime soon, unless a third party steps in.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[James Moe-3]

On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>
  I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
virtual machine, and go from there.
  This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
joy of using os/2 for most else.

--
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

James Moe wrote:

> On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>>
>    I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
> virtual machine, and go from there.
>    This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
> longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
> joy of using os/2 for most else.
>

You need the hardware to go that route and Christer is still running a
P3 and not well off IIRC
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Karen Roberts]

Hi, so what is the most recent stable version of Firefox (and Thunderbird)?

I saw mention of a version 24?

Thanks,

Karen Roberts

On 05/06/14 02:05 pm, Steve Wendt wrote:

> On 5/6/2014 1:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>
>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>
> I believe the only possibilities for the foreseeable future are:
>
> 1) New unofficial Mozilla builds from the forked Bitwise codebase; they
> are currently working on Gecko 24 support.
>
> 2) Various browsers based on QtWebKit, such as Qupzilla. These are
> mostly front-ends, and are dependent on the underlying Qt library being
> updated to get new core features. I doubt there will be much progress
> there anytime soon, unless a third party steps in.
>

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Steve Wendt]

On 5/19/2014 9:47 AM, Karen Roberts wrote:

> Hi, so what is the most recent stable version of Firefox (and Thunderbird)?

That would still be the 10esr builds:
http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html

> I saw mention of a version 24?

A work in progress.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

On 05/19/14 09:47 am, Karen Roberts wrote:
> Hi, so what is the most recent stable version of Firefox (and Thunderbird)?
>
> I saw mention of a version 24?

The 10ESR releases are probably the most stable currently. The 17ESR
release is also stable if you don't get hit by the FPU exception bug.
I've been running TB17.11 and SM 2.14 for quite a while and for me they
have been stable but slow. Eventually the 24ESR release should be the
best as we have a good developer putting in time but the binary released
today is more of a preview or Alpha release to get feedback and make
sure the FPU bug is fixed. Beaware that it is 200 MB download.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[David Bongo]

James Moe wrote:

> On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>>
>    I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
> virtual machine, and go from there.
>    This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
> longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
> joy of using os/2 for most else.
>

But which flavor of linux?  I'm guessing that most of us are still using
OS/2-eCS for the WPS, even if we do deal with (the no longer godawful
but still distasteful) versions of Windows.  Project Voyager has not
shown much, so what would be our preferred front-end?  What would work
the best with the easiest learning curve?

I briefly messed around with a version of Ubuntu (didn't care for it)
and Linux Mint was installed but never really played with much.

Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Bob]

I use CentOS for a number of things. The reason being it is simple, stable and
supported. That matches my requirements. I have used a number of different
Linuxes over the years. I moved on from many of them when they implemented
complex, 'highly featured' desktops that got in the way of usability. Often full
of bugs.

Bob
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

On 05/21/14 01:17 pm, David Bongo wrote:

> James Moe wrote:
>> On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>>>
>>    I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
>> virtual machine, and go from there.
>>    This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
>> longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
>> joy of using os/2 for most else.
>>
>
> But which flavor of linux?  I'm guessing that most of us are still using
> OS/2-eCS for the WPS, even if we do deal with (the no longer godawful
> but still distasteful) versions of Windows.  Project Voyager has not
> shown much, so what would be our preferred front-end?  What would work
> the best with the easiest learning curve?
>
> I briefly messed around with a version of Ubuntu (didn't care for it)
> and Linux Mint was installed but never really played with much.
>

Mint still has the old Gnome interface which is perhaps the closest to
the WPS. There are lots of live CDs to experiment with and each distro
also includes various desktops but to many are going to the stupid touch
interface that is really meant for phones and tablets. This what
happened with Ubuntu and the Unity desktop.
Personally I think that staying with OS/2 is still an option as long as
your hardware works. FF24 is looking like it'll be good as we finally
have a good developer putting in time.
Dave

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[David Bongo]

Dave Yeo wrote:

> On 05/21/14 01:17 pm, David Bongo wrote:
>> James Moe wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>>>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>>>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>>>>
>>> I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
>>> virtual machine, and go from there.
>>> This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
>>> longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
>>> joy of using os/2 for most else.
>>>
>>
>> But which flavor of linux? I'm guessing that most of us are still using
>> OS/2-eCS for the WPS, even if we do deal with (the no longer godawful
>> but still distasteful) versions of Windows. Project Voyager has not
>> shown much, so what would be our preferred front-end? What would work
>> the best with the easiest learning curve?
>>
>> I briefly messed around with a version of Ubuntu (didn't care for it)
>> and Linux Mint was installed but never really played with much.
>>
>
> Mint still has the old Gnome interface which is perhaps the closest to
> the WPS. There are lots of live CDs to experiment with and each distro
> also includes various desktops but to many are going to the stupid touch
> interface that is really meant for phones and tablets. This what
> happened with Ubuntu and the Unity desktop.
> Personally I think that staying with OS/2 is still an option as long as
> your hardware works. FF24 is looking like it'll be good as we finally
> have a good developer putting in time.
> Dave
>

Dave,

I suppose you are referring to the "Cinnamon" interface?  It's worth me
checking out, especially since I have a (supported but outdated) version
installed on an old PC.

