IBM's OS/2 Strategy for 2003

Landreth writes "OS2World.com reports that IBM has released their OS/2 strategy for 2003. They appear to be pushing the WebSphere Software Platform as well as client and server upgrades to Warp 4. The report can be viewed at IBM's website."

Comments

Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

save? you imply that it's not already there

RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that an OS which /. has been reporting as being dead for years is apparently still being updated.

-t

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

But this story is about OS/2 not BSD.

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not dead yet.

I feeling better.

I think I will dance

Getting OS/2

[bjb]

I've been wondering for the last few years, who still uses OS/2? Forget companies who have legacy software running on it, I mean does anyone actually use it on their personal machine? I mean regularly; enough to validate upgrades.

The bigger question I have, however, is that I never really had a chance to play with OS/2, and I always wanted to see what it was like. Is it even publically (preferably freely) available for a weekend hobbyist like myself who just wants to kick the tires?

Re:Getting OS/2

[phunhippy]

I've been wondering for the last few years, who still uses OS/2?

thats funny.. i haven't thought about it at all :)

Re:Getting OS/2

[LordNimon]

I've been wondering for the last few years, who still uses OS/2?

I do. Dual Athlon running eCS 1.0 right now.

Re:Getting OS/2

[mkelley]

I don't know if "legacy" would be the proper term, since my last dealings with OS/2 was as a Y2k upgrade for a fire alarm system. The old system was about 20 years old, with the new one being fitted with IBM systems and OS/2

Re:Getting OS/2

[EvilAlien]

Banks. Banks love the hot n spicy OS/2 action.

There was a really interesting article on the OS that I read a few months ago... I can't find the damn URL, but if you do a google search you will find quite a few resources with information on OS/2. It is apparently still quite popular with banks (mostly due to having existing infrastructure that relies on it paired with good ol' inertia).

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonono, they meant the mouse/keyboard -connector. Just a typical Slashdot typo...

Re:Getting OS/2

[jejones]

When I click on "About Mozilla" I see

Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020602

(Admittedly that's not the latest version.) So here's at least one person who actually uses it on a personal machine.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Dr. Evil]

I don't use it, but I ran it for quite some time.

Most GNU and free software apps have been ported to it at one time or another. GCC, Xfree86, Mozilla, all were ported long before they were ported to Win32.

It still has a heap of useful software apps, and it has some things which Linux has been working on since at least 1995.

Like:

• Smooth True Type font integration and management
• Easy printer setup and support
• Support for multiple simultaneous streams of audio (without the lag of ESD, or kludging about with multiple audio devices presented by one card)
• Win16 application support (who cares if it doesn't fully or even partially support Win32, neither does Linux)
• A desktop environment with a good clipboard

It lacked:

• A slick security model on the filesystem
• Multiuser support
• Good marketing and incentive for companies to develop native apps.

The GUI also had a message queueing problem which prevented apps from responding when one app seized the queue.

In the late days of BBSes, OS/2 was the prefered platform. You could strip out the GUI and the multitasking was very good. Desqview was the only competitor in that field, Linux was too new and strange for the BBS world -- BBSes were a PC phenomenon. Unix and variants were part of an educational and business world which didn't cross into the PC world.

IBM never released the package for free (short of betas back in the early '90s), and now I believe it costs a fortune to get a copy... if you can get it at all.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL,

bumbler, I've got OS/2 running at my fingertips right now. I use it everyday at work and home. I'm sorry you're using a lesser Operating system on your computer. Tough luck for you.

Re:Getting OS/2

[obdulio]

Why doesn't IBM opensource it? They are not making any money by selling it, I guess....

Re:Getting OS/2

[revision1_1]

ATM machines, specifically. I worked in the marketing group for a small tech-savvy bank once, and was given the task of customizing our (single) ATM's 'demo loop'.

You had to have an OS/2 machine loaded with the ATM software (am emulator, essentially), change the graphics/text/animation and so forth in the emu, and then create a boot floppy.

You rebooted the ATM with the boot floppy, and voila! New interface!

As soon as I told my boss I was going to need a machine running OS/2 and the ATM emulator software (which we couldn't locate anyway) his response was "uh, nevermind."

I wish I still had those docs. It was interesting stuff: what was logged, and where, how to hook up the cash counter to the (serial, IIRC) port, etc. Neat stuff. The ATM innards were by Fujitsu, if memory serves.

Re:Getting OS/2

[farmkid]

I'm another current user; OS/2 (in its eCS garb) is the only OS on my primary machine (though, admitedly, I have others for Linux and NT).

As for getting it, there are two options:

1) Get the current, non-IBM-branded version from Serenity Systems (www.ecomstation.com)

2) Get the current (or previous versions, if you want) of the IBM version on eBay. Copies are available all the time for far less that you'd pay IBM.

Re:Getting OS/2

[SocietyoftheFist]

Microsoft has a lot of copyrights in the code, nuff said

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly enough, my website will get a hit now and then from someone that still uses OS/2. Usually the lowest number on the report (2 or 3 out of 200,000).

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

What product is OS/2 listed under at www.ecomstation.com? Do they have a refresh of OS/2 Warp which includes all the fixpacks and updates? How much does it cost?

I used to run OS/2 for years. It was the big thing to use when running BBSes back then.

Indelible Blue (no longer exists) was a company you could buy computers pre-loaded with OS/2. I still have one of their DFI computers. It came with Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, OS/2 Warp 4, and VisualAge for Java working on all systems. Now, that was a Java development machine or what?

Its a shame Microsoft with their marketing power prevented OS/2 from being installed on more computers.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"I use it everyday at work and home."

Hello,
The word "everyday" is an adjective. What you needed there was an adverb. Therefore, you should have written "everydayily". I hope this helps.

Re:Getting OS/2

[cygnusx]

As another poster mentioned, ATMs are still a killer app for OS/2, e.g. HSBC uses NCR machines in India that run OS/2. More disconcertingly, these NCR machines use very *old* versions of OS/2, in fact, they are (c) Microsoft, and have a boot screen like this. Wonder why they haven't upgraded yet...

Re:Getting OS/2

[Flywheel]

Remember the MAME hunt ?

Also other compagnies like Microsoft has licenses and patents tied into OS/2. I'll bet Billy-boy still remebers the sleepless nights back at the OS/2 Warp 3.0 days...

Re:Getting OS/2

[Bourbonium]

I cut my PC teeth on OS/2 Warp 3 and then upgraded to Warp 4. A friend had helped me build my first computer in 1994 and suggested that the best OS available at the time was OS/2. I bought a used copy for $50 that I saw in a classified ad. I was using DOS and Windows 3.1 at my office, and OS/2 was just so far advanced compared to those braindead systems that I was an instant convert. Before I knew it, my friend and I were co-sysops of a popular BBS running on OS/2, I was publishing both a print and electronic newsletter on the machine and having a blast.

When my office lost its Network Admin, I took over the job and had to learn NetWare and Windows NT 3.51 on the server side, then we upgraded our PC workstations to Win95 and I had to learn that as well. I began using OS/2 less and less, the BBS faded into obscurity as the internet took over, and my home network had to evolve into something that resembled a standard office enviornment, which doesn't often include OS/2. Since then, I've had to grow myself into NT 4.0 and Win2K, Mac OS 8.x, 9.x and X.x and I now use Linux at home as well (Caldera 2.3, SuSE, RedHat 7.3 and 8.0).

It is amazing how much OS/2 technology you can still see under the NT desktop (the NTFS file system is a clever clone of OS/2's HPFS), but I haven't used it in several years. I sold my Warp 3 box at a garage sale, but I still have my Warp 4 package. I still see OS/2 for sale on eBay and IBM was still selling it up until the end of 2002, so you can still buy it if you know where to look.

Re:Getting OS/2

[farmkid]

The product is called eComStation. It's a mix of several things:

1) It's based on Warp 4.
2) But some things (such as improved TCP/IP and the JFS) are included from Warp Server for eBusiness.
3) Fixes were current at the time the CDs were mastered, and new ones are available at the web site.
4) Additional third-party stuff is included.

I don't know what the current price is; as a Warp 4 user, I got eCS as an upgrade for about $100.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Slorf]

I use it on a a spare P200 in my office as a utility box and backup workstation. The system is running OS/3 Warp Connect 3.0 fully patched with the latest fixpacks.

The box runs an Apache 1.3.26 server where co-workers can download utilities I've written and where I test new CGI programs to give them a real cross platform shakedown. It also runs a Python tool of mine via Cron/2 that scans the National Weather Service every five minutes and pages me when there are severe weather watches and warnings for my area. The darned thing is rock solid, never crashes (I can't even say that about my Redhat 7.3 system), and just plain works.

It also functions as a backup workstation, with Mozilla 1.l, openssh and a Citrix client so I can get my work done when my Win2K laptop goes in the tank, which happens all too frequently. With a P200 and 160 mb RAM, it is too old and slow to run even Windows 95 once you patch it up with all the security updates, and you can forget about running KDE or Gnome on it if you want responsiveness (though enlightenment runs pretty smoothly). OS/2 on the other hand is delighted with the processor and RAM. Sometimes it is more efficient to use an older OS on an older box.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Fervor]

Washington Mutual used it last September to help process my loan application request. There are other IBM specific uses for which there is no other option. For instance, we have an IBM 3995 optical jukebox. The PC controller attached to is uses OS/2 and there is no other option from IBM. Also, I seem to remember that OS/2 was the only IBM supported external Fax controller OS for IBM AS/400's FAX/400 software. We also have a custom app that facilitates printing images from the AS/400 that was written for OS/2. When trying to port the same app to windows, it performed much slower.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

Well... I use OS/2 every day on my main machine (including as I post). It is not perfect, and I sometimes wish some new functionality was available, but no one has ported it (or written an OS2-specific variant). But for the work I actually do day-to-day, this system is better than any other options.

Of course, the WPS (workplace shell) is an object oriented interface that is FAR better than that on any other platform (including BeOS, Gnome, KDE, Windows, MacOS9/X, etc). But nonetheless, most of what I actually do is within specific applications, and an platform that lets me reasonably switch between apps is bearable. I have a set of applications that I am quite happy with, and in many cases simply have not found anything on Linux/FreeBSD, or MacOS X (or "minor" platforms either) that I am entirely comfortable using. Windows, of course, is not under serious consideration for full time use.

Part of my happiness with current apps is inertia. I'm familiar with certain applications, and want to avoid a learning curve. But in many cases, I've really TRIED to find something as good elsewhere, and simiply have not been satisfied. Here are the main things I use:

- Yarn Mail/Newsreader: I like this app. It is easy to navigate, unifies mail and news, is text mode/keyboard driven, is extensible with outside tools. Admittedly, I know the mutt--and perhaps some other *nix tools--would be as good, so this is mostly a matter of familiarity.

- Mozilla: Available most everywhere, but this includes my OS/2 box.

- Python: Available most everywhere too, including OS/2.

