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.
I've got to say - even if 40% of OS2 is opened up, the benefits to many, many projects could be wide-spread. Further, history shows that IBM is likely to use a GNU compatible license if they open the source at all.
They obviously need more names. Posting it here though will make a nightmare for those who need to clean up the petition.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
... you know IBM is going to have ten more lawsuits on their hands as various software copyright holders magically find bits of "their code" in the OS/2 source.
It taint gonna happen.
Lets not forget that OS/2 was jointly developed by IBM and Microsoft and no doubt Microsoft still has significant rights to large portions of the code base. I find it very unlikely that they would let IBM release the code even if IBM wanted to.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
What are you crazy?! I mean I know OS/2 users are in denial, but geez this is INSANE!
What's OS/2? Like, half an operating system or something? :P
I used in the early ninties, for it's day it was very nice. I think a Opensourced OS/2 would be a good alternative to Linux/BSD, for some folks who want a more gui driven system.... It never hurts to have options.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
What we need, is VMS open sourced. OS/2 might be interesting, but VMS would be useful. There's a difference. VMS has one of the best multitasking systems that's ever seen the light of day - a scheduler that works exceedingly well, and a VM system that blows everything on the market today out of the water.
IBM would probably have radical difficulties renegotiating a deal to open source code that originated in Redmond.
I fear this one is a nonstarter for legal reasons.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Just getting the Workplace Shell and the OOUI would be great; I'm sure a lot of the kernel internals would no longer be an advancement!
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
IIRC, OS/2 (at least Warp) shipped with a complete install of MS-Win to provide dual-OS support. The OS/2 code contained lots of integration points--if these integration points relied on Win code provided as part of the infamous "divorce decree", that would presumably be off-limits without MS's blessing. If so, would there be enough "untainted" OS/2 code left to be useful as open source?
I didn't use later versions of OS/2, so I don't know if this chimera-like architecture was changed further on...
I honestly think that OS/2 would have made a much greater impact if it hadn't had such pathetic PR support. The OS itself was a surprsingly strong and reliable system, but their ad campaigns were mind-bogglingly pathetic.
I'm not sure what the Linux community could gain by it being open source, except maybe some more efficient/reliable algorythms. As such, it would be enough for the IBM written chunks to be open sourced - they don't need a complete, functional code base.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
OS/2 has a Windows (3.1) compatability layer which uses a lot of DLL code given to them under agreement back in the early 90's. There's your roadblock. (or your target...)
Just drop acid, already, and invent something better... or quit your whining.
From the summary:
:-)
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.
Please remember Linux isn't the only player in the F/OSS world, there are several huge communities, too (although rumor has it they are dying, or something), and the entire open source community might benefit from this.
Why, you may ask?
There are still a number of financial institutions around the world that run on various versions of OS/2, both at the server and workstation level.
Also, as of about 5 years ago, CLI OS/2 powered approximately 85% of North America's Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), with a significant share worldwide as well.
I'm sure most of the companies still behind OS/2 are screaming at IBM not to release so much as a comment from the code.
"I don't get it." -- ObviousGuy
Did anyone try to read the "Press Release" from the first link? It's so badly worded that I found it impossible to finish. Apparently the literate OS2 supporters disappeared shortly after the developers.
The last time I developed for OS2 was in 1999 and even then I felt like I was way behind the times.
The really, really sad part is that this means that out of all these comments... only three (you, me, and one other) actually signed the petition.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
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..."
Given that OS/2 is in a good many cash machines/ATMs, I wouldn't be surprised if there are contractural problems with opening the code up. Security through obscurity and all that.
These are all for machines no longer being produced, and not likely to even be supported in the field. I'd like to see the code not only for nostalgia's sake: Each had particularly engaging features, and it'd be nice to see some of that live again in contemporary operating systems.
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.
exposure to other 'stuff' helps expand your horizons. being able to see the code behind os/2 would probably give a different perspective on an operating system.
there is something to be said for learning from others.
eric
There is no way this is going to happen. IBM would have nothing to gain, because they'd have to hire a whole of people to go through the code, figure out what's not protected by any IP (and OS/2 has a 20-year history, so that's a lot of possibile IP), and then release it in such a way as to make sure no one notices, since the last thing IBM wants these days is to bring attention to OS/2.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I just signed it and I'm number 499.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
According to the BOFH there are two remaining users of OS/2. Did they have a convention? Does two count as a convention?
If they both sign the petition, it will be unanimous. Surely, IBM will bend to a unanimous decision.
This has come up over and over again and IIRC, it's always come back with IBM saying that they can't open source OS/2 because there's too much licensed code in it, and the license holders will not allow releasing the code. Of course, I've also heard that Microsoft is one of the major holdouts.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the WorkplaceShell on GNU/Linux someday? Or even get something like OpenDoc going again. Being stuck with rectangular windows just seems so 1980's. The browser and *nix has shown that small efficient "parts" make a far better, stable, and secure platform.
And with open source, it doesn't matter how large a company you are. Not EVERYBODY cares if you scream. Meaning, Apple, Wordperfect, Microsoft, etc, can't kill innovative technologies if they feel threatened by it.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If its not yesterday, they want to make sure you're old enough to actually remember the Mac OS 1.x and Win3.1 (And Compaq's beige luggable and ...)
Its a REAL pain having to work with a pre-internet OS.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
As far as aGUI based alternative to Linux/BSD, check out ReactOS,/A>. They've made a good eal of progress and I think they will be what some people are looking for in a few years: a free Win32 alternative.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Writing a letter or calling IBM would be worth like 1,000 to 10,000 signatures because it tells people that you really want this, and you aren't just filling out the form many hundreds of times. If you really want to see it happen call IBM: 1-800-IBM-4YOU
This signature was left intentionally blank.
If IBM does open it up, do we have to start calling it OS/GNU or something?
Well, which is it? "eComNetStation" or something marketable?
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Hee hhehee (in a Dr Evil sort of Laugh)..
If we could roll OS/2 and reactOS together that would rock!
