Future of eCS media?

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Does Serenity plan to get the eCS install ISO back under the size
limit fo a CD? If not, do they plan to take advantage of the size of a
DVD and fold in more optional components?

[Peter Brown]

Hi

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Does Serenity plan to get the eCS install ISO back under the size
limit fo a CD? If not, do they plan to take advantage of the size of a
DVD and fold in more optional components?

I'm not sure if Serenity have much, if anything, to do with eCS these days.

I seem to recall Roderick (Mensys) posting that something along the
lines of using DVD would enable them to add a bit more content such as
cups, odin, qt4, java6.

I also seem to recall something about the ISO file needing to be less
than 2Gb to avoid unzip problems.


Regards

Pete

[Steven Levine]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:33:04 UTC, Peter Brown
<losepeteSPAM-ME-***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

H guys,

Post by Peter Brown
I'm not sure if Serenity have much, if anything, to do with eCS these days.

This is true. News tends to travel slowly in the eCS world.

Post by Peter Brown
I seem to recall Roderick (Mensys) posting that something along the
lines of using DVD would enable them to add a bit more content such as
cups, odin, qt4, java6.

It already has. Those with a Software Subscription know that the most
recent betas come in around 800 MB or so.

Post by Peter Brown
I also seem to recall something about the ISO file needing to be less
than 2Gb to avoid unzip problems.

This is not really an issue. These days 7z is a better cloice for
large files. If one is going to transition to DVDs, using 7z to
handle the larger ISO file size makes sense.

Steven

[Alex Taylor]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:09:18 UTC, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Does Serenity plan to get the eCS install ISO back under the size
limit fo a CD? If not, do they plan to take advantage of the size of a
DVD and fold in more optional components?

No to the first question; to the second, that's already been done, to
a point. The EN_US ISO is now about 900 MB with Java 6, QT4, Odin, CUPS,
RPM-YUM and several new optional font families added.

There's no plan to 'expand to fit available space', though. From past
experience, the total size will probably creep up over time, but there's
no need to inflate it unnecessarily. :)

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Alex Taylor
The EN_US ISO is now about 900 MB with Java 6, QT4, Odin,
CUPS, RPM-YUM and several new optional font families
added.

Which probably isn't legal in the EU, albeit it's likely that
nobody'll complain. You're better of selling a cheap CD #2 with
selected must-haves and goodies.

I seriously doubt that e.g. Qt4 has anything to do with an OS, just
like the frequenly fined M$ Internet Exploder has nothing to do with
their OS and resulted in a http://www.browserchoice.eu install
procedure.


--

[Dave Yeo]

Post by A.D. Fundum

Post by Alex Taylor
The EN_US ISO is now about 900 MB with Java 6, QT4, Odin,
CUPS, RPM-YUM and several new optional font families
added.

Which probably isn't legal in the EU, albeit it's likely that
nobody'll complain. You're better of selling a cheap CD #2 with
selected must-haves and goodies.

Why would it be illegal? It's not like eCS has such a large market share
that by including software they harm other OS/2 vendors. I believe
various flavours of Linux are legal in the EU as well.

Post by A.D. Fundum
I seriously doubt that e.g. Qt4 has anything to do with an OS, just
like the frequenly fined M$ Internet Exploder has nothing to do with
their OS and resulted in a http://www.browserchoice.eu install
procedure.

eCS is getting more similar to Linux distributions in including various
useful software. The important part is that it is all easy to replace
and isn't being used to put other vendors out of business (or at least
hurt their business).
If MS had included a basic browser that was easy to replace there
wouldn't have been a problem. No one complains about the basic text
editor they include.
Dave

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by A.D. Fundum

Post by Alex Taylor
The EN_US ISO is now about 900 MB with Java 6, QT4,
Odin, CUPS, RPM-YUM and several new optional font
families added.

Which probably isn't legal in the EU, albeit it's likely
that nobody'll complain. You're better of selling a
cheap CD #2 with selected must-haves and goodies.

Why would it be illegal?

For about the very same reasons why http://www.browserchoice.eu is one
of the Windows-updates. Competition. Good default solutions are far
more likely to be used than good alternatives.

Post by Dave Yeo
It's not like eCS has such a large market share

It's not about the OS, it's about the must-haves and goodies. The EU
fines are related to the turnover, to compensate for the market share.

Post by Dave Yeo
I believe various flavours of Linux are legal in the EU as well.

Sure. In many ways there's not less freedom than in the land of the
free, including this rather explicit freedom of (browser-) choice.

IRL real users may complain about the forced use of products (Internet
Exploder), while they'll also complain about having to choose a
browser and keep using the default Internet Exploder.

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by A.D. Fundum
I seriously doubt that e.g. Qt4 has anything to do with an OS

eCS is getting more similar to Linux distributions

Which should be limited to OS components. You'll always be okay in
case of inluded GCC DLLs, which are probably used by the OS itself
too. But AFAIK as such e.g. Qt4 has nothing to do with eCS, nor with
Linux itself.

Post by Dave Yeo
The important part is that it is all easy to replace

That shouldn't play a role. It's often extremely easy to delete a M$
Internet Exploder icon on a Windows desktop, which is more than enough
to make it disappear for most users.

Post by Dave Yeo
and isn't being used to put other vendors out of business (or at
least hurt their business).

In the first place there has to be competition, of course. If so, you
may be in trouble. Putting developers out of business can be done in a
passive way. If FF would ship with a great Youtube download add-on,
"you" would probably never look for any other YouTube video
downloader.

The use of e.g. PMView with active support may be reduced by including
Qt4 or more than a free GBM DLL file. If I've got Qt4 installed by
default, I'll learn that I've to look for the many Qt4 apps. Qt4 is
promoted in an active way, and the business of PMView is demoted or
hurt in a passive way. IRL the problem may be limited, because users
of eCS aren't average users and PMView is a well-known and classic
must-have alternative. Nevertheless it's an example of a possible real
case against shipping goodies like Qt4 with an OS.

Post by Dave Yeo
If MS had included a basic browser that was easy to replace there
wouldn't have been a problem.

Wikipedia (excuse me): "The BrowserChoice.eu website was created by
Microsoft to allow users that had not made, or were unaware of, a
choice to try other browsers, and thus comply with the European
Commission's ruling.".

Users not aware of other solutions don't reach the stage of replacing
the only solution they're aware of.

Post by Dave Yeo
No one complains about the basic text editor they include.

Basic editors, with differnet levels of quality and UI (eCS itself has
got 3, 4, 5 or maybe even 6?), were always part of DOS-based OSes.
Windows 7's "EDIT" command looks about the same as eCS' "QBASIC
/EDIT" command. The main difference is that my eCS EDIT.HLP file seems
to be missing, and that I need an EDIT.BAT (@QBASIC /EDIT %1) to use
the same command with FAT filenames. But you may get into trouble if
you'ld ship a dedicated HTML editor with the OS. Just speaking for
myself, but another example is that I don't have Qt4 installed
anywhere. Yet. So far I never reviewed nor needed Qt4-based software .
OTOH I doubt anybody ever deleted an OS editor intentionally. So
editors, from EDLIN upto and including EPM, may be considered to be
part of any modern OS. At least since DOS, we've still got its QBASIC
and editor.

