Options for web browser in OS/2

[David T. Johnson]

Mozilla for OS/2 (Firefox and Sea Monkey) has just officially been killed due to the decision to remove all of the OS/2 support code from the source code tree as of 2/11/14. This brings OS/2 and eCS users to the next question: 'What to use for a web browser going forward? We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps, at most. The only other option is Firefox 17 which is not quite ready for use and is already left behind by newer versions. Therefore, neither of those options look like they will be viable for long. The only other option remaining to run OS/2 natively on hardware and still use a reasonably up-to-date browser might be to run Windows XP on Virtual PC for OS/2 and then use a Win XP version of Firefox. Does anyone have a better idea or are we finally seeing the bitter end of OS/2? Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and Sea Monkey 1.5a

[Dave Yeo]

There should be a 24esr version of Firefox out eventually and there is
no reason that the patch removing OS/2 from Mozilla can't be reversed,
which I believe was always the current teams plan, so as long as there
are developers who are skilled and motivated Firefox (perhaps under a
different name) could continue.
There are also various webkit browsers now available such as qupzilla
which work fairly well. They're available at netlabs under QT apps.
But sadly we are seeing the end, we're falling further behind on
hardware support, haven't really had good browser support since FF4
(wasn't all that much difference between 4 and 10 and 10 should have
been called 4.6) and a dwindling community including developers.
Dave

[Marcel Müller]

Am 20.02.2014 20:39, schrieb David T. Johnson:
> Mozilla for OS/2 (Firefox and Sea Monkey) has just officially been
> killed due to the decision to remove all of the OS/2 support code from
> the source code tree as of 2/11/14. This brings OS/2 and eCS users to
> the next question: 'What to use for a web browser going forward? We
> can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps, at most. The
> only other option is Firefox 17 which is not quite ready for use and is
> already left behind by newer versions. Therefore, neither of those
> options look like they will be viable for long.

Well, due to decisions already taken and others that are likely to come,
Firefox will be no longer a good option on other operating systems too.
I think the end of FF is coming slowly. On OS/2 sooner, on other OS
later. The newer versions become more and more unusable. Its just
bloatware. Furthermore commercial aspects come to the fore more and
more, leaving a bad taste.

A fork could extend the lifetime a bit. But in fact new standards grow
up and sooner or later we will fall behind too far.

> The only other option
> remaining to run OS/2 natively on hardware and still use a reasonably
> up-to-date browser might be to run Windows XP on Virtual PC for OS/2 and
> then use a Win XP version of Firefox.

Not seriously. XP will become a big security risk shortly. Whether it is
in a VM or not makes no difference.

Moving OS/2 into a VM is more useful since it also solves most of the
hardware issues. It does quite well in VirtualBox.

> Does anyone have a better idea or
> are we finally seeing the bitter end of OS/2?

Well, from my point of view most users already moved on to other OS,
preferably Linux. The remaining users are mostly developers. I think
they can more easily deal with the problems raising from time to time.
So in fact it is already some kind of dead. Maybe we just missed the
boom sound.


Marcel

[Dariusz Piatkowski]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:26:45 UTC, Marcel M〕ler <news.5...@spamgourmet.com>
wrote:

> A fork could extend the lifetime a bit. But in fact new standards grow
> up and sooner or later we will fall behind too far.

Sure...but if the differences are minor then even the 'old' release will
continue to be relatively OK for use...case in point our current 10.x...been
using it here for quite some time...although now it is finally starting to show
it's age...LOL

> Moving OS/2 into a VM is more useful since it also solves most of the
> hardware issues. It does quite well in VirtualBox.
>
> > Does anyone have a better idea or
> > are we finally seeing the bitter end of OS/2?
>
> Well, from my point of view most users already moved on to other OS,
> preferably Linux. The remaining users are mostly developers. I think
> they can more easily deal with the problems raising from time to time.
> So in fact it is already some kind of dead. Maybe we just missed the
> boom sound.
> Marcel

Hmm...sad thought indeed...but if it honestly takes a VM to run our OS/2 then I
just can't see the point of doing so when the underlying OS for all intent
purposes is already providing just about all the other apps we need, short of
the 'look & feel' of OS/2.

It would be at this point in time that I would be jumping the ship...currently I
am a regular user and continue to run my version 4.52 CP2 SMP on real
hardware...yes, it can be a challenge, and I do realize that this may in fact be
the very last 'leg' on this journey!!!

