On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:22:47 -0400 dmccunney wrote: > >> There is a new commercial OS/2 variant now, ArcaOS from arcanoae.com . > >I missed that one. Thanks! > >> 32-bit, no 64-bit, no GPT, no refund it it doesn't work. > >64-bit can be lived without. 32 bit is nice. The question is what 32 bit >apps?
Well, the existing OS/2 ones for starters, but of course the number of those is just a fraction of what you have on Windows. But there is a reasonably recent FireFox/Mozilla browser, OpenOffice etc. Then there are loads of ported Linux applications as well, and they also include a YUM/RPM packagemanager so they are not hard to install. That said, if you do not have any existing OS/2 apps, there is not that much reason to pick ArcaOS over Linux, macOS or Windows, apart from the WorkPlace shell, which still is one of the best object-oriented desktops around. (Allthough I am mainly a command line guy myself :) >The problem that did in OS/2 was lack of support for 32 bit *Windows* >apps. The native OS/2 apps ecosystem wasn't broad/deep enough, and it >needed to be able to run Win apps to compete with Windows. There is still no generic support for that, and it is unlikely there ever will be. Many 32-bit Windows application can be run using the 'Odin' emulation layer, that is functionally similar to WINE on Linux, but like WINE, it is not perfect ... FWIW: I develop my software mainly on OS/2, using the OpenWatcom compiler, and cross-compile for 32-bit Windows, Linux, 32-bit extended DOS and OS/2. Only my macOS versions are compile ON macOS (LLVM/CLANG). (The DOS version is most often used with FreeDOS BTW) I still find OS/2 a more comfortable and safe environment than Windows, and have a lot of tools working there, so that makes it an easy decision. Most of the work is done in a VirtualBox running ArcaOS on top of macOS, but ArcaOS also runs OK on pretty recent real hardware. There is support for things like ACPI and navtive SATA (AHCI) for example. > >> Website says they use network drivers from FreeBSD, bit in that case, surely >> one is better off using FreeBSD rather than ArcaOS. OS/2 >> successors/descendants have fallen far behind. That is just for the core of the network drivers (with some wrapper software) and mainly done to keep development costs down, and get new drivers for newer cards more easily (wired and wireless). >Whether you are better running FreeBSD depends on what you want to do. >If you are running a server, it might be worth doing. If you want to >run it in a desktop installation, you face the question of what apps >are available that run under it. > >People get computers to do work. Work is done by applications, and >your question is what applications can do it. With increasing >portability of apps, we are at a point where what the underlying OS is >may not *matter*. True, even more with the quite capable virtualisation products around that allow running programs for other platforms as well. I have two development laptops, one running macOS and another running Windows-10, but I can use both for the same work, since I run OS/2, Windows-XP, FreeDOS and even macOS in virtual machines, connected using regular networking ... Regards, JvW Jan van Wijk, author of DFSee; http://www.dfsee.com/dfsee/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