- Boxer editor: I have used this editor for years, and really like it. I like the ancient OS/2 version better than the new Windows versions even (text mode, for one thing). This is an area where I am dramatically unhappy with my options elsewhere. Toys like joe, or even jed, just don't do enough. But vi and emacs are just way too steep a learning curve for me to really use (even though I know every capability is hidden in there somewhere). Jedit is OK for my iBook, but a bit slow. Nedit is bearable too, but canot be used in a console, which is what I really want. Boxer has menus that actually *show* you what it can do (with shortcut hints in the menus), and Boxer actually handles wrapped text in flexible ways, unlike almost every other editor (changing margin, text widths, hanging indents, etc., all per paragraph). Lots of editors work for code... few are usuable for writing books and articles like I do.

- Good command line. You need to enhance OS/2's shell to make it fully usable. But I use a REXX script called 'cmdshl' that adds the needed colorization, tab completion, history, etc. I could also get bash or others if I wanted. (The default CMD.EXE is better than Windows, but not as good as I want).

- Ghostscript/Ghostview: Up to date on these, most platforms are fine too... but I'm OK with OS/2 here.

- Occassionally I run old, but still good, Win16 commercial tools, mostly WordPerfect 7, and Quattro Pro. Mostly I like these better than OpenOffice equivalents (if only because of my legacy documents). But OpenOffice I could live with (when will the OSX version be available?!).

Re:Getting OS/2

[Micah]

I have a copy of Warp 4 and Visual Age C++ for OS/2 that I'll almost certainly never use again. Would be willing to sell for cheap+shipping.

I loved OS/2, but it is what helped convince me that Free Software is SO important. I put quite a bit of effort into learning OS/2, hoping it would take off, and learned a lesson when IBM stopped pushing it. You just can't put much hope in non Free software! Linux is, fortunately, immune to being ignored by its manufacturer the way OS/2 (and BeOS) was.

Re:Getting OS/2

[cheshire_cqx]

I see OS/2 all the time at my local used bookstore, which also sells used software and music CD's. It's usually like $10, with manuals, or something like that.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

OH... I almost forgot what is perhaps the most important thing: For most file manipulation/launching actions, I use an "orthodox file manager (OFM)" called FileJet. There are actually several good OFMs for OS/2, but this is my favorite (paid-for shareware). Midnight commander *hints* at what these tools can do, but a really good one is without question the best way to fork with files/directories/etc.

I really have not found anything as good for *nix systems, although obviously there is nothing conceptually impossible about writing one.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Lt Razak]

Man, funny you say that. I remember working with a new upgrade (Y2K related) and the "new" package was for OS/2. I thought... why?

I mean it's one thing to continue development of a package on whatever OS you had picked. But to actually switch OS's and pick this one....?

Re:Getting OS/2

[Lt Razak]

Mame hunt??

Re:Getting OS/2

[bev_tech_rob]

Desqview..... hadn't seen that software in a LONG time.... was one of the preferred OS's to run for BBS's... especially if you wanted to run more than two lines... I still have copies of OS/2 v 2.0 and Warp 3.0 (both the upgrade to Win 3.1 and the full version). I liked the system, but had to leave it due to no apps. Had to grit my teeth and buy Win95...

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

> It lacked: ... * Multiuser support

Before Citrix produced WinFrame for Windows NT they had produced a multi-user product for OS/2.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

An EasyNews accounnt ($9.95) will get you all the OS/2 warez you can slurp at alt.binaries.warez.os2. They post the entire OS in there from time to time. Not legal, not legit, but if you're having trouble finding OS/2, it may be your only option.

Re:Getting OS/2

[zonker]

i can attest to banks using os/2 as i worked at one for quite some time. however, in our it dept., well, their was no *love* for os/2, it was more of a necessary evil. there were a number of things that required os/2, such as our check imager/sorter and our document imaging system. at the time (about 2 years ago) there was no upgrade out of os/2 for those systems, although an nt system was announced, but not anywhere near shipping. their were lots of other things that used os/2 as well in the bank, but i can assure you, nobody was clamoring to keep it around...

Re:Getting OS/2

[zonker]

two reasons: drivers and no need to upgrade. first, os/2 1.3 supports the host communication protocol drivers that most atm interfaces require. there's no need to upgrade. second, what do you need warp 4 for a relatively simple machine? 1.3 is inexpensive and does the job. microsoft is trying to break into this market with embedded nt, but their is little reason to switch...

Re:Getting OS/2

[z_gringo]

I walked up to an ATM machine in Paris, just two weeks ago, which was out of order an booting with an OS/2 Warp screen. I thought Id traveled back in time...

Re:Getting OS/2

[G0dzzilla]

I mean does anyone actually use it on their personal machine? I worked for a company (Automation and Control type) that used OS/2 on their HMI (Human to Man Interface). The new version runs only on Windows NT/2000 but the old OS/2 runs until today and with the advantage that they don't need to be rebooted every week.

Re:Getting OS/2

[jasonditz]

I'm still running OS/2 Warp 3.0 on my old P75 laptop. Toss Xfree86 and gcc on it and you can even recompile a lot of Linux apps to work properly with minimal alteration.

If you're looking to try out OS/2 I'd check eBay for it. My original 3.0 came on a CD, and my laptop was floppy only, and I managed to get a box set with all the docs for under $10 with shipping.

IBM does not, AFAIK, offer public domain licenses for it.

Re:Getting OS/2

[zsau]

IBM never released the package for free (short of betas back in the early '90s), and now I believe it costs a fortune to get a copy... if you can get it at all.

A (full) copy of OS/2 Warp 4 was included for free (or for the cover price, depending on whether you bought the mag normally or not) on the cover CD of the July 2000 issue of Australian Personal Computer.

I could never get it to work.

If someone can find it in their local library (if that's legal) or wants to buy a back issue of the mag, good luck to you.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it from me. The best thing that OS/2 ever
did was shut down. It usually was capable of doing that without screwing it up. Booting up
was another story. Many device drivers were
perpetually missing in it, and the original
warp, the one that started out being hawked by
Patrick Stewart as the 'Borg' and ended up as
the 'warp' in a tennis racket that hit only foul
balls......it could never ....never...no EVER
master sound. Any digital sound or 'wave' file
would send it into slow mode. I don't just mean
s..l..o..w, but realllllllly s......l.....o.....w!
Hardly anybody wrote any software for it whose
business lived to tell about it. I collected
a magazine, 'OS/2 Professional' that was a very
good one on it. I really tried to make it work.
The best that I did was to make windows programs
run in a 'windows' window on it. It ran windows'
'Office' programs, 'Excel', 'Access', and 'Word'
very well. It could even run early DOS 'AutoCAD'
in a 'dos' window. Those windows were configurable to a very great degree, so many games
would run as well. Had they been able to lick the
sound problem, the thing would have had a real
shot. Sadly, Microsoft knew what the suits at
IBM did not, and that was that playability of the
games made the winner in the OS wars of the 80's.
That end was fortold like watching a slow motion
train wreck. The arrogant suits at IBM were the
old style management type of company in that only
lip service was ever paid to communication, whereas blind obedience was rewarded with unearned
promotions to the obsequiousely incompetant. This
was so that those so promoted would never be a
threat to the increasingly intellectually isolated
higher ups. This was probably the main reason
why Microsoft bailed on their partnership with
them back in the 80's. IBM execs felt that the
software/hardware alliance of OS/2 and PS/2 was
going to dominate the scene and drive out all
competition and fired or railroaded all in-house
opposition. Is it any wonder they ran their train
over a cliff. Now micro$ is doing the same thing
with the 'dot net palladium' crap. Somebody
probably has already tried to tell the Redmond
cabal that todays computers probably have all the
performance and speed the average geek would ever
need for his own machine, and that business machines are more concerned with networked word
processors and seat costs.
My son works for a company that
recently threw out boxes of micro$ computers and
software and installed a linux network. Why?
Micro$ exhorbitant and intrusive 'licensing'
program was costing over 3000 bucks a seat per
year! It took a stockholders revolt to do it.
They fired the CEO and his whole crew and then
cleaned house from the top down. The linux
network works just fine. StarOffice can do
anything that micro$' Office can do, and do it
better and simpler. Not only that, StarOffice
documents don't surrepititiousely spy on the
users and send sensitive info to Redmond so that
they can sell it to the competition!
All the good apps? They are already here!
All the new stuff is just a money grab and a
data mine for others. You as a customer of such
'dot net' 'licenciousness' might not like who
some of those 'others' might be.

Re:Getting OS/2

[flawed]

It still has a heap of useful software apps, and it has some things which Linux has been working on since at least 1995.

And guess what? Windows NT has had these features as well.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Universal (company that makes part placement systems for automatic electronics assembly) still does.

When I was at Rockwell Collins the new machines had still OS/2 system on them (not that it mattered to the operator...but it drove some in the Idiot IT deparment nuts to think that there was something running an OS other than the Collins variant on Windows and that it was out of their control.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the "M" stand for in ATM machine?

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it all the time. Have been since the early 90's. A new version is about to be released, check out www.ecomstation.com

I have no worries about virii and most of the other ills that exist with the more popular os's.

I miss a few of the latest and greatest wizbang apps out there, but it works for me.

Re:Getting OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me as to how much I can get done on OS/2 that I couldn't get done using windows or Linux. I've snapped a desktop photo to illustrate the point.

All on a P3 1G with 512MB but it runs almost equally as well on 128-256MB. The
virtual memory management

The Machine wasn't even beginning to sweat on;

Burning a CD at 12X,
Scanning a document simultaneously,
Watching TV,
Watching an MPEG (it's black because the capture didn't account for the video
interlacing.
Running a fax machine
Running FTP and other server processes
Running a firewall and cable-modem services
PMMail client.
a half-dozen desktop management tools
Web browsing
Windows 98 virtual machine in a box (also runs XP)
Photo album software (which took the snapshot)
plus others..

Around 33 processes.

You can check out the snapshot at my web page.

http://www.martinic.org in a couple of hours

C.

Re:Getting OS/2

[CMart]

Why use OS/2?

In the interests of demonstrating how windows wastes hardware.

If you can wean yourself off windows and have a need to work and not really play...

There is a screen shot at http://www.martinic.org

All on a P3 1G with 512MB but it runs almost equally as well on 128-256MB. The
virtual memory management

The Machine wasn't even beginning to sweat on;

Burning a CD at 12X,
Scanning simultaneously,
Watching TV,
Watching an MPEG (it's black because the capture didn't account for the video
interlacing.
Running a fax machine
Running FTP and other server processes
Running a firewall and cable-modem services
PMMail
a half-dozen desktop management tools
Web browsing
Windows 98 in a Virtual Machine BOX (also does linux in a box)
Photo album software (which took the snapshot)
plus others..

Around 33 processes.

Re:who honestly cares

[reaper20]

On the otherhand if I was a past OS/2 customer I would be pretty happy with the length of support by IBM so far. You gotta hand it to IBM on this one, they supported the product as long as the customers needed, and that's pretty rare in this day and age of forced upgrades.

I mean, they even have OS/2 Mozilla - at least they weren't told their systems were out of date and force them to upgrade every 18 months. (Oracle/Microsoft).

