Interesting: Is IBM considering an OS/2 redo?
|
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 16 Apr 2010 22:30 > > > I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe IOPL >0 allowed > that ring and any lower to have access. That is, if IOPL=1, then 0 > and 1 could access H/W, 2 and 3 couldn't. > > BTW, I see OS/2 may be making a comeback;-) > Well, according to the OSFree roadmap ... (-: The article that you mentioned before seemed to be discussing the Workplace Shell more than OS/2 itself. Here's some computer folklore: Esther Schindler reported on 2007-12-07 that IBMers had tolder her that some of the OS/2 source code has been lost, in the move from Boca Raton to Austin.
From: Tom Lake on 17 Apr 2010 05:20 "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote in message news:IU.D20100417.T023051.P7459.Q0(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost... >> >> >> I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe IOPL >0 allowed that >> ring and any lower to have access. That is, if IOPL=1, then 0 and 1 >> could access H/W, 2 and 3 couldn't. >> >> BTW, I see OS/2 may be making a comeback;-) >> > Well, according to the OSFree roadmap ... (-: > > The article that you mentioned before seemed to be discussing the > Workplace Shell more than OS/2 itself. > > Here's some computer folklore: Esther Schindler reported on 2007-12-07 > that IBMers had tolder her that some of the OS/2 source code has been > lost, in the move from Boca Raton to Austin. > It's not from IBM but OS/2 is available for current hardware (renamed eComStation): http://www.ecomstation.com/ I downloaded the demo just for fun and, wow! It's not bad at all! Tom Lake
From: Peter Flass on 17 Apr 2010 08:17 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: >> >> >> I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe IOPL >0 allowed >> that ring and any lower to have access. That is, if IOPL=1, then 0 >> and 1 could access H/W, 2 and 3 couldn't. >> >> BTW, I see OS/2 may be making a comeback;-) >> > Well, according to the OSFree roadmap ... (-: > > The article that you mentioned before seemed to be discussing the > Workplace Shell more than OS/2 itself. > > Here's some computer folklore: Esther Schindler reported on 2007-12-07 > that IBMers had tolder her that some of the OS/2 source code has been > lost, in the move from Boca Raton to Austin. > There's a name from the past. I just spent quite a bit of time trying to recall her name (finally successfully), when I saw Smack! listed by BMTMicro. Didn't she write that one?
From: Peter Flass on 17 Apr 2010 08:23 Tom Lake wrote: > > "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> > wrote in message > news:IU.D20100417.T023051.P7459.Q0(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost... >>> >>> >>> I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe IOPL >0 allowed >>> that ring and any lower to have access. That is, if IOPL=1, then 0 >>> and 1 could access H/W, 2 and 3 couldn't. >>> >>> BTW, I see OS/2 may be making a comeback;-) >>> >> Well, according to the OSFree roadmap ... (-: >> >> The article that you mentioned before seemed to be discussing the >> Workplace Shell more than OS/2 itself. >> >> Here's some computer folklore: Esther Schindler reported on >> 2007-12-07 that IBMers had tolder her that some of the OS/2 source >> code has been lost, in the move from Boca Raton to Austin. >> > > It's not from IBM but OS/2 is available for current hardware > (renamed eComStation): > > http://www.ecomstation.com/ > > I downloaded the demo just for fun and, wow! It's not bad at all! > I don't think they've been able to fix the kernel problems. I know they've added a lot of drivers and applications. One of these days I'm going to have to get a copy.
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 18 Apr 2010 05:56
> >>> >>> I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe IOPL >0 allowed >>> that ring and any lower to have access. That is, if IOPL=1, then 0 >>> and 1 could access H/W, 2 and 3 couldn't. >>> >>> BTW, I see OS/2 may be making a comeback;-) >>> >> Well, according to the OSFree roadmap ... (-: >> >> The article that you mentioned before seemed to be discussing the >> Workplace Shell more than OS/2 itself. >> >> Here's some computer folklore: Esther Schindler reported on >> 2007-12-07 that IBMers had told her that some of the OS/2 source code >> has been lost, in the move from Boca Raton to Austin. >> > There's a name from the past. I just spent quite a bit of time trying > to recall her name (finally successfully), when I saw Smack! listed by > BMTMicro. Didn't she write that one? > I've no idea. I've never heard of it. (-: One thing that I know xe did write was a call to open-source SOM. Now that's something that would be very helpful. Yes, NOM exists, but from what I'm told it isn't binary compatible with SOM, which rather misses one of the major points of using SOM. |