Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Oct 2006 18:32 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation The proposed design for Voyager, which aims to become an OS/2 replacement, is now available. "Voyager is the codename for the idea of having a replacement OS/2 on top of modern technology. This idea is the result of around 1.5 years of thinking a lot about what we can do in the future as current OS/2 and eComStation users. Note that it's absolutely impossible to convey what we plan to do in a few sentences. I made a speech on it at Warpstock Europe 2005 that, by itself, took 1.5 hours so you get the point." Read the Voyager FAQ to understand what it actually is and aims to become.
Permalink for comment 171924
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why not sooner?
by g2devi on Sun 15th Oct 2006 20:19 UTC in reply to "Why not sooner?"
g2devi
Member since:
2005-07-09

VMS is older than OS/2, and there's a few opensource versions of VMS out there in use, so I don't see a problem of adding OS/2 to the mix. From what I understand, it seems that they're taking the MacOSX on BSD and Win32 on Linux (aka WINE) approach to getting OS/2 to run on Linux, so it should take a lot faster time to operate since they won't have to redo the low level and they won't have to create special Voyager device drivers or Voyager Graphics drivers (since it'll be built on X.org's low level device framework).

I don't know if it'll pan out, but if it does, it'll provide a smoother migration path for OS/2 Warp users to move to Linux (a good thing), Linux compatibility through exposing low level functions and through adding an optional web server a la MacOSX (also a good thing), and move some of OS/2's advanced ideas that have faded from memory into the forefront (also a good thing), and provide Windows users another open source alternative to Windows that's closer to Windows in feel that KDE or GNOME can be (also a good thing).

So even though I'll likely never use Voyager, I'd welcome it.

Edited 2006-10-15 20:21

Reply Parent Score: 3