Change of plans..

[Plutor]

I thought IBM's OS/2 plan for 2003 was kill it. Why has this changed?

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for one thing, many companies (like Musicland, which owns Sam Goody, Suncoast, and other music stores) use OS/2 to manage their individual stores. I worked temp at a Sam Goody, and was surprised to find the graphical OS/2 interface hidden behind some dumb text-based check-out program. Worked pretty well, too. I don't believe it ever crashed within the time I was there, unlike the Windows machine (for searching their music database) which really sucked.

Re:Change of plans..

[silvaran]

It was corrected on a slashback. The EOLs are mostly for hardcopy documentation and other bundled software, not for OS/2 itself.

Re:Change of plans..

[MImeKillEr]

That was one nice thing about OS/2 -- the ability to kill off errant threads. Unlike Windows, OS/2 had a program (albeit, not included) called PMThreadKill that allowed you to terminate a process thread without hosing up the entire system.

Windows has TaskManager, but even using this I have to reboot when I hit a pr0n site with my popup killer disabled (it blocks Fark.com story pop ups) and IE takes my system out. Wouldn't happen under OS/2.

Re:Change of plans..

[mark_lybarger]

Best Buy Co. now owns Sam Goody and Suncoast. And according to the article linked below, they're closing up Sam Goody and Suncoast all over the place. Decline in cd sales they claim.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreport er /music/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1791893

Re:Change of plans..

[MImeKillEr]

The way I remember it, an errant OS/2 process would often take out the entire PM.

My point exactly. Had PMThreadKill been bundled with the OS (I got it off an internal software repository when I worked at IBM) you would've been able to kill the errant thread without taking out the OS.

As for the IE/shell issue -- This makes complete sense. While it looks pretty, it sure isn't the most stable way to do things. While I'm no programmer (no, really!) it would make more sense to separate the two to prevent such a thing from happening.

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like shitty hardware, or a problem between the chair and keyboard. You can't use Task Manager? Pfffft! Maybe you do need OS/2.

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

TaskManager is a POS. It doesn't always kill errant programs. Anyone with a 1/3rd a brain knows its a POS.

I guess that excludes you.

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Play with the settings and get IE and Explorer windows to run in seperate processes. This helps the situation quite a bit.

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that is only in Mar 2003. They have all of 3 months to play with a websphere port till then.

Re:Change of plans..

[LinuxHam]

As best I can tell from reading the IBM page, the new "strategy" is to help customers transform custom OS/2 client/server apps into "webified" eBusiness apps running on WebSphere. After enough migrations, you will have attained "OS independence" on the client side (and server side as well). A typical office worker will only need a web browser and an Office suite to do their entire job. This has been IBM's e-business strategy since long before I joined them. Any IBM'er who's been through the internal "e-Business transformation" will agree that it has brought some amazing changes to our admistrative processes.

While reading the early parts of the page, I was anticipating OS/2 becoming some sort of a .NET competitor, like a pure web-based client environment a la the old "workspace on demand". But I soon realized that they are just pushing the webification of applications to break OS dependence on both ends.

In the meantime, IBM will continue to provide some critical fixes and "consider" developing support for new devices, until customers no longer need OS/2 on the server side or client side.

Re:Change of plans..

[Anonymous Coward]

IE takes my system out.

Some suggestions, if you are opened to them...

For starters, disable a lot of the stuff in IE you actually DON'T need. That won't help with the problem you just mentioned, but it will increase stability with IE.

Next, and this is important, make sure you have every IE instance running in a seperate process. Where you find this option will change from Windows version to Windows version, and it's harder to get to in some versions than others, but it's well worth hunting down. Most people are oblivious to this feature, but it can mean the difference between months of uptime and hourly resets.

Last and more important, lock your swap file size. Make a swap that has a minimum and maximum size that is the same, but gives you plenty of swap space. Do it on a dedicated partition if you have to. Locking your swap-file will increase system performance by a noticable factor, and for some reason I've never been able to figure out it makes Windows a whole lot more stable.

There are other little "Duh" tricks to making Windows stable, but most people don't know them, duh. I have never owned an unstable Windows box, yet I can very seldom find someone running Windows who can make it stable.

Re:Change of plans..

[MImeKillEr]

Yeah, I know about the swapfile trick. Didn't realize about putting IE in its own memory space. Will definitely do this.

Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the same of it as someone who posts a stupid but insightful looking question just to try to get first post.

So why use OS/2?

[KDan]

I read through their strategy and I couldn't find any hint of why people should actually use OS/2 over any other solutions. Java, XML and the internet protocols are very well supported in Linux and *BSD, so why would anyone switch to OS/2 rather than one of those systems, if they decide to switch to something, or why would they choose OS/2 rather than something else if they're starting a new project?

Unless they answer these questions, it's all hot wind.

Daniel

Re:So why use OS/2?

[lurvdrum]

There's only one reason, and that's the kickass object-oriented Workplace Shell. If you've never experienced it you'll probably never know how beautiful it is/was. If IBM redeveloped it for Linux.......

Re:So why use OS/2?

[squiggleslash]

Maybe they just like it better. You know, the way it works. The GUI. etc.

Where did this crap come in choice is a bad thing? EVERY time someone mentions a new OS, or in this case a resuccitated old one, the same old "Why do this, when Linux does blah blah blah and Windows does narf narf narf" arguments come up.

Notice how nobody ever protests when GM or Ford comes up with another car. "But why get this 'Grand Marquis' thing when a Sable can already get you from A to B in comfort."

But choice in OSes. Oh no, that's terrible! We must consider that evil!

Re:So why use OS/2?

[rot26]

Nobody is asking questions. The people who need OS/2 already KNOW why they need it.

By the way, it's the best programming environment I've ever worked under, and as far as reliability goes there has never been anything to touch it until OSX came along.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[KDan]

I never said choice is bad, but if you're starting a project or thinking of switching the platform of a project, as an IT project manager, you're not going to go for a different OS just because you "like it better". Doesn't look good enough on the project proposal. Thanks for your reply though (and the other two people who have replied).

Daniel

Re:So why use OS/2?

[primus_sucks]

Maybe the same reason why many people are still using Windows - because it takes effort to move something better/different. (No offense to OS2, personally I don't know anything about it.)

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Spoing]

I read through their strategy and I couldn't find any hint of why people should actually use OS/2 over any other solutions. Java, XML and the internet protocols are very well supported in Linux and *BSD, so why would anyone switch to OS/2 rather than one of those systems, if they decide to switch to something, or why would they choose OS/2 rather than something else if they're starting a new project?

This announcement isn't for future OS/2 customers -- it's for current OS/2 customers. The idea is that this group should use generic interfaces so that they can transition off of OS/2 when IBM finally cuts the cord.

It also shows that IBM as a company is trustworty in the most normal of senses -- even if you never liked or even knew about OS/2.

Maintenance mode on most projects is usually 80-95% of the project's lifetime, and IBM will cover everything if you want them too from start to finish.

This is one thing about IBM that I love -- they don't stop support after a couple years. The fees they charge pay for this kind of long-range planning so they are worth it if you need this kind of stability and assurance.

To bring this back to an Unix/Linux focus...If anyone doubts Linux's future or top-notch support -- say, they have been in a cave for the last 10 years -- point to this type of dedication from IBM and that IBM not only supports Linux but has invested heavily in it.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[ArtDent]

You sure you read it?

It seemed pretty clear to me that this strategy was about how to switch away from OS/2, not why to switch to it: "customers should exploit OS/2 e-business enhancements and deploy new e-business technology applications concurrently with existing OS/2 applications until platform neutrality has been achieved, and then change the operating system."

This is very consistent with the central message in IBM's software strategy: target our middleware and you can deploy anywhere.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[teamhasnoi]

New GM and Ford cars don't require propeitary gasoline.

I agree with you tho, with OpenBeos in my sig ;)

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Dr Caleb]

OS/2, OSX, Windows, Linux, *BSD, BEoS, Netware, AIX etc ...don't require proprietary electricity.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[mgkimsal2]

...you're not going to go for a different OS just because you "like it better"

Hrm... most people we deal with do that. Functionality, end results, lower cost don't often stand a chance against someone who's already made up their mind that something else is 'better'. Why? "It feels better"/"I like it more"/"It's prettier" all pretty much sum up the reasons why most people make their choices. They'll then look for a study or whitepaper to validate their decision.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Flywheel]

The same discussion we have with MS-Windows users, that mostly is unable to comprehend that some people actually dare to use another system.

I totally fell in love with the GUI back in 1992, the object orientation you get from the WorkplaceShell and Presentation Manager Shellcombination is divine.
KDE3 is fine, but the only place I really-really feel at home is on my eComStation Desktop.

Jave and XML is also supported on OS/2, why should anybody choose any other system ??

Re:So why use OS/2?

[sboyko]

I don't think IBM is trying to get anyone to switch to OS/2. IBM's point in the notice was to transition to a new platform from OS/2 in three stages:

1. Upgrade to Warp 4, Warp Server, e.g. the last release.

2. Make your apps Internet-compatible via Java, XML, etc.

3. Get off OS/2.

It's a sound strategy - much better than saying "toss your old boxes and use our magic new product of the week".

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Unregistered]

Windows does narf narf narf

I agree, it does.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[janap]

"I read through their strategy and I couldn't find any hint of why people should actually use OS/2 over any other solutions"

That might be because IBM is actually not pushing to sell copies of OS/2 anymore. It's regarded as having lived its life to the full, and what IBM is aiming at now is to get their clients to gracefully migrate their installed base to some other OS that IBM supports.

In case you hadn't noticed, IBM is pretty big on Linux these days, hint, hint!

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're not going to go for a different OS just because you "like it better".
Why not? If the core competences are comparable, that seems like the *best* reason for choosing one over the other.
It's not which tool does the best job. It's which tool feels right when I'm using it.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't require proprietary electricity, but they do require proprietary bits. If you throw *BSD bits at Microsoft Windows it gags and dies.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[haggar]

Well, Dan, perhaps you wouldn't, but believe me, there are projects that are managed by and otherwise influenced by stakeholders that -will- select an OS because they like it more!

Recently there was a decision in my company to move most of our products from Solaris to Linux... and the arguments were totally ridicolous! That's when I started seriously leaving this company, when I realized that decisions are taken totally irresponsibly.

Re:So why use OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Upgrade to Warp 4, Warp Server, e.g. the last release.

2. Make your apps Internet-compatible via Java, XML, etc.

3. Get off OS/2.

4. Profit!

Re:who honestly cares

[Max Romantschuk]

Then again... For IBM keeping it's customers happy is the most important thing of all. Regardless of if that means supporting OS/2 or any other legacy platform.

Beta was better technology, but somehow we all got stuck with VHS... Superior technology can't always win.

Granted, OS/2 is a different story. But in both cases it's about earning ones salary... which is always done by keeping the customers happy.

Re:who honestly cares

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM's been telling these people to get off OS/2 for at least 6 years now. They just won't listen.

Mozilla/2 and Java/2 only exist so that people can replace OS/2-specific apps with something portable.

Re:web platform

[Inflatable Hippo]

Considering the first point:

> What does the /. community think of the growing move toward the web platform.

I'm not sure what a true "web platform" really is. If you were to design the thinnest possible platform that supported "reasonable" quality browsing and not much more, what would it be, and how small?

So far the best attempts I've seen have been built on heavily pruned Linux, just enough to run Mozilla or Opera. But that's still fairly fat, a side effect of being a modular OS that's capable of so much more.

I'm still waiting for a descent "web platform" that fits on a floppy or two, I'm confident it could be done though, given a fixed hardware platform.

No doubt there are several /. ers out there who wrote one just last week :-)

Re:IBM's OS/2 strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, 3270 terminals access OS/2 sessions.

Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can the web save OS2 from the land of the dinosaur?

You're obviously confused. The computer in Jurassic Park was a Unix system!

Re:who honestly cares

[WPIDalamar]

Last company I worked for actually ran a Lotus Notes server on it until just before I left. It worked great, never required maintenance or upgrades, and supported all the features we needed.

Re:web platform

[elixx]

Personally, I'd really like to get off of this platform. I'm not quite sure how I got on it in the first place.
Did I ever mention I'm afraid of heights?

What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[bluelarva]

I wonder if there is any chance that IBM can perhaps open source OS/2 or at least part. I thought OS/2 had a great object oriented multithreaded GUI considering it ran on a pidly 486. I know open sourcing it won't bring it back from the dead but I think it could be interesting if some of that code can be adopted to Linux. It's very unlikely IBM lawyers would let such a thing happen but it's something to daydream about just for fun.

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[BlueGecko]

IBM can't do this because large chunks of OS/2's codebase are still copyrighted by Microsoft, if I understand correctly. However, that's always struck me as kind of a weak argument; I suspect that if IBM would be kind enough to just document in the code "The following function's source is removed, but it takes in this, puts out that, and should have the following bugs," then the community could probably get it working in a year or two.

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Bourbonium]

I seem to recall a /. story some years ago (perhaps it was the last time there were rumors that OS/2 was dead) about some high profile speaker at WarpStock (the biggest--or perhaps the only--annual OS/2 conference) pleading with IBM to release OS/2 as open source to save it as a viable platform. My faulty memory seems to associate the name Ralph Nader with this story, but perhaps I should do a search to confirm.

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Bourbonium]

Yep, here it is: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/06/08/213122 7&mode=thread&tid=136/
It actually WAS Ralph Nader!

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Micah]

Actually I believe the vast majority of MS code has been removed -- maybe a bit left in the 16-bit subsystem or HPFS filesystem. But now we have the JFS filesystem and don't really need 16 bit support.

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Unregistered]

OS/2 was a joint project with M$. Therefore M$ owns some of the sourse cod. They would never opensource it. Not only are they evil and all that OS/2 contains some win code.

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Tumbleweed]

The only advanced technology left in OS/2 that isn't already duplicated or surpassed in quality, would be the WPS. The problem with that is - noone that needs it would use it.

What the computing world really needs is OS X on x86. Or even better, OS X on x86-64!

Re:What if IBM Open Sourced OS/2?

[Ringthane]

Actually, not to quibble, but the initial release of OS/2 Warp ran well on my IBM 20 mHz 386 back in '96...

Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[tsikora]

and Sendmail all on OS/2 Warp Server for e-Business and every bit as solid as Linux.. and faster. 32-bit BSD TCP/IP stack, et.all The UnixOS/2 Development team has been making OS/2 a world-class server entry.

Re:who honestly cares

[reallocate]

>> No one has really used OS/2 since 1995...the install (sic) base...

You contradict yourself.

>> ...negating a reason for OS/2 to even exist.
Operating systems aren't academic exercises. Capabilities that you won't use waste your money, no matter how "modern" the OS. Presumably, institutions with an investment in OS/2 think it makes good business sense to stay with it.

Re:who honestly cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Who honestly cares?

People still using OS/2.

Duh.

OS/2, OS/400, Linux who cares?

[Gallo Nero]

I've been looking at developing Java based web solutions on legacy systems lately and it seems that IBM have a pretty good JDBC driver for OS/400 and I assume they have an equally good one for OS/2.

A couple of years ago it was all the rage to install a Linux partition on AS/400s turn it into a webserver and web-enable legacy systems that way, but now it seems IBM are pushing their own native system ie WebSphere, eliminating the need to install Linux. To be honest although I'm happy that I can develop native web apps on these platforms it 's always nice to be able to use the latest open source technologies and not be restricted to using WebSphere. Especially if you have to pay for it.

Personally I thought one of the failings of OS/2 was the user interface but using it as a webserver platform makes sense I suppose, if your company uses it anyway.

Re:OS/2, OS/400, Linux who cares?

[neurojab]

Um... you're a little off. Java and WebSphere were ported to AS/400 and (IBM was pushing that) many years before they ported linux to it. There's no reason you can't use another app server or the free, bundled version of WebSphere.

Re:who honestly cares

[IamTheRealMike]

No one has really used OS/2 since 1995.

Actually, it runs large numbers of ATM machines. Strange but true.

Re:who honestly cares - apparently you

[pigfukr]

Apparently you, since you did make it a point to read the responses to the posting and post one yourself.

I am using OS/2 right now, the only thing I reboot to windows for is gaming. I am using the version of OS/2 that was released in 2002. As "obsolete" as you think it is, it is still a far better desktop OS than Linux. Linux is not ready to "take over the world" at all in that aspect.

OS/2 is still a fun OS to dink around with. If the linux open source community comes up with any nice software it's only a short time before the OS/2 guys port it over. We have almost everything that Linux has due to the simplicity of porting linux-->OS/2.

Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called QNX - it's a single floppy and while the browser isn't as powerful or feature-rich as Mozilla or IE, it does show the power of QNX (it's also POSIX compliant - or mostly compliant, I forget which).

Okay, so maybe it isn't enough for a "web platform", but it's damned close and has been around for ages. It's rock-solid and teeny-tiny. Perhaps this would be a potential avenue for QNX to get more of the ever-elusive $$$?

(btw, http://www.qnx.com, in case you were wondering)

OS/2 will push linux farther away from desktop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, a new OS/2. Too bad for linux though. Still striving to be #2 on the desktop, how sad. OS/2 is a MUCH, MUCH, better desktop platform than linux will ever be. You also dont have to be a nerd to use OS/2, which is important if its going to succeed.

So hopefully Microsoft will FINALLY have some competition. Linux will likeley end up (or remain, depending on how you look at it) a hobbyist OS, as now it hasnt got a chance in hell of making it to the desktop.

Re:OS/2 will push linux farther away from desktop.

[wachusett]

OS/2 didn't really catch on 7 years ago when it was unquestionably better than windows...what do you figure is different now?

Re:web platform

[kelzer]

QNX - 3-4 years ago you could download a fully graphical web browser (on top of a 32-bit multi-threaded OS with IP stack) and run it from a single 1.44MB bootable floppy.

I'll leave it to the reader to find whether they still offer something similar on their site. (Yes, I'm too lazy to do it myself.)

Change the name?

[ruiner13]

Perhaps they should call it OS/Too, becuase besides for a handful of you devoted folks out there (and people who have investments in it and no time to port all 3 OS/2 apps to windows/linux), they seem to only be keeping it alive to clain they have an OS too. Yeah yeah, they have that Unix variant, but I've never seen THAT in a box. It only comes with an RS/400 server or whatnot.

Re:Change the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that don't know what the parent poster is talking about, the unix variant being referred to is AIX. And, it doesn't only come with RS/400 servers, it's intended for pSeries machines.

Re:Change the name?

[Marc2k]

Don't be a troll. There are lots of financial institutions and, as we've seen, ATMs that run OS/2, and will for a good while, even after support ends. I've seen a lot of places still running Windows 3.1/3.11 even though now to Microsoft it is now completely dead, so even in death I expect that OS/2 will be around for awhile because, as we've heard: it "just works" _and_ it's hideously reliable.

Also, AIX is not ultra prevalent, but it's defintely still in use. As for never seeing one..well that probably is indicative of how many server farms you've been too lately, or perhaps just which. Google sure seems to find a lot of info on it. Of course, I doubt you'll listen, because like your user profile says "Open source == good, M$ == bad."

Re:Change the name?

[JimmT]

We run our whole warehouse management system on OS/2 Warp Server e-Business, DB2 7, and Workspace on Demand. It is not just a hobbyist operating system. It's a valuable business solution for our needs. Its funny, we have been purchased recently and the new company runs windows based platform and their management system does not do, or even come close to, actually manage a warehouse. Even our new management is claiming if we migrate our business over to their platform that we would be taking a step back. They are having a hard time justifying us moving to their platform! This is good news and proves that OS/2 can still be a viable business option.

Jim

Re:Change the name?

[easter1916]

What is an RS/400? Is this an amalgam of the AS/400 (sorry, iSeries) and RS (sorry, pSeries) machine names? Some weird hybrid box?

I save big bucks with OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

all the desktops in my architecture practice run OS/2, the servers run linux, and we have one copy of windows running on VMWare. I set up the os/2 boxes when warp connect appeared on the scene, ('93?) and have never looked back. Other than updating Os/2 to warp 4 our software upgrade costs have been virtually zero. They are zero because we don't run windows programs. We are never forced into an upgrade situation.We use a mix of DOS (oh the horror!) OS/2 and linux GPL programs.The last versions of many DOS programs before the big switch to windows (word perfect, quattro pro, generic cadd etc) were really very good pieces of work. OS/2 allows perfectly stable multitasking of these programs.

We use HOBlink to add an X server to the OS/2 desktop, and now we can also use OS/2 as a thin client for various Linux programs.

Nothing crashes. we don't get viruses, nobody is playing games when they should be working, and picking up additional copies of programs we need is trivial on e-bay.

That being said, our backup plan is to migrate totaly to Linux if OS/2 ever really dies. The only thing keeping us from doing that now, is lack of a good Reasonably inexpensive CAD program that runs on Linux.

We are just going to skip the whole windows think

Re:I save big bucks with OS/2

[osprey2000]

all the desktops in my architecture practice ...

Architecture as in buildings? How do you get around the need for AutoCAD (ie. distributing .dwg files for backgrounds to consultants etc.)

Re:I save big bucks with OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, architecture as in buildings. Autocad is not the only program that can write a DWG or DXF file, Just as MS word is not the only program that can write a DOC file. AutoCAD is also not the best CAD program on the planet, although Autodesk would like you to think so. There are decent alternatives, although no good free (GPL) ones.

I am no more a fan of Autodesk than I am Microsoft, because these companies have created market conditions that limit both choice to consumers and technical innovation in software.

Re:I save big bucks with OS/2

[martinflack]

We use a mix of DOS (oh the horror!) OS/2 and linux GPL programs.

You are my hero.