I haven't touched C/C++ in 6 years and I'm ready to volunteer.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the Windows GUI to this very day is a half-witted knock-off of OS/2's WPS. I'm not going to get into a war over whether MacOS's GUI is better than the old WPS, but it's pretty damn sad that Windows XP, when you look at it, has an inferior GUI to one developed a decade ago.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you have any such magic bits of code, you're better off going after suckers that paid off SCO like this mircosoft partner or even better these guys who seem to make it a political statement to pay off anyone who threatens anyone with IP (probably at the bidding of their new master who bought them for $2B).
GIve it a chance, that was posted only 4 minutes after it became public.
Its been around an hour now and the figure is over 500 (I snuck in just under 500).
liqbase
This is not historically accurate. OS/2 was, originally, a joint project between Microsoft and IBM. It was intended to be THE 32-bit protect-mode operating system of the future for Intel PCs, both client and server. Windows 95 was a continuation of the 16-bit Windows code base. They were developed by separate groups within Microsoft. There was no constraint placed on OS/2 by the Windows dev team, originally. I'm talking about the OS/2 1.0/1.1/1.2 days. After OS/2 1.2, the split happened, and IBM went on to ship 1.3 and 2.0. 2.0 was IBM's first attempt to "go it alone" and compete with Microsoft for the business, and even consumer, operating system market. However, OS/2 was crippled by (a) IBM's lack of ability to sign reasonable OEM contracts with PC manufacturers (including IBM itself!) and (b) IBM's lack of any traction or marketing agility in the consumer and small business space, for both end users and, especially, developers/software vendors.
BTW I currently work for IBM and was one of the key development managers and tech leads for OS/2 subsystems in those days.
Personally, I don't think IBM or Microsoft cares what happends to the code, its outdated. I think they wouldn't mind it becomming open source.
In soviet Russia, Linux compiles YOU!
Sure, it's probably not going to happen, for all the reasons you list. But there's technology in OS/2 that has yet to be duplicated in other operating systems. And like most IBM inventions, it's going to fade into history, forgotten and unused. I'd really like to see what free software developers could do if the workplace shell landed in their lap.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
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.
They sold it off to another company some time ago who currently supports it, and develops new versions.. ( estation, or somethign like that )
Unless something has changed in the last year or so..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft and IBM jointly developed OS/2 but IBM has gradually acquired the rights to the code they didn't own when the M$/IBM split happened. There is a lot of really good stuff in OS/2, though, that was developed solely by IBM after the big split such as the 'workplace shell' (WPS) desktop, the logical volume manager, and the JFS file system. The WPS desktop is arguably still several years ahead of the windows start-bar/explorer window stuff and could be updated relatively easily, if there was access to the source code, to a 3D implementation that would put Microsoft to shame.
If they had hammered a deal to do this with MS back at the time of Warp 4, back when Stardock was still supporting OS/2, it might have gone somewhere and given us essentially three competing systems: Win, Linux, OS/2. Instead, IBM could not find their rear ends with a hunting dog and a copy of Gray's Anatomy, kept with the single worst GUI design this side of the Amiga, and decided obfuscation and counterintuitiveness was superior to ease of use and common sense.
That said, it would be nice to see, but way late. We should be at Warp 7 by now. I doubt the OS/2 fanatics will be able to sufficiently play catch-up even if Redmond is open to open sourcing the thing given how many went to Windows or Linux or both. They ain't getting younger and doing an about face in your coding mindset like that might cause a bump in the number of programmers seeking professional psychiatric help.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Is it really supprising?
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Except maybe for some of the very high level code (basically applications), you aren't just going to port some feature of OS/2 to *nix even if you have the code.
What would be nice would be a release of patents/copyrights covering concepts and technologies used in OS/2, such as the System Object Model concepts and the Workplace Shell. OS/2 had some nice ideas and it was a neat environment to work in. Bringing that environment to open source (or any other environment) would not be that much easier even if you had the source.
-Lod
It would be nice if we had those instead of the mess that is KDE/Gnome. I really really miss WPS. Under the covers, I think linux is a better solution for the core though.
This is an excellent opportunity for IBM to put 'it's money where it's mouth is'.
.. for free...
They're 100% behind Linux; they get the profits from the installation and support while letting everyone else do all the development work.
Now here they have a product that can't be sold, has been written off and its cost absorbed into the books. Let them donate it to the open source development community and allow its strongest characteristics be integrated into the main open source product.
However given that this is IBM, expect a lot of delay, FUD, insults, ridicule, and bombastic denunciations of the suggestion to open OS-2. Fret not, it's just part of the corporate process.
Corporations are set on auto-pilot to reject anything new, innovative, and exciting. It takes a long time for anything to seep into the concrete that fills the space between the ears of upper management.
Be optimistic and patient.
Even if Innoval didn't want to open the source of Post Road Mailer, like they did for J-Street Mailer, I'd like to fix some of the bugs in it.
Fight Spammers!
This is news to me. Please provide details, I'd like to contact this company.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ok i was close on the name but not exact...
http://www.ecomstation.com/
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If I recall correctly... OS/2 was used by IBM as the foundation for the S390 emulator software they use as the foundation platform on which they run the Z/OS or S/390 enviornment. This runs their current crop of mainframes. The Mainframe Market is small these days comapred to the past, but there are still organizations that use "Big Iron".
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
We've all been complaining for years on the lack of Microchannel bus support... here's our chance to get some code!!!
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
It looks to me more like ~200 more in 13 minutes. Where are you getting 3.5 hours? (Perhaps somewhere else he mentioned doing this 3.25 hours before the story was posted?) Yes, this is a serious question - I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'd say forget the underlying OS and put Workplace Shell on top of Linux. Not that the underlying OS is bad, it's actually quite good. It's just that, Linux and Windows have both moved on. You would need a whole new driver base, everything, and that's a tall order. If we had the workplace shell desktop, you would get a really powerful desktop - folders that act the way they are supposed to act, etc.
I wouldn't mind having the EPM editor either. It had a really cool undo feature. Come to think of it, IPMD was a pretty darned good debugger.
This is my sig.
Other way around. There are some 16 bit windows DLLs, and some 32 bit windows DLLs but they really work like wine and can be removed.
NT has lots of code that was previously destined for OS/2. NTFS, in fact, is HPFS on steroids, so much so that Mandrake's install program used to think NT installs were OS/2 when setting up dual boot
Large parts of OS/2 share code with Microsoft. Other parts were licensed from other third parties.