I do want to stick with eCS, but exploring an escape route is
worthwhile.  We're barely keeping pace with browsers, forget about other
stuff.  I'm not saying it's time to call it, and I'm not saying eCS is
on life support, but we're not as healthy as we looked a year ago.

Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[David Bongo]

Bob wrote:
> I use CentOS for a number of things. The reason being it is simple,
> stable and supported. That matches my requirements. I have used a number
> of different Linuxes over the years. I moved on from many of them when
> they implemented complex, 'highly featured' desktops that got in the way
> of usability. Often full of bugs.
>
> Bob

Bob,

I'll add that to my "To Do" list.  If all I use it for is an eCS
launcher and web browsing it might work out OK.

Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

David Bongo wrote:
> I suppose you are referring to the "Cinnamon" interface?  It's worth me
> checking out, especially since I have a (supported but outdated) version
> installed on an old PC.

Yes, memory seems to be getting worse :)

>
> I do want to stick with eCS, but exploring an escape route is
> worthwhile.  We're barely keeping pace with browsers, forget about other
> stuff.  I'm not saying it's time to call it, and I'm not saying eCS is
> on life support, but we're not as healthy as we looked a year ago.

ECS does seem to be on life support and even though Mensys claims to be
working on 2.2 the reality is different. There is an alternative route
being acted on, see
http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,386.0/topicseen.html
Dave

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Ken Blackburn]

James Moe wrote:

> On 05/06/2014 01:20 PM, Christer Jacobsson wrote:
>> Now that the death of SM / FF is official, what can we who still uses
>> our beloved OS2 / eCs expect as a replacement in the future?
>>
>    I recommend moving to linux. Install VirtualBox, create an os/2 guest
> virtual machine, and go from there.
>    This way you get all the benefits of modern browsers in linux, you no
> longer have to scrounge through eBay looking for old hardware, and the
> joy of using os/2 for most else.
>

Is there somewhere OS/2 and eCS folks are discussing how to optimize the
Linux VirtualBox?  I've gotten it running and eCS 2.1 is running just
fine.  But I'd like to gain access to my JFS partitions with the VM
running eCS AND to enable all the cores (4).  I've not been able to
figure out how to get the other 3 cores running in the VM.

Thanks in advance...
--
Ken Blackburn
Ken Blackburn at nc dot rr dot com

-- So many stupid people, so few comets.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

On 05/22/14 08:02 pm, Ken Blackburn wrote:
> Is there somewhere OS/2 and eCS folks are discussing how to optimize the
> Linux VirtualBox?  I've gotten it running and eCS 2.1 is running just
> fine.  But I'd like to gain access to my JFS partitions with the VM
> running eCS AND to enable all the cores (4).  I've not been able to
> figure out how to get the other 3 cores running in the VM.

There's the virtualized ecs users list, subscribe by mailing to
[hidden email]
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[kbr_nospam_]

In <[hidden email]>, on
05/21/14
   at 06:09 PM, Dave Yeo <[hidden email]> said:


>Personally I think that staying with OS/2 is still an option as long as
>your hardware works. FF24 is looking like it'll be good as we finally
>have a good developer putting in time.

Also QT will be updated, including qtwebkit, which will give us qt based
browser that are no longer crippled.



Cheers, Bjorn.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[hidden email]
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[David Bongo]

Dave Yeo wrote:

> David Bongo wrote:
>> I do want to stick with eCS, but exploring an escape route is
>> worthwhile. We're barely keeping pace with browsers, forget about other
>> stuff. I'm not saying it's time to call it, and I'm not saying eCS is
>> on life support, but we're not as healthy as we looked a year ago.
>
> ECS does seem to be on life support and even though Mensys claims to be
> working on 2.2 the reality is different. There is an alternative route
> being acted on, see
> http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,386.0/topicseen.html
> Dave
>

It's interesting.  I'm not a developer (I haven't programmed anything in
nearly 20 years, and what I did program back then was all text-based
practice type stuff, like the Towers of Hanoi) but I am interested and
will defer to those with superior knowledge and actual programming
skills on a path forward.

As a non-developer it just seems to me that a fundamental problem is the
closed-source base operating system which is firmly (and possibly
forever) stuck in the 32-bit world.  Therefore, in my somewhat
uninformed but still malleable opinion, the best path forward for our
community would be to take a Linux distro and make WPS for that.  Then
there would be a 2-part path forward - enhance VirtualBox to integrate
better with OS/2-eCS (similar to Win-OS/2 for Windows 3.1) and explore
the possibility of getting this system to natively run OS/2 programs.
We would pretty much by default get the latest browser and OpenOffice
(or LibreOffice) builds while using the interface we prefer.

As I said, I'm not a developer but at this point I kind of feel like
it's throwing good money after bad to continue on as we are.  But that's
just me.  Maybe I'm just overly fatalistic this week.

Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

David Bongo wrote:
> As a non-developer it just seems to me that a fundamental problem is the
> closed-source base operating system which is firmly (and possibly
> forever) stuck in the 32-bit world.

Yes, 32 bit is becoming more of a problem with many projects not
worrying about wasting memory. This is even worse for our old OS as it
was first designed in a 16bit world and that gives us that pesky 512MBs
per process limitation which we partially get around with high memory.
Enough of it is still 16bit that it'll probably never be 64bit
compatible as they dropped 16bit support when in 64bit mode.

>  Therefore, in my somewhat
> uninformed but still malleable opinion, the best path forward for our
> community would be to take a Linux distro and make WPS for that.  Then
> there would be a 2-part path forward - enhance VirtualBox to integrate
> better with OS/2-eCS (similar to Win-OS/2 for Windows 3.1) and explore
> the possibility of getting this system to natively run OS/2 programs. We
> would pretty much by default get the latest browser and OpenOffice (or
> LibreOffice) builds while using the interface we prefer.

A WPS on Linux would be nice but difficult as it takes a certain type of
developer(s) to write.
Actually Reactos might be a better choice then Linux for a WPS as it is
a NT clone and NT was originally designed to run OS/2 programs and the
API is closer (at one time MS had the 32bit Presentation Manager running
under NT in case OS/2 won the OS wars). Still without someone with the
right skills, time and motivation it's not going to happen.
If I understand correctly, VirtualBox can already run some operating
systems seamless so that is more of a possibility. Once again need
someone with the skills and interest.

>
> As I said, I'm not a developer but at this point I kind of feel like
> it's throwing good money after bad to continue on as we are.  But that's
> just me.  Maybe I'm just overly fatalistic this week.

It's not just you, OS/2 was discontinued years ago now and the community
has been shrinking for a long time.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 18:31:55 -0700, Dave Yeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If I understand correctly, VirtualBox can already run some operating
> systems seamless so that is more of a possibility. Once again need
> someone with the skills and interest.

That won't happen because of the fixed resolution (without a reboot)
limits in PM.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[David Bongo]

Dave Yeo wrote:

> David Bongo wrote:
>> As a non-developer it just seems to me that a fundamental problem is the
>> closed-source base operating system which is firmly (and possibly
>> forever) stuck in the 32-bit world.
>
> Yes, 32 bit is becoming more of a problem with many projects not
> worrying about wasting memory. This is even worse for our old OS as it
> was first designed in a 16bit world and that gives us that pesky 512MBs
> per process limitation which we partially get around with high memory.
> Enough of it is still 16bit that it'll probably never be 64bit
> compatible as they dropped 16bit support when in 64bit mode.
>
>> Therefore, in my somewhat
>> uninformed but still malleable opinion, the best path forward for our
>> community would be to take a Linux distro and make WPS for that. Then
>> there would be a 2-part path forward - enhance VirtualBox to integrate
>> better with OS/2-eCS (similar to Win-OS/2 for Windows 3.1) and explore
>> the possibility of getting this system to natively run OS/2 programs. We
>> would pretty much by default get the latest browser and OpenOffice (or
>> LibreOffice) builds while using the interface we prefer.
>
> A WPS on Linux would be nice but difficult as it takes a certain type of
> developer(s) to write.
> Actually Reactos might be a better choice then Linux for a WPS as it is
> a NT clone and NT was originally designed to run OS/2 programs and the
> API is closer (at one time MS had the 32bit Presentation Manager running
> under NT in case OS/2 won the OS wars). Still without someone with the
> right skills, time and motivation it's not going to happen.

It would be better than the course we're on, but you're constantly
playing catch-up.  If MS continues the trend introduced with Windows 8
(Good for Tablets, bad for PCs) then something may come of it - but they
won't because they are a business out to make money.  Windows 9 will be
better (just like the XP -> Vista -> 7 migration).  But we don't need NT
compatibility - we need something that supports the latest (or
reasonably current) hardware and software.  With MS employing 1000
programmers and this project employing maybe 50, you're going to lose
ground, just like ODIN.

> If I understand correctly, VirtualBox can already run some operating
> systems seamless so that is more of a possibility. Once again need
> someone with the skills and interest.
>

Given Paul's Reply:

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
 >
 > That won't happen because of the fixed resolution (without a reboot)
 > limits in PM.

Which seems to mean that for OS/2 a seamless session is likely a
non-starter.

Now, my "Dream Scenario" (I'm a user and not a developer so this may not
even be feasible) would be to work on replicating WPS on a current and
developing system with a long-term future (e.g. Linux, but could be
something I'm not aware of) and work on a version of eCS that could be
seamlessly windowed in VirtualBox.  It would require a complete rewrite
of PM (Unless somebody has the source code) which makes it less than ideal.

Given enough time "Seamless OS/2" is not even important so I'd settle
for a WPS-ish interface (Have a goal and implement it over multiple
releases over several years - maybe even make a better WPS than WPS)
with some enhancements to improve the connectivity between host and
client in VirtualBox to ease the transition.  Just my $0.02.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2