Re:I save big bucks with OS/2

[RidgyDigiDude]

Quite possibly they're using MicroStation,
fromk Intergraph. They have/had an OS/2 version,
and even their DOS versions would probably run under
OS/2.

Regards.

Re:Wait...

[keyslammer]

I didn't even think IBM used OS/2

They don't. Or at least all of the IBM sites that I have worked for have switched to either Windows or Linux.

I've been trying to figure out IBM's position on OS/2 for years now, and I don't think that they have one, at least not at the corporate level. There are just so many organizations within IBM that "OS/2 strategy" has a different meaning depending on who you talk to.

"Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"

[JohnQPublic]

Go read the cited article. There's no change, OS/2 is still dead. This is IBM taking good care of its customers in the afterlife. The first part of the article ("What are the OS/2 Plans for 2003?") says:

1. "Hardware and Device Driver Enhancements: IBM plans to provide OS/2 device driver enhancements. IBM plans to provide reserved Software Choice device drivers to customers with then current software subscriptions."

   This is IBM-speak for "we're going to enhance some drivers, you'll be able to get them if you're paying for software maintenance". That's good, but it isn't a revival.

2. "Transition and product enhancement services:"

   Nuff said - "transition" means "to something else".

3. "OS/2 Defect Support: IBM plans to provide Program defect support for OS/2 Warp 4 Convenience Packages and for Warp Server for e-business Convenience Packages through 31 December 2004 for customers with software subscriptions."

   More IBM-speak, this time meaning that existing customers paying for maintenance will get support for two more years. IBM never terminates support on less than one year's notice - a good thing when you're using a system for more than just pr0n-surfing.

All in all, just what IBM customers expect during a platform's death throes - plans and help in moving to some other IBM platform :-)

Re:who honestly cares - apparently you

[Greyfox]

Gnome's archetecture is very similar to the OS/2 workplace shell. The main advantage of the workplace shell over gnome right now are all the SOM objects that are implemented on it. OS/2's desktop is its greatest strength but also its greatest weakness -- it's very easy to corrupt (Some days it seemed like all you had to do was look at it funny) and then you'd lose all your object relationships that all your apps carefully installed.

It'd be interesting to implement clones of the OS/2 workplace objects for Gnome. I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't. Personally though, I don't like icons on my desktop so I remove the file manager functionality from Gnome, and a lot of those objects only really make sense on the desktop.

When I was working on-site support, we had a very specific order in which you HAD to install the various OS/2 and Windows applications that the company needed on each desktop. If you didn't follow that order, you'd end up trashing something (usually the workplace shell) and having to start from scratch. Of course, my primary interaction with OS/2 was when someone was having a problem with it.

OS/2 PM should be open sourced and ported to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

When I used OS/2 I thought the OO aspects of the presentation manager GUI was a lot better than Windows back in 93'
The best thing IBM can do is open source the PM and the DOSVDM.
If the Linux folks embraced this you would have a more end user friendly GUI and the DOSVDM would enhance projects like WINE and such.

OS/2 Service Packs Availability?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you get a password to download the OS/2 fixpacks?

OS/2 did things that *nothing* else did on x86.

[Richard Steiner]

OS/2 provided a stable and smoothly-multitasking 32-bit platform with an object-oriented GUI back when the average mainstream PC was running Windows 3.1, and when the best Linux distro around was SLS 0.98 or so (not bad as a tool for some uses, but nothing at all like the desktop Linux distributions of today).

For folks into alternative operating systems in the early 1990's, OS/2 was head and shoulders above everyone else. Hands down.

It wasn't until Windows NT 4 that Microsoft had something which could seriously compete...

Re:OS/2 did things that *nothing* else did on x86.

[OS2_will_prevail!]

OS/2 provided a stable and smoothly-multitasking 32-bit platform

The key word there being stable! I seem to remeber that one of the (unfortunate) marketing mantras was that it was "a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows" It certainly was. Multinode BBS setups running even DOS based programs were as nearly flawless. My machines could go months between crashes. Compare that to Windows 3.1 (Win95, 98, Me, etc for that matter as well)

Alas....I am slipping back into the halcyon days of youth...

Re:who honestly cares

[trash eighty]

well done, you contradict yourself in just 2 sentences

Re:who honestly cares

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't the system they run there OS/2 1.3 which is supposed to be one of the stablest operating systems ever? (Also the last non-graphical version of OS/2) Or do they run newer versions nowadays?

I still use OS/2.

[Richard Steiner]

Here are some of the reasons why:

Warp 4 Screen Shots>

Re:I still use OS/2.

[Dr Caleb]

One thing I always loved about OS/2 was 'palettes'. Fonts, colours, backgrounds could be stored in a palette and dropped on to a window, and that window (and only that one) would change according to the pallette.

I always wondered why no other OS I'd seen had anything like it.

Re:I still use OS/2.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yoiks, that looks like it's set up for some serious work.
Oh well, back to XP and chasing butterflies :-(

Re:web platform

[Ivan Raikov]

It's called QNX - it's a single floppy and while the browser isn't as powerful or feature-rich as Mozilla or IE, it does show the power of QNX (it's also POSIX compliant - or mostly compliant, I forget which).

Actually, nowadays you can download the entire CD for "evaluation purposes." I think they're scared by Linux. It also has glibc and most of the utilities from the NetBSD distribution; because of that, I'm presuming the kernel must support POSIX system calls.

Re:Wait...

[JudgeFurious]

You don't think they have one? Then the years you've spent trying to figure out their position on OS/2 have paid off bigtime. Correct conclusion drawn my friend.

On the days I don't have mod points I see these kinds of posts. I'd give you an Insightful if I had one. When I do have them all I'll see is junk.

REXX?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, it's the best programming environment I've ever worked under

I never used REXX [some guys in a cubicle next to me were goofing around with it about 7 years ago], but everyone I've ever heard from has had nothing but good things to say about it.

Re:REXX?

[wizardguy]

REXX is great. On my first job (late '80s ) I wrote the company's internal email system in REXX and Assembler/370 (ok it was on a mainframe ) . Ah' for those good old days of building your own email software since the IBM email software VM/PROFS was total bloatware.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[keyslammer]

I'm sorry, but OS/2 has never been and will never be a "world-class server entry". It's not multiuser, doesn't scale onto multiprocessor boxes, requires reboots after software installs/upgrades, relies too heavily on the desktop for administration, and just generally isn't stable enough for the corporate server.

The shop I last worked at had to use OS/2 as a server platform in a number of cases. These machines needed regular attention. We had to set up hacks to do things like restart critical services when they went belly-up for no known reason. If a client came to me suggesting that OS/2 be used for a 100 system server farm, I'd probably laugh in their face (and then agree to help at a significantly higher rate :-).

Re:who honestly cares

[sculpin]

... and it works well, mostly, on those ATMs, except for the one at my local grocer's; it has crashed twice on me. The boot process is fun to watch.

nostalgic

[Jayhawker]

For those who cry "who cares?!", please realize that this posting is probably due in part to some wistful nostalgia on the poster's part. I myself feel it and care.

Back in 1994, I had a 486 running OS/2 v3. Note that the latest Windows available was "3.11". To demo my 16MB box, I'd format a floppy, have two animated games (chess and solitaire) play themselves, do a "dir /s" at the root of an NFS-mounted drive, "dir /s" on my big, fat HPFS-formatted D: drive (250MBs?), and write text in a real word processor, Describe. Talk about multitasking.

Microsoft was better manipulating/threatening OEMs. IBM was too big and slow, and most of the organization didn't give a damn about a PC OS. And who would really have wanted IBM to "win" anyway? And who'd want equal marketshare between the two, with two different APIs constantly changing? ISVs would've hated it, especially with the way Microsoft keeps them running in circles.

Etc. etc., boy, am I over the OS wars!

Re:nostalgic

[jonom]

I had similar experiences showing off OS/2 to folks with a 486 and 8MB of memory.

I remember once demoing it by installing a Windows application from multiple floppies, downloading a file at full speed (9600 a the time) and playing a game (Doom I think). When Windows would beep for the next floppy I'd pause the game, switch back to Windows, continue the install, switch back to the WPS and check the download which hadn't missed a beat.

I really miss the fantastic GUI. And having voice built in at the OS level was incredible (in the later versions).

I was a Team OS/2 member too. Had a lot of fun with that. ...Jono

Re:who honestly cares

[RabidOverYou]

OS/2 1.0 was non-graphical. OS/2 1.1 had the first gui. I ran 'em both.

Vendor support

[jdfox]

When OS/2 Warp came out, I tried it and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was, although my colleagues all sneered at its huge RAM requirement of 16MB.
What killed it for me was 3rd party support. For instance, I phoned up Epson to enquire whether they planned to produce OS/2 drivers, and got the following reply:

Epson: "What version of Windows is this product running on Sir?"
Me: "Well actually, it's a different operating system from Windows. It's from IBM, and it's called OS/2. I was wondering if you were planning to provide printer drivers for this new OS?"
Epson: (long-suffering sigh) "Yes, SIR, but what version of Windows will you be running the product on?"

And of course I couldn't write a driver myself, unless I signed up as a developer etc. etc. No point in re-hashing all that history I guess.

Re:Vendor support

[SoloLobo]

Wow, talk about exposing one of my healed raw nerves.

I too bought Warp4 with great expectations. I convinced my boss to spring for a new Dell w/ 16Meg RAM and I believe a 1Gig HDD. I installed the new OS with very little difficulty and was ready to rock. Then I opened a spreadsheet and the cursor was off by a mile!

I called the video card manufacture (Number 9, where are they now?) to ask if they had drivers for Warp rather than 2.11 (one of the major changes to OS/2 from 2.11 to Warp 4 was the video subsystem). After the guy finished laughing at me he sneered " when they sell more than 3 copies of that crap we might think about it" and hung up on me.

I also got a nearly identical response from the developer of SPSS. While they were heavily advertising their new version for NT3.5!

Re:OS/2 PM should be open sourced and ported to Li

[inteller]

When I used OS/2 I thought the OO aspects of the presentation manager GUI was a lot better than Windows back in 93'

Yeah, well that was back in 93. Now we live in 2003 and things have come a long way. I can't see how the look and feel of XP could be worse than OS/2. Don't get me wrong I used to use OS/2 and I loved it. I still have a PS/2 Model 60 running 1.3 for nostalgic purposes. The fact is IBM cannot market its way out of a paper bag.

OS/2 on the 286

[kasperd]

OS/2 was originally designed to fully utilize the 286 architecture in particular the newly introduced protected mode. I have newer heard of any other OS supporting 286 protected mode. I know that later OS/2 has been improved to also utilize the 386 protected mode, now I wonder: Does OS/2 still run on a 286, or what is the minimum requirement?

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[MyHair]

I had OS/2 2.1 way back when. I'm pretty sure it required a 386. That makes sense since 286 protected mode and 386 protected mode would require completely different binaries for the kernel and all application software I think.

For some reason I gave my copies of OS/2 away along with the manuals. Or maybe I sold them for cheap at Half Price Books. I wish I hadn't done that.