BTW, a cheap CD #2 with developers benifiting from the revenues isn't
the only way to avoid possible problems. Demo versions are a way to
avoid problems, just like you can buy a Windows machine with demo
versions of their M$ Office or e.g. a virus scanner of a selected
vendor. If you want to be modern, you'ld also be able to add a catalog
with downloadable extras. It's not unlikely that Microsoft solved it
with the silly Windows 8 initial screen with its "tiles", which are
aimed at you providing information to M$ (e.g. your location) or are
aimed at promoting M$ brands and products (Bing, Xbox, Internet
Exploder, SkyDrive, Live, Store, whatever...).

I'ld like to but a cheap CD #2 (and 3) to, for one, support developers
and porters of, indeed, Linux-based software. But that's just my very
own http://www.softwarechoice.eu. A simple example of products being
demoted by a goodie or must-have like Qt4 can be PMView, assuming
there's a Qt4-based apps with many of PMView's must-have features. One
could also ship a demo version of PMView (and GBM, and ...) with the
OS too, but that does increase the discatance between an OS and the
offered software. PMView could have a case against a Qt4 shipped with
an OS. Qt4 has nothing to do with an OS, it's also not embedded in the
OS at all. Like you said too, it's easy to remove.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
Which should be limited to OS components.

Why? In particular, what is the legal issue with including software
that is freely available, with appropriate attribution.

Post by A.D. Fundum
If I've got Qt4 installed by default,

That's a separate issue from whether it is included on the media.

Post by A.D. Fundum
The main difference is that my eCS EDIT.HLP file seems
to be missing,

ae.hlp

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
Which should be limited to OS components.

Why? In particular, what is the legal issue with including software
that is freely available, with appropriate attribution.

Not sure if I'm meeting all of your requirements regarding the answer,
but AFAIK the M$ Internet Exploder is freely available, so I can refer
to that legal case regarding a "why".

In case of eCS, please keep "my mother" in mind. I.e. an user. She'll
remember that she has to use Qt4-based software, and she'll refuse to
use unknown "native" software. So she'll look for a Java 6- or
Qt4-based photo viewer instead of a native viewer, like the fine
PMView.

M$ Windows 7 and 8 also don't ship with a true Java 6. I had to
install Java 6 for Windows to be able to use one of my few
Windows-based apps I'm forced to use.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
If I've got Qt4 installed by default,

That's a separate issue from whether it is included on the media.

No, it's still a choice limited by the compiler or editor of the
media. It would have been cheaper (than the EU fines) for M$ to give
everybody a CD #2 to include their Internet Exploder, but that doesn't
meet the reqiurements expressed by the http://www.browserchoice.eu
settlement, which lists a specific number of alternatives in a
specfied order.

For people outside the economic EU zone, one of the so-called Windows
Updates is an app which displays the nagging
http://www.browserchoice.eu screen and removes the Internet Exploder
icon from some Windows 7 menu. IIRC the nagging stops after visiting
at least one of the displayed websites.

But I should have been more specific, since there's e.g. an existing
eCS CD #2. And #3.

Assuming existing alternatives, free or not, the OS can be distributed
on a full OS CD #1. Demo software, free or not, may be distributes on
OS CD #2. Irrelevant software, such as Flash, Java 6, PDF readers or
Qt4, can be sold on a differently labeled CD. The user has a choice to
buy this editor's "PlusPak" CD #1.

eCS wouldn't be fully legal now. Feel free to use M$ as a reference.
M$ Windows doesn't ship with a full version of, in their case, Flash
and Java 6. Both are separated products, so "my mother" has to choose
to install those products. IRL nobody may complain about a PDF reader
(there are a least 2 available) for eCS, so there's a possible issue
right there. But despite the implied popularity popularity of the
product, the Adobe Reader isn't installed by Windows by default. "My
mother" has to go to adobe.com (or a virtual lucide.com) to select and
use a PDF reader.

Again, for once we can use M$ as our guide. No (full versions of) Java
6, Flash version, PDF reader nor environments like Qt4. Despite that
fact that adobe.com will be about everybody's default choice for a
Windows PDF reader. Separated products, to be obtained separatedly. By
CD or, more common nowadays, download. All products had, and still
have, nothing to do with an OS. Don't select the products for the
user. It really doesn't matter at all that the selected products are
free. If you want to select products, let an editor compile a CD or
catalog, which perhaps every user wants anyway. But don't ship
irrelevant products with an OS. To avoid legal issues, don't promote
or sell those products this way. The author of "PMView for OS/2" has a
case against Qt4 being included, just like the very same author of
"PMView for Windows" can complain if M$ would promote the use of Java
6 and Java-based products by including it with their M$ Windows
products. You'll have to visit java.com to download a full version of
Java 6 for Windows and to use a Java 6-based photo viewer and editor.
Let m$ guide us here, they've already paid the fines.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
The main difference is that my eCS EDIT.HLP file seems
to be missing,

ae.hlp

CMD.EXE -> QBASIC /EDIT -> <Enter>-key to invoke the Help -> File
EDIT.HLP not found.

I've tried to copy a Windows' (/DOS') EDIT.HLP file to eCS, but that's
the wrong file format. The EDIT.HLP isn't that important, but it's
missing in my eCS 1.2 NLS version. It may have existed, with the right
language, in earlier versions of the OS.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
In case of eCS, please keep "my mother" in mind. I.e. an user. She'll
remember that she has to use Qt4-based software, and she'll refuse
to use unknown "native" software.

Will she even notice that QT4 is an optional feature?

Post by A.D. Fundum
All products had, and still have, nothing to do with an OS.

Is, e.g., OpenSUSE an OS or a distribution?

Post by A.D. Fundum
CMD.EXE -> QBASIC /EDIT -> <Enter>-key to invoke the Help -> File
EDIT.HLP not found.

OK. I was thinking of E.EXE and its replacement AE.EXE.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
In case of eCS, please keep "my mother" in mind. I.e. an user.
She'll remember that she has to use Qt4-based software, and
she'll refuse to use unknown "native" software.

Will she even notice that QT4 is an optional feature?

eCS with Qt4 won't be compliant with EU regulations, so "my mother" in
the EU should never see Qt4 when all she has got is a computer with
any OS component.

The problem will remain that Qt4, unrelated to the OS, is distributed
with the OS, which influences the choice of people like "my mother".

If e.g. DOSBox would be added to Windows 7/8 to restore support for
legacy DOS apps, (some) users of Windows will stop looking for
competing solutions like eCS. If Qt4 is added to eCS, "my mother" may
actually reject the usage of your free, native 32-bits solution
because she'll remember to have to look for Qt4 apps, regardless of it
being optional.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
All products had, and still have, nothing to do with an OS.

Is, e.g., OpenSUSE an OS or a distribution?

I'm not familiar with OpenSUSE at all, but you may be refering to an
OS with at least some goodies and must-haves. If so, such a
distribution doesn't make those type of distributions compliant to EU
regulations. So there's a risk that complaints may be filed, possibly
resulting in fines and forbidden products. AFAIK M$ has also broken
the rules again, resulting in a second fine. The fact that M$ wasn't
compliant didn't mean that compliancy wasn't required anymore. In
general there has to be a level playing field.

If you were looking for a layer on top of an OS, then I fear that
Windows 8's so-called tiles (huge animated icons) both define and use
the actual limits. The tiles are smashed in the face of "my mother"
and tend to promote services, brands and products of M$, but you don't
have to use those services. "My mother" will use most of those
suggested "free" services, no matter what "free" hidden nasties are
hidden behind those tiles. So that trick works for M$. "My mother"
will use whatever is thrown in her face, inclusing dropped POP3
support.. Just like "my mother" will use Qt4-based apps instead of
native 32-bits apps she has never heard of, unless she deleted Qt4
because she tried it and didn't understand the game. Anyway, the tiles
("Metro UI?") can be considered to be a layer on top of an OS, which
basicly is Windows 7. It may be a solution to avoid legal problems
indeed.

