Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 22nd Jun 2004 22:18 UTC, submitted by Shaun Bourke
OS/2 and eComStation An interesting article on upgrading a web site from Windows 2000 to eComStation 1.1.
Order by: Score:
Moving from Win2k to eCS 1.1
by Anonymous on Tue 22nd Jun 2004 22:53 UTC

Upgrading?

Hes a bit unfair to linux.
by Devon on Tue 22nd Jun 2004 22:54 UTC

He says the best linux distros are bloated? Well if their so bloated, how can he call them the best?? I smell a token dismissal. He was going to switch to eCS 1.1 no matter what, and he felt he had to come up with some excuse not to use linux. Pretty pathetic really...

Hummmmmm.
by Tyrone Miles on Tue 22nd Jun 2004 23:04 UTC

Linux being bloated is a misnomer. Linux distros being bloated is more correct.

Look at clarkconnect, Contribs.org SME server or Netmax. All three are light, fast and pretty secure out the box. All three are managed by webinterfaces that make it so you don't have to know much at all about Linux.

All 3 are "light"

Netmax can run on a Pentium 233 or higher with 128MB of ram.
Clarkconnect can run on almost any Pentium class machine. (I have it on a P 166 with 64 MB or ram)
Contribs.org SME server is about the same as clarkconnect.

We all know if you install KDE and all that crap, yes you will get bloat. But you don't need any of that to run Linux as a server.

That is also the reason you see most of the "GUI" based Linux versions par things down to make the OS lighter.

Anyway I hate to put someone down but I don't think this guy looked too hard.

also simple linux solution
by anonymous coward on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:10 UTC

Well, I also tried ecomstation for webserver purposes.
hardware: pentium 166, 64M RAM max.
but I realized, eomstation is to slow, surely because of the graphical environment.
So I tried SuSE 9.1, a so called "bloated" distro.
Myself II thougt "this will not work).
I chose "minimal install". You will say "hey, but this is not graphical, it is difficult to setup ..."
No! Correct is, it is not graphical. False is, it is difficult to setup.
I ran yast, on command line - the usage is the same as graphical. I installed the packages (it is almost enough to select the 'webserver' category for install). Then I setted up the webserver, firewall, ftpserver, samba and so on all with yast "wizards".
And this system runs good with php, mysql, perl and python.

so comparing the two systems:
ecomstation has the plus that it is graphical at low resources.
But the minus are:
- suse (well, not graphical) is a lot faster
- setup is not easier than with yast
- you have not so much potential in upgrading and future technologies (ok, you could use apache, but would take more resources, which for example I do not have)
- install is not so easy then suse (recursively, partitioning is a lot easier on suse. ecomstations partitioning was really crappy and not understandable without dosuentation)
- ecomstation is commercial (well suse too, but you can install the personal edition for free and really open source)

some points to clear up, I do not know:
- Is it also easy to do security updates with ecomstation (just with yast)?
- has linux the server side includes (ssi) support?

You see on this questions, I am a linux newbie and just switched some months ago. But it was easy for me to setup such a simple server.

by the way, better using open standards then proprietary technics as ssi.

well, just my two cents (european ;) )

Upgrading?
by Software on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:20 UTC

Since when going from Windows 2000 to eCS 1.1 is an Upgrade?

The guy talk about Windows 2000 Pro for a Webserver? What's wrong here?

RE: also simple linux solution
by tymiles on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:28 UTC

"has linux the server side includes (ssi) support? "

Yes Suse comes with Apache (So does almost every Linux version) Apache 1.3 and above can do anything that any other webserver can. SSI is supported no problem. Just look in your apache config file there should be a line for it.

apache ssi support
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:30 UTC
Strange article
by Bill on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:35 UTC

I have the feeling that guy really didn't know what he was doing. That was anything but an expert opinion. Really strange for a site of osnews' quality to post it, but I guess it did discuss a rarely used operting system so it sort of qualifies. Its cool running various oses just for the heck of it, but you shouldn't pretend that they are a superrior choice. If it works, I'm happy for you and glad that you are having fun. Rock on.

Not so hard
by Ben on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:51 UTC

With just these three tools, eComStation, Web/2 and MED, I could move a existing web site with more than 6 000 files (over 4 000 text/code documents) in just a couple of hours. That's strength. That's impressive.

