Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Feb 2017 14:56 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation

Per Arca Noae's revised release schedule, and as announced at Warpstock 2016, Blue Lion (ArcaOS 5.0) moved into beta testing stage today. The first beta release has been made available to the test team, and we anticipate a rigorous round of installation, modifications, formatting, deletion, disk wiping, and all that other fun stuff which accompanies a healthy beta test.

We do not anticipate a public beta cycle nor are we planning a gamma release or an untold number of release candidates. Instead, we fully expect ArcaOS 5.0 to emerge from beta testing at the end of March and to become generally available at that time.

As mentioned during earlier coverage, ArcaOS is a sort-of continuation of eComStation, since it's founded by several eCS developers who felt eCS had ground to a halt.

Thread beginning with comment 640713
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They don't seem to get it
by sukru on Mon 6th Feb 2017 19:30 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

An alternative OS needs to build a user base. Unless they target a specific market, and do not expect growth (like ATMs, CNC machines, etc) they need to have a free version that students can play with.

The OS has become more or less a commodity. For example, Microsoft realized this, and have been giving away free Windows licenses to universities for about ten years now. We of course have Linux, FreeDOS, Haiku, among others readily available.

And the alternate hardware market has more or less died as well. We have PC and Mac. No more Commodores, Amigas, Sinclairs, Z80s. (Which is another shame). If there were competition on the hardware front, that might have given them an edge, unfortunately that no longer exists.

So if they want to be relevant, and have growth, they need to invest in the next group of users (students).

Reply Score: 5

RE: They don't seem to get it
by bassbeast on Tue 7th Feb 2017 07:41 in reply to "They don't seem to get it"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

They should target ARM, specifically the cheap ARM desktops now running Android. OS/2 could squeeze insane performance back in the day from seriously weak hardware, can you imagine what they could do running their own ARM quads or octocores tweaked to give OS/2 max performance?

And with ARM licensing and production so cheap they could probably make a quad core desktop with 256Gb SSD and a couple of GB of RAM for around $100 and still leave them a nice profit while having a system that would be peppy and could do 1080P without issue.

Lets face it with so many only using online applications and websites this could be a good market to target.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, I can't imagine that. It was written for x86. Porting and keeping performance sane isn't easy. ARM is kind of a mess right now as well, even in Android world. Like how there isn't a single Andriod rom that works on all models. Each model has its own image, due to drivers, and chipset differences.

The Arm server standard being worked on by linaro holds promise to standardize the platform at least for servers, but the hardware is scant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

They should target ARM


They don't have the source code (neither did Serinity Systems)... Porting to anything is a complete pipe dream, even 64-bit x86 is a non-starter. The extent of what they can do to OS/2 is limited to minor assembly level tweaks, drivers, hooking into SOM libraries, and adding software (mostly open source written by others).

They can add things, they can rewrite simple things (like the way they Serenity Systems rebuilt the installer), but they can't really change anything fundamental.

More people should realize this. I have nothing against what these guys are doing, but it is the equivalent of a Linux distro - they are basically like Red Hat, except they don't have the source code, the binary packages they are working with are almost 20 years old, and the upstream provider doesn't want their change sets even if they could make any. There is no bluetooth, no USB 3 (just adding that, if they succeed, will likely be their biggest accomplishment), no real hardware OpenGL, or any 3D support at all, a hard 4GB memory limit unless you use segmentation, a hard 2TB hard drive size limit, no knowledge of GP partitioning, no EFI, no webcams, no tv tuners, etc. etc.

They can only do so much, and frankly what they can do is pretty uninteresting imo. If you pine for a revival of OS/2 I sympathized, but this isn't that.

Edited 2017-02-08 02:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: They don't seem to get it
by james_gnz on Tue 7th Feb 2017 08:35 in reply to "They don't seem to get it"
james_gnz Member since:
2006-02-16

An alternative OS needs to build a user base. Unless they target a specific market, and do not expect growth (like ATMs, CNC machines, etc) they need to have a free version that students can play with.
The OS has become more or less a commodity.

The OS is not a commodity. For it to be a commodity, it would have to be interchangeable. It is often difficult for people to switch to another OS, because hardware and software they depend on may only support MS Windows. Trying to convince people to switch to another OS is like trying to convince people to switch from speaking English to speaking exclusively Esperanto, when all their friends speak English, and the media they read and listen to is all in English. It doesn't matter how crap English is as a language, or how nice Esperanto is, it's still a hard sell.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

Trying to convince people to switch to another OS is like trying to convince people to switch from speaking English to speaking exclusively Esperanto, when all their friends speak English, and the media they read and listen to is all in English. It doesn't matter how crap English is as a language, or how nice Esperanto is, it's still a hard sell.


Bad example since E-o is secondary only. (Dual boot, FTW!)

I had other stuff to say, but I couldn't seem to make a coherent point. Something about the virtues and difficulties of supporting two or more targets (or legacy vs. modern, old vs. new, compatibility vs. innovation), that there's no one-size-fits-all, etc.

It's just difficult, period, making things work in computing. And things do change too fast. Even working free solutions are a hard sell. (Hey, OS/2 user, just use Linux! It has WINE, DOSEMU, and various REXXes!)

Reply Parent Score: 2