Some possibilities for open-sourcing include some applications, some device and other drivers, and since it's Linux spinoff is already open-source, JFS.
Sadly, I doubt there's much interesting in OS/2 that can be open-sourced, except from a historical perspective.
Speaking of history, I'd love to see every widely-used computer program open-sourced or better yet have its source and binary put into the public domain 20 years after its last commercial customer stopped receiving support. I'd prefer 5 years but 20 is much more likely to be accepted by industry. Things like classic Atari-2600 games though will never be open-sourced under this scheme, since like good Disney movies, they are commercially re-released every so often. But the games nobody cares about, and old spreadsheets, word processors, and OSes, those should be opened up.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
A petition to make the OS OS2 OSS?
NT and VMS share a developer, Dave Cutler, but nobody who's actually spent any time using either operating system would suggest the two are remotely similar or that one clearly influenced the other (except in some massively generic way, eg "The PDP-11 clearly influenced the Z80A, with its use of logic gates and microcode.")
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
What this guy said is %100 true and Microsoft even paid SCO additional money to keep the lights on at SCO after they paid an outrageous sum of money for unix rights that they dont need.
Sun too reacted sharply and even critizied linux and mentioned solaris as an excellant alternative. its a fact!
Back on subject....
Microsoft was a core partner with IBM and I even think Microsoft released its own OS/2 version to developers back in the early 90's but never commercially distributed. You can google it if anyone is interested in.
Microsoft more than likely contributed alot of code to IBM and probably owns some percentage of the product.
Remember OS2/NT became WindowsNT after Bill Gates decided to go with their own product.
Microsoft would love to prevent OS/2 from ever going opensource and unlike the SCO case, Microsoft would have a good argument and would probably win.
Doesn't Microsoft also own some unix code from Xenix? I believe some of it ended up in SysV or unixware which is why Novell can not opensource it. MS would probably sue them.
http://saveie6.com/
We have enough guts out there to put the GUI on, just give us the shell. I still find it the easiest to use and very feature-rich even for today's standards.
Also, we'd be in better shape is you didn't need a dang service contract to get the latest support packs. They have wireless drivers and all kinds of current stuff in there that very few can get at. I know they had to develop them themselves and someone has to pay for it. I'd pay $100 to get a service pack without getting on the corporate subscription service.......
And then what's up with eComStation? I hear they are still in full development mode with new stuff slated for this year. That might be the place to support to keep OS/2 alive...
-m
http://www.invisik.com
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.
So, you want to open-source an OS that features: 1. no user security 2. 16-bit drivers 3. large chunks written in assembler (or do you mean the PowerPC port, eh?) 4. large portions ©Microsoft, Inc 6. A UI written in IBM-style C++ (or, who knows, being IBM, maybe some of it's in SmallTalk) I can't imagine any of it being useful to the open-source community. Their networking stuff mirrors what AIX has, the kernel itself is very specialized and ancient, and the UI technology that is useful is already available through OpenDoc. Part of the problem is that nobody, be it the KDE folks or Gnome, want to do the sort of UI that OS/2 pioneered, the perniciously object-oriented interface of the WPS. Hell, trying to get GNU fiends to code in C++ is well-nigh impossible. I think a better idea would be to start a project to reproduce the effective functionality of the WPS and OpenDoc apps in a UI for X, or, better yet, Y. What they really need to open-source is all the OSs for the Atari ST!
So, you're saying maybe I *shouldn't* throw out all that stuff in my spring housecleaning?
Hell, I just threw out a full set of Lotus stuff for OS/2 still in shrink-wrap.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the WorkplaceShell on GNU/Linux someday? Or even get something like OpenDoc going again. Being stuck with rectangular windows just seems so 1980's. The browser and *nix has shown that small efficient "parts" make a far better, stable, and secure platform.
Not really -- because the folks in KDE have a component model already, and they like it just plenty. Same goes for GNOME and GNUStep. As for the workplace shell, if no one's even attempting to write their own with today's technology, what makes you think they'll do any better with OS/2's code? Do you think it's a drop-in?
Why does the Open Source world always need someone else's code, let alone ancient DOS-era code? Hell, the source is probably full of FAR pointers and such. Do you really want to work with that?
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Though I also can't see the elephant allowing this. If as others have said, OS/2 shares code with anything from Microsoft, there's less than no chance of it happening. Not only that, IBM probably wouldn't think it would make good commercial sense to do it...because they're currently trying to make money from Linux. They might worry (rightly, in at least some cases) that if they were to give OS/2 away, people might simply use that instead.
Still, I know of at least one person who most likely still uses OS/2, and I'm sure there are a substantial minority out there who also still do. The 0S/2 user I know works for IBM...She gave me some Warp 4 CDs once...but I only installed it fairly briefly, and then took it off again...it didn't grow on me.
The good thing about it being opened of course would be that despite a possible minority still using it, AFAIK IBM aren't still developing it, which means that it is more or less doomed to become extinct eventually. If it were opened, its lifespan could be increased greatly. It'd probably win IBM a large amount of PR points to do it as well, come to think of it. I doubt they could do it...but if they can, methinks they should.
I -highly- doubt they'll open it up.. Last I knew, there were still a handful of banks (Washington Mutual for one) that use OS/2 as a desktop OS. The possibility for exploits is probably too high.
Considering this product is still being sold as eComStation, I don't think we'll be seeing an open source version from IBM any time soon...
Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
I'm still trying to be convinced on why exactly I should sign this petition... It may be a personal eqotistical thought, but I choose not to go along with the flow for every motion that comes around... I like being convinced and I'm not right now. If you throw your support in for anything that comes your way, doesn't it devalue your vote? For the last elections for example, sadly the only thing I was convinced about was that Bush should not win. I voted Kerry because bush was worse, but I was not and am not convinced he was a good alternative, just that he was less bad.
Gravity Sucks
Only a new marketing name.
If anything David Cutler may want to volunteer to write a VMS clone since HP is killing it for Windows2k3 and tieing it to the dieing ITanium.
I know he hates Unix and Windows and this is his answer.