No, that's two commands:

[root@old_machine]>mount -t nfs new_server:/home /mnt/new_machine
[root@old_machine]>cp -r /home/httpd /mnt/new_machine/

followed by:
[root@old_machine]>ssh root@new_machine

And SSI support! Wow. How advanced.

..
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:56 UTC

I'm sure I'm not the only one to say it, but Linux is about as bloated, or as lightweight as you want to make it. There are distros out there that are no more than a few MB in size (Geexbox is a good example - though maybe not the best one for this persons purposes).

This is just an act of laziness on behalf of someone who clearly couldn't be bothered to really study the alternatives.

If he had looked he would have at least taken the time to even mention BSD - or any of the several other Unix flavours that exist out there.

GJ

FreeBSD is the answer
by Skipp on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 00:57 UTC

If you want the benefits of linux without the bloat just install FreeBSD. FreeBSD is very light when first installed and then you can add exactly what you need and nothing more. Forget eComstation.

Re:FreeBSD is the answer
by Ben on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 01:04 UTC

Pretty much any *nix is the answer. *BSD, Debian, slackware, Arch, OpenNA, gentoo.... the list of operating systems and distros that install bloat-free and allow a minimal server install is virtually endless.
Install a base Debian system and apt-get install apache and you get a system in much less than a hundred meg. Same with any of the distros (OK, apart from a few).

bloat
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 01:38 UTC

"Same with any of the distros (OK, apart from a few)."

any distribution of linux can be trimmed down very easily. I have got very lean working web/mail/database server of redhat as well fedora in such machines. so the bloat problem is clearly more on the desktop side which isnt that mature anyway.

Dead product anyway...
by Alex on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 01:46 UTC

OK, it might sound as a troll but I'm surprised no-one even mentioned the fact that eCS is pretty much a dead-end (unless they've got access to the original OS/2 source code when I wasn't looking).

I used to love OS/2, I was a Warp product specialist at some point ; I used it on my home machine for several years and promoted it whenever I could. (Heck, when moving boxes yesterday I just stumbled upon my Warp 3 and 4 boxes... )

But after being buffetted this way and that by IBM before watching them pulling the plug for good, even I had to admit it wasn't going anywhere anymore. It's been a great product left to an untimely death, but it was taken off life support nonetheless.

So I eventually switched to Linux, where I found all that I loved from Warp (being MS-free and a lively community included) and more (like being able to tailor the system to my needs more than OS/2 ever allowed me).

Safe thing with Linux and the *BSD's is that there's no plug to pull. Which cannot be said for eCS.

irony?!?!
by defcon-1 on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 01:48 UTC

"and the fact that BeOS is no more made the decision easy"

So.... he writes off BeOS as dead.....and installs OS/2? Do we see the irony?


Actualy it seems BeOS is exactly the os he's looking for.

re: irony?!?!
by tuishimi on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 02:04 UTC

Not to mention that BeOS sort of lives on in Yellowtab's Zeta which, as an OS, has to be more advanced than OS/2 Warp 4 (eCom) since it is based on beta software that had not been released as of 2001/2002? Or am I wrong.

Anyway, I think it is pretty safe to say that linux (any flavor) makes a pretty darn tootin' good server. And while I am not a linux guru by any stretch, I have managed to install and use several flavors with out much trouble (gentoo, slackware, redhat and my latest favorite, fedora). Not too many webservers top Apache for reliability and basic speed. And features can be left out or built in at your leisure.

I guess I am agreeing with everyone else; this guy had OS/2 in mind before he made any decisions and didn't look anywhere else first. It is a shame IBM dropped OS/2... it was a lot of fun in its time. One of my PC's in the past was ordered directly from Indelible Blue with OS/2 preinstalled. Very cool... now they are gone.

Mike

Bloated??
by Cheapskate on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 02:33 UTC

nowadays with 100 GIG harddrives what is the big deal if you use 1 or 2 gigs for a OS & app for install, you still have GOBS of free disk space for your files.

jeeze you can allways go back to Windoze 95 , it only uses about 200 megs

Preaching to the deaf
by bleyz on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 02:49 UTC

So far all comments on this thread have said the same: you want a server, use Linux. It's pointless to look at anything else beacuse

1) Linux won't be discontinued,
2) Linux is free,
3) Linux does everything,
4) Linux can be tailored.