I believe the Embedded Linux Kernel project has ideas about porting to a 286 protected mode version (no actual effort or progress AFAIK, though, and IIRC they didn't port Linux so much as write or port another UNIX-like kernel to real mode), and it seems like I heard of a nonfree OS which can use 286 protected, but they are few and far between. Borland C++ 3.1 can compile 286 protected mode (as well as real mode and 386 protected mode); I'm not sure about other versions. (I kept that software!)

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[HBI]

AFAIK every version of OS/2 after 2.0 required a 386 processor. I had 2.0 and it was fairly clear that it required one.

Regards 286 protected mode - it had some big issues with interrupts and instruction clock cycles, which was one reason why there was never a DOS/286 or anything much else.

However, there was a 286 version of Xenix, and Windows 3.x Standard Mode was a 286 protected mode version of said operating system.

Too bad I have to get back to work, reminiscing is kinda fun.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[Flywheel]

The minimum requirement today is an 486, AFAIR one 486 upcode is being used, otherwise it is 386 optimized.
Some kernel-opdates fixes has been created to enable 486sx support.

The Java2 JIT seems to be PII optimized.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[iggymanz]

Coherent (a Unix-like operating system) by Mark Williams Company also supported it. You do know how 286 switches from protected back to real for kernel services? The processor itself couldn't do it, so there was a fun trick with the help of the keyboard controller.

I used to run Coherent on my 10 MHz Capital E 80286 from Elek-Tek. It had 1MB of RAM and a 40MB Seagate ST251-1. Both 1.2MB 5-1/4" and 720K 3-1/2" floppies. 2400 baud Zoom modem. And Super EGA.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[Anonymous Coward]

OS/2 1.x were the '286 versions

OS/2 2.x were for 386 and later [a fast 486 or better is required for 4.0]

Microsoft's version of OS/2 2.0 lacked the advanced user interface of the IBM flavor - it looked just like the 1.2 GUI [or Windows 2.x for that matter]

OS/2 NT 3.0 was a rewrite of OS/2 1.2, in C for cross processor portability -primary development platfor was MIPS - it was supposed to grow to the successor to OS/2 and DOS - it was later released as WindowsNT - thats why NT started life at version 3.1.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[Anonymous Coward]

> I have newer heard of any other OS supporting 286 protected mode.

Unix SVR2 286
Xenix 286
QNX version ?
Coherent
DRI FlexOS
TheOS
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x Standard mode (Standard=286)
(Windows Real mode=8086)

> Does OS/2 still run on a 286

Version 1.x still does. From 2.0 it required 386+

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[iggymanz]

Just remembered one more...Novell Netware 286

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[kasperd]

That makes sense since 286 protected mode and 386 protected mode would require completely different binaries for the kernel and all application software I think.

That is not the case. Of course you'd need a new kernel to take advantage of the 386, but in fact the new protected mode is backward compatible. You can run a 286 protected mode kernel without changes on a 386, and run 286 protected mode programs on that.

But even with a 386 kernel it would be possible to run 286 programs, and you could get a litle benefit from the 386 with only the kernel being changed but all user space programs being 286 code. Finally a kernel can support multitasking between 286 and 386 programs. I believe the later was the case for the first OS/2 versions to take advantage of 386.

The fact that 386 protected mode is backward compatible with 286 protected mode is perhaps litle known, but that is responsible for the 386 protected mode being designed a clumsy way in a few areas. It is however not as bad as you could have feared with the backward compatibility requirement.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[kasperd]

AFAIR one 486 upcode is being used, otherwise it is 386 optimized.

Isn't that a bit silly? Why optimize for 386 if it cannot run on a 386? And why use one single 486 opcode? That better has to be a good one to justify the requirement for a newer CPU.

It would make more sense to me to stick with 386 opcodes, but otherwise optimize for PIII or something like that.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[MyHair]

The fact that 386 protected mode is backward compatible with 286 protected mode is perhaps litle known, . . .

I was going to argue with you about that compatibility but decided to look into it first. It looks like you're right. Cool!

Now that I've had time to think about it, it makes sense. The x86 series has maintained backwards opcode compatibility all along, and the main difference in protected modes is the segment size.

Re:OS/2 on the 286

[kasperd]

the main difference in protected modes is the segment size.

In fact the segment descriptor is one of the more clumsy parts of the 386 design. In the 286 the segment descriptor had a 24 bit base field and a 16 bit size field. The descriptor was 64 bits in size, but most of the remaining 24 bits were reserved and was required for software to fill with zero bits. On the 386 it was wanted to make base and size field each 32 bits. But obviously there wasn't enough space for that. Instead the base was made 32 bits, and the size was made 21 bits consisting of a 20 bit value, and a single bit specifying the unit being either bytes or 4KB pages. So on the 386 segments can be any size up to 1MB, but larger segments has to have a size being a multiple of the page size. The most clumsy part is the layout of the bits, the new bits had to be placed in the reserved bits, and thus each field is scatered in three different locations in the selector.

Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

QNX is short for Quantum UNIX but due to legal reasons they changed their name. Yes, the kernel supports POSIX calls.

Neutrino = UNIX done right :)

Re:who honestly cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how a dead OS still can render this kind of idiotic posts...

banks

[DABANSHEE]

teller machines, ATMs, workstations etc

They're still real big with banks.

Someone even told me they saw OS/2 (PPC) on a Mac at a deom (don't know if it's wives tail - does OS/2 PPC support the Mac G3 southbridge internally? Or does one have to install it on a IBM PPC workstation then manually install a homemade Mac G3 Southbridge driver set & shutdown, then reboot the system drive on a G3 board?

Re:banks

[zonker]

there was a version of os/2 for ppc a long time ago, but it didn't last long. as i remember it was specific to their ppc602 based thin client machines they were trying to sell a number of years back (someone correct me on this if i'm mistaken on the details). anyway, i don't think you could get it to run on a mac g3 w/o significant changes to the code and new drivers...

Re:banks

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a CHRP machine was being demoed.

This was the Apple/IBM/Motorola grand unified PowerPC hardware platform.

However both IBM and Microsoft bailed on PPC, Apple bailed on cloning, and that pretty much killed CHRP.

Websphere

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh everytime i hear about IBM's Websphere strategy considering that everyone I know including me still runs WebSphere 3.5, released a couple of years ago. We don't upgrade because they keep changing WebSphere so dramatically (and expensively) all the time. 3.5 serves my JSPs beans and 1.1 EJBs very well, thank you. Even if it does take half an hour to start up on the latest and greatest server.

OS/2 History Link

[datastew]

For those of you looking for a history of OS/2 and its marketing, try this article.

Ninnle will fill the gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to run OS/2, but then I discovered Ninnle Linux, which does everything OS/2 does and more, plus drivers for it are everywhere.

Let's hear it for Ninnle!

why use os/2...

[Anonymous Coward]

when you can use windows?

Good news indeed

[Net0ps]

Choice in OS's is indeed a good thing. To paraphrase the folks on in a certain unnamed Usenet space,
"If OS/2 is dead, then the necromancer animating the corpse is doing a mighty fine job..."

Re:Where to get OS/2...

[dtjohnson]

Until March 14, a fully-installable of OS/2 Warp 4.52 (the newest version) is delivered to you on two CDs when you purchase a 2-year subscription to Software Choice. Software Choice can be purchased online at:

http://shopper.cnet.com/shopping/resellers/1,102 31 ,0-12556-311-307063-3,00.html?tag=st.sh.12556-311- 3070

Other online sites selling Software Choice:

http://www.computers4sure.com/product.asp?Produc tI d=114867&affid=874&adid=874
http://www.solutions4 sure.com/product.asp?ProductI d=114867&affid=874&adid=874
http://www.pagecomput er.com/cgi-bin/utsearch?cd=02 &sku=IBM00310
http://www.techstore.com/solutions/ item.asp?sku=42 3884TD&S=324C
http://www.officeexpress.com/soluti ons/item.asp?sk u=423884TD&S=324C
http://shop.mensys.nl/cgi-bin/d b2www/mns_art2.d2w/ report?catname=SWCHOICE&username=&i1=&o=&x=06:13:0 3

After March 14 (or when supplies at the above run out), you can get a new Warp 4.52 license through IBM's "Passport Advantage" program (new CD media is $20 additional) which requires a free online registration. Info from IBM is at:

http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[isj]

doesn't scale onto multiprocessor boxes

Strange... How do you explain the "OS/2 2.11 SMP" box I have on my shelf? And how do you explain the "OS/2 Advanced Server, SMP edition" that I once had installed?

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Listen Up]

I'm sorry, but OS/2 has never been and will never be a "world-class server entry". It's not multiuser, doesn't scale onto multiprocessor boxes, requires reboots after software installs/upgrades, relies too heavily on the desktop for administration, and just generally isn't stable enough for the corporate server.

TROLL What a bunch of total crap. OS/2 was SMP enabled from 2.11 (or 2.1 I believe) and scaled almost flawlessly linear as the number of processors grew. As a matter of fact, the OS/2 SMP model was one of the best models ever created and to this day is an example of how proper SMP should be done. OS/2 also ran services the same as Unix did, although with a slightly different model. Didn't know how to use REXX, eh? I used to work for a company (Lands End in USA) that used OS/2 for three 800 person 24-hour call centers and almost never was there a problem with OS/2. And when there was, it never stopped business. It chugged along like a tank. For even larger settings, you would combine OS/2 and an AS/400 or S/390 and have an unbeatable combination. The GUI was single threaded in the end (although extremely powerful), but command line OS/2 was as much Unix like as you could want and with all of the power you could handle. I could talk about OS/2 for hours, but the fact is is that you a an idiot troll, and if you knew anything about OS/2 Server and OS/2 Advanced Server you would realize how much of an idiot you look like.

Re:who honestly cares

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot, dude. We think that people only use their computers to recompile the kernel. Not unsexy stuff like running a profitable business.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[benzapp]

Sheesh, the OS/2 GUI was great but not necessary. I ran a multinode BBS for years command line only. Especially in 1993 when 8 megs of ram cost some serious cash, using 2-3 megs for the GUI was unnecessary. Its funny you profess such knowledge because OS/2 had few GUI tools for administration. Almost all were command line and cable of being manipulated via REXX scripts. There were some GUI front ends, but most sucked and no one used them. As for the reboots, only Ring 0 drivers required a reboot, like Installable File System drivers. But, even Linux requires that. Oh wait, you need to recompile the kernel to that. *duh*

OS/2 SMP has always supported up to 1024 processors , and still is one of the best examples of multiprocessing today, better than Windows and Linux. You forget that IBM practically invented multiprocessing and in the early 90's with the slow advancement of CISC processors it really seemed like multiprocessing was the way for performance gains. I remember going to Comdex in 1994 seeing OS/2 2.1 SMP running on 128 processors. They ran this great image editing tool called Colorworks which was highly SMP enabled, the performance gains were amazing. Today however, the only amazing multiprocessing machines are IBM Power4 machines. Everything else is a toy. 2, 4 processors. BFD

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Flywheel]

Sorry to dissapoint you but the 4.5 SMP-kernel got support for upto 64 processors and is optimized for 8.

