Slashdot Mirror
Petition To Get OS/2 Open Source
Landreth writes "There is currently an ongoing petition taking place at OS2 World to get IBM to open source either the whole part or parts of OS/2 to the community. I would highly encourage the Linux community to take part of this open source petition as well due to the fact there are lots of interesting code base the they could benefit from. To sign the petition: http://www.os2world.com/petition/" Despite the jokes about it, there was some good stuff in OS/2; however, I'd rank the ability to open it up fairly low, since I suspect there's a fair amount of legal restrictions on elements of the code.
Would this be a bad time to mention that large portions of Windows NT were designed and implemented by many of the same people who built VMS? In fact, many of the data structures used by both systems are oddly similar, even identical in made cases.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
That even *some* of the code -- specifically the workplace shell -- can't be released as open source. The workplace shell was one of the most elegant and powerful user interfaces I've ever worked with. It wasn't always the most *attractive* interface -- not by default, at any rate -- but it was the only one I've ever used that ever "felt right" to me. I miss that. The phrase "drag and drop" simply didn't do it justice.
Anyway, I signed, but I'm afraid that 1) there's too much proprietary licensed code for the entire thing to be released, and 2) IBM has neither the patience nor the interest in doing the work necessary to separate what can be released from what can't be released. Which is a pity.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Maybe I'm way out in left field, but wouldn't open sourcing OS/2 open what would likely be a lot of Microsoft's NT code? Weren't OS/2 and NT once the same operating system? I wouldn't be surprised if there were still a bit of shared codebase.
:: OS/2 API.
Not quite.
OS/2 3.0 NT was supposed to be built from NT's codebase. Obviously, that didn't happen, and microsoft took their toys and went home and made Windows 3.1 NT.
There is significant evidence that NT 3.1 (and later) Windows 32-bit APIs were influenced by OS/2 's design. The WinScrollWindow api under OS/2 has exactly the same signature as ScrollWindowEx under Win32... The win16 api does not quite match. There are a large number of these close matches in the Win32 API
That being said, NT (and its derivatives) do not share code with OS/2 in implementation. (other than code that was inherited from OS/2 1.3 (ie: HPFS).
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
No, NT has more in common with VMS as it was one of the VMS developers that put it together. I would think OS/2 and NT have very little in common.
You mean like OpenVMS? If you really cared, you would know it's already out there.
And here's why.
IBM sold OS/2 off and it became eComStation ("jointly developed" - whatever). I highly doubt big blue has exclusive rights to the code anymore.
Go ahead and sign the petition, we all know how much weight internet petitions carry.
I, for one, would love to see both of these pan out. Unfortunately they probably won't.
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
That's exactly true. Dave Cutler was the father of Windows NT and came from DEC and VMS.
see http://www.answers.com/topic/dave-cutler
Ok i was close on the name but not exact...
http://www.ecomstation.com/
---- Booth was a patriot ----
At one point, IBM distributed OS/2 2.x on a computer magazine coverdisk (I forget which one) in the UK sans Microsoft Windows. That was, needless to say, before sales started to take off with OS/2 Warp (3.0.) IBM wouldn't have been able to do this had the code included anything from Microsoft Windows.
(Apologies for the need to spell out "Microsoft Windows" each time, but I know the very first OS/2s came without any type of GUI, and know there's potential for confusion here with people assuming I mean "GUIless" - the Microsoft Windows-less OS/2 had a full GUI, it just couldn't run apps for Microsoft Windows.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, according to their web page, the ReactOS people actually plan an OS/2 subsystem. Therefore if IBM released the part of the OS/2 code which they can, it would probably be a big help.
BTW, if the OS/2 kernel code is too encumbered, even releasing the WPS alone could be a great thing. While it certainly lacked some features which modern desktops have, it had some other features which AFAIK are still not available on other systems (e.g. what was called "Arbeitsordner" in the German version; essentially a folder which managed its own "sub-session").