So, unless you can sustain a solid argument counterwise, you're forbidden to use anything else than Linux.

What all these people fail to realise is that those 4 points may be a) not true, b) not addable and c) not enough. In fact, that's more or less the whole problem of the 'linux community'.

Sorry, but until you set up an eCS server and compare it to any other OS on the same machine, you just have no say whether it is better or not. Maybe it isn't, but you just don't know that.

eCS will install in under 200 MB and its partitioning scheme is as complicated for a newbie as any other. Obviously for whoever is used to PMagic clones (btw, PMagic was originally a OS/2 program), it may seem a little awkward.

OS/2 has native DOS and 'Win16' compatibility, and a fair amount of Win32 through ODIN. Want to know what? Acrobat reader 5.0 is faster under ODIN than under Windows! I know it, I've used it.

The OS/2 version of Java 1.1.8 is also the fastest I've ever seen. Admitedly, you'll have to go 3rd party (Innotek) to get 1.4 and above and I have not tested this.

As for OS/2 not being up to date, you obviously know zilch about it - I daresay its HCL may be one of the most comprehensive, and I don't mean old hardware. IBM just keeps publishing new drivers on a monthly basis.

IBM ditched OS/2 because 1) MS holds copyrights to many parts of it and 2) it doesn't have a HAL. What IBM never did was abandon its customers, as is the norm in this industry. Sorry to whoever thought OS/2 would be developped for ever, because some day it had to end. Warp 4 is 8 years old now,
and that can be a lifetime for software. Never mind that even Warp 2 can run many current apps. But it isn't reasonable to expect an OS to last forever.

And it's a shame, because every time an OS goes down, its API goes together, and it shouldn't. OS/2 has a brilliant API, as does the AmigaOS for instance, and they'll be forgotten in favour of the unix-style file-centric API that pervades everything nowadays. Those different approaches, unless someone picks them, will fall into oblivion, while the computing world keeps struggling with primitive concepts just because they happen to be available for free.

To make an analogy, technological progress in Antiquity was stifled because of the availability of slave work. The same may happen to OS technology - no development because an old standard that can do the job can be had for free.

The same happens on the UI front: no development because the standard set by Windows (no matter how much more primitive than the previous UIs it's based on) is 'enough' and widespread.

On the contrary, you see how KDE and Gnome evolve. Not, as most think, because each one tries to be the best in a certain way, but because none currently is accepted as 'enough' for nearly everyone.

He's just a hobbist playing with webservers.
by Shane on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 02:53 UTC

Quote from article:

"So using Linux demands me to know the system from the ground up in a way that neither OS/2 or Windows does, if I want to use it in a optimal fashion. That, and the fact that BeOS is no more made the decision easy. OS/2 was about to become my choice for web server OS.

Maybe we should cut him some slack. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to learn *nix in order to run a web server as a hobby. A large portion of osnews readers would know how to run a proper web server though, and would sneer at statements such as:

"I used to run my web server on the same system I used for a lot of other purposes, like editing pictures in Adobe Photoshop, playing Red Alert 2 or the worst thing for my beloved web server, downloading files with DC++."

Maybe we should have a rating system for the articles: beginner, medium, advanced. That way people may be willing to cut the authors some slack by bearing in mind the "newbiness" of the article.

We can be elitist pricks sometimes ;)

Fact
by Don Elings on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 04:41 UTC

The author of the original article has damn little experience with this stuff, and says so in the title of the piece.
"Perspective from a 'new' user"
How this thread got to where it is beyond me.
Why did anyone bother to post this in the first place?

OpenBSD
by RedHatDude on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 04:49 UTC

I think you should use openBSD for your server. It's really light weight, and you can even use ed to edit your fstab on installation! Talk about light weight!

RE:Preaching to the deaf
by Alex on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 05:11 UTC

OK, I'll bite -- in part because I realize I may have sounded harsher than intended.

So let me clarify one thing: I have absolutely no gripe with this guy installing eCS if it rocks his boat. I feel nostalgia too, that's more my point.

Sorry, but until you set up an eCS server and compare it to any other OS on the same machine, you just have no say whether it is better or not. Maybe it isn't, but you just don't know that.

I'll admit I haven't touched OS/2 since IBM's original Warp 4. OTOH I've kept the same hardware over a long period of time, and had multiple boot. At some point ran Warp4, Win2K, BeOS and Linux (Mdk or debian, can't remember). I still liked Warp and was sorry to see it left behind. I tried to avoid Win2K. I got used and got more and more of my job done with Linux. I was setting myself up for another corporate disappointment with BeOS (the system itself was beyond all the others, though).

So, things were simpler to set up on Warp. Usually (let's not get into Communications Manager/2...) Easier to debug on Linux when something screwed up, and ran faster on the same box.

The OS/2 version of Java 1.1.8 is also the fastest I've ever seen

Since I didn't have top-of-the-line hardware, JVM 1.1.8 was slow as hell... but IBM's implementation was the fastest on all platforms.

IBM just keeps publishing new drivers on a monthly basis.

You got me here, I haven't checked in a long time and assumed they left it to decay. OTOH I don't believe there is any major development still being done for OS/2... whenever I hear of something it's a port of a *ix app.

IBM ditched OS/2 because ...

Pure suppositions here. No one outside IBM's brass will ever know the true reasons.

Never mind that even Warp 2 can run many current apps. But it isn't reasonable to expect an OS to last forever.

Just a nitpick, but there's never been such a thing as Warp 2. As for OS/2's longevity (did I mention I started with 1.3SE ?), the hardest part was seeing IBM's lack of direction. Supporting it this month, pulling the plug that month, announcing exciting new stuff after that, to switch off life support once again... Whatever IBM's reasons to not support Warp more than they did, they should've left their customer know where exactly they stood.

Reminds me of someone else's "focus shift".

OS/2 has a brilliant API, as does the AmigaOS for instance

We agree here. I'm not a developer but I used to know a few, they rather liked OS/2 in that respect. And beyond the API, nobody has come close to the Workplace Shell yet.

So, if the company behind eCS is able to make OS/2 live longer, so much the better. If they are able to actually enhance it and keep it with the times, which I doubt, even better.

In the meantime, I use Linux because that is the choice that suits me, and I keep a keen eye on Haiku's (the OS formerly know as OpenBeOS) evolution.

re:irony?!?!
by AndrewG on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 05:18 UTC

I was just going to post the same thing.

speaking of OS/2...
by Jeremy Ginsburg on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 07:27 UTC

As an old OS/2 user, I was just wondering if anyone knows what became of Tim Sipples (author of the OS/2 FAQ). He seems to have dropped off the net. I met him before he moved to IBM when he was working at the University of Chicago Center for Population Economics, which was around the corner from my high school. He was exceptionally nice and helpful, and got me hooked on OS/2 for a few years.

Re: Preaching to death
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 09:20 UTC

First of all the author has valid points. The most userfriendly distros in Linux are bloated, but why the hell are we discussing Linux??? The discussions was W2kPro (which isn't meant for webhosting) and eCS. And a comment like this

So far all comments on this thread have said the same: you want a server, use Linux. It's pointless to look at anything else beacuse

1) Linux won't be discontinued,
2) Linux is free,
3) Linux does everything,
4) Linux can be tailored.

So, unless you can sustain a solid argument counterwise, you're forbidden to use anything else than Linux.


What's wrong with... OpenBSD? FreeBSD? Dragonfly? NetBSD? Solaris? AIX? VMS? HP-UX? EkkoBSD? TheOS?...

You're one of those MANY totalitarians who can't see longer than your glasseyes reach. Linux will NEVER be an option here as long as these fascist propagandha continues nor will I respect those who use it.

I think it's nice to see a comparison about the user friendly OSes and how they compete in webhosting, however this was a truly flawed comparison as W2kPro is really not made for that, that's why you have server editions...

Sad to see that this is the news on OS/2
by Bernard on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 10:15 UTC

I'm with Alex on this one - I am an IBM Certified OS/2 Engineer, and I have still not found an OS that has a desktop to match the beauty and integration of the Workplace Shell. Microsoft has yet to deliver their vaporware object-oriented desktop; OS/2 had it back in the early 90s. You want meta-data with your files? You want to set graphics in folder backgrounds? OS/2 had those too back in the early 90s. You could create multiple shortcuts to different folders and independently organise the presentation of the files in those folders, and you could filter the contents of those folders to selectively show items based e.g. on timestamp, or on the meta-data associated with the file. And long before OS X got its dock, OS/2 had the same functionality. And all of this ran well on a machine with 8mb of RAM (and you could easily just boot to a non-GUI OS/2 and run a multi-tasking OS in a lot less).