HP wont release OpenVMS and its proprietary for Itanium and Alpha for the time being.
http://saveie6.com/
NT draws far more design elements from vms, the bits from OS/2 are relatively minor. But it's probably enough that it won't be open sourced...
Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
www.ecomstation.com
Just what we need, another old closed source OS going open! What better way to distract people who might otherwise be helping a project with some consumer and enterprise merrit, like Linux!
would greatly benefit the Point of Service industry.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
If you're going to retread an OLD joke, at least get the Joke, rather than Joke/2.
OS/2 was first co-announced with the PS/2. (Microchannel, for you young'uns) So the whole joke was:
Half an operating system on half a computer.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
good old os/2 - so few people remember that Microsoft wrote it, basically under contract, for IBM.
but really, who would care? it was an OS of its time (around 1990), and certainly does not add value to the OS landscape today. if you want layering to interfere with the design of an OS, you need look no further than NT and followons. the rest of the universe has gone on (to linux).
yes, I did work on OS/2 (in Redmond long ago). I even have the tshirts to prove it (including one that elucidates that NT=new technology, and was originally a derivative of OS/2 for RISC chips...)
I would love to see something like KDE on OS/2's kernel. It would rock. WPS was much better than Win3.1 AND Win95 but you have to get used to it. Rexx was built-in to the system and it was beautiful.
gets my vote.
I did use OS/2 Warp a bit. Nice stuff under the hood, but frankly I expect that no one will get a radically new concept out of it.
Now, talk about Lotus Improv !
(See also http://www.oreillynet.com/timo.html)
This was a revolutionary spreadsheet concept. Was it actually even to be called a spreadsheet anymore?
Anyway, too new so not popular so dead in the commercial world.
I bet that, as free software, it would have been a killer app (you know, the application that will make free software attractive even to patent lawyers - what kills their jobs - what kills them - hence the name "killer app"), developped and maintained because enough people would love the concept and make it live throughout from childhood to adulthood.
Until the code is erased from all sources, this can still happen.
So, IBM/Lotus, please release the code of Improv (and OS/2) to the people who will make it live.
(Actually, the good thing is that, anyway, someone could make it anyway from scratch, but why reinvent the wheel?)
"OS/2 was designed by IBM as the first graphical OS for the PC."
No. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985 and OS/2 1.0 in 1987. By the way, the first four releases of OS/2 didn't require a 386, just a 286 (the 286 has a protected mode too).
First versions of WinNT had the capability to run OS/2 1.x code, mainly because of their shared codebase and standards. IBM also got Win16 applications run on OS/2 but this was mainly done by installing a normal (sometimes special) version of Windows 3.1, which made MS incredibly happy because every OS/2 sold meant an Win3.1 sold as well.
IBM's lack of drive really drove me nuts. Not having a decent compiler (which didn't cost an arm and a leg) for OS/2 drove me to gcc, once I got convinced that it would actually make more sense to run Linux full time because half of my time was spent debugging and modifying code so that they would work with OS/2 I did the switch. Also Yggdrassil and Slackware's totally-usable distibutions were a pleasure to use and my 486 performed many times better than with OS/2, for a while at least. Also if I remember correctly I couldn't (easily) compile my pascal code to OS/2 binaries either. I finally had all of the tools but by that time I was pretty fed up with it.
> Do you think it's a drop-in?
He may. Many of those making these sorts of comments have no relevant experience.
> Why does the Open Source world always need
> someone else's code...
What some individuals want is not particularly indicative of what Open Source "needs".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's been reported many moons ago the most Automatic Tell Machines (ATM's) use OS/2 as the base platform. I've seen more than one ATM being serviced and seen very OS/2 like screens with diagnostic info.
Do *you* want every 133t h@x0r out there with source code to your neighborhood ATM? If the bank hasn't bothered to move off OS/2, what are the odds they'll patch any holes found by white/grey/black hats?
-MrLogic
XFree86 worked fine under OS/2 and for some time I used it as a X server pretty happily. Once you have XFree, porting GTK or QT shouldn't be a big issue, probably already done (I haven't checked recently, I turned the power off of the latest OS/2 box I was administering around year 2000).
:-)
I mean, yes that was very cool (and windows and KDE and Gnome *still* don't do that) but also printing. How many times did I drag a document over the windows printer icon and have the damn word processor open and load the document before it printed? That didn't happen in OS/2. You could change the way folders worked, to the point of setting them up as individual, unique workspaces -- a poor man's virtual desktop, really. You could associate files with programs on the fly with greater precision than is possible today (to the point where I could set it up so that a specific gif defaulted to loading one program while all other gifs defaulted to loading another program).
There was the famous "drag web pages off of your browser and store them in a folder on your desktop" trick. That might be possible with other OS's now, I dunno.
Shadows of icons would automatically maintain their links to actual programs, even if you dragged the program folder to another directory.
I really can't do it justice -- I never understood the technology well enough to do it justice -- but essentially the workplace shell was a huge folder that opened up, and everything in the UI was a subclass of that folder, and they all "knew" how to work together depending on what you did with them.
Like I said, I really can't do it justice.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
How transparent is this process when no one can view the names of who signed the petition?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
As stated a couple of times by others, NT started with a codebase for what was supposed to be portable OS/2 or OS/2 NT. Microsoft got that code and the orignal 16bit OS/2 when they walked out on IBM. I don't think its known how much implementation code went into NT but the 16bit OS/2 was in there and it was used to give NT its networking system when NT v1.0( called v3.1 ) shipped.
It does seem that IBM did not do a good job at getting full rights to the code it kept. Supposedly, OS/2 v2.0( the first 32bit OS/2 ) was a rewrite of the 16bit Microsoft code though Microsoft license text always showed up in OS/2.
I've also heard that much of OS/2's kernel is assembly code. OS/2 for the PowerPC was/is portable C code IIRC. But that was pretty slow from what I saw at the 1994 COMDEX show.
What was really lost in the battle with Microsoft was the OpenDoc and WorkplaceShell. Multiple LIVE embeddable objects and "parts"( components ) with non-rectangular window frames were pretty cool. Unfortunately, many didn't recognize what it ment to have more than one embedded "part" live/running in a single document. Those technologies moving forward with Moore's Law, would have had a profound positive impact on the software industry and productivity. It also would have allowed open source projects/developers to compete with large software houses since applications would consist of smaller, replaceable "parts"/components.