The latest Flash for eCS may also be seen as some kind of exception,
since the Software Subscription (?) sometimes can be like a CD #2. I
don't have to buy an OS to obtain Flash. OTOH it still should be
illegal to distibute a full version of Flash with the OS. Based on the
behaviour of M$, that is. ISTR Flash is embedded in their separated
product Internet Exploder, but you'll have to download a full version
of Adobe's movie player to use Flash with Firefox. Flash may be
embedded in the Internet Explorer, based on level playing
field-related rules (e.g. that they'll select the most popular
cheapest player), but for general use the user has to select and
install a random movie player. Which typically will be Flash, of
bleeding course, but that doesn't justify the distibution of Flash
with an OS.


--

[Steve Wendt]

Post by A.D. Fundum
eCS with Qt4 won't be compliant with EU regulations

I'm guessing that the regulations are aimed at monopolies...

Post by A.D. Fundum
The problem will remain that Qt4, unrelated to the OS, is distributed
with the OS, which influences the choice of people like "my mother".

Your mother cares about whether a program uses Java, Qt, or OCL
interfaces? Or she just cares about a photo viewing app? Either way,
she has to go find one, doesn't she?

Post by A.D. Fundum
If e.g. DOSBox would be added to Windows 7/8 to restore support for
legacy DOS apps, (some) users of Windows will stop looking for
competing solutions like eCS.

You honestly think people go looking for eCS to run their DOS apps?

Post by A.D. Fundum
Windows 8's ... tiles are smashed in the face of "my mother" and tend
to promote services, brands and products of M$, but you don't have to
use those services. "My mother" will use most of those suggested
"free" services

Even though she hears bad things about them everywhere? If she is
satisfied with how they work, then maybe she doesn't need to change.
Otherwise she will try them, realize they aren't any good, and look for
something else.

Post by A.D. Fundum
install a random movie player. Which typically will be Flash, of
bleeding course, but that doesn't justify the distibution of Flash
with an OS.

I guess it shouldn't ship with a web browser, either?

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
eCS with Qt4 won't be compliant with EU regulations

I'm guessing that the regulations are aimed at monopolies...

That'ld be a wrong guess since the http://www.browserchoice.eu-related
cases and fines are based on the Internet Exploder product, which
never had any monopoly position at all. For one there was, AFAIK,
always a downloadable and installable Netscape, or a Netscape-based
derivate, for Windows.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
The problem will remain that Qt4, unrelated to the OS, is
distributed with the OS, which influences the choice of
people like "my mother".

Your mother cares about whether a program uses Java

Wrong starting point. But she'll use whatever is presented as being
normal. So she'll use the Internet Exploder and stops both looking and
caring, and hates browserchoice.eu becausethose browsers are
"enforced" products. As is the Internet Exploder isn;t such a product.
Users...

Post by Steve Wendt
Or she just cares about a photo viewing app? Either way,
she has to go find one, doesn't she?

It doesn't work that way. She'll remember that she has to be looking
for, or exchange, Qt4-based apps, and won't even know that there is
such a thing as "native 32-bits apps".

Post by Steve Wendt
You honestly think people go looking for eCS to run their DOS apps?

The point is that e.g. DOSBox doesn't ship with e.g .Windows 8, AFAIK,
and M$ has dropped DOS support. So DOSBox is a bleedin' obvious choice
to ship with Windows 8. If DOSBox would be shipped with Windows,
typical users wil use that as "the" DOS environment and won't look for
alternatives. Perhaps "you" would sit and watch DOSBoxes being
shipped, maybe I'll file a complaint because I'm trying to sell an
alternative. It's about legal issues, it's not about what you think
that I'm thinking, and so on. Eighter way, it's a bit strange to ship
unrelated apps with an OS.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
Windows 8's ... tiles are smashed in the face of "my mother"
and tend to promote services, brands and products of M$,
but you don't have to use those services. "My mother" will
use most of those suggested "free" services

Even though she hears bad things about them everywhere?

You're missing the point by adding new, understandable but irrelevant
situations all the time. Nevertheless the answer is: yes. Never
offered a choice, doesn't know better. I think having to pay for
software is some limit, albeit M$ Office 365 is already crossing that
border.

Post by Steve Wendt
If she is satisfied with how they work, then maybe she doesn't need

to change.

No need to assume. IRL your assumptions are wrong. Users are idiots.
You, or for that matter we, are making up the behaviour of users. It's
a legal issue, it's not a personal issue with different role models.

Post by Steve Wendt
Otherwise she will try them

IRL you couldn't be less wrong, she uses what she thinks she knows and
won't even look at a screen shot of e.g. SM (to avoid the enforced use
of Live, having to call helpdesks, and so on). IRL my mother cannot
even produce my name with the product she claims to "know" (probably
due to a good-looking codepage-related issue, I guess).

Post by Steve Wendt
, realize they aren't any good, and look for something else.

Is no longer having email contact with your children a reason to look
for something else? Don't make up stories, stick to the legal cases.
The stories are as understandable as they're wrong. Legally protected
consumers aren't always as smart as you are.

Post by Steve Wendt
I guess it shouldn't ship with a web browser, either?

Perhaps the questionmark is misplaced. Browserchoice.eu actually
almost overrides the default web browser that's shipped with Windows.

It's easy: eCS ships with all available browsers for OS/2, and via
browserchoice.eu Windows ships with (maybe most of) all available
browsers for WIndows. Shipping a browser with an OS isn't wrong and is
normal nowadays, as long as all competative requirements are met. So
Windows with just the Internet Exploder, without browserchoice.eu,
isn't compliant with EU regulatoins. There's no problem to ship the
Internet Exploder with Windows as such.

It has nothing to do with web browsers, editor, users, "your mother",
level of skills, assumptions, my opinion, monopolies, market shares,
and so on. An OS with unrelated competative products, like Flash or
Qt4, isn't compliant with EU regulatoins.

Just look at Windows 7's or 8's distribution. It ships with a web
browser. But no Flash, with dropped support for DOS apps (AFAIK), no
Java 6, no Qt4, no DOSBox, no PDF reader, and so on. It really is a
bit silly to ship irrelevant products with an OS anyway. M$ addresses
your guess (the Internet Exploder still is shipped and installed), and
M$ still has to include browserchoice.eu as one of the updates. You
don't have to ask me questions when M$ already provides the answers.
It's a clear case, even if one may like to ship must-haves and goodies
with an OS. It's not compliant with EU competition regulations. We can
make up that web browser are a problem too, but that ignores the
simple fact that all eCS web browsers are shipped with eCS, so there's
a level playing field for all eCS browsers. There's no level(ed)
playing field in case of Internet Exploder without browserchoice.eu, a
situatoin which is fined several times.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
a level playing field for all eCS browsers.

There's a level playing field for other optional software distributed
with eCS as well. How are browsers special?

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
There's a level playing field for other optional software

distributed

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
with eCS as well. How are browsers special?

An implied level playing field, at best. What optional software are
you talking about, distributed with eCS, i.e. on CD #1, which eCS
version (preferably 1.2, the last one available in several EU
languages), and what was back then the relevant competion at the level
of OS/2, also compared to other OSes?

AFAICT there is no problem with 1.2 CDs, mainly because nobody had
the silly idea to ship a DVD filled with irrelevant, downloadable,
quickly outdated software with 1.2.