[David T. Johnson]

Dariusz Piatkowski wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:26:45 UTC, Marcel M ller <news.5...@spamgourmet.com>

> wrote:
>
>> A fork could extend the lifetime a bit. But in fact new standards grow
>> up and sooner or later we will fall behind too far.
>
>
> Sure...but if the differences are minor then even the 'old' release will
> continue to be relatively OK for use...case in point our current 10.x...been
> using it here for quite some time...although now it is finally starting to show
> it's age...LOL
>
>
>> Moving OS/2 into a VM is more useful since it also solves most of the
>> hardware issues. It does quite well in VirtualBox.
>>
>>> Does anyone have a better idea or
>>> are we finally seeing the bitter end of OS/2?
>> Well, from my point of view most users already moved on to other OS,
>> preferably Linux. The remaining users are mostly developers. I think
>> they can more easily deal with the problems raising from time to time.
>> So in fact it is already some kind of dead. Maybe we just missed the
>> boom sound.
>> Marcel
>
>
> Hmm...sad thought indeed...but if it honestly takes a VM to run our OS/2 then I
> just can't see the point of doing so when the underlying OS for all intent
> purposes is already providing just about all the other apps we need, short of
> the 'look & feel' of OS/2.

Yes, I agree completely. I don't see the point of running OS/2 on a VM.
I might do that for a short time as a migration aid but I wouldn't
do it long term.



--

[Marcel Müller]

Am 21.02.2014 16:26, schrieb David T. Johnson:

> Dariusz Piatkowski wrote:
>
>> Hmm...sad thought indeed...but if it honestly takes a VM to run our
>> OS/2 then I just can't see the point of doing so when the underlying
>> OS for all intent purposes is already providing just about all the
>> other apps we need, short of the 'look & feel' of OS/2.
>
> Yes, I agree completely. I don't see the point of running OS/2 on a VM.
> I might do that for a short time as a migration aid but I wouldn't
> do it long term.

It depends on your use case. If you are talking about look & feel I
agree with you. It you are talking about applications it might a
different story. And once configured a VM is more stable then real
hardware and survives hardware changes flawlessly. So why should you
drop it?

I am using the VM approach now for a few years. In fact there are only
two applications where I did not find a replacement on the Linux
platform. #1: OS/2 and eCS is on of the safest environments for home
banking and other C2B transactions, simply because of the prevalence
rate. #2: PM123. It is adjusted to my demands with structured (nested)
playlists, digital room correction an so on.
There has been a third application, Kompozer, that was more recent and
with less bugs on OS/2 (0.84 vs. 0.83). But this one is now replaced by
BlueGriffon.

On the other side there are applications that are almost not available
for OS/2. E.g. vector graphics, IDE (Eclipse), Audio editor and more.

I miss the work folder concept on other platforms, but I can live
without. In fact, since using VMs I rarely close any application unless
they crash. So it is no longer that important to open a set of windows
at once.


Marcel

[David T. Johnson]

Marcel Müller wrote:

>
> On the other side there are applications that are almost not available
> for OS/2. E.g. vector graphics, IDE (Eclipse), Audio editor and more.

Applications software is not an issue for me. The trend has been to
move applications to the web over the last few years and that is likely
to continue. Also, I have applications on OS/2 that I have used for
many years and am very comfortable with. For example, I have an old app
from Softdesk Inc. (bought by Autodesk many years ago) for vector
graphics that I will miss when I leave OS/2. Applications are actually
better for me now on OS/2 then they have ever been as there are so many
ways to find applications software and run it now that did not exist
several years ago...qt4 apps, java apps, javascript apps, wine, html,
and linux/gcc ports. Years ago, most applications software was 1)
written for Windows and 2) could not run anywhere else. Neither of
those are true anymore as Windows software actually looks like a market
that is sick when you get away from the handful of long-time 'big' apps.

>
> I miss the work folder concept on other platforms, but I can live
> without. In fact, since using VMs I rarely close any application unless
> they crash. So it is no longer that important to open a set of windows
> at once.
>

The thing that keeps me using OS/2 is the WPS and the way it lets me
browse, file, and catalog documents, files, photos, etc. I open and
close various apps continuously on OS/2 and have done so for years.
Windows (or Mac) does that as well, and nearly as well as OS/2. Windows
apps assert much more control over the system, however, and are more
likely to hog resources, connect to outside servers without telling me,
launch popup windows asking if I want to upgrade, or whatever. Windows
apps are also more likely to carry out warfare on other competing apps
that they find on your system. The entire Windows software ecosystem is
a mess but that is another topic. I honestly cannot understand why
almost all enterprise users are still so solidly committed to Windows
but I suppose they have their reasons.

[Peter J. Seymour]

If users are web or cloud orientated in their use of OS/2, then Firefox
is clearly an issue for them. Myself I use OS/2 (well, ECS actually) in
a standalone environment with no internet connection. I absolutely love
it - its an OS that works with me, not one I have to fight against. At
most I just need some basic web browser ability in OS/2.
I just thought I ought to make the point that there is more than one
point of view here.