IMO.
IIRC, IBM eventually open sourced OpenDoc and SOM but the industry was going nuts over JAVA at that time. Actually, Warp 4.0 and the Apple Mac OS (?) shipped with OpenDoc. Apples CyberDog web browser was an OpenDoc container. Oh, the Bento Filesystem was pretty cool too. It allowed different "parts", or components, to save there data in one file. Kinda like a filesystem within a file but with a ton of APIs for accessing the data in a protected way. These things would have changed how we interact with our DATA on computers. Instead, we still interact with our DATA( a file ) by thinking about the application that's tied to the DATA. OpenDoc enabled mixing of data in a file so you'd open a file based on its rich content instead of saying your "opening an Excel file", or "opening a Word file. These are the things which that kept Bill and Steve up at night. Netscape( the browser ) was/is a shell of what OpenDoc was but it brought about the same kind of attacks from Microsoft.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
As somebody already mentioned a lot of big financial customers still run OS/2 - I'm working with one of them right now and they're still paying IBM to support the system.
:-)
So from the perspective of IBM there would be the advantage of getting somebody outside look into the code and fix bugs. This is of course a problem the other way around in that financial customers would be reluctant to use fixes that were done outside of IBM since that could compromise security in their systems.
Given that IBM is into having long working relationships with these kind of large customers they might be at some risk by allowing others - for example system programmers at the customer site the possibility to do their own fixes. Again you could argue the other way around that current corporate culture at financial corps. isn't into having large in-house knowledge of the OS like it was back in the early days of the OS wars (ah, nostalgia
I'm a bit rusty on the design of OS/2, but as I recall most of the 32 bit code was written by IBM in-house after the divorce from MS. And the support for Windows/DOS/Posix is modularised into subsystems - so even with possible legal problems it might be possible to release OS/2 as a pure 32 bit OS without any support for other sub-OS'es.
The greatest obstacle would probably be to make sure that only the IBM parts would get out. That's pure cost to IBM.
Another thing apart from WPS that would be a good thing to release to Open Source was the Java VM for OS/2. There are a lot of quirks and things in there that could benefit from some open source efforts - as it is now it seems that it's only those bugs that are reproducable and reported by larger companies that gets fixed.
Be alert, the world needs more lerts!
we could GPL huge softwares by petitions, like we did for Java, MS Office and Windows would be open source long time back.
I would highly encourage the Linux community to take part of this open source petition
:)
Then what are you doing here? Everybody knows Slashdot is a Mac site now
RP
big row of portrait form factor infoboards (presuamblly some sort of plasma displays)
;)
one of them had on it SIDEWAYS! disk boot failure. Insert system disk into drive A press any key to continue
this was a few years back but its one that sticks in my memory
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Both of them, here on Slashdot. Who would have guessed.
I know that I feel honored.
Since IBM couldn't afford pushing OS/2 instead of Windows because Microsoft would cut its Win supply.
opening up this code if anything might help existing operating systems out there figure out preemptive multitasking. OS/2 may not have done everything well, but this wasn't one of them.
So you don't but I do. Fair enough.
Regarding KDE Parts, I've heard of it but not looked at it. I'll have to see if they have a replacement for the Bento filesystem, allow all "Parts" to be live/running applications, and provide non-rectangular window frames. But besides the OpenDoc stuff, KDE is nice but it is NOT a replacement for what the WorkplaceShell desktop is.
It does sound like you would like only existing projects to continue and to continue without any influence from other projects.
BTW, the codebase for much of the GNU software goes back further than the DOS-era. Not to mention that the OS/2 codebase...... forget it. Nuff said.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
...except SCO bought all the unix rights from Novell long ago
I'm friends with the youngest daughter of the former head of the PowerPC division of IBM you insensitive clod!
I once developed an application exclusively for Sears on the platform IBM wrote exclusively for Sears called CICS for OS/2. It was mondo bizzaro - but it was kewl ..
And true - the last Mainframe I saw had an OS/2 controller terminal connected to it. So me thinks that IBM will probably never open source it.
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
I think the DOSEMU and DOSBOX projects could derive some serious benefit from OS/2's MVDM technology, for example, and there are a number of concepts in the OS/2 WorkPlace Shell which might be encumbered by NeXT licensing or something but not MS, and which both KDE and GNOME could benefit from.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I check eBay on a regular basis for older commercial OS/2 (and Windows 3.x) applications and utilities, and I'm not the only person I know who does that.
You might not get a lot for it, but your software sale will probably make someone's day.
There's a lot of software there that I would love to run but which is almost impossible to (legally) find these days...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I thought I was a figment of my own imagination. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
j/k
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Particularly these days as JP Software has released their former 4OS2 shell product to the community for free (both source and binaries) and made their 4DOS shell freeware as well (binary-only for now, but the source is likely to be released at some future point).
Combine that with a couple of additional utilities (HSWITCH and CLIPIT come to my mind immediately), and you've got something which rivals Linux and blows Windows away as a command-line environment.
There's even a version of Midnight Commander for OS/2, and I use tools like slrn and Links on a regular basis (native versions recompiled using GCC/EMX).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Register dumps and the like. I've always wondered why the X screen saver that shows all those obscure (and not so obscure) error screens never had an OS/2 example. It's interesting to look at.
That said, I haven't seen one for quite a while.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
It's great work, but it does have a smell of insincerity.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
It does sound like you would like only existing projects to continue and to continue without any influence from other projects.
... it's certainly a layer well below existing desktop environments, and seems rather unrelated.
That's not at all what I said. While OS/2's design might have a lot to offer, it's not as if all technology has stood still in the meantime. Meanwhile, OS/2's code would require such a rewrite as to be only a study of a possible "sample implementation" -- to actually port something like Bento to the existing models would require as much skill as it would take to implement it from specification. In the end, the code may in fact be good for little more than such specification, and even it would likely not be a real joy to read.
And once you have all that out in the open, there's still the matter of whether anyone will actually bother to use it.
