[Discussion] OO204 startup problem with LVM

[mwizard99 at comcast.net]

In <E1HwXpo-0006z2-00 at pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net>, on 06/07/07 
   at 11:05 PM, "Steven Levine" <steve53 at earthlink.net> said:

>In <courier.4668DC49.00002FFF at mail.abiliba.net>, on 06/07/07
>   at 11:30 PM, mwizard99 at comcast.net said:

>Now that I have enjoyed the humorous rumor and speculation of this
>thread, I recommend reading

> http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/

>before it changes.  I'm sure the info exists elsewhere as well, but it
>was trivial to find this link.  It's probable that the OOorg 2.0.4
>contains the same info.

>>It would seem illogical to "link"
>>LVM functionality to an office suite.

>Why?  Are you saying you have a deep understanding of the technical
>issues involved in porting Open Office to OS/2 and that you have an
>alternative implementation for the problem that lvm.dll solves?

I have no details of OpenOffice development.  I have been a programmer
writing code on several platforms (great and small) over the last 25 years
or so. So I know something about what it takes to write applications. 
Linking an application with a partitioning service (and isn't installed on
many Warp4 clients out there.) doesn't seem logical to me.  I'll certainly
defer to you and Chuck if you tell me that in this implementation of OO,
the LVM function is needed.

>>I'll see what ecomstation folks have to say before proceeding further. 
>>Perhaps they can offer a change or a method that will allow me to run
>>without LVM.

>I doubt it.  However, since there's LVM and there's LVM, there's less to
>fear than you currently seem to be fearing.

It seems that when runing with LVM people are either problem prone or they
are not.  I don't get the sense that people fall in the middle.  Many
emails over the past several years, from different forums are repleat with
a divide of comments.  Some are people who are having troubles with LVM
and it prevents (albiet temporarily I believe) them from properly running
their system.  Others, are of your persuasion.  They have no troubles with
LVM, and use it without hesitation, and probably with little trouble.

I'm of the opinion that if it isn't broke, don't fix it.  LVM fell into
that category, and was never a requirement on my system, until I installed
OO204.  I run the risk of falling into the problem prone category should I
install this on my system just for OO use.

The OO docs and ecomstation website do not mention the LVM requirement,
though they mention the UCLIP and the other lib package which are provided
in the download.   The os2bbs page above is the only page that I'm aware
of that mentions an LVM requirement.  I'll admit that I didn't find that
info until you pointed it out.  And in my opinion, I shouldn't have to
have found that site before ordering the package, if I had read the
ecomstation pages on OO.  The LVM requirement should be documented there
along side the other two packages on the ecomstation web pages.

It seems that I have three basic options...

1. Install LVM and configure my drives with it.  (I presume that if it is
installed properly, I have to run LVM to configure my drives, including
several USB thumb drives).

2. Cancel my intended usage of OO204 since I don't have the LVM
requirement.  I have opted not to install a few packages over the years
because I don't have the requirements.

3. Defer the use of 00204 on OS/2 until such a time as I have an LVM
system (and someday I will), or the ecomstation folks (You, Chuck, and
others) opt to rework that code to remove the LVM requirement.  (I note
your suggestion above that tells me the rework is unlikely.)

If anyone has another option, I'm willing to listen.

In the mean time, ecomstation support is still looking at my problem and
trying to help me out.

Steve/Chuck/Others, I very much appreciate your feedback on this problem.

Regards,

-Mark
--