[John Varela]

I am posting this from eCS in a VM on a Mac because I have yet to
find a newsreader that I prefer to ProNews/2.

Regarding Firefox, I am still running 3.5.3, which is where I was
when I moved to the Mac. Could someone tell me what is the most
current FF for eCS and where to get it? What would be the most
current version of Flash and where would I get it?

--
John Varela

[philo]

On 02/21/2014 03:19 PM, John Varela wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm...sad thought indeed...but if it honestly takes a VM to run our OS/2 then I
>>> just can't see the point of doing so when the underlying OS for all intent
>>> purposes is already providing just about all the other apps we need, short of
>>> the 'look & feel' of OS/2.
>>
>> Yes, I agree completely. I don't see the point of running OS/2 on a VM.
>> I might do that for a short time as a migration aid but I wouldn't
>> do it long term.
>
> I am posting this from eCS in a VM on a Mac because I have yet to
> find a newsreader that I prefer to ProNews/2.
>
> Regarding Firefox, I am still running 3.5.3, which is where I was
> when I moved to the Mac. Could someone tell me what is the most
> current FF for eCS and where to get it? What would be the most
> current version of Flash and where would I get it?
>

This may be of use?


http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html

[sctvguy1]

If you are using OS/2 in a stand-alone, with no Internet connection, then
you could just fire up a PS/2 with Warp 3, or at the most, Warp Connect.

[Marcel Müller]

On 21.02.14 22.19, John Varela wrote:
> Regarding Firefox, I am still running 3.5.3, which is where I was
> when I moved to the Mac. Could someone tell me what is the most
> current FF for eCS and where to get it?

The last well working FF is 10. You can get it at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Ports/os2

There is also a build of FF17 around, but it has significant
restrictions and on some systems it only crashes.

> What would be the most
> current version of Flash and where would I get it?

There is no longer a usable version of flash for OS/2. The only option
is to use a Windows version in an emulator. Have a look at
http://svn.ecomstation.nl/flash10
But it is not free.

Flash work on Windows, sometimes on Linux and never really on OS/2. I
never have seen it /reliable/ working on anything but WinXX. Let's pray
that the Apple iOS fan boys and HTML5 bury Flash. Probably they will
succeed. ;-)


Marcel

[sctvguy1]

I have run Flash on various distros of Linux, and have never really had
an issue. Currently running PCLinuxOS and never had a problem.

[Dave Yeo]

sctvguy1 wrote:
> If you are using OS/2 in a stand-alone, with no Internet connection, then
> you could just fire up a PS/2 with Warp 3, or at the most, Warp Connect.

Many newer ports require Warp v4.5 or at least Warp v4 as something is
broken in klibc when it comes to Warp v3. Warp v4.5 is also better with
memory if it matters for the poster
Dave

[Dave Yeo]

John Varela wrote:
> Regarding Firefox, I am still running 3.5.3, which is where I was
> when I moved to the Mac. Could someone tell me what is the most
> current FF for eCS and where to get it? What would be the most
> current version of Flash and where would I get it?

Firefox 10.12 ESR is the last really stable version (10.11 for some).
They are at ftp.netlabs/incoming/mozilla. You also need the mzfntcfgft
package (same directory) for 10.12 and libc065 for all.
17.0.5 betas are available at
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases along with the list
of dependencies. As Marcel said, it is not as stable and the first beta
doesn't support plugins.
The newest Flash is only available if you have a software subscription
to eCS and is available at Mensys, the same page where you download eCS
2.1 and 2.2B2. It is actually the Windows binary and a wrapper so uses
Odin and not the most stable.
Dave

[Peter J. Seymour]

On 21/02/2014 23:06, sctvguy1 wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:25:27 +0000, Peter J. Seymour wrote:
>

.....

>
> If you are using OS/2 in a stand-alone, with no Internet connection, then
> you could just fire up a PS/2 with Warp 3, or at the most, Warp Connect.
>

Perhaps, but having used OS/2 since V2, I am most comfortable with V4
(to be precise I am currently using ECS V1.2R - it saves having to mess
about with updates) and also some applications are said to require it.

[john...@nospam.com.au]

In <53068126$0$9522$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcel_M=FCller?= <news.5...@spamgourmet.com> writes:
>
>Well, due to decisions already taken and others that are likely to come,
>Firefox will be no longer a good option on other operating systems too.
>I think the end of FF is coming slowly. On OS/2 sooner, on other OS
>later. The newer versions become more and more unusable. Its just
>bloatware. Furthermore commercial aspects come to the fore more and
>more, leaving a bad taste.
>

You did not explain your justification for this view.

I would have thought that mobile devices, not desktops, are driving the
development of browsers, and because Microsoft does not dominate this field, it
cannot call the shots. I imagine that content providers would see
standardisation of browsing as being in their best interests.