Serenity Systems (as a small company) have done an amazing job of extending and enhancing the install in eCS, and produced their own package management tool. However, I haven't even used the last copy that I received. I've just got used to living in a world where the OS has a crappy UI (Win XP, Mandrake, OS X) because neither of my two principle development tools run on OS/2. And Since Microsoft bought Connectix, it doesn't even look like Virtual PC for OS/2 exists any more, so I can not run my development environment within a virtual Win32 machine on eCS.

I guess Eugenia included this item because OS/2 is an OS, and there ain't often much news about it (OS2 ezine is a shadow of what it was 5 years ago). It's true that IBM are constantly updating drivers for it - in fact, it looks like the dead OS/2 gets more support than the dead NT. Even if IBM can't organise their sales, marketing and technical strategy, you gotta love their end-of-life support for their products.

@ Anonymous (IP: 213.80.61.---)
by Manik on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 11:25 UTC

Just a suggestion: re-read the post you're commenting

another one?!
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 11:33 UTC

I am getting really tired of these OS/2 migration articles...it seems like there's a new one everyday for Pete's sake.

RE: Hes a bit unfair to linux.
by Mike Packard on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 12:34 UTC

He says the best linux distros are bloated? Well if their so bloated, how can he call them the best?? I smell a token dismissal. He was going to switch to eCS 1.1 no matter what, and he felt he had to come up with some excuse not to use linux. Pretty pathetic really...

Listen you pompous "linux is the solution to everything" aristrocrat, this man did research. He did the right thing if your not knowledgable on the topic, and his research came up with two points, linux is bloated and linux needs expertise in computers. he didnt like either aspect.

Furthermore, sometimes trying things doesn't make sense. I'm not going to try every video card out there to see which one i want, i can't afford to. I will read reviews and to see what aspects work and what doesn't. In his case he might, and I don't know for sure, not be able to afford to test out systems ad infinitem. Testing out new systems requires a redundant platform which is quite often difficult. It also takes time which as we all know time is money. so get off your f**ing high horse and realize there are other soln't out there.

BTW I'm a long time FreeBSD user and arrogant linux advocates like yourself gives all OS operating systems a bad name.

RE: Alex
by bleyz on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 12:43 UTC

Well, I'll have to agree with you.

The reason I wrote what I wrote was partially the contempt (should I call it disdain?) I saw in previous comments (and I don't mean you). I thought that was simply the kind of attitude that shouldn't be found anywhere in the 'free software community'. I used to think a 'community' was about, first and foremost, respect - which is something you have a hard time finding in Redmond.

(OS/2 surely isn't OSS but the people using it don't belong to the OSS world any less. BeOS isn't OSS either.)

(Not related to this thread, but it's also funny how many people who have never 'contributed' - nor will they - anything to the community - because they just don't have the know or can't be bothered - and I don't mean code, I mean as much as tutorials or 'lightweight evengelising' or helping others out - like to say 'we' this and 'we' that when they refer to whoever makes the software progress.)

I should add I myself like the WPS but don't think it's perfect. And finally, that I don't think eCS will go far in the end. There will almost surely be no 64-bit OS/2 and that says it all.

And yes, 'Warp 2' was rather dumb from me.

re: graphics, bloat and all.
by Kors on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 13:20 UTC

If we are speaking of web-serving on OS/2:

You could install and run heavily trimmed down OS/2 base system with working tcp/ip and multitasking but without GUI, WinOS2 and dos support (protect-only).
AFAIR when I did smth. similar in mid-90s it took 6 or 7 megs of hard disk space and around 2 megs of ram.
The memory footprint will be negligible even compared to optimized *BSDs and (for sure ;) ) linux distros.
Add another several megs of disk and memory for httpd daemon of your choice, and you'll get console-only OS/2 based webserver that (potentially) blows away (or is at least on par with) modern unixen on limited hardware by serving speed, as fs operations on HPFS are definately cheaper then on UFS and EXT*, (no access time updating by default, no permissions checking etc.), and TCP/IP stack is rather effective, plus we could use FAT as it requires even less memory and processing.
And it will dead sure use less memory.
And it would work acceptably on a 386DX with 6 megs of ram and 40 meg hdd, as I do not think that 4.x kernels use much more memory than 3.x i played with ;)
The downside will be user-evilness during installation of the system from the modern point of view. Consider it DOS on steroids or OS/2 from scratch ;) .
If someone is really interested in that, I could give further guidance.