Then their's BeOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Similler product similler compatibility...and few people (other than nestalgia) care.

You wanted small? was: Re:web platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen webservers running 256 bytes of code (Apache analog) on a Radio Shack TRS-80. The content is stored on a minicassette (up to 4GB on one side of a 90 minute tape!), and served up using a 32k EEPROM. Gateway services provided with a 14.4 hardware modem.

Advantages with this include the fact that the whole thing consumes around 6W of power, including the modem, it is totally silent, and battery backup is around 20 _hours_ using 4xAA penlite alkaline batteries ($2.50 from Radio Shack). Kinda beats a big honking server hands down in terms of raw economics, and as for the 20 _minutes_ power backup provided by a huge honking 2400VA UPS that prolly cost a couple thousand $...

This particular beast can be seen in action at http://www.humanclock.com

There is also the world's smallest (physically) web server. This is the size of a match head-including another chip the same size that holds the files! See the iPic webserver at http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html

If you specifically want a PC based webserver, try mulinux. One floppy for the kernel, one for the server and some data. Or, you could boot from the floppy and run the server/content on a small hard drive. Don't throw that 200MB drive! :p

IBM Doesn't even use OS/2

[pauls2272]

IBM switched from OS/2 to Windows NT a few years ago. Don't know why they would continue having new versions if they don't even use it. That said, my companies new Z900 (1.2 million dollar machine), comes with a OS/2 box to manage it. Paul

Re:IBM Doesn't even use OS/2

[Amiga Trombone]

That said, my companies new Z900 (1.2 million dollar machine), comes with a OS/2 box to manage it.

Yes, we have several IBM tape libraries for use with ADSM (or now, TSM) that have OS/2 boxes to manage them. Old technologies never die at IBM, they just get re-incarnated! I wouldn't be surprised if OS/2, or at least some peices of it, resurfaced under a new name and a new paint job eventually.

FUNNY....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny...

those are the EXACT SAME WORDS that appeared on the OSNews front page two days ago.

OS/2 is better, says Microsoft Fortan

[Anonymous Coward]

Says Microsoft Fortran's support of OS2 threads in applications.

Yes, Microsoft made some good products that will aid in their destruction: Macro assembler, Fortran, Visual Basic, Visual C++, Visual .NET /with anal basting kit.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[keyslammer]

What a bunch of total crap. OS/2 was SMP enabled from 2.11 (or 2.1 I believe) and scaled almost flawlessly linear as the number of processors grew.

I have to back down on this one. As it turns out there are SMP enabled versions of OS/2. But this in turn brings up the question of what are we talking about? Standard OS/2 or OS/2 server? Because there's a huge price difference between the two.

Didn't know how to use REXX, eh?

I started using REXX in 1990 and it was my primary scripting language until I discovered real scripting
languages.

command line OS/2 was as much Unix like as you could want

OS/2's command line is no more powerful than the DOS command line. It pales in comparison to the UNIX shell, which is why several companies released enhanced shells for for OS/2.

used OS/2 for three 800 person 24-hour call centers

I developed for OS/2 over the course of 12 years at a factory with hundreds of OS/2 workstations. The stability of later versions of the OS/2 kernel is impressive: I've seen the kernel keep chugging along after the desktop hangs on a number of occassions. But what good is that when other layers of the system are so confounded that the only thing that solves the problem is a reboot?

So best of luck in your advocacy of a dying OS (and in the improvement of your manners) but I stand by my statement: OS/2 is not a good server operating system.

Loved OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

I used OS/2 for many years.. right up until the end of 2001. I think i threw out my copy of OS2 2.1.. but i still have copies of warp 3 & 4

I stopped using it because i couldn't get my internal DSL modem working with Injoy (internet connection sharing software.. VERY EXCELLENT)

I've had php enabled webservers, running on a p100 with 100MB hard drive and 48 mb of ram.. i'm sure it wouldn't survive a slashdotting, but it wouldn't crash either..

The BSD networking stack was top notch and VERY fast.. the gui could be turned on/off. The desktop was very cool and I still prefer os/2's workplace shell to any other GUI that i've used.. mind the queue lockups..

Good audio performance.. and it doesn't have that annoying idle process that windows had.. meaning my cyrix processor it was running on (overclocked) ran VERY VERY cool.

The only think lacking back when i stopped using it was a decent web browser.. communicator was always halfassed.. i'm sure the mozilla ports are much better now.

OS/2 will never die.. it's a TRUE work horse. It's a complete very well thought out solution made with almost no compromise.. Much like BeOS.

Too bad the best things never really end up being the most popular.

I might go dig out my copy of merlin and throw it on an old PIII just for kicks.

Oh ya.. OS/2 will never be open sourced.. the user community tried.. it will never happen.. stop asking..

-- WARP sounds cooler than windoze

I believe one acronym...

[shadowxtc]

...can sum up the response of anyone who knows anything: ROTFLMAO. If OS/2 and Warp weren't already taboo to the extent of AOL for Macintosh... "Websphere Software Platform"? WEBSPHERE? I've worked with every web application software there is. Nothing is as slow as Websphere - nothing. You know all those IBM commercials where they're like "Can we do this? Is this possible with our technology?", and they answer "No.". Then IBM says this is how they can help your company. They are very serious. Maybe they are the only company that believes false advertisement is bad.

Texas DoT

[cjsnell]

FWIW, The Texas Department of Transportation uses it to manage all auto registration (and maybe driver registration--haven't been there yet) records. That's a fairly big installation because there are at least one Texas DoT in every county (well, maybe not Loving Country TX, pop 81, heh) in TX.

could OS/2 be our savior?

[HeX86]

It's interesting how OS/2 can die and resurrect itself...

And not that I have anything against OS/2, but I think some other competing operating systems are saying "WHY WON'T YOU DIE?!?!"

The real strategy would be

[Anonymous Coward]

Porting OS/2 on top of Darwin...

IBM could use the technological advantage that Apple hasn't used... Imagine.. the power of UNIX with OS/2 native applications and binary compatibility with Win32s.

If done right, using Mach's personalities, a future a PPC port would run MachOS X along with OS/2 applications on a PPC.

Just a dream though..IBM would never allie with Apple to kill Microsoft.

Re:I save big bucks with OS/2 (OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

What application software do you use (specificlly)?

Re: [PPC OS/2]

[Anonymous Coward]

The OS/2 PPC was demo'ed by IBM back in the G1 days, AFAIK, and never made it to public beta. I was hoping for it too, but apparently there wasn't demand... it couldn't run Mac or Windows software, after all, and even Microsoft dumped PPC WinNT after NT 3.52.

Device driver repository

[westfieldscientific]

Just to keep the record straight, for a number of years (at least since 1994 when Warp 3 came out) IBM have posted a listing of OS/2 device drivers which is still being maintained and expanded, and will be for the forseeable future as new hardware continues to come out.

The listing includes OMNI.DRV, which has been around for at least the last 6 years, and supports a large number of Epson printers.

It is fair though to warn anyone contemplating an OS/2 installation for the first time to check hardware compatibility. OTOH, presumably most /. readers have dealt with this problem (caused deliberately by M$) in the course of Linux installations.

Re:Device driver repository

[jdfox]

It is fair though to warn anyone contemplating an OS/2 installation for the first time to check hardware compatibility. OTOH, presumably most /. readers have dealt with this problem (caused deliberately by M$) in the course of Linux installations.

Sure, that's fair. But the difference with Linux (or *BSD or any open-source OS) is that you don't need to wait for a vendor to write the driver for you. You can write it yourself, and chances are good someone else has the same problem, and is willing to help with code, testing, documentation, etc.
I remember Ralph Nader begging IBM to open up OS/2 years ago, to give us a weapon with which to fight MS on the desktop. IBM seem to have decided that it would undermine some other revenue stream to do so: Linux and AIX revenue, most likely.

Wow, another FileJet user? Cool! :-)

[Richard Steiner]

ZTree Bold is another good file manager, but I still find myself going back to FileJet in fullscreen VIO sessions...

Best Buy

[hendridm]

> Well, for one thing, many companies (like Musicland, which owns Sam Goody, Suncoast, and other music stores) use OS/2 to manage their individual stores.

Well, I know those stores are a part of Best Buy, and IBM has been their supplier/consulting firm (as far as I know) since the beginning of time. Check out their IBM terminals and Lexmark printers next time you're in the store. Some semi-competent IBM salesman prolly talked them into it back when it was in its hey-day (sp?). Best Buy iteself seems to have migrated to Windows (looks like 9x) on their answer center computers, though.

Re:Change of plans..because..

[OS2_will_prevail!]

From the article:
All statements regarding IBM's future direction and intent are subject to change or withdrawal without notice, and represent goals and objectives only.

Of course, it stands to reason. IBM did not have a plan for OS/2 in 1992 when it was a viable product, much less now! I question why they need a "strategy" to let something fade into oblivion.

...I suppose I should go change my nickname....

Missing use of Win XP trademark

[llando]

At the end in the trademark list:

Windows and Windows XP are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States, other countries, or both.

Hmmm... I read twice and tried the Search Dialog...

Internal censorship?

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[octogen]

OS/2 SMP has always supported up to 1024 processors

No.

The current release, OS/2 Warp Server 4.5 for e-business, supports up to 64 processors.

Earlier versions had support for 4 or 8 processors.

I remember going to Comdex in 1994 seeing OS/2 2.1 SMP running on 128 processors.

This might have been a multinode-cluster of smaller SMP nodes. OS/2 runs on x86 hardware, and afaik the largest x86-SMP is a 32-processor Unisys ES7000.

IBM's largest SMP configuration, even on their own POWER platform, is 32 processors.

Bigger toys (like ASCI White and such..) are multi-node configurations, but those thingies run AIX, not OS/2.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLL What a bunch of total crap.

Dude. Team OS/2 is as dead^H^H^H^Hlegacy as the rest of OS/2. There's no need to go yelling troll every time someone says something less than 100% positive about it.

Re:who honestly cares

[janap]

Yes, the support has been good.

Back in '99, when we were finally upgrading our 2000+ POS terminals to Warp4 and discovered a bug in the Sendmail implementation, they were a bit slow to respond but after the couple of weeks it took for them to accept our complaint as a bonafide bug (we're in Sweden), it took the various labs around the globe about two weeks to come up with a fix that held water. Once the work started, IBM were very open about communications as well, we had daily correspondence with various developers asking us to test different solutions. The problem was worked on by people in Texas, Israel, India and finally Canada (Calgary, if my memory serves me) wherefrom we finally had our fix. Quite interesting times!

Even the upgrade strategy they're now pursuing is smart. Most OS/2-based machines nowadays are quite dated. They can't run much else than very scalable modern OS'es like Linux, most likely serving as a kind of thin client, leaning heavily towards web-based applications.

