OS/2 Going, Going... Gone

An anonymous submitter writes "IBM has posted a Software Withdrawal notice on their web site announcing that the OS/2 operating system, in all its forms, will cease to be available for purchase from IBM as of March 12, 2003. For users who have purchased the two year OS/2 Software Choice subscriptions, service will continue until December 31, 2004." We posted a pretty good story about the history of OS/2 earlier this year.

Comments

Why it died

[wiredog]

OS/2 was an excellent system, technically. Certainly far better than Windows. Trouble was, DOS+Windows was Good Enough and cost about 1/5th as much. IBM, at that time, couldn't market space heaters in Nome Alaska in January.

Re:Why it died

[thona]

Thats avery good statement. Technically OS/2 ricked at it's time. It was DAMNED UGLY, though. And IBM had the most expensive SHIT marketing I have ever seen. They dumped one billion USD in a year for the OS/2 marketing campaign - which was totally crap.

I was on the german launch presentation for OS/2, and after I went out I called friends and told them to leave their fingers from it. God was I right.

Open Source It

[turgid]

Before you all go posting requests to IBM to open source OS/2, just remember whose code is in there: Microsoft. Remember, it was a joint venture between the two companies. Do you think that Microsoft would allow it to be open sourced? Anyway, it's technologically behind all the free Unixes, so what possibly could one learn from it, other than what was actually possible 10 years (or more) ago on realtively low-specced machines.

It would be cool if...

[stevezero]

After it's all said and done in 2004, if they would release it open source, or, better yet, just make it public domain.

Preventing it from happening AGAIN/2

[karmawarrior]

The death of OS/2 is sad indeed. I remember in the early nineties OS/2 was being taken seriously as a potential Windows killer. Ironically, one reason was that it came with Windows (3.x, needless to say) and this meant that users had access to a 32 bit platform (Win95 was a while away, and MS wasn't pushing NT) that was stable, while retaining compatability with their existing apps.

Microsoft's actions to kill OS/2 are well documented and need not be repeated here, except to say that they did a good job making it look like IBM's fault - MS basically told IBM if they distributed it with their own machines or continued to market it (and Lotus Smartsuite which died under similar circumstances) MS would do everything to prevent IBM from having access to Windows 95 in any sane way short of refusing to sell it to them. IBM capitulated, and the rest is history. For more details, the entire story is documented in the Findings of Fact in the Microsoft trial.

OS/2 follows BeOS, not to mention half a dozen other upstarts, in disappearing. I could say it's another nail in the coffin for choice, but I guess that nail was driven into OS/2's coffin in 1995. Right now the free software community seems to be the only place where choice may stay alive - by keeping platforms open, and by making source available allowing for the possibility of porting almost any open application to any open platform, choice has a chance, and probably the first chance it's had in several years. Vendors like Sun and RedHat have become a part of this (despite the constant protests about Sun, I think they're one of the good guys, NIS, NFS, OpenLook, OpenOffice, and many other innovations and applications have been given to the community over the years, and while Java isn't open source or free, it is source available, and the restrictions - given the 500lb gorilla that stands against Sun - are rational if disappointing.)

Linux, the BSDs, Atheos, and the upcoming BeOS clones, are only viable though because of this base of software that can either run on them now, or can be made to run on them. That means constant work keeping the base of free and open software relevent.

Making the alternatives stay sensible and rational will not happen by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman [house.gov] or senator [senate.gov]. Tell them that choice is important to you, and that it's important that the base of open, free, software available with source is constantly kept up to date, viable, and relevent to today's needs. Tell them that you appreciate the efforts of free and open software producers, but if one day those applications ceased to be updated in line with modern needs, you would be forced to find less secure and intelligent alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how monopolies and a failure to keep the alternatives relevent destroys all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on his or her policy on choices, on relevence, and keeping the free and open software base relevent.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Re:Goodbye OS/2.