If one wants to make up that browsers are special, I suggest one also
addresses the own problem. We've already discussed editors,
representing OS components. We have already discussed eCS CD #2, i.e.
not "distributed with eCS". We have already discussed that an existing
situation doesn't mean that such a situation is, or remains, legal. We
have already discussed that competition is a requirement. We have
already discussed that manufacturers also have some freedom of choice.
We have already discussed browsers.

If M$ would have added M$ Exces$ to M$ Windows$, we perhaps would have
been discussing M$ Exce$ and http://www.officechoice.eu instead of the
M$ Internet Exploder and http://www.browserchoice.eu. Please stick to
the original case. I doubt anybody will answer the question how
browsers are special.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
An implied level playing field, at best. What optional software are
you talking about, distributed with eCS, i.e. on CD #1,

Why limit it to CD #1?

Post by A.D. Fundum
which eCS version

2.0 here, waiting for 2.2.

Post by A.D. Fundum
AFAICT there is no problem with 1.2 CDs, mainly because nobody had
the silly idea to ship a DVD filled with irrelevant, downloadable,
quickly outdated software with 1.2.

Relevance is highly subjective. Browsers are sownloadable and as
quickly outdated as QT4.

Post by A.D. Fundum
If one wants to make up that browsers are special,

I'm not the one claiming that browsers are special. I'm the one
claiming that they are not.

Post by A.D. Fundum
We have already discussed eCS CD #2, i.e. not "distributed
with eCS".

Every eCS package I've purchased came with CD #2.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
An implied level playing field, at best. What optional
software are you talking about, distributed with eCS,
i.e. on CD #1,

Why limit it to CD #1?

This has been used in this discussion to indicate just the OS (with
reasonable and allowed extras), with Mensys having the eCS-monopoly.
Anybody ought to be able to put whatever they like on additional CDs,
i.e. CD #2 (and so on) and try to sell such a CD #2, as long as it's
separated from the OS. Mensys may sell a product called CD #3 with the
Lotus Smartsuite, an you may try to sell a CD #3 contain your
impressive collection of software. Essentially it has no use to
discuss what's on such a CD #2, because it'll be allowed. Just like
Microsoft is allowed to sell me a DVD #1 with Windows 8 and a DVD #2
with MS Office 2010, being 2 different products. If one of the DVD
#2's optional software was included on DVD #1, then Microsoft wouldn't
be compliant with the EU antitrust regulations.

I think there are special cases on eCS 1.2 CD #1, and candidates to be
moved from CD #1, like the RSJ CD Writer (RSJ, not optional?). It will
be generally accepted that a modern OS includes basic software to copy
files to a CD, but RSJ is a bit more than that. It's also a limited
demo. So RSJ is a candidate to be moved to a CD #2 (assuming other
parties are also allowed to add a demo version to their CD #2), unless
RSJ the only realistic option to add support for writing CDs to the
OS. RSJ may be conditionally allowed on a CD #1, but should be moved
to a CD #2 if those conditions aren't met. Otherwise Mensys would use
its eCS-monopoly to put just RSJ Shampoo, a commercial demo, on their
shelf without giving third-party developers access to the same shelf.


PDF readers may also be a special case. If Microsoft's Windows is an
example, it could be moved to CD #2s. AFAICT there's no Adobe Reader
on a Windows install CD, perhaps unless a hardware manufacturer added
it to their OEM version of the OS. In this case it may perhaps be
moved to CD #1, because Mensys probably is willing to support such a
PDF reader, assuming they already played an important role developing
it, whil I don't think that Microsoft wants to provide support for
Adobe's products.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
which eCS version

2.0 here, waiting for 2.2.

I won't comment on 2.x's optional software, just because I'm not
familiar with such an install. eCS 1.2 is the last available version
for several languages, I'm also waiting because I prefer such a
version which isn't available yet.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
AFAICT there is no problem with 1.2 CDs, mainly because
nobody had the silly idea to ship a DVD filled with irrelevant,
downloadable, quickly outdated software with 1.2.

Relevance is highly subjective. Browsers are sownloadable
and as quickly outdated as QT4.

Wrong. That is, the EU considered web browsers to be relevant (just
like editors, basic WAV file players, Paintbrush, and so on).
Microsoft still is allowed to ship a single web browser with their
Windows, just because a web browser nowadays is considered to be
required to use a modern computer. I'm not advocating my own relevancy
here, I'm communicating a.o. the judgement of the office of ms. Kroes,
the former Competition Commisioner of the EU. It's the task of the OS
to make sure that an updated browser can be obtained. In the case of
Windows that'll be on of the 12 qualified up-to-date web browsers. In
a way Warp 4 also worked that way, IIRC, with Netscape having to be
downloaded with (I guess) the IBM WebExplorer.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
I'm not the one claiming that browsers are special.
I'm the one claiming that they are not.

The point is that so far everybody seems to be claiming that, so it
may be hard to find somebody wanting to advocate the opposite.
Essentially I agree with you, the EU agrees with you. I seriously
doubt there are EU competition regulations for web browsers as a
category of software on its own, and AFAIK Microsoft also had problems
with their Windows Media Player. A web browser is allowed on CD #1
(again Windows is a good example) and should be on CD #1, at least a
version capable of obtaining an up-to-date web browser.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by A.D. Fundum
We have already discussed eCS CD #2, i.e. not
"distributed with eCS".

Every eCS package I've purchased came with CD #2.

I don't remember why I've got 3 eCS 1.2 CDs, while Mensys seems to
offer only a "CD1" and "CD2". Well, never mind that.

No matter what, I've purchased software which came with CD #1: the RSJ
CD Writer. But that's not the issue. If Mensys would use its
eCS-monopoly to add Qt4 and VLC to CD #1, both free and irrelevant
products, offering more than basic functionalities, it demotes or
could demote the possible creation of e.g. third-party native video
players. It also won't help the sale of PMMPEG, if that's still being
sold. So shipping Qt4 and VLC on CD #1 isn't compliant with the EU
regulations. You don't need QT4 to use your computer as such. A
Qt4-based graphical software package competes with e.g. PMView, so
Mensys wouldn't apply prudence when they'ld select Qt4 to be included
on CD #1. What about "you" trying to sell a CD #2 with Qt4 and a
Qt4-based alternatives for PMView, while "I" will try to sell a CD #2
with native software like a demo version of PMView? That's allowed for
sure, and it's competion the EU likes to promote.

BTW, I don't like nor dislike Qt4. I'm not using nor haven't seen Qt4
yet because I never needed it so far, and I prefer to install in on a
non-Unix-file-structure-volume which is too full on some of my
machines. Besides that, Qt4 is just a good, anonymous and a rather
clear example of irrelevant software, if we're trying to remain
reasonable. I don't need Qt4 to use my computer, I don't need Qt4 to
watch videos, Qt4 has 0.0% to do with an OS, and so on. Qt4 on a CD #2
won't be a problem, as long as CD #2 is a different product, not
linked to mensys; CD #1's eCS-monopoly.


--

[Steve Wendt]

Post by A.D. Fundum
with Mensys having the eCS-monopoly.

In theory, another OEM could license OS/2 from IBM. Seems highly
improbable, though.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Microsoft is allowed to sell me a DVD #1 with Windows 8 and a DVD #2
with MS Office 2010, being 2 different products.

For years, Microsoft gave away Microsoft Works as part of the bundle for
new computers. It was intentionally crappy and incompatible with
everything, because they really wanted people to buy Office. They've
changed that trick to have a time-limited and/or crippled version of
Office pre-installed. I'm no fan of either methods of this practice,
but they obviously get away with it.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Warp 4 also worked that way, IIRC, with Netscape having to be
downloaded with (I guess) the IBM WebExplorer.