Our clients still run Warp 4, and will continue to do so for at least another 2 or 3 years. We're currently running those machines unsupported though. IBM will only support one version of OS/2 at a time nowadays (which is actally a pretty reasonable strategy). That means we'd have to upgrade our (very tweaked and slimmed down) machines to the latest Convenience Pack level at least once a year to be eligible to even purchase the support, and we've decided that's too big a hassle for questionable gain since our environment is pretty stable anyway. (Plus it ain't exactly for free...)

I'll be sorry to see it go though, been developing on that platform since around '93. Back then, there was no other OS that got even close to the stability and versatility that OS/2 provided. Choosing a platform for mission-critical clients back then wasn't very difficult. That actually held true until pretty recently.

I'm sorry but...

[angelkey]

If you have that much time on your hands that you need to keep track of 37 partitions made up of 12 megs each...I dunnno. It looks like hell to me and not attractive at all. But to each their own. That smacks of the days when computers weren't overly useful and people had to find things to do with them. Therefore the mass of impressive-looking albeit useless windows. It's like every Linux shot I see that shows a gimp window open and xmms playing. You guys know this is true and not meant as a troll. Linux would probably sell better if the screenshots showed Blender or something (else) cool.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Door-opening Fascist]

I started using REXX in 1990 and it was my primary scripting language until I discovered real [perl.org] scripting [gnu.org] languages [python.org].

REXX can do many of things that Perl and other commonly-used languages can do. If you don't like it, C, Perl, Python, Tk, and a host of other languages are available for OS/2. REXX is by no means the only available language.

OS/2's command line is no more powerful than the DOS command line. It pales in comparison to the UNIX shell, which is why several companies released enhanced shells for for OS/2.

If you don't like OS/2's command line, then you can run bash instead. Other Unix shells, including ksh and csh have been ported as well. This, of course, gives you access to Unix shell scripting as well, providing another replacement for REXX scripting.

I developed for OS/2 over the course of 12 years at a factory with hundreds of OS/2 workstations. The stability of later versions of the OS/2 kernel is impressive: I've seen the kernel keep chugging along after the desktop hangs on a number of occassions. But what good is that when other layers of the system are so confounded that the only thing that solves the problem is a reboot?

The Workplace Shell can be restarted easily without rebooting, thereby solving the problem of a hung desktop.

So best of luck in your advocacy of a dying OS (and in the improvement of your manners) but I stand by my statement: OS/2 is not a good server operating system.

Then I would expect that banks would not use it quite so much. Banks nowadays require 4+ nines of uptime, which seems to imply to me that OS/2 is one of the most capable server OSs in existence.

Re:who honestly cares

[yuri benjamin]

No one has really used OS/2 since 1995

Bzzzt! I used it until 1997 when I switched to Linux.
I dual booted between OS/2 and Linux (using OS/2's boot manager)
until 1998 (or early 1999 - memory is vague).

I had to create the linux partition as a fat partition using OS/2's
fdisk and then reformat it under linux as ext2 with lilo as the second stage loader.

If IBM made an opensource version of presentation manager as an X11 wm or even as a replacement for X11, I'd use it.

OS/2 was the fastest OS on the x86 platform (because it was designed around x86 and sacrificed portability for gains on a specific platform - pros and cons of this desighn decision left as an exercise for the reader).

Banking: OS/2 -- Linux

[jlrowe]

I ran accross this link about Linux in the banking industry on the IBM web site.

Linux in Banking

Linux and Branch Banking Abstract

. The banking industry is undergoing a major transformation to e-business, supporting a multichannel model for its delivery of services. As part of this transformation, there is a major focus on the branch IT infrastructure.
In this very competitive environment, banks are looking for solutions that are cost effective, provide a high quality of service, and allow them to speed new products and services to market. In addition, they need to have a flexible and open environment in order to absorb the inevitable changes that occur over time.
At the same time, Linux is gaining popularity and credibility as a robust and stable operating environment for many business-critical functions. This IBM Redbook surveys the current trends in branch banking, describes in detail an IBM Patterns for e-business approach to designing the branch infrastructure of the future, and provides the reader with an understanding of how and where Linux can play a key role in branch banking infrastructures.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for clarification, documentation on the s/390 states that it can scale in excess of 600 CPUs. Check IBM's site for details.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[cmacb]

I agree with you AND the troll. OS/2 was my operating system of choice for several years. It was superior to anything Microsoft had until about NT 4 time-frame. Unlike Windows, OS/2 never marginalized the command line interface. REXX was built in from the start and I still find REXX much easier to use for scripting than any of the Linux shell script languages. The combination of REXX and a third party editor KEDIT allowed you to switch between using a PC and the mainframe without having to switch tool sets.

For some users, the inability of OS/2 to continue to run old Windows programs was a show stopper. Microsoft made sure that new versions of Windows included new API calls that didn't necessarily help the programmer all that much, but sure made it hard for IBM to continue to emulate them. For those of us who stayed with OS/2 we were satisfied to give up Windows compatibility totally and learn to pick and choose OS/2 specific applications when we could, or do without otherwise. About the time OS/2 was developing a significant number of people willing to write applications that were OS/2 specific IBM essentially pulled the plug on the product. Their announcement basically said (1) we will continue to support OS/2 for existing users indefinitely (a promise well kept), and (2) we will develop all future PC application for Windows NT first, and then evaluate the need to also develop those applications for OS/2 (which everyone mostly read to mean: no more OS/2 development).

At about that time, IBM VPs were also making statements to the effect that they expected their own *mainframe*operating systems to be eventually replaced with Windows NT. In retrospect this was an idiotic forecast, probably made by people with very little technical knowledge. But the effect on the developers, and users of OS/2 were devastating.

For those at IBM who gloat that abandoning OS/2 (among other things) helped to turn the company around I say BULLSH*T. With continued (full) support from IBM, OS/2 could have been the same threat to Microsoft that Linux is today, and Microsoft, having some actual OS competition, would have avoided, or at least backtracked on some of the moronic design decisions that they have made (like tieing every GD option in any Windows application to a registry entry).

The other thing that caused people to stop using OS/2 was that it had a flaky file system, mostly because it attempted to maintain compatibility with DOS and Windows concepts. HPFS kept the old DOS parts of a file in one place, and kept the "extended" parts of the file somewhere else, and they were *Constantly* getting out of sync. Over many months, the guidance from IBM to users having problems with this was to re-install the OS. I got used to the notion that I had to keep my data and the operating system on separate partitions, or better yet, separate drives, because I knew I would have to re-install OS/2 about every 2 months. I suspect that the original poster was referring to one of those old installations. I think they cleaned it up eventually, but the IBM state of denial that there was actually a serious problem convinced me to give up on it (just like I gave up on OS X for similar reasons).

So, lets drink a toast to the VP geniuses at IBM who "turned the company around" and thearby: (1) gave up the chance to own a first class proprietary operating system, (2) allowed Microsoft to become so overconfident that they totally F***ed up Windows and (3) stopped supporting windows on anything but 32-bit Intel architecture (and not very well on that), and finally (4) provided a vacuum which Linux could fill as a viable alternative to Windows. Maybe Linux would have come along anyway, but I suspect with competition between Windows and some other similar OS in full swing there would have been less interest.

The IBM dependency on Linux now is pure poetic justice.

For anyone that thinks this announcement constitutes renewed support for OS/2: I didn't get that impression at all. One of the statements on their web page is that they anticipate that more devices in the future will be based on USB rather than legacy ports. *twirls finger in air* woop dee doo. All they are doing is honoring their promise to support those that got stuck with an OS/2 dependency when they pulled true support for it. IBM is a great company (by comparison with Microsoft anyway) for honoring such promises. I don't think they have any more next-great-thing operating systems up their sleeve.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[keyslammer]

Your comments concerning alternate languages and shells available for OS/2 are correct, but please note that my statements were in response to claims by "Listen Up" and not part of my case against OS/2 as a server OS.

The Workplace Shell can be restarted easily without rebooting

I'm curious: how exactly do you "easily restart" the workplace shell when it's not accepting any input and you can't telnet into the computer because the telnet daemon needs to use the workplace shell to create a session?

Then I would expect that banks would not use it quite so much.

I'd really like to hear from someone at a bank who is using OS/2 on the server side and hear exactly what they're doing with it. I'll wager all of the accounting work (the real mission-critical activity) is done on mainframes.

And BTW, I'm not trying to be a troll here: I'm just trying to point out that there are fundamental issues that make OS/2 unsuitable for use as a server.

OS/2 not reborn

[SoloLobo]

OK, As I read the IBM site RE: the OS/2 strategy for 2003. I think that what they are saying is that they are going to upgrade OS/2 for EXISTING INSTALLATIONS. They have no interest in reviving OS/2 as a desktop platform (this is truly unfortunate IMO). They are going to bring certain web services functions to OS/2 in order to help the many current installations migrate to the WebSphere Platform with as few headaches as possible. Why? so that they can stop providing support for OS/2. I think that IBMs focus on Linux is the most effective use of their funds. As much as I had hoped for the success of OS/2 those many years ago, it ain't gonna happen so it is time to move on.

Roll it over...

[andrewski]

... and poke it with a stick?

Or finally just give up?

The problem os OS2/ECS

[Anonymous Coward]

The mame of OS2 changed. Check EcomStation. That's a good thing.

OS2 is better of all what exist, in many was. But why does everybody ignore it?
Easy. There is an example.
With a friend, we wanted to know how to change the IP adress of a OS2 machine, but we had difficulties to find where. At WarpstockEurope, someone explained that
Him: "You just need to run this CMD (sort of batch file) and you change the IP as you want."
We:"Ah?", we said,"and then you reboot, right?"
Him"Huh? Why rebooting? There is no need to!"
We:"Really? the possibility to change the IP adress on the fly exist from a long time?"
Him: "From the beguinning of the network under OS2, about 10 years ago."
We: "What! That's astounding! Why nobody know this??"
Him: "How that nobody knows? But any peoples here know it. Why do you want more?"

Conclusion: OS2 users know, but doesn't speak. The other don't really have a chance to know.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[Richard Steiner]

> The other thing that caused people to stop using OS/2 was that it had a flaky
> file system, mostly because it attempted to maintain compatibility with DOS
> and Windows concepts. HPFS kept the old DOS parts of a file in one place, and
> kept the "extended" parts of the file somewhere else, and they were
> *Constantly* getting out of sync. Over many months, the guidance from IBM to
> users having problems with this was to re-install the OS.

Sounds to me like you're describing the way OS/2 stored Extended Attributes on a FAT filesystem, not HPFS.

Re:Zope, Mailman, Apache/2, PHP-Nuke, Rsyncd

[octogen]

S/390s can scale to 640 processors in a Parallel Sysplex Configuration; however, a parallel sysplex is a multiple-node configuration with multiple operating system images, not an SMP- or NUMA-configuraion with a single OS image.

Afair, the largest S/390 Configuration with a single OS image is 20 CPUs.

Currently, IBM's most powerful Configuration with a single OS image is a 32-processor pSeries 690 (aka RS/6000) Server.

That depends

[Arker]

That depends, are you a horse?