[rseuhs]

The best marketing in the world couldn't have saved OS/2.

Imagine you are a PC maker, what operating system would you prefer: An OS made by some evil corporation or an OS made by some evil corporation which is also your competitor?

Compaq/HP/Dell whoever will never use an OS controlled by IBM and IBM will never use an OS controlled by Compaq/HP/Dell/someotherPCmaker.

BeOS had bigger chances of succeeding than OS/2...

Actually I think this is rather obvious. Why there are so many people crawling around claiming OS/2 failed because of poor marketing or too good Windows compatibility is beyound me.

Re:Exactly.

[jazman_777]

No matter how dead os/2 may seem to be I bet you in 10-20 years someone somewhere will still be using it for something. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Will that _ever_ be said about Windows? *** Shudder ***

Re:What about ATMs?

[aoteoroa]

And NO, I don't really think Linux is ready for that sort of thing. Hrrmmm... mabye QNX?

If you had said that there isn't a "Linux Distribution" out there that is ready for an atm application I would whole heartedly agree. However Linux as a kernal and a few basic tools seems well suited for this task.

An ATM is basically a dumb terminal connected to a bank's private network and would not need most of the tools and apps that come with any other operating system. The ATM functions a very specialized task. Solaris, Windows, or any Linux Distro would be overkill in this application. But the beauty of the GNU system is that banks are not tied to what is commercially available. . . they can build thier own system, based on the code that has proven to be stable and secure but is completely stripped down to the bare essentials and every line of code could be available for their IT auditors. And simple systems are easier to administer.

Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't GNU/Linux be a good code base from which banks could build a system?

It's not gone

[Atomic Frog]

In fact, it's even better. You can still purchase directly from IBM via their Passport Advantage program. You pay for license _and_ annual support subscription.

A license sounds pretty much like a brand new copy of software to me.

That point of purchase has not been end-of-lifed.

Don't Forget though...

[OS24Ever]

...The genius running IBM at the same time OS/2 was doing well made some pretty stupid remarks about the internet as well.

Doing well is a relative term, it was doing well as far as I was concerned because I used it :)

So far, I always seem to like the underdogs. OS/2, Linux, Mac OS X....

sigh.

Re:What about ATMs?

[Chester K]

For its OS it was running OS/2, as opposed to MS/DOS, which made me feel much safer.

Why's that? There was nothing insecure about MS-DOS. Contrary to what you read on Slashdot, just because something was made by Microsoft doesn't mean it's crap.

OS/2 Hard to use?

[jbolden]

In terms of ease of use on the whole I don't remember many people complaining about that. Configuring OS/2 to run a dos game inside of a window was much easier then configuring a Windows 3.0 .pif. Modifying icons and stuff was much easier. Certainly in the 1.0-1.2 days and the perhaps in the 4.0+ days; but from 1.3-3.0 it was no harder than windows for sure.

I remember people complaining about the OS/2 desktop being ugly. Which was weird because with the color coded folders and some neat icon effects OS/2 really could look quite modern (again much better than windows in its day); but the initial installed desktop.... blech. BTW you still hear this quite a bit about Linux apps.

Re:The Doom beta versions worked just fine.

[Locutus]

Do you guys remember seeing DOOM running full speed in a window on OS/2? What a crowd that generated at Comdex. Up until then, graphical action games/apps on the PC were only done in DOS. The OS/2 DIVE system allowed fullblown multimedia apps to run at very acceptable speeds in a window.

I heard that Microsoft saw what OS/2 could do( DOOM in a window ) and paid ID Software a ton of cash to some up with a way to do the same in MS Windows. The birth of MS DirectX maybe?

I think OS/2 was the first PC OS to ship with a multimedia subsystem and apps to use it( video player, videodisk controller, syncronized video/sound, sound player/recorder, etc ). Maybe the Amiga had this way before but no on the x86 PC hardware.

LoB

LoB