My next purchase might be an integrated PC/TV running Android.

[Marcel Müller]

Am 22.02.2014 01:36, schrieb sctvguy1:
>> Flash work on Windows, sometimes on Linux and never really on OS/2. I
>> never have seen it /reliable/ working on anything but WinXX. Let's pray
>> that the Apple iOS fan boys and HTML5 bury Flash. Probably they will
>> succeed. ;-)
>

> I have run Flash on various distros of Linux, and have never really had
> an issue. Currently running PCLinuxOS and never had a problem.

Well it works somehow.

If I play a Video (SD, no HD) with Flash in full screen mode (at
1920*1440) I get 100% CPU load and about 3 frames per second. If I play
the same Flash video with vlc or mplayer I get 60% CPU load and no frame
drops. This was with Linux. With OS/2 (on the same hardware) mplayer
works as well and flash crashes or does not play anything. This applies
to all Flash videos not just one video or only Youtube, although the
frame rate varies a bit between 1 fps and 10 fps depending on the vodeo.

From the users point of view there is no difference between flash for
OS/2 and Flash for Linux in this scenario. Both are completely unusable.


Marcel

[Peter Brown]

Hi Marcel

I do not know about linux but Flash seems to work well most of the time
here using eCS2.0/2.1/2.2 beta2

Maybe you have a missing or older support file(s) somewhere causing
problems.


Regards

Pete

[Andreas Schnellbacher]

Peter Brown wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
>
>> From the users point of view there is no difference between flash
>> for OS/2 and Flash for Linux in this scenario. Both are completely
>> unusable.
>

> I do not know about linux but Flash seems to work well most of the
> time here using eCS2.0/2.1/2.2 beta2
>
> Maybe you have a missing or older support file(s) somewhere causing
> problems.

Additionally, the kernel (W4 or SMP 14.106) and the ACPI parameters
matter: On my older system here Flash runs best with the SMP kernel
and ACPI.PSD /VW. Without /VW the replay stops every few seconds and
there's no sound. Together with the most recent beta 2 of FF 17.0.5
Flash works more stable than before with the W4 kernel and an older
Mozilla for me.

--
Andreas Schnellbacher

[David T. Johnson]

Flash? I don't understand why that is such important software. Flash is used for some of the videos on youtube, some videos on news sites, and for advertising. The videos on youtube that use flash often have advertising first and then the video. OTOH, flash is a *major* security risk. There are locations that will not allow flash to be installed on any hardware connected to the network, which seems wise. Why is such a large portion of the tiny OS/2 developer resources spent on...flash? Wouldn't that be better spent on something more useful? Personally, I don't even have flash installed on my Windows systems, much less OS/2. What is it about flash that makes it so indispensable? Andreas Schnellbacher wrote: > Peter Brown wrote: >> Marcel wrote: >>> From the users point of view there is no difference between flash >>> for OS/2 and Flash for Linux in this scenario. Both are completely >>> unusable. >> I do not know about linux but Flash seems to work well most of the >> time here using eCS2.0/2.1/2.2 beta2 >> Maybe you have a missing or older support file(s) somewhere causing >> problems. > Additionally, the kernel (W4 or SMP 14.106) and the ACPI parameters > matter: On my older system here Flash runs best with the SMP kernel > and ACPI.PSD /VW. Without /VW the replay stops every few seconds and > there's no sound. Together with the most recent beta 2 of FF 17.0.5 > Flash works more stable than before with the W4 kernel and an older > Mozilla for me. Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and Sea Monkey 1.5a

[Doug Bissett]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:30:20 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:

> Flash? I don't understand why that is such important software. Flash
> is used for some of the videos on youtube, some videos on news sites,
> and for advertising. The videos on youtube that use flash often have
> advertising first and then the video. OTOH, flash is a *major* security
> risk. There are locations that will not allow flash to be installed on
> any hardware connected to the network, which seems wise. Why is such a
> large portion of the tiny OS/2 developer resources spent on...flash?
> Wouldn't that be better spent on something more useful? Personally, I
> don't even have flash installed on my Windows systems, much less OS/2.
> What is it about flash that makes it so indispensable?

Ever run across one of those web sites that use Flash as their home
page? You need to have Flash to go any further. Somehow, those web
masters seem to think that Flash protects their web sites from
intruders.

Come to think about it, I haven't seen one of them for a while.
Perhaps the intruders got them.