The only reason for that was Netscape wasn't finished yet. It was
bundled in for all of the Convenience Pak editions (along with Flash 5
and some other third-party stuff).

Post by A.D. Fundum
Essentially I agree with you, the EU agrees with you. I seriously
doubt there are EU competition regulations for web browsers as a
category of software on its own, and AFAIK Microsoft also had problems
with their Windows Media Player.

Those two categories had competitors willing to pay lawyers, that's what
makes them special to the EU rulings. :-/

Post by A.D. Fundum
add Qt4 and VLC to CD #1, both free and irrelevant products, offering
more than basic functionalities, it demotes or could demote the
possible creation of e.g. third-party native video players. It also
won't help the sale of PMMPEG, if that's still being sold.

The time for that has long past. The last effort was Warpvision, and
that was just a hacked up version of MPlayer (with GPL violations to
boot). Professional software development for OS/2 dried up a long time
ago. Mensys pays a (very) little for contracting work, and the rest is
all volunteer efforts.

Post by A.D. Fundum
A Qt4-based graphical software package competes with e.g. PMView

As does a .NET-based one on Windows. Do you think Peter loses any sleep
over .NET being bundled with Windows?

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Steve Wendt
In theory, another OEM could license OS/2 from IBM.
Seems highly improbable, though.

Exactly. AFAIK the license we may know as "Win-OS/2" wasn't used by
Microsoft to add third-party web browsers or third-party Media Players
to that Winodews version, so Microsoft could have claimed there was
fair competition at the top level.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
Microsoft is allowed to sell me a DVD #1 with Windows 8 and a
DVD #2 with MS Office 2010, being 2 different products.

For years, Microsoft gave away Microsoft Works as part of the
bundle for new computers. It was intentionally crappy and
incompatible with everything, because they really wanted
people to buy Office.

Weren't that the days of IBM Works too? I couldn't find an expected
BonusPak CD to verify that, but I found my Warp 4 Application Sampler
CD. FTTOMH I honestly don't know which goodies were included on that
CD, and I still use a directory IBMWorks to store data files with a
seldomly used file extension.

Post by Steve Wendt
They've changed that trick to have a time-limited and/or
crippled version of Office pre-installed.

From an economic point of view, I'm actualy wondering if Office 360
will be a success. A revolving time-limited license, with a Windows 8
SkyDrive tile to make users more familiar with such a concept,
compared to e.g. the expensive Word typewriter.

Post by Steve Wendt
I'm no fan of either methods of this practice,
but they obviously get away with it.

It looks as if Microsofty also tried to get away with including just
IE, because the speech by the co-operative EU Competition Commission's
ms. Kroes mentions an "uneasy relationship" with Microsoft

@ 1:23). That sounds like
the EU tried to solve the detected issue differently, but Microsoft's
legal team probably defended their usual business strategies.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
add Qt4 and VLC to CD #1, both free and irrelevant products,
It also won't help the sale of PMMPEG, if that's still being sold.

The time for that has long past.

Innovation, commercial or not, is also a goal of the EU competition
policies. Default solutions stop innovations. Developing/porting a
ffMPEG-based video player becomes less likely if such a developer
cannot get a foot between the door.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
A Qt4-based graphical software package competes with
e.g. PMView

As does a .NET-based one on Windows.

There's nothing wrong with competition. The eCS- or Windows-monopoly
is the problem. Shipping a PMView-like, .NET-based graphical software
package with Windows is (about) the same cae as shipping just the IE
with Windows. It's unfair competition because the monopoly position
would be (ab)used to include it. The fact that there may be a
NET-based alternative should be cheered by us, as long as it isn't
the only availabe brand of shampoo on the shelf.

Post by Steve Wendt
Do you think Peter loses any sleep over .NET being bundled
with Windows?

No doubt, if he ever tried updating it after 2:00 PM... ;-)


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
No matter what, I've purchased software which came with CD #1: the
RSJ CD Writer. But that's not the issue. If Mensys would use its
eCS-monopoly to add Qt4 and VLC to CD #1, both free and irrelevant
products, offering more than basic functionalities, it demotes or
could demote the possible creation of e.g. third-party native video
players.

Historically, eCS has come with multiple optional programs filling the
same niche. IAC, I am sure that Mensys has lawyers familiar with EU
law and will take it into consideration when making packaging
decisions. From a customer perspective, I want as much as possible on
the install disks, even if I decide not to install a lot of the
options and even if I ultimately download more recent versions.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Historically, eCS has come with multiple optional programs
filling the same niche.

Again, history proves nothing.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
IAC, I am sure that Mensys has lawyers familiar with EU law

EU laws don't exist.

Besides that, I'm sure Microsft has far, far, far more laywers and
failed several times to be, or to remain compliant with the
competative regulations.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
I want as much as possible on the install disks, even
if I decide not to install a lot of the options and even if
I ultimately download more recent versions.

As much as possible, so no irrelevant software.

Buy a CD #2, fully filled with software we all may like. If it would
have worked your way, almost everybody would be using Microsoft
products because Microsoft's clients like as much as possible on the
install disk (not disks), and I'm quite sure that Microsoft will be
happy to fulfil that user's wish.

I think we've reached the point were people are running out of
arguments. History repeated itself again, Mensys has no lawyers,
there's no EU law, and your own "as much as possible" is not defined
by selfish users, even if I would agree with the silly idea that an OS
should ship with a lot of irrelevant options. Feel free to ask Mensys
to advocate your point of view, but don't tell 'em it may cost 'em 10%
of their worldwide turnover. Plus additional costs for hiring lawyers
and providing solutions. It turns out you like disks full with
irrelevant options, which hasn't that much to do with the the legal
case. I suggest to start a new thread to discuss that topic. I may not
join it, being aware of it not being compliant.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by A.D. Fundum
Besides that, I'm sure Microsft has far, far, far more laywers and
failed several times to be, or to remain compliant with the
competative regulations.

That's not because m$ didn't understand the law; it's because they
thought that they were above the law. In the US they seem to be right.

Post by A.D. Fundum
As much as possible, so no irrelevant software.

Mensys gets to decide what's relevant, not you.

Post by A.D. Fundum
If it would have worked your way,

ITYM if it had worked in a way that you invented and then attributed
to me, but which in reality has noting to do with my way.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Feel free to ask Mensys to advocate your point of view, but don't
tell 'em it may cost 'em 10% of their worldwide turnover.

Why would I tell them something that is false?

Post by A.D. Fundum
Plus additional costs for hiring lawyers

What's wrong with the lawyers that they already have?

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by A.D. Fundum
I think we've reached the point were people are running
out of arguments.
don't tell 'em it may cost 'em 10% of their worldwide turnover.
Plus additional costs for hiring lawyers and providing solutions.

O, one new thinghy since we'ld be asking for risky disks without
wanting to pay $9.95-$19.95 for the same legal CD #2. Earlier today
I've written off all of my IOUs of webbased (hard- and) software
resellers in the Netherlands, because most of the shop's website I've
visited now do display the address of an assigned laywer, after the
bankruptcy of the shop. I just really, really, really hope that Mensys
manages to stay out of trouble, gains market share, and so on, nor do
I want to suggest that Mensys is in trouble at all. Some business
continue as a new company after a bankruptcy, so the old IOU still
will be worthless (an example of such a restarted business is
http://www.salland.eu, just to show that I'm not making this up). It's
the economy.