As for non-rectangular, go gripe at X to provide something better than SHAPE, or work on Fresco
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
...If Microsoft had such a large part in creating a platform like OS/2 which was lightweight and could handle heavy multithreading smoothly with very little hardware -- why can't they do the same thing with their current offerings?
I suspect there isn't enough money to be made from a smaller, more efficient system...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
IBM's versions, from 2.0 onwards, extended that with better GUI support, real multi-platform interoperability and backwards compatibility. I was an OS/2 developer from 1.0 through 2.1, and a participant in IBM's OS/2 developer's program (I even purchased several big PS/2 machines, very nice for their day, and gave presentations to groups of bored scientists about it). I was also heartbroken when Gerstner pulled the plug on OS/2 and effectively doomed it to obscurity. But, I've since moved on to Linux and FreeBSD, and I haven't looked back.
If OS/2 was going to be open-sourced, I think the parts of real interest would be the pre-2.0 code and some of the 2.x kernel extensions. But, so far as I know, 1.x is mostly MS code, and will never see the light of day. I don't know if there's enough of the 2.x that isn't legally encumbered to be of interest to anyone.
It's a pity, though, because it could have been what Windows wanted to be, and Linux could be. But, that could be said for NextOS and BeOS as well. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it will enjoy success in the real world.
I didn't used OS/2 anymore, but dual booted it for years just to play this great game. It changed the way I play backgammon.
Slowness and lack of applications were OS/2 weakness, but this is surely something I really miss. Open source it, IBM!!!
IBM has already released the source code to OpenDOC - I have downloaded it and stored it a couple of years ago. However it relies so heavily on DSOM and the particular features that DSOM offered (metaclasses and distributed class framework) which "modern" CORBA implementations don't have (IBM unsuccessfully tried to propose those features to the CORBA committee) that it cannot be ported without redeveloping SOM all over again. Also, the Bento object storage library is missing... AFAIK, Apple still uses that technology in Mac OS 10.
The source code is interesting - it has has a lot of code common to both the MacOS and OS/2 implementation of OpenDOC...
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
And if you think Posix would cause problems, what about all the cross-pollination between OS/2 and Windows NT? Before their falling out, IBM and Microsoft were heavily sharing code between them, and who knows where Microsoft's fingers reach into. The fact that Windows up to Win XP could support OS/2 HPFS disk drives is one indicator. The DOS emulation code is also likely to contain Microsoft product in it.
We are the 198 proof..
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.
the best elements of OS/2 worth saving are the versatile REXX scripting language (which already exists in some form for Linux, but its not IBM's implementation -- http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/obj-rexx/ linux/) and SOM, the System Object Model. WPS itself is useless because it would have to be completely rewritten for X and GTK or Qt instead of PM -- instead, a REXX with a GUI implementation for KDE and GNOME, along with hooks into SOM would give Linux the best aspects of OS/2.
Windows 1.0 was not an operating system by itself, it ran on top of DOS. In fact this is true of all Windows until Windows 2000.
Er, excluding NT of course :)
IIRC, some of the GUI technology was licensed from Apple. They may not want to see it licensed. It is/was one of the better GUIs out there. OS/2 RIP
Why does it cost $200 for ecomstation? I could see paying like maybe like $50 bucks for this just so I could install it under VMware and play around with it, though I would probably just wait for the Live CD and do it for free... I guess that their target audience is probably businesses that are not price sensitive to the difference between $50 and $200 though. That and there is the perception that if you charge more money for something that it has more value. Like at a garage sale you can have a TV for sale for 5 cents (because you just want to get rid of the stupid thing) for like 4 hours with no one buying it. But if you raise the price to like 50 bucks, someone will come along and offer you 30 bucks for it, and then you can reluctantly agree to take it.
You know, if they did open the source code up for this, their choice of licenses would make a big difference. Imagine what would happen if they chose the BSD license, rather than the GPL and their OS really caught on. Then Microsoft could incorporate all the resulting code back into Windows, for example.
On the other hand, if the chose the GPL, and their OS really caught on, maybe lots more Windows developers would be encouraged to also GPL their projects. However, perhaps GPL'ing the code would not even be possible to to the entanglement with other code to which they to not own the licenses. IANAL.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
What comes around goes around. MS did license Unix from AT&T and created Xenix. However, guess who MS actually outsourced the development to for Xenix. SCO. OS/2 V1.0 was a MS product, infact 1.1 may have been MS also. It was not until 1.2 that it was IBM only. MS and IBM had a falling out and they each took the existing code from 1.1 and went their own merry way. MS wanted to keep "Windows" alive, so IBM got the OS/2 name. Although I never saw this, I have been told that the early releases of Windows NT actually had OS/2 in the error messages.
ISTR that stories about petitions would not be accepted, according to the /. story submission guidelines. Has that policy been changed, or do I remember wrong?
:) See my sig and the link below my /. username.
Anyway, there's another OS that desperately needs saving from its owners.
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
> I thought I was a figment of my own imagination. :-)
;)
:>
Yes, I thought I was too. Same with those other people I talk to on a daily basis that still use OS/2.
Don't I know you from somewhere?
Your email has been returned due to insufficent voltage.
The same German word? Interesting.
"Arbeitsordner" literally translates to "work folder". It was basically a folder with session management. If you closed it, it automatically closed all files/programs you opened from it (but only those), and re-opened them the next time you opened the folder. Actually the desktop itself was an Arbeitsordner as well. I guess the app had to implement some API for this, because it didn't always work perfectly. But I still consider it a great idea, much better than the usual session management which always has to cover the complete desktop (and in my experience usually doesn't work perfectly either).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Um, even Microsoft managed to figure that one out.
There's three main ways that personal computer operating systems have implemented multitasking. Round robin timeslicing, preemptive multitasking, and cooperative multitasking.
Round robin timeslicing is used when the programs being shared are running under a virtual machine of some kind, and have no way to give up the CPU. The old timeslicers for DOS used this, and of course these days your VMware type systems tend to end up in this state when you're running more than one at a time.
Cooperative multitasking. This is very easy to implement, I did one in Forth that was about 16 lines of code. User-mode threads generally implement cooperative multitasking within a process. It's a kind of "Hello World" for OS design. There's a very short set of systems I can think of that exposed this at the application level. Polyforth. Mac OS. 16-bit Windows.