--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

[Dave Yeo]

David T. Johnson wrote:
> Flash? I don't understand why that is such important software. Flash
> is used for some of the videos on youtube, some videos on news sites,
> and for advertising. The videos on youtube that use flash often have
> advertising first and then the video. OTOH, flash is a *major* security
> risk. There are locations that will not allow flash to be installed on
> any hardware connected to the network, which seems wise. Why is such a
> large portion of the tiny OS/2 developer resources spent on...flash?
> Wouldn't that be better spent on something more useful? Personally, I
> don't even have flash installed on my Windows systems, much less OS/2.
> What is it about flash that makes it so indispensable?

Corporate need? Seems it is Mensys (and before Innotek) that has paid
developer to port Flash and right now it looks like the same developer
is more interested in getting Firefox and Flash working together then
Firefox working with any of our native plugins. This may be just on the
principle that once Flash works well, other plugins will too.
Flash does seem to have continuous security problems which could affect
us as well.
HTML5 is designed to work around Flash. Youtube serves up HTML5 video
encoded with VP8, VP9 and H264 (H265 yet?). Our Firefox plays VP8 fairly
well, probably not too hard to get it playing VP9 and Firefox 17+ also
supports using Gstreamer along with the FFmpeg plugin to play H264 and
probably wouldn't be hard to get it to play most all video formats
through FFmpeg.
Dave

[john...@nospam.com.au]

When I request a family tree diagram on geni.com, I am presented with this
message:-

"No Flash player detected
Try our next-generation family tree (no Flash required). "

The next-gen works perfectly in FF.

The diagram is static, but it can be dragged around the frame in order to read
all of it because it is larger than the frame size.

[Dave Yeo]

john...@nospam.com.au wrote:
> When I request a family tree diagram on geni.com, I am presented with this
> message:-
>
> "No Flash player detected
> Try our next-generation family tree (no Flash required). "
>
> The next-gen works perfectly in FF.
>
> The diagram is static, but it can be dragged around the frame in order to read
> all of it because it is larger than the frame size.

Good use of HTML5. If done well it'll also be svg so zooming (ctrl
numpad +-) will also work well.
One good thing about Apple refusing to allow Flash is that sites are
supporting alternatives
Dave

[john...@nospam.com.au]

In <530d2a0b$0$58601$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com>, Dave Yeo <dave....@gmail.com> writes:
>john...@nospam.com.au wrote:
>> When I request a family tree diagram on geni.com, I am presented with this
>> message:-
>>
>> "No Flash player detected
>> Try our next-generation family tree (no Flash required). "
>>
>> The next-gen works perfectly in FF.
>>
>> The diagram is static, but it can be dragged around the frame in order to read
>> all of it because it is larger than the frame size.
>
>Good use of HTML5. If done well it'll also be svg so zooming (ctrl
>numpad +-) will also work well.

It does, thankyou.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:19:13 UTC, "John Varela"
<newl...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I am posting this from eCS in a VM on a Mac because I have yet to
> find a newsreader that I prefer to ProNews/2.
>
> Regarding Firefox, I am still running 3.5.3, which is where I was
> when I moved to the Mac. Could someone tell me what is the most
> current FF for eCS and where to get it? What would be the most
> current version of Flash and where would I get it?

Thank you to all who responded to my query and tried to help. I
downloaded:

firefox-10.0.7.en-US.os2.zip
firefox-10.0.11.en-US.os2.zip
firefox-10.0.12.en-US.os2.zip
libc-0_6_5-csd5.wpi
MZFNTCFGFT_RUNTIME.zip

I ran libc and put it in c:/os2/dll, expanded mz(etc.) and put it in
c:/os2/dll, and tried the various versions of Firefox. None of them
would run.

--
John Varela

[Dave Yeo]

Did you look in popuplog.os2 (root of your boot drive)? I'd first guess
that you have another version of a Mozilla app, probably FF3.5.3 but
could be Thunderbird or SeaMonkey on your LIBPATH. Only 10.0.12 has the
dependency on mzfntcfgft dlls.
See http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html and also the README.OS2
from 10.0.12 namely the section Starting Firefox / Seamonkey / Thunderbird
Dave

[John Varela]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:59:58 UTC, Dave Yeo <dave....@gmail.com>
wrote:

I didn't see anything that looked suspicious in the LIBPATH so to be
safe I just moved C:/OS2/DLL to the front of the LIBPATH and that
worked. Now running Firefox 12.

Thank you.

--
John Varela

[A.D. Fundum]

> Firefox will be no longer a good option on other operating
> systems too.

The rapid release cycle and overhead of "Agile" software development,
professionally preferably paid by the hour, and hard to keep up with.
Satisfied customers (there are no other options), and the products are
always better than "documents discussed in a meeting, delaying a
release".

> XP will become a big security risk shortly. Whether it is
> in a VM or not makes no difference.

XP-based browsers will also be outdated quickly, for one because the
industry/Microsoft tends to introduce new unneeded standards. Websites
tend to support such a policy by telling you to buy a new computer
(actually that you should upgrade the Internet Exploder v8, but that's
not possible).