Lame article
by Aaron on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 14:49 UTC

What a lame article... BSD is what he's looking for.

Sad...
by The Lone OSer on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 15:49 UTC

Ya know, All OS/2 really needs is a good face lift in the eye candy (ironically, alot of people say eye candy means nothing, yet it's the most griped about OS/2 erm, feature) and convert jfs to the native fs, and it would give WinXP a run for it's money.
ODIN makes Win32 apps work incredibly well.. not just running PE exe's but also converting them to LX ones for you for future use. X-Windows has been ported, along with numerous gnu software.
As per the people saying the API is awesome.. well, it has it's flaws, as does Win32API (They are incredibly similar because of the people who designed BOTH systems), although, yea.. it is nice.
Hey, if IBM just did that small facelife (eCS is not a nice facelift IMHO), i'd be more then willing to give OS/2 5.0 a shot (note - i've not used OS/2 for quite some time now, but know how robust and reliable it dang well is)

RE: Hes a bit unfair to linux.
by TyMiles on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 16:08 UTC

"He did the right thing if your not knowledgable on the topic, and his research came up with two points, linux is bloated and linux needs expertise in computers. he didnt like either aspect."

The problem here is he didn't research very much he would have found that in reality Linux is not bloated. Remember "Linux" is just the kernel.

There are some bloated Linux distros but that bloat comes from allowing users to install everything every created in Open Source and then some.

Which means Linux being bloated is a misnomer. Linux distros being bloated is more correct.

Look at clarkconnect, Contribs.org SME server or Netmax. All three are light, fast and pretty secure out the box. All three are managed by webinterfaces that make it so you don't have to know much at all about Linux. And all are much more easy to configure, are well documented and are much more robust then OS2 (eCom)

All 3 are "light"

Netmax can run on a Pentium 233 or higher with 128MB of ram.
Clarkconnect can run on almost any Pentium class machine. (I have it on a P 166 with 64 MB or ram)
Contribs.org SME server is about the same as clarkconnect.

We all know if you install KDE and all that crap, yes you will get bloat. But you don't need any of that to run Linux as a server.

That is also the reason you see most of the "GUI" based Linux versions par things down to make the OS lighter.

Also I could take the Linux kernel, compile it with just apache and get it to run on low end 486 machines no problem, it's not like you can't make Linux light.

Anyway I hate to put someone down but I don't think this guy looked too hard.


RE: RE: Hes a bit unfair to linux.
by Mike Packard on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 16:37 UTC

The problem here is he didn't research very much he would have found that in reality Linux is not bloated. Remember "Linux" is just the kernel.
...snip...
Anyway I hate to put someone down but I don't think this guy looked too hard.


I would agree with you, I'm the one you replied back to. But I was replying back to someone who immediatley blasted away since the article had negative linux aspects. I like reading osnews but this "linux is everything" is very pervasive in the articles and the replies. This is not linux.osnews.com. OS/2, and I used it for years when Windows 3.1 didn't work right, can stand on its own without someone shouting, "Use Linux."

You are right. OS2 is very nice and I loved it when I used it. I didn't mean to sound like Linux is everything cause it's not.

And you are right everyone and every OS deserves their time on this site.

Re: Re: He's a bit unfair to Linux
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 22:01 UTC

The problem here is he didn't research very much he would have found that in reality Linux is not bloated. Remember "Linux" is just the kernel.

There are some bloated Linux distros but that bloat comes from allowing users to install everything every created in Open Source and then some.


Well to those who are new Linux is not only the kernel but what you refer to as GNU/Linux. Besides, there are 1000 distros in Linux, ofcourse you only know about the major ones like Redhat or Mandrake.