That's about it.
The rest, from AmigaDOS through Mac OS X, even including 32-bit Windows to a pretty great degree, and of course including the NT based Windows and every UNIX implementation ever, they are all using preemptive multitasking.
If Apple hadn't resorted to cooperative multitasking to avoid facing some bad design decisions back in the original single-tasking Mac OS, and Windows hadn't copied some of those bad design decisions, nobody would even think of preemptive multitasking as being something special. When someone talks about preemptive multitasking being a feature, it's like they're suggesting that putting tires on cares is kind of an exciting innovation. It's, well, it's just how multitasking is DONE.
One thing OS/2 seems quite good at doing is adjusting various process priorities to make the user experience a smooth one.
I doubt that what you're seeing has anything to do with process priorities or scheduler design. The unfortunate design decisions that have produced the kinds of glitches you see in the current X-based desktop environment are buried much deeper and are harder to fix than simply tweaking the scheduler.
But, god knows, it could have been worse.
Yes, we all know that versions of Windows prior to NT ran on top of DOS. That's an implementation detail that doesn't change the fact that OS/2 wasn't the first OS available on the PC with a Graphical User Interface.
There has been a trend in the past five years or so to migrate to ATM's running either windows [shudder] or Java-based terminals.
I know that Wells Fargo replaced most if not all of their ATM's with windoze-based terminals a couple of years ago.
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
Uh oh... I'm being followed. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Microsoft did distribute OS/2 commercially upto version 1.2 or 1.3. Both as a standalone product, and together with MS Lan Manager.
They never commercially sold a 32bit version however.
Points 1 and 2: Rewriting a closed system can be pointless, since you'll not be able to distribute it. Opening up the API alone would be a worthy thing. But release of the entine WPS sources would be 10x as nice.
;)
Point 3: You know, some people choose *not* to run KDE or Gnome, and stick to XFCE or GnuStep or some other lightweight desktop, even on high-end machines. There *is* a demand for a functional desktop environment which is simpler and lighter than KDE/Gnome. WPS can actually turn out to be *richer* than these
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
> OS/2 V1.0 was a MS product, infact 1.1 may have been MS also.
Both 1.0 and 1.1 were made and sold by MS and IBM. Microsofts involvement declined after that, but they did also at least release 1.2. I am not sure about 1.3, tho I am very shure they could have released it at the time with the agreements as they were.
A part of OS/2's code, and quite a bit of its design can be found back in NT, and earlier NT versions had enoufh OS/2 in them to be able to run many character based (VIO) OS/2 applications.
How do I know? I was part of IBM's OS/2 development efford from 1989 till 1996.
> It was not until 1.2 that it was IBM only. MS and IBM had a falling out and they each took the existing code from 1.1 and went their own merry way. MS wanted to keep "Windows" alive, so IBM got the OS/2 name. Although I never saw this, I have been told that the early releases of Windows NT actually had OS/2 in the error messages.
Go get yourself a C64 technical reference from e-bay or such, it contains a complete (assembler) source listing with comments of its kernal (yeah, thats how Commodore called it) and at elast part of the basic interpreter ;)
ah, that does ring a bell. OpenDoc on Mac was delayed because of the time/effort porting SOM( DSOM? ) to the platform.
It does sound like KParts( KDE ) is probably the best place for any current progress of the concepts OpenDoc once implemented. Apple keeping Bento sounds about right if they saw a continued use for it.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
WinNT's design was infact heavily influenced by VMS. Dave Cuter, VMS's architect at Digital was hired by MS to work on the design of NT.
This article has more details, its a good read
Don't try this at home unless your ready for system lockups.
Tools required:
Windows 2000+, Linux 2.4/2.6 and OS/2 Warp4
1) 3 CDROMS containing Windows/Linux/OS2 OpenOffice Install.
2) Network sever containing GCC install program for all three OS's.
3) Preferably a floppy install program for all three, but I think a browser based download of java for all three will suffice.
Pre-Start your network share to the gcc shared drive. Pre-Start your download link to Java. Pre-Start solitarire.
Start all three installs at once.
My findings were OS/2 done in ten minutes with acceptable performance with solitaire. Linux was very sluggish and couldn't draw cards (sol), took about thirty minutes. Windows didn't even finish, the system was unresponsive.
Oops. Your not supposed to publish windows benchmarks without the written consent of Microsoft. I'm sorry.
Same computer, AMD/K62 256k ram.
Your milage may vary and I havent tried this with Windows XP. Is this an acceptable test? Mostly it's something I do whenever I install a new system. Looking forward to trying this out on my wifes new Apple.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I never was a big OS/2 fan, and even by today's standards, it's not an advanced operating system. But, in my opinion, I believe that if it were to be open sourced, a lot of fans of it would take interest and work on it more, greatly improving it.
I would love to take a look at the source code to see what makes it run. It's old, but it runs well!
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
The language used on the licenses article is:
This is similar language to that used for the Apache Software License 2.0. With any luck, version 3 of the GPL can be designed to make both compatible.
I haven't touched C/C++ in 6 years and I'm ready to volunteer.
Uuhhm, it's ok. We'll do it. We still use it on a regular basis.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
> Well, according to their web page, the
> ReactOS people actually plan an OS/2
> subsystem.
There's been an os/2 subsystem in NT since (I think) 3.50, but it only runs applications designed for OS/2 v1. I assume they did this because a lot of banks had apps on os/2 v1 and they wanted to be able to pick up the business. And because they could - being involved in the project as they were.
I never used it but believe that OS/2 v1 was a lot smaller and simpler than 2. Less APIs and no Program Manager (or else a vastly different and almost unrecognisable PM from the one shipped with v2.0 and advanced through later versions)
Believe with me, my saplings.
REXX is open source since about 12.2004. Only the RexxLA haven't made a release yet
At least they can spell the names of the months...
Why not fork?