I know maybe $10.00 for developer sponsor units and $9.95 for tax,
media and costs won't really help a serious business, but OTOH it's
not the "zeitgeist" to invest business resources or efforts of
volunteers in a random collection of irrelevant, outdated, free,
dust-gathering, illegally distributed software. I don't mind filling
up a CD #1 with background BMP which can be easily removed again if
needed, nor do I have an emty-CD fetish, but from as business point of
view perhaps all free goodies could best be limited to demo versions
of products the webshop tries to sell. If one would decide to include
extra software, of course. High street shops are in trouble, but so
are webbased shops, including cheap resellers like Mensys. I really
digitally shredded all of my Dutch IOUs today, most likely kissing a
little bit of money goodbye.


--

[Trevor Hemsley]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:30:00 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, "A.D. Fundum"

Post by A.D. Fundum
That'ld be a wrong guess since the http://www.browserchoice.eu-related
cases and fines are based on the Internet Exploder product, which
never had any monopoly position at all. For one there was, AFAIK,
always a downloadable and installable Netscape, or a Netscape-based
derivate, for Windows.

I do not think this is correct: at one point IE had something approaching a 95%
share of the market in around 2002/3.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Trevor Hemsley

the Internet Exploder product, which never had any monopoly

position at all.

Post by Trevor Hemsley
I do not think this is correct: at one point IE had something approaching a 95%

It's a Windows-monopoly by Microsoft, just like (let's call it Mensys)
Mensys has the eCS-monopoly. If Mensys compiles a CD #2 with their
goodies and must-haves, this CD #2 may have a market share of 100%,
but this CD #2 isn't a part of the monopoly because everybody can
compile such a CD #2 and may try to sell it. So the market share of IE
isn't the problem, albeit it does increase the magnitude of both the
fines and the problem.

Microsoft abused their Windows-monopoly to add IE to Windows, but the
market share of IE doesn't imply an IE monopoly. Wasn't their Windows
Media Player also subject of related EU fines, while I doubt that the
Windows Media Player had a market share of about 95%? BTW, please note
that I'll agree with a claim that a web browser market share of 95%
essentially is a monopoly, despite the fact that it isn't a market
share of exactly 100%. We all had issues related to IE having such a
market share.

A quote of the press release and speech by ms. Kroes of the EU
Competition office: "by way of analogy: It is as if you went to the
supermarket and they only offered you one brand of shampoo on the
shelf, and all the other choices are hidden out the back, and not
everyone knows about them. What we are saying today is that all the
brands should be on the shelf. That is why computer manufacturers and
PC users should have the freedom to choose between Microsoft's web
browser and competing web browsers. That is what fair competition is
about.".

Selling nothing but the MS Shampoo isn't the problem. The underlying
problem is that the MS Supermarket, owned, operated and controlled by
the MS family, (ab)used their supermarket monopoly to sell nothing but
MS Shampoo. On its own the MS Shampoo may have a fair market share of
100%, perhaps because it's cheap and good.

If an advanced Qt4-based video player like VLC is added to and eCS CD
#1, then in a way the shelf is Qt4 and the shampoo is VLC. Regardless
of the market share of Qt4 or VLC. You'll have a hard(er) time trying
to develop and sell another advanced video player, because VLC will
become a more likely default choice just because it was selected by
Mensys, and true users ("not everybody knows about ...") will never
look for e.g. a "native" ffMPEG-based video player or your new
product. Prudence should be the policy of Mensys, without a strange
desire to offer PC users irrelevant products like Qt4, Unix-based
software, and so on. Save those goodies and Mensys' must-haves for a
cheap "PlusPak" CD #2. I'll buy it anyway. It will be compliant with
EU regulations and it's a way to support the developers and
maintainers of those goodies and must-haves, hopefully with more
proceeds than e.g. understandable donation.txt-files (which won't be
read that often by end-users). Win-win, no pun intended. Sorry for the
people liking DVDs and exceeded file size limites of 2 GB.


--

[Steve Wendt]

Post by A.D. Fundum

Post by Steve Wendt
I'm guessing that the regulations are aimed at monopolies...

fines are based on the Internet Exploder product, which
never had any monopoly position at all.

Not really, it was based on the fact that Windows was a monopoly, and
Microsoft was abusing that monopoly to limit competition in other areas.

Post by A.D. Fundum
The point is that e.g. DOSBox doesn't ship with e.g .Windows 8, AFAIK,
and M$ has dropped DOS support. So DOSBox is a bleedin' obvious choice
to ship with Windows 8.

Why would Microsoft include an alternative for a feature they chose to drop?

Post by A.D. Fundum
Eighter way, it's a bit strange to ship unrelated apps with an OS.

Depends on the motivation, I would say.

Post by A.D. Fundum
You're missing the point by adding new, understandable but irrelevant
situations all the time.

Just poking holes in your argument. On some level, I agree with you.

Post by A.D. Fundum
IRL your assumptions are wrong. Users are idiots.

Believe me, I know. But it's not my desire to convince them to change.
There are plenty of things where I am a blissful idiot, and I
generally don't care about changing.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Is no longer having email contact with your children a reason to look
for something else?

Apparently not enough reason, for some people.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Don't make up stories, stick to the legal cases.

There's plenty of room for interpretation there, it seems.

Post by A.D. Fundum
It's easy: eCS ships with all available browsers for OS/2

Then it must ship with Qt4, so that it can include Qupzilla, as well as
the various other QtWebkit-based browsers which aren't even worth
mentioning.

Post by A.D. Fundum
An OS with unrelated competative products, like Flash or
Qt4, isn't compliant with EU regulatoins.

That's your interpretation, anyway.

Post by A.D. Fundum
Just look at Windows 7's or 8's distribution. It ships with a web
browser. But no Flash, with dropped support for DOS apps (AFAIK), no
Java 6, no Qt4, no DOSBox, no PDF reader, and so on.

Instead it comes with Microsoft replacements, like Silverlight, the .NET
runtimes, and XPS. No surprises here.

Post by A.D. Fundum
simple fact that all eCS web browsers are shipped with eCS

Simple but untrue.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum

Post by Steve Wendt
I'm guessing that the regulations are aimed at monopolies...

fines are based on the Internet Exploder product, which
never had any monopoly position at all.

Not really, it was based on the fact that Windows was a
monopoly, and Microsoft was abusing that monopoly to
limit competition in other areas.

Mainly I was trying to move away from the popular believe that IE had
a monopoly position. Nevertheless a monopoly isn't a problem as such,
the policy is aimed at fair competition.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
DOSBox is a bleedin' obvious choice to ship with Windows 8.

Why would Microsoft include an alternative for a feature they
chose to drop?

Why not, if it would be allowed? With many users there will be a lot
of legacy DOS apps still in use, dropping DOS support may make other
OS-related developments possible, while DOSBox is operating at the
application layer and an upgrade could detect if there are DOS apps.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
Users are idiots.

Believe me, I know. But it's not my desire to convince them to change.

Nor am I such a preacher, but I cannot help noticing that the EU
government's intervention was required. Apple (iPad) and Google
(Android) also played an important role.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
It's easy: eCS ships with all available browsers for OS/2

Then it must ship with Qt4, so that it can include Qupzilla, as
well as the various other QtWebkit-based browsers which
aren't even worth mentioning.

It's not my point of view, the EU selected 12 web browsers operating
at the same level.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
An OS with unrelated competative products, like Flash or
Qt4, isn't compliant with EU regulations.

That's your interpretation, anyway.