Why research a 1000 distros when he clearly states he want something easy, eCS is obviously easy as there are not 1000 distros of it? Geee that must have been tricky for you to figure out...

what the heck
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Jun 2004 23:48 UTC

"Why research a 1000 distros when he clearly states he want something easy, eCS is obviously easy as there are not 1000 distros of it? Geee that must have been tricky for you to figure out..."

1) there arent 1000 distros. if you count the major ones maybe 4 or 5 are relevant to the majority. so you dont need to research that much.

2) distrowatch has clear categories of distros that match relevant criterias

3)any modern known distro can be very easily used with a few 100 mb's for what he is doing.

so your whole premise is wrong

RE: bleyz
by Alex on Thu 24th Jun 2004 00:49 UTC

...the contempt (should I call it disdain?) I saw in previous comments...

Agreed. Although this site isn't as bad as /. often is, it's a trend one sees all too often all around the net. I guess I'm guilty of the same, when it comes to people I know who insist on using Windows, but I digress ;)

I usually don't feel contempt for someone else based on their OS of choice (assuming it's a choice and not just going with the herd), probably because of my own multi- and alternate-OS background (let's just say I remember a time when the OS _didn't_ come preloaded on the machine...)

a 'community' was about, first and foremost, respect - which is something you have a hard time finding in Redmond.

You can't expect respect from a corporation... but that's an entirely different debate, not suited for this forum.

OS/2 surely isn't OSS but the people using it don't belong to the OSS world any less. BeOS isn't OSS either.

OS/2 isn't OSS, and the people using it aren't in the OSS world (specifically, being OS/2 users is irrelevant to their belonging in the OSS movement -- that depends on what else they're using). Neither is BeOS (although we'll have to see with Haiku). Both have (or used to) their own thriving communities, which is a good thing.

Some of these communities refuse to die (Atari fans, anyone? ;) , which is good too. Some even have a chance of reviving/evolving their platform of choice, and that is the best proposition. It's all about personal choice and having a varied ecosystem.

or 'lightweight evengelising

Yes, this is the least we can do. I'm no coder, haven't got around documenting or translating anything, but I can at least do THAT.

like the WPS but don't think it's perfect

It had a bunch of good ideas that _should_ inspire today's developments -- but unfortunately it is more often totally overlooked. Same for BeOS' Tracker Give be a breed of these two and I probably won't change desktops ever again ;)

I don't think eCS will go far in the end.

Unless someone at IBM wakes up (yeah, right...) they have even less chance of going anywhere than Zeta does (at least they have access to some source code). And even if they did it's probably far too late now. The best one can do now, is to remember Warp and try to bring back its best qualities -- and make them even better.

RE: kors
by Alex on Thu 24th Jun 2004 01:00 UTC

You could install and run heavily trimmed down OS/2 base system with working tcp/ip and multitasking but without GUI, WinOS2 and dos support (protect-only).

You could, and indeed gain the memory and performance you noted. But to put this back in the original post's perspective, it's not for the faint of heart.

Or, to put it another way, trimming down an OS/2 system while keeping it functional is not any easier (if I remember correctly) than tailoring down a Linux distro.

The downside will be user-evilness during installation

I haven't used or even checked eCS so maybe I'm completely mistaken ; but you couldn't NOT install this stuff when setting up a Warp box. You had to go with as much of a bare-bone install you could, which still installed a lot of unwanted stuff, and trim down from there.

And it would work acceptably on a 386DX with 6 megs of ram and 40 meg hdd

Yup, it did work on a similarly-sized Compaq notebook then ;) Although I'm not sure about "acceptably", but that was including the WPS.

Bernard -- w.r.t. Virtual PC for OS/2...
by Rich Steiner on Thu 24th Jun 2004 09:01 UTC

You might want to check out this project from Serenity Systems:

http://www.serenityvirtual.com

OS/2
by jimmt on Thu 24th Jun 2004 15:12 UTC

Off-Topic:

My CO has a major facility that still runs WSEB/WSOD. Here is my OS/2 WSEB Workstation:

http://www.angelfire.com/ar/jtessiers/desktop4.html

:)

OS/2 -- rulez.
by FonMax on Thu 24th Jun 2004 19:20 UTC

ядро откройте! (sorry for terrible english.. ;-)