If people make me use Windows, they I'll keep using one of the kept XP
dual boot partitions by default, or I'll use a Windows 7 dual boot
partition when I "need" more power, safety, and/or an updated Internet
Exploder. I haven't tried a Windows 8 dual boot partition yet, because
there still isn't a NLS version of eCS 2.x, while eCS 1.2 is too old
for more modern hardware.

My other important eCS hardware problem (GenMac-driver) is that I
cannot use my mobile phone as an emergency peer internet connection.
Besides that, hardware hardly is a real problem for me because we can
use old, cheap computers and we often don't need modern power, due to
an OS that isn't slowing us down. For example, an IBM ThinkPad T42/T60
should work quite fine with eCs, while such a T42/T60 is too old
(unsupported video adapter, out-of-the-box) for Windows 7/8. But I'll
admit one may have to buy 2 computers then, because an old eCS
computer is too old for a newer OS.

Anyway, a lot of people may be forced to upgrade XP to Windows 7 (be
prepared to wipe and restore your eCS partitions at least once). Or
they will be forced to buy a newer computer, because Windows 7/8
requires it. I already upgraded one of my XPs to Windows 7 last year,
because of the newer Internet Exploder, upgrades and security.


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> There is no longer a usable version of flash for OS/2.
> The only option is to use a Windows version in an emulator.

Or to use a downloader (like Youtube -> VideoDownloadHelper) and one
of the OS/2 video players (KMP, MPlayer, VLC, ...).


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> If I play a Video (SD, no HD) with Flash in full screen
> mode (at 1920*1440) I get 100% CPU load

Let's mention it here again: if users of OS/2 have to upgrade an older
dual boot system from XP to Windows 7/8 soon, then try to make sure
that the video adapter is supported by Windows 7/8 and consider a CPU
upgrade.

I could watch 1920x1440'ish videos, using XP (IBM OEM), without any
serious issues. After installing Windows 7 I had to upgrade the CPU
and I had to replace the default Windows' video driver (SVGA -> driver
supporting the same chipset) to end up with a 90-110% CPU load. Video
can kill the radio star.


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> The videos on youtube that use flash often have
> advertising first and then the video.

Pressing <F5> may help, but I won't promise it'll always beat ignoring
or skipping (ASAP, after X seconds) the ad.

Using VideoDownloadHelper is another possibility, and this will also
skip possible Youtube-delays while playing the video.


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> Personally, I don't even have flash installed on my Windows
> systems, much less OS/2. What is it about flash that makes it
> so indispensable?

Who doesn't like dangerous bloatware? Nevertheless a website (i.e. the
use of default tools by young developers) can force consumers to use
Flash, without offering consumers a choice, so at best it's
nice-to-must-have instead of indispensible. Try to "View Data" without
Flash (here: "You need to upgrade your Flash Player"):

https://europeanequities.nyx.com/nl/products/equities/BE0003856730-XBR
U/quotes

Ask me a question w.r.t. specific NYSE trade data, and I'll may have
to use Flash if I want to answer your question (I don't need Flash for
some of the other tabs, because of the available Download-options). I
don't like Flash at all, but sometimes I have to use it, so in a way
it's nice-to-must-have.


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> I imagine that content providers would see standardisation
> of browsing as being in their best interests.

Content providers will prefer to require the use of a limited number
of supported products, used by "most people", which still is being
sold, popular (Android yes, iPhone yes, Nokia no), and understood by
lazy mainstream developers and cheap helpdesks. They won't develop a
new expensive product, so they'll tell you that you should use another
solution. Telling you to buy a new computer is far cheaper than still
supporting Netscape 4 for OS/2, despite the fact that Netscape 4 still
can be used for efficient, fast browsing of local HTML files.

If content providers could be bothered, then they wouldn't tell you to
upgrade XP's IE8 or to download eCs' Flash player at Adobe's website.
AFAIK an user of XP cannot use IE9, and AFAIK Adobe doesn't offer a
Flash-player for OS/2.


--

[A.D. Fundum]

> If you are using OS/2 in a stand-alone, with no Internet
> connection, then you could just fire up a PS/2 with
> Warp 3, or at the most, Warp Connect.

Yes, theoretically, but a latest Warp 4, or eCS 1.x and eCS
1.x-hardware (Pentium II+), is probably a better choice. Developers
will often assume the implied use of the most modern OSes (a few new
APIs), you don't have to re-invent wheels to use USB devices, you
don't need a former IBM website to download a NLS version of Netscape,
people don't fool you when they see your ancient OS/2 desktop, you can
use modern webbrowser with locally stored HTML files, you'll now have
hardware with a built-in CD-ROM device, the video driver may be
faster, NewViw by default, and so on. I only install OS/2 (Warp 4 FP9)
when it's impossible to install eCS, and mainly because it allows me
to test software (typically developed by other people, not having a
Warp 4-install anymore).