WPS was awesome, although slow if not properly programmed for. (Well, slow in some ways, but still beats the pants off of NT/2K/XP today in responsiveness while running good programs. I don't recall waiting for my mail to finish downloading mail from the server before I could do something else)
Actually, it'd be interesting to see how OS/2 stacks up today. A 10 year old OS on modern hardware, provided it loads. (Most likely not, drivers were a pretty big issue, but I still have some of the older hardware lying around that may allow it to run with a modern OS. Would depend mostly on motherboard BIOS compatibility, the rest should work)
As for features, we're finally getting some of those features released in the newer OSes out today. (Not from MS though;)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The OS/2 subsystem was dropped by 2K, I believe, definitely by XP. It could be re-installed under the initial dropped OS, but I do not believe current versions of XP will run it any longer.
v1.x was 16 bit, until 1.3, I believe. MS had source to OS/2 code up to 1.2, 1.3 was 100% IBM. IBM took over because MS and IBM had a technical disagreement about the direction of the OS. MS went with Windows, the successful and oh so well-architected system, while IBM completed OS/2, with a much better architecture but encumbered by far too many royalty payments to be competitive.
The $86/copy paid to MS pretty much guaranteed OS/2's death when OS prices fell under $100, IBM didn't help matters any by being schizophrenic regarding this PC OS that actually infringed into their big iron mainstays as PC hardware improved.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
More information on EMX is here if anyone's interested...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
The temperature is more stable all year around than it is in the outside world.
:-)
Also, it's harder for those nasty spyware authors to find you.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
...for that OS/2 folder attibute is "work area". It can be very useful for things like development environments and such where you might want to open and close multiple files or programs as a set.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
You *could* boot a real DOS kernel in a VDM (or many other real-mode OSes like CP/M) from a diskette image using a method called a "virtual Machine Boot), but the default VDM setting was to use a virtualized DOS kernel interface (no real DOS present, just DOS-like hooks into OS/2 services).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
At any rate, you are of course right that there is more to it then just a scheduler and priority management.
Which I think is where I boarded this train...
I'll just say one thing about what UNIX is. UNIX is not Thompson and Ritchie's source tree, UNIX is a family of operating systems that provide a common core set of system calls as their native API. FreeBSD is UNIX. Linux is UNIX. OS/9 and QNX and Regulus are or were UNIX. Interix is a hosted UNIX.
UNIX-like? You have to dig pretty far these days to find an OS that isn't UNIX-like, that hasn't mined UNIX heavily for its design. Wherever your file system is a directed graph, wherever file names are simple strings with no internal structure, wherever files are a simple stream of bytes, wherever you use the same system calls for all files, wherever the shell is just another program, there's another system that's borrowed from UNIX. Because all these things were controversial innovations that UNIX was mocked for using, they were slapdash lazy ideas that real operating systems with structured disks and structured files and user areas and monitors and job control languages would never consider. Creating processes willy-nilly? Inefficient! Flat files? No record management services? Never catch on!
OS/2 is a UNIX-like OS, so are NT and BeOS and AmigaOS and, well, you have to go back to VMS or look in an IBM dinosaur pen for something that isn't.
Hrm, you seem to have started out by claiming it is NOT the scheduler and/or priority management but a different GUI design.
I said that the GUI design had a much much bigger impact on the responsiveness of the user interface than the scheduler. Now we've talked about the drivers, I'll say that things like the GUI design and the driver architecture have a bigger impact on the responsiveness of the user interface than the scheduler. It's not exactly the same conversation, but it's a parallel point (pardon the geometrically inexact metaphor there).
A synchronous event loop causes other problems, but it doesn't add latency that doesn't exist in the underlying programs. A message queue that deliberately buffers and defers operations so it can bundle them to improve throughput does.
And adding latency to a user interface, even if it's just a little, makes it feel less responsive. Even if your traditional UNIX and OS/2 systems had the same scheduler, the OS/2 GUI would feel more responsive than the X11 one.
That doesn't mean that the scheduler doesn't make it possible to do things on OS/2 that you can't do on traditional UNIX, it just means that the problems you observed can't be fixed just by improving the scheduler on the systems where you observed them.
Does putting it that way help?
Hell I interned back in 2000 for a company with several NT 3.5.1 servers still running.
During a reinstallation an error message popped up in a blue screen and guess what the background said "OS/2"! lol
http://saveie6.com/
And that is where we disagree. You can fix all the other problems in a traditional UNIX kernel, and still have a system that is not being responsive when ignoring the scheduler and priority management
If you do that you'll have created a system in which the role of the scheduler is much more important than it is in a traditional UNIX kernel. If you just do that, in fact, you are almost certain to end up with a system that is less able to handle resource contention than the current kernel, because you'll have a system where a process can be competing with its own device drivers instead of a system where the device drivers are running as software interrupts in that same process.
It's like switching to a microkernel design. If you build a system with a microkernel design and pay anywhere near as little attention to queue management and scheduling as you can get away with in a traditional UNIX kernel, you'll end up with a system that has incredible problems with bottlenecks. Like, say, MINIX.
In fact, a scheduler that acts like the UNIX scheduler is actually worse than a naive scheduler in those environments. It's almost guaranteed to create a problem with priority inversion as a driver in OS/2 or a server in a microkernel gradually gets "niced" down below the priority of the process that it's starving.
Next...
If you really want some proof of how much it matters, I suggest you install a FreeBSD -current snapshot, and then build 2 kernels, one with the 4BSD scheduler and one with the ULE scheduler, and just go measure the difference in responsiveness yourself.
Measure, or observe?
If I have to measure something to notice it, then that's proof for me that it's not something that matters.
If it's a big enough difference that I can get it just using the system with a compute-bound job in the background, then that might be worth actually firing up my test box for.
If it's something that's going to make a big difference, then that's actually exciting, because I've used UNIX systems with other schedulers before and I've never seen that.
I don't believe I'll see it for a purely CLI environment, because there's not enough latency even under massive load for me to notice in a purely CLI environment even on machines a hundred times slower than what I'm using today.
But under X11? I can't say I'm sure enough to rule it out. I haven't seen it before, but I could be wrong. Tell me, is this huge, or is it something I have to measure?
Too bad they cant find the receipt and prove it in a court of law (the only place it matters).
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Chances are you ATM (unless recently replaced) runs on OS/2 as does your banks computers (in the back not on the desktop) so if you care about your money, care about OS/2
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Nice boot to graphical installer, LVM, ect.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.