No, it should be the EU's. Of course they didn't provide us a list
with all possible products, but one of the OS criteria was that
(reasonable) components are allowed if they're required to use a
modern computer. So it's still allowed to ship Windows 8 with just IE
included by Microsoft, because a web browser is consider to be
reqiured to use a modern computer. To download Qt4 or another web
browser, for example. If there's any interpretation, it's Microsoft's.
Why embed Flash in IE if they might as well include a full version?
Qt4 certainly isn't required to use a modern computer. I may be using
one right now, and so far I never had the need to install it. Simple
games are allowed, if you want advanced games, other products, you'll
probably have to go to the Windows 8 layer to visit the Store.
Minesweeper nor our Mahjongg are required to use a modern computer,
but apparently a scertain level of games is allowed to be included.
You may try to include more advanbced games, but then you may get in
trouble or you may have to hire lawyers to verify it's, acoording to
those lawyers, allowed.

Post by Steve Wendt
Instead it comes with Microsoft replacements, like Silverlight,
the .NET runtimes, and XPS. No surprises here.

I'm not sure if both Silverlight and .NET became optional upgrades
nowadays, but never mind that. IBM OS/2 also included IBM products
like Rexx. No surprises indeed. But the details aren't important, one
can choose to use Microsoft as an example of allowed goodies. If
Windows' DVD #1 includes Notepad, then it's likely that such an GUI
editor also is allowed on an eCS CD #1. There's no PDF reader on
Windows' DVD #1, so the default attitude should be that it's
irrelevant software. As stated elsewhere, a reason to include a PDF
could be that Mensys wants to support this Lucide, unlike Microsoft
which probably doesn't want to provide support for Adobe's products.
According to Microsoft, it will be your problem that you're trying to
use this Adobe Reader.

Post by Steve Wendt

Post by A.D. Fundum
simple fact that all eCS web browsers are shipped with eCS

Simple but untrue.

Sorry, nice try. I'm afraid it's true, despite a.o. your displayed
knowledge of Qt4-based web browers. This was about EU regulations,
which defined "all web browsers" operating at the same playing field.
If Links would have been considered to be competing with FF, then
Links would have to be added to http://www.browserchoice.eu. It isn't
my point of view, it's the EU's point of view. I'm really not that
preacher, trying to define what "all web browsers" are.

At best I'll add Netscape to the list of eCS 1.2 web browsers, next to
(back then) Mozilla. Both are included with eCS 1.2, and I'm glad I
can choose between both web browsers. Mozilla will be the best bet for
actual browsing, e.g. downloading FF, while Netscape is faster for
local browsing. Regarding browsers also available for eCS, nowadays
only FF will be on the list of the EU. I think FF is included on my
eCS 2.x demo CD. So AFAICT eCS ships with all available web browsers,
according to the EU's definition of the playing field.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

one can choose to use Microsoft as an example of allowed goodies.

Even though doing so would be insane.

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Steve Wendt
I'm guessing that the regulations are aimed at monopolies...

It should be mentioned that the monopoly is the control over the OS.
M$ has the Windows-monopoly. So prudence had to be shown by M$. But
they didn't do that, hence the anti-trust related fines. The same
level of prudence has to be shown by the compiler of eCS since they
have the eCS-monopoly.

Adding irrelevant software like Qt4 to eCS, or like adding M$ Office
to M$ Windows, doesn't always meet the required level of prudence.
Certainly not if there's competition. No competition, no problem. A
web browser is considered to be relevant software. A modern user needs
it to use the computer. Or to download another web browser. The
http://www.browserchoice.eu solution by the EU respects the choice of
a single web browser, doesn't require a zillion web browsers to be
shipped with the OS, but still confronts the user with the existence
of other web browsers.

The eCS-monopoly also explains why an OEM manufacturer, "you", or e.g.
Mensys can compile an eCS CD #2 (use another name if you aren't
allowed to use a trademark). About everybody can compile such a CD #2.
The monopoly has nothing to do with the added goodies and must-haves,
it's the eCS-monopoly (CD #1 only).


--

[Steve Wendt]

adobe.com will be about everybody's default choice for a Windows PDF
reader. Separated products, to be obtained separatedly.

It seems that most OEM computers actually come with Acrobat Reader and
Flash installed by default. Of course, that is the choice of the
hardware manufacturer, rather than the operating system vendor.

The author of "PMView for OS/2" has a case against Qt4 being
included

I suppose he also has a case against the "light tables" feature in MMOS2.

if M$ would promote the use of Java.... by including it with their M$
Windows

They did that, and got sued by Sun (since they made their version
different enough to break cross-platform compatibility).

CMD.EXE -> QBASIC /EDIT -> <Enter>-key to invoke the Help -> File
EDIT.HLP not found.
missing in my eCS 1.2 NLS version. It may have existed, with the right
language, in earlier versions of the OS.

Also missing in Warp 4, English version. Was probably missing in Warp 3
as well, but I don't have an install to check.

[Dave Yeo]

Post by Steve Wendt

CMD.EXE -> QBASIC /EDIT -> <Enter>-key to invoke the Help -> File
EDIT.HLP not found.
missing in my eCS 1.2 NLS version. It may have existed, with the right
language, in earlier versions of the OS.

Also missing in Warp 4, English version. Was probably missing in Warp 3
as well, but I don't have an install to check.

Am I missing something? All I have is IBM DOS QBasic and it doesn't seem
to invoke EDIT.COM which apparently didn't ship with PC-DOS. No matter
what I do I can't get an error about a missing EDIT.HLP with MDOS. I can
run DOS 7 (win98), drdos, or freedos under OS/2 and invoke EDIT.COM
under all of them but not MDOS. None of them have QBasic either.
Dave

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Dave Yeo
Am I missing something? All I have is IBM DOS QBasic and it doesn't
seem to invoke EDIT.COM

Windows still, AFAIK at least since v95, ships with a DOS-based
text-mode "EDIT". The default OS/2 equivalent is "QBASIC /EDIT".
According to the "? -?> Info..." OS/2 menu it's the "IBM DOS Editor",
v1.0.

Post by Dave Yeo
I can't get an error about a missing EDIT.HLP with MDOS.

With OS/2, you'll have to copy the binary file x:\OS2\MDOS\QBASIC.HLP
to EDIT.HLP to avoid the error message that EDIT.HLP is missing and to
obtain some working Help screen. You only get to see the error of a
missing EDIT.HLP if you invoke the help.

I can confirm that OS/2 Warp 4 NL also has no EDIT.HLP. "QBASIC.EXE"
is translated, but apparantly the file EDIT.HLP isn't lost in
translation. It may require a copy of IBM DOS, assuming it includes an
EDIT.HLP.

Post by Dave Yeo
I can run DOS 7 (win98), drdos, or freedos under OS/2 and invoke
EDIT.COM under all of them but not MDOS. None of them have
QBasic either.

It may require IDOS instead of MDOS, and I don't know if it was EDIT
or a QBASIC, GWBASIC or BASICA "GUI" option. It's not the same editor
as EDIT.COM, it's about the same editor. The most important basic menu
options are the same, same basic keys, same colors.

If you want about the same EDIT editor (OS/2: FAT-compliant filenames
only) under OS/2, WinXX and maybe even MDOS, perhas you could add an
EDIT.BAT to your path, reading:

x:\OS2\MDOS\QBASIC.EXE /EDIT %1

Copy QBASIC.HLP to EDIT.HLP to get rid of the error message, which
will only be displayed if the help is somehow invoked. So QBASIC.EXE
itself doesn't always check if the file EDIT.HLP exists.

QBASIC.HLP's help isn't that relevant for editing, albeit there is
hardly any help need since it's an editor with basic functionalities.

I don't know if there's a properly working EDIT.HLP, we may have to
obtain a copy of IBMs DOS to find that out. We've already got
QBASIC.HLP, which works as such. You can perhaps copy the file
EDIT.HLP from e.g. Windows XP to OS/2, but ISTR that (Micro$oft-) file
wasn't the right file format.

Anyway, QBASIC /EDIT is one of the many editors shipped with OS/2. We
may never have had the missing file EDIT.HLP, since it's also missing
from the English version. Or the error is that the help file isn't
called EDIT.HLP. If so, then it's a QBASIC.EXE error which should have
pointed to QBASIC.HLP instead.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <51f4ac77$0$58145$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com>, on
07/27/2013

Post by Dave Yeo
Am I missing something? All I have is IBM DOS QBasic and it doesn't
seem to invoke EDIT.COM which apparently didn't ship with PC-DOS.

Presumably EDIT is built in to QBASIC rather than being in a separate
executable. I get the results that Steve describes when I run QBASIC
/EDIT from an OS/2 command window.

FWIW, FREEDOS comes with an EDIT, but I dought that it has anything to
do with EDIT in QBASIC:

NAME SIZE DATE TIME
C:\FDOS\DOC\EDIT\BUGS.TXT 1458 04/25/05 3:25:04a
C:\FDOS\DOC\EDIT\CONTRIB.TXT 1972 07/21/05 9:54:22p
C:\FDOS\DOC\EDIT\COPYING 17982 11/27/93 10:15:36p
c:\FDOS\BIN\EDIT.CFG 227 05/13/05 4:26:50p
c:\FDOS\BIN\EDIT.EXE 59743 07/24/06 12:29:50p
c:\FDOS\BIN\EDIT.HLP 30189 05/14/05 7:39:30a
c:\FDOS\HELP\RU\HHSTNDRD\EDIT.HTM 1430 07/13/06 2:12:24p
c:\FDOS\APPINFO\EDIT.LSM 689 07/21/05 9:53:12p
c:\FDOS\NLS\EDIT.RU 32631 07/13/06 2:12:24p
C:\FDOS\DOC\EDIT\README 2845 05/14/05 7:21:04a

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
FREEDOS comes with an EDIT, but I dought that it has anything

IC. It nearly looks the same (based on FreeDOS screenshots I saw, no
line and column numbers?), it nearly has the same menu options as the
MS-DOS EDIT, and it has the same background color.

The editors aren't related, about each DOS version (M$, IBM, Free,
..) seems to have one. If you're using different CLI OSes, then you
may like to be able to use about the same basic editor with about the
same basic menus and about the same basic shortcut key combinations in
each environment. There are differences. AFAICT the OS/2 version has
the least menu options and doesn't support all filesystems of the OS
(i.e. no long HPFS or JFS filenames, FAT's 8.3 only).

You'll have to have some EDIT.BAT in your DOS/2 PATH to be able to use
"QBASIC /EDIT C:\CONFIG.SYS" like "EDIT C:\CONFIG.SYS" in the other
environments. The missing EDIT.HLP may be caused by it originally
being an executable called EDIT, which now is embedded in QBASIC.EXE
then.


--

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

If you're using different CLI OSes, then you may like to be able
to use about the same basic editor with about the same basic
menus and about the same basic shortcut key combinations
in each environment.

Yes, Tritus SPF (-;

[A.D. Fundum]

Post by Steve Wendt
It seems that most OEM computers actually come with Acrobat Reader
and Flash installed by default.

Indeed my reference is e.g a full version of Windows 8, or the OS
level. AFAIK Flash is actually "embedded" in Internet Exploder 10, so
installing Flash (or a plugin, off-topic) is an additional requirement
and threshold if you want to use Flash with FF. Apparantly those
products are a way to avoid regulations, just like that Linux-layer or
the commercial Windows 8 "tiles".

People I know tend to use the silly (turning your 24" SVXWGA monitor
into a 1.2" touchscreen without touch sensor) Windows 8 "tiles" by
default, albeit they won't pay for e.g. a McAfee product when enough
friends point 'em towards free virus scanners. So if you want to
promote the use of products in an active and commercial way, assuming
typical stupid home users, then the layers are a preferred strategy.
Home users are stupid enough to use the presented defaults, and stop
(or never really start) thinking.

There are several solutions, including paying $19.95 for additional
CDs with must-haves and goodies . I've already got 3 eCS 1.2 CDs,
which contain irrelavant packages like office suites. No need for
DVDs. Include the big beasts and demos, include links to small
animals. Illegally including Qt4 hardly saves more than about a 30 MB
download anyway, and I'm not using it (yet).

Post by Steve Wendt
Of course, that is the choice of the hardware manufacturer,
rather than the operating system vendor.

Just like it can be e.g. Mensys' choice, formaly unrelated to th eOS,
which must-have software can be found on a CD #2. I haven't verified
it, but I fear Windows 8's "tiles" are also allowed as a kind of UI
layer on top of the Windows 7 OS. But that'll be too complicated for
now, I suggest to hire specialized lawyers if you want to make sure
that creative solutions are allowed. I also don't know if links to
downloads are an allowed level of freedom of choice; after all, an
illegally added Qt4 is hardly more than an avoided 30 MB download.

I think that a virus scanner is a special case. I'ld suggest
manufacturers to ship third-party demo versions for Windows, but a
reality check would have to learn that Windows Defender has to be
allowed to avoid an attacked Windows install from looking bad. So long
as it's limited to "Microsoft Essentials", I'ld say. The name
"Microsoft Essentials" gives it away, perhaps.

Hardware manufacturers also have an own freedom of choice. Maybe (I
don't know) Dell works with McAfee, and Dell then doesn't have to
include all selections. The playing field became hardware, not
software. If you don't like Dell's choices, then you could buy a
Lenovo machine. It's like buying a car with a brand of tyres selected
by the manufcaturer of the car. People often like to think that's an
illegal way to sell a brand of tyres, but it isn't.

Post by Steve Wendt

"PMView for OS/2" has a case against Qt4 being included

I suppose he also has a case against the "light tables" feature in MMOS2.

We've already discussed editors here, representing basic
functionalities at different levels from EDLIN and TEDIT upto and
including (A)E, ICONEDIT and EPM. Regulations promote and control
developments, regulations don't stop developements. The author of GBM
may have a simple case against those "light tables", albeit GBM.DLL is
already included. If there's such a problem, fonts may be yet another
example, then terms and conditions can be used to create the required
level playing field.

Post by Steve Wendt

if M$ would promote the use of Java.... by including it with
their M$ Windows

They did that, and got sued by Sun (since they made their
version different enough to break cross-platform compatibility).

W_H_A_T? M$ breaking compatibility?! :-)

At the level of Internet Exploder 10 Windows ships with the common
modern Java support, AFAIK, but you'll have to download a full version
of Java to run stand-alone Java apps. I'm not sure if there's any
competition for "Java for Windows", albeit there's (thanks Goodness)
no such thing as ".NET" for eCS.

Post by Steve Wendt

EDIT.HLP not found.

Also missing in Warp 4, English version.

Same here, I just checked it (OS/2 Warp 4 install, other language
version), thanks for the confirmation. So the file isn't just lost in
translation, which was a possibility since this ("IBM DOS") editor is
translated.


--

[Steve Wendt]

Post by A.D. Fundum
products are a way to avoid regulations, just like that Linux-layer or
the commercial Windows 8 "tiles".

What is this "Linux-layer" that you speak of?