--

[john...@nospam.com.au]

When I mused about an Android PC I did not know that such a product has been
available for 2 years.

I have ordered a MyGica ATV1200 which is variously described as a "Smart TV",
"Media Player" and "mini PC". It runs Android Jellybean and appears to be
supported by Firefox, Adobe, Open Office and Samba. Sounds like the early days
of OS/2. Display output is HDMI.

I will report my findings.

[A.D. Fundum]

> We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps

BTW, is it possible that specific, known FF10 bugs, if any, will be
fixed once in a while?

There's a gap between FF10 and FF17, so it's unlikely that FF11 will
soon solve those possible bugs automatically, and FF17 may not be an
option for everybody (e.g. due to using newer CPU instructions).


--

[David T. Johnson]

A.D. Fundum wrote: > > We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps > BTW, is it possible that specific, known FF10 bugs, if any, will be > fixed once in a while? > There's a gap between FF10 and FF17, so it's unlikely that FF11 will > soon solve those possible bugs automatically, and FF17 may not be an > option for everybody (e.g. due to using newer CPU instructions). > -- I would doubt that there will be any more FF10 versions. Be sure, however, that you are using the latest one, FF 10.0.12 iirc. There have been two beta releases of FF 17 which will be the last FF for OS/2 since all of the OS/2 code has been removed from the firefox code base by Mozilla for newer versions going forward. There might see one more beta release of FF 17 and then I would not expect anything further after that but I certainly would like to be wrong on that. It's a big unknown as to how usable FF 17 will ultimately be. If it is reasonably usable, we might be able to use it for as much as 2 more years. That is my hope, anyway. Firefox 10 is already not working with many sites and even the sites that it still works with are starting to provide ominous warnings to 'upgrade your browser' so the clock is ticking pretty fast on that. Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and Sea Monkey 1.5a

[Dave Yeo]

A.D. Fundum wrote:
> > We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps
>
> BTW, is it possible that specific, known FF10 bugs, if any, will be
> fixed once in a while?

Probably not. The only bug that is fixed here that is not fixed in the
distributed versions is the crash if no printer is installed and there
is no motivation for anyone else to work on the 10 tree. (haven't seen
any 17 fixes that would be trivial to backport)

>
> There's a gap between FF10 and FF17, so it's unlikely that FF11 will
> soon solve those possible bugs automatically, and FF17 may not be an
> option for everybody (e.g. due to using newer CPU instructions).

FF17 shouldn't require any newer CPU instructions then FF10. There is
code to detect what CPU you have and only use the newer instructions if
supported plus I made the decision to compile with a minimum target of a
P6 (Pentium Pro) but that is just some compile flags and not needed.
Dave

[Dave Yeo]

David T. Johnson wrote:
> A.D. Fundum wrote:
>> > We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps
>>
>> BTW, is it possible that specific, known FF10 bugs, if any, will be
>> fixed once in a while?
>> There's a gap between FF10 and FF17, so it's unlikely that FF11 will
>> soon solve those possible bugs automatically, and FF17 may not be an
>> option for everybody (e.g. due to using newer CPU instructions).
>>
>> --
>
> I would doubt that there will be any more FF10 versions. Be sure,
> however, that you are using the latest one, FF 10.0.12 iirc. There have
> been two beta releases of FF 17 which will be the last FF for OS/2 since
> all of the OS/2 code has been removed from the firefox code base by
> Mozilla for newer versions going forward.

The OS/2 code is there until FF27 or so.

> There might see one more beta
> release of FF 17 and then I would not expect anything further after that
> but I certainly would like to be wrong on that.

There are no plans for Bitwise to release another 17 beta. I have
FF17.0.11 running here and possibly will release a build but it is
basically 17.0.5 with security fixes plus a couple of minor build fixes.
I also have Thunderbird 17.0.11 and almost have a release of SM2.14 here.

> It's a big unknown as to
> how usable FF 17 will ultimately be. If it is reasonably usable, we
> might be able to use it for as much as 2 more years. That is my hope,
> anyway. Firefox 10 is already not working with many sites and even the
> sites that it still works with are starting to provide ominous warnings
> to 'upgrade your browser' so the clock is ticking pretty fast on that.
>

The main problems with 17 (at least with SM and TB which are the same
code base) are native plugin support, shared memory usage, and handling
of white space (LFs and Tabs) under certain conditions, not too bad.
Plus a couple of FF10 crashes have gone away.
The next beta will probably be FF24 with Bitwise making progress by
fixing Python which the Mozilla build system depends on very heavily now.
Dave

[Dave Yeo]

David T. Johnson wrote:
> A.D. Fundum wrote:
>> > We can continue to use Firefox 10 for another year, perhaps
>>
>> BTW, is it possible that specific, known FF10 bugs, if any, will be
>> fixed once in a while?
>> There's a gap between FF10 and FF17, so it's unlikely that FF11 will
>> soon solve those possible bugs automatically, and FF17 may not be an
>> option for everybody (e.g. due to using newer CPU instructions).
>>
>> --
>
> I would doubt that there will be any more FF10 versions. Be sure,
> however, that you are using the latest one, FF 10.0.12 iirc. There have
> been two beta releases of FF 17 which will be the last FF for OS/2 since
> all of the OS/2 code has been removed from the firefox code base by
> Mozilla for newer versions going forward.

The OS/2 code is there until FF27 or so.

> There might see one more beta
> release of FF 17 and then I would not expect anything further after that
> but I certainly would like to be wrong on that.

There are no plans for Bitwise to release another 17 beta. I have
FF17.0.11 running here and possibly will release a build but it is
basically 17.0.5 with security fixes plus a couple of minor build fixes.
I also have Thunderbird 17.0.11 and almost have a release of SM2.14 here.

> It's a big unknown as to
> how usable FF 17 will ultimately be. If it is reasonably usable, we
> might be able to use it for as much as 2 more years. That is my hope,
> anyway. Firefox 10 is already not working with many sites and even the
> sites that it still works with are starting to provide ominous warnings
> to 'upgrade your browser' so the clock is ticking pretty fast on that.
>

[Dave Yeo]

Thunderbird 17.0.11pre and SeaMonkey 2.14 are available at
https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/dry-comm-esr17/downloads. Basically they're
built on the same code base as the Bitwise port of Ff17.0.5 beta2 and
have the same limitations and requirements. Plugin problems, white space
problems, especially in news and mail. Shared memory usage is now
actually better then any other build I've used though I haven't
extensively tested.
Dave

[john...@nospam.com.au]

While I use my OS/2 box for everyday IT jobs, it cannot display streaming
entertainment TV, web pages with Flash, modern pdf documents or modern Office
documents.

By connecting the ATV1200 box by HDMI (or YPP) cable to my perfectly good HDTV
set, and by Cat5 cable to my LAN switch (or 802.11 WAP), I can now:-

Watch free to air TV, or
Switch the input to HDMI and watch any content on Firefox 28, or
Pull documents by Samba from my PC's download directory for opening in Acrobat
or Office readers.

I have learned that Android apps are intended for mobile platforms and do not
have all the controls that desktop users expect for navigating documents.

HTML and PDF documents are seen through a "letterbox" slot, and the text is
crisp. Office can display whole pages but the font is then hard to read.

On screen keyboards (with hand held remote control) are too kludgy for anything
more than bookmarking my favourite sites. Alternatives are a USB
keyboard/trackball, or a Bluetooth keyboard/trackball if you can make the
ATV1200 Bluetooth work.

Google Play store, the official source for apps, downloads only to "supported"
devices by WiFi. Unofficial sources supply apps as .apk files which install
automatically when pulled into the ATV1200 with its File Manager app.

It has taken days to learn the Android UI (without documentation) and work all
this out.

Printing to my ethernet printer will be my next challenge.

[martinot]

On 2014-02-22 00:47, Marcel Müller wrote:

> On 21.02.14 22.19, John Varela wrote:

>> What would be the most
>> current version of Flash and where would I get it?
>

> There is no longer a usable version of flash for OS/2. The only option

> is to use a Windows version in an emulator. Have a look at
> http://svn.ecomstation.nl/flash10
> But it is not free.
>
> Flash work on Windows, sometimes on Linux and never really on OS/2. I
> never have seen it /reliable/ working on anything but WinXX. Let's pray
> that the Apple iOS fan boys and HTML5 bury Flash. Probably they will
> succeed. ;-)

Actually I think both Flash and Java sucks even on Windows. They have
badly integrated UI, hogs too much resources, fail randomly from time to
time, and are really the worst security holes on Windows.

Together Flash and Java stands for around 80% of the security holes on
typical Windows desktops. Both Adobe and Oracle are much more sloppy
security wise than Microsoft (!).

Hopefully both Flash, Java, Sliverlight and all other crummy extensions
will vanish and be replaced with native HTML commands and components.

The web would be so much better without any of them (on all platforms).

--
br,
martinot

[Dave Yeo]

martinot wrote:
> Hopefully both Flash, Java, Sliverlight and all other crummy extensions
> will vanish and be replaced with native HTML commands and components.
>
> The web would be so much better without any of them (on all platforms).

One thing I came across is http://www.areweflashyet.com/shumway/
Dave