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
That was Presentation Manager, not the WPS, with the single-input-queue problem. The WPS could probably be implemented on an API that supported multiple input queues.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Having developed device drivers for OS/2, I doubt there'd be that much interest in the OS/2 kernel or device drivers. Even in Warp, and OS/2 4.0, most of the device drivers were 16 bit since the device driver API was only 16 bit (except graphics drivers). I think maybe the only interesting parts would be the Workplace shell and SOM, though I wonder about the stability in today's complex environment, having remembered having issues of stability with the WPS when I loaded up all the software I ran.
There's also still a lot of Microsoft bits and pieces of code in there.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
In all seriousness, if you have stuff like that, definitely don't just throw it out. Put it on E-Bay or something, and give people who might be in need of it a chance to buy it off of ya.
There is a project underway to create an open-source OS/2 clone, and those guys could possibly use things like compilers, redbooks, manuals, API specs, or even applications (for testing, maybe).
No, that means you can't compile GPLed code with CPLed code and distribute the resulting binary.
Repeat after me: copyright affects distribution, not use.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
No roadblock here.
The ability to run Windows in OS/2 was called DOS. And it was a better DOS than Microsofts DOS. Photoshop ran faster in WinOS2 then it did on native DOS/Windows. Anyways, Windows run in this virtual DOS and IBM even sold a version of OS/2( codename Ferengi ) which let you install your Microsoft version of Windows 3.1 into the OS/2 DOS virtual machine. They did this because IBM had to pay Microsoft a large amount for every version of OS/2 sold with the WinOS2 system pre-installed.
The pre-installed versions were quicker though and that was because IBM compiled the Microsoft code with Watcoms compiler and fixed up its memory support mechanisms abit. Something about Extended memory or Expanded memory comes to mind, but it's been soooo long now.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
They shipped copies of it for a long time, in fact.
;-)
Here is the launch announcement. Microsoft shipped versions 1.0-1.3, but did not ship beyond that point as the MS/IBM divorce happened around then, culminating with IBM OS/2 2.0.
HEre are some screenshots. Note that the WLO libraries were apparently included in a product called the "Microsoft OS/2 Software Migration Kit". If one were to have a copy of Microsoft Systems Journal November 1990 -- Vol 5 No 6 then one would have record of this product, which has seemingly vanished off the face of the earth.
I had a shrinkwrapped copy in my hands when I worked at MicroWarehouse in 1989-91, so I know it existed then. We had about 40 of them. They weren't selling well.
People with clue about this are rare in these parts, it appears. It doesn't seem that long ago to me.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
> Actually, no. IBM really did all they could do. But until the late 90s, they had to pay $86 to MS for every copy of OS/2 sold (part of the licensing agreement for HPFS).
Ah yes, thats why we (was working at IBM, doing OS/2 support and some development) got told that marketing effords aimed at the consumer were to be stopped inmediately, the day before WIndows 95 became generally available..
No, they didn't try as hard as they could, they gave up before even having tried.
HPFS.IFS was written by IBM. HPFS386.IFS was written by MS.
E:\OS2>bldlevel hpfs.ifs
Build Level Display Facility Version 6.10.480 Oct 6 2000
(C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2000
Signature: @#IBM:14.083#@ HPFS Installable File System for OS/2
Vendor: IBM
Revision: 14.83
File Version: 14.83
Description: HPFS Installable File System for OS/2
The story I heard was that when IBM and Microsoft decided to build the next generation HD filesystem they agreed on the specs then each went of wrote their own file system. Then they sat down and compared them. Microsofts was much faster so they used that.
Then it turned out that MS broke the specs, namely it was sopposed to be written in C and run on a 286. IBM then had to rewrite HPFS.
HPFS is 16 bit and is limited to a 2 MB cache
HPFS386 had no memory limit (besides OS limits) for cache and was much faster. MS still licenses HPFS386 for about $1000 a license.
IBM eventually ported JFS to OS/2 to get around the need for HPFS386 on Warp Server. HPFS386 supports ACLs unlike HPFS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism