Slashdot Mirror
IBM Officially Kills OS/2
boarder8925 writes "'Big Blue has hammered the final nails into OS/2's coffin. It said that all sales of OS/2 will end on the 23rd of December this year, and support for the pre-emptive multitasking operating system will end on the 31st December 2006.' IBM has posted a migration page to help OS/2 users easily switch to Linux."
I heard OS/2 was big in banking, but I just assumed they had moved off of OS/2 some time ago.
OS/2 may not show the BSOD, but it does crash from time to time. Even in ATMs. It's hard to find an O/S that never crashes.
That's not a big deal, though. A friend told me that he lost his ATM card late one stormy night, when the ATM crashed and rebooted mid-transaction. That was when he found it was a Unix box... because the boot messages came up on the monitor...
So, while it looks like IBM is stopping sales(2005) and general support(2006), OS/2 will still be shipping and supported by Serenity Systems via eComStation.
OS/2 is dead, long live OS/2.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
We wrote a large body of building automation software subsystems in OS/2. There was no easy way to provide the same functionality in Windows, so it was never cost effective to port it.
To this day, we keep the central routing server and all the subsystems in OS/2 boxes that are treated like embedded control systems, and have written Windows 2K-based interface code that proxies everything as BACnet devices.
OS/2 was a good combination of modern OS services (named pipes, threads, etc.) and easy development. Given how simple it was to access serial ports, we could easily interface via DigiBoard multiplexers and such, and could write a new system driver (including reverse engineering time) in less than six months.
I'm the primary contact for IBM in our office, so they've been flooding me with information about porting these apps to Linux, which sadly, may never be cost effective.
I am *very* sorry to see this event, even though I fully understand and appreciate all the factors that led to OS/2's demise. It's like watching a very dependable ship being sent to the bottom of the ocean because it's too expensive to keep it afloat.
Oh well...
Tim
They did spin it off. Its now call eCommStation. http://www.ecomstation.com/
There's an interesting discussion over at OSNews about this very topic. It seems like OS/2 still has a relatively big fan base, someone mentioned three or four native Mozilla/Firefox ports alone!
From the page here it looks as if IBM is saying that OS/2 apps should be migrated to WebSphere.
I'm sure that they mean WebSphere on Linux, but it could as well run on Windows too, or Solaris or AIX.
For the love of god it's ATM not ATM machine. No one goes to the Automatic Teller Machine Machine
http://www.streetracingwar.com/
I can't believe someone modded that "interesting". It's a joke, people! 65,535 is the highest value an 8 bit int can hold, and there is no reference to this number on the linked page. That, and WarmNoodles chose the wrong joke: it should be something about integer overflow, not blowing the stack ;)
Be relentless!
If you liked OS/2 you will find eComStation is better.
eComStation is more stable than ms win while being easy to use.
http://www.ecomstation.com/
I would love for IBM to publish the source for OS/2, but it won't happen for two reasons:
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
Good luck with that son, but I'm sorry to tell you that Microsft did NOT help IBM code OS/2 so it would run Windows. As a matter of fact, Microsoft did far more to STOP OS/2 from running Windows and Windows applications. When Microsoft was releasing betas of Chicago( Win95 ), IBM had Chicago apps running under OS/2. When Microsoft found out, they changed the OS so that a very small portion of the Win32 resources loaded up at the 1GB memory address. This was so OS/2 could not run ANY Chicago applications or the OS. It worked because OS/2 supported virtual memory up to 512MB.
So you got that WAY WRONG. The bit about Microsoft licensing issues preventing opensourcing OS/2 is correct.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
An 8-bit unsigned int only good for 0-255.
Sure am using it. eComStation 1.2 http://www.ecomstation.com/ Firefox NVU Samba OpenOffice REXX Java 1.4
> And what did OS/2 look like after the mid 90's. Great > Were there any large updates? yes - See http://www.ecomstation.com/ > Any MMX stuff? > Any DVD support? Yes > Any modern stuff added?? Lots of stuff
I don't think you've checked very recently. The vast majority of ATM's have been Windows based for at least 2 or 3 years.
The big transition started happening around Y2K. They needed to upgrade the hardware in many of the systems anyways, so they took the opportunity to bail on OS/2 as well (given IBM's "don't ask, don't tell" stance on it).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
We used it for a multi building HVAC/Elevator/Climate monitoring and adjustment system at a place I worked from '97-2000. They are still using it.
It means that the operating system doesn't depend on applications voluntarily yielding the CPU to the operating system, like with early versions of Windows and Mac OS.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I've been running OS/2 for 10 yrs. So far I've had one virus, a boot sector virus that showed up in DOS sessions where it was pretty harmless and a fdisk /newmbr got rid of. Look at places like Secunia for security adviseries for OS/2 and you find one or two for Apache. In all these years I've installed one security update (PPP stack for a ping of death).
IBM created a fairly secure OS, I'd imagine the fact that it ran so many banks etc would of made it a target.
No services running by default. Horribly buggy sendmail thats too hard to configure to use. Straight netbios so home network is not routable.
And I still find it much better then Windows and much simpler then Linux. I just wish that Linux would copy the WorkPlace shell instead of MSes copy of the WPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Actually an IBM guy unofficialy said about 10 million users last year. Sun figured 20 million (they're targeting their Java desktop at them)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Basically, yes. Once upon a time, there was cooperative multitasking (e.g. Windows 3.1). A program was given control of the system's resources (CPU, etc.) and the program and the OS had a gentleman's agreement that the program would return control of the resources after using up its timeslice. This worked as long as all programs cooperated properly . . . which of course means it sucked.
Preemptive multitasking means the OS preemptively takes control of the resources when the program's time is up, without asking. So, if a rogue program starts eating up cycles and generally acting like an asshole, the rest of the system doesn't suffer (much). Anyway, OS/2 had it first in the early 90s (along with Linux), and Windows didn't really have it implemented decently until 2000.
Funny... whenever we've done end-user training and the end-users don't have a preconceived notion of what a computer OS is supposed to look like, they seem to latch on to OS/2 just fine. And yes, we had users that would wave the mouse around in the air, so much so that I (when I was working as a tech writer) created a graphic that showed that the mouse had to be in contact with the table.
Once we got people to that level of understanding, the interface was reasonably consistent throughout.
Not sure what your benchmark is, but as someone who used OS/2 as my day-to-day OS for several years, and have supported apps developed under this OS for several more, and spent more than a few hours writing articles for "Inside OS/2," your comments strike me as bogus.
Tim
What does this even mean?
.mp3 the sound programs work on it and "edit" opens it up in a sound editor
.mp3. Members of the class .mp3 are sound files while members of the class lecture have associated transcripts and lectures.
Inheritance. In windows (or Linux) a file is an extension and is associated with an application or collection of applications. In OS/2 a file can inherit from various parents. So for example you could have a file xyz.mp3 of a lecture:
1) Since its an
2) Since its part of a lecture it will inherit from the word transcript and when you "open for transcription" it opens with another (say word doc) transcript
3) Since the lecture an be associated with other lectures which have video with them when you "open for viewing" it can pull up the associated powerpoint
etc...
Now the important thing is that these behaviors are inherited because the xyz.mp3 is a member of class lecture in addition to being a member of the class
It also made some attempt at polymorphic behavior (i.e. edit, open, etc..).
Finally information was encapsulated at the lowest level (the file, the folder, etc..)
OS/2 v. 2.0 ran Windows 3.1 apps better than Windows 3.1. At the time, Microsoft was claiming that Windows 95 would run Windows 3.1 apps as well as apps written for 95. That turned out to be more Microsoft FUD. OS/2 v. 2.0 ran Windows 3.1 apps in isolated virtual shells. Even if the app crashed, burned, BSOD, OS/2 would never miss a lick. It's too bad that IBM wasn't able to sell OS/2, but Microsoft was able to out-market IBM.
Best regards.
Indeed. IBM pretty much left the ATM market entirely about 5 years ago. There's only a few left, most are Diebold (which I curse every time I have to use one)
Acutally.... Most of those ATM machines you see in Deli's, liquor stores, and otherwise still run OS/2 1.3 - the Microsoft/IBM release.
I never had any problems with OS/2 drivers at all. I was running it on a 486SX-25mhz with 8mb of RAM with Waffle BBS answering a modem in a DOS VDM, while I ran Win3.1 apps. It was an incredible OS, and to this very day, even the latest, greatest Windows GUI is still just a fancied-up version of the original Chicago shell, which was a retarded rip-off of WPS. I have a feeling that a good many of the OS/2 users end up either going to Linux or MacOS
My only real beef with OS/2 was the fact that it ran rather like a dog on 4megs of ram, and the cost to upgrade to 8megs was rather high. I gave it a good honest shot when I upgraded to 8 but at the time I was running mostly dos apps.. so I could either run OS/2 which took up a good deal of HD space and ram, or desqview which took up about 2megs of disk space and squat in the way of ram. By the time the pentiums came out and memory prices dropped to a point something like os/2 was practical and spiffy win95 was already out.
I'm not saying I didn't like the product, it was just too much for what I needed at the time, which was running a dos app and word once and a while and terminal emulation which at the time worked so much better in a dos window.
What I didn't like were those OS2 prophets. Nothing worse walking down the street and getting one of those jackasses with the "end is neigh" signs trying to convert me to OS2, when I was perfectly happy putting along in dos and desqview.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Everything was done with folders on the desktop. Sure you'd have your applications folder, but the WPS is so complete, it lends itself more towards working with your files in the shell. This is accomplished with strong file associations and aliases/shortcuts/(sym)links. Your desktop is the file-manager. You could for instance, have your desktop set to a tree-view of your file system. The general idea was to go to a folder then double-click to open a file or drag in a "template" to create a new one. I guess what people really mean is, "OS/2 has an object-centric desktop." As opposed to the application-centric approach of Windows; first with the Program Manager, then with the Start Menu. Compare:
OS/2: Navigate to Folder -> Open File/Template
Windows: Start Application -> New/Open File
I'd put Mac OS somewhere between the two. OS/2 shadows are similar to Mac OS aliases in so far they are aware of their target. Deleteing either the original object or the shadow presents the option to delete the other(s). IIRC, shadows also reflected the state of the target (open folder/file/application). Also like classic Mac OS (and now GNOME), all windows are stateful, storing size, location, and a whole host of window properties. Minimized windows can be overlaid on the desktop, placed in a window, both, or neither and simply re-opened from their original location. Duplicate views of a folder only ever occured if you did single-window navigation. The interface follows well-established design principles and the Open Source community would benefit from its study.
Which brings me to what got me started on this post in the first place:
IMHO, I'd call it well-reasoned and functional. Just because it's not the way Windows works doesn't make it wrong. In Windows, a primary mouse button click-drag can be either a move operation or a selection operation, dependent upon where you begin the gesture. In OS/2, primary button click-drag is a selection every time. Consistency is the primary tenet of GUI design. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS would have done this too if Mr. Jobs allowed the use of more than one mouse button.Even still, I'm pretty sure you could change the settings to your preference.
Younger readers might not remember much (or anything) about OS/2 and the history behind it.
This is my understanding, anyone correct me if I'm wrong on some points, please:
Microsoft developed OS/2 for IBM, as a sort of next generation operating system. And it was; it was fast, efficient, good looking, responsive, easy to develop under, with a much cleaner API than Win32.
I'm not sure if Microsoft sold OS/2 itself, but I seem to vaguely remember that there was a Microsoft version of it, as well as an IBM version of it, with only minor differences. It's my recollection that all indications were that Microsoft was going to put its weight behind OS/2.
After getting IBM heavily committed to it, they turned around and worked on their own, incompatible, equivalent (NT). It really was quite a screw job on the part of Microsoft to intentionally lead IBM astray, in my view. A faily anti-competitive way to weild their growing clout.
Wikipedia has some interesting history on it.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
You are. The above poster was referring to virtual memory, not swap.
Like Token Ring it [OS/2] was stillborn
You have a very limited vantage point of history. Token Ring, like OS/2, had a large install base. Token Ring died because once Ethernet was (finally) standardized with 10baseT and low-cost hubs and NICs, it was cheaper and faster and easier. But token ring had a huge install base which was only eliminated once organizations needed to upgrade their bandwidth to 100 Mbit.
http://www.ecomstation.com/ Someone is carrying on with OS/2 development. OS/2 isn't dead, it just got sold off and given a funny name.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Like others, I ran OS/2 until Windows 95 came out. IBM used to advertise that you could get 736k available in a DOS box under OS/2 and I came pretty close to that a couple of times - and thought I was hot stuff until someone asked me why I needed 736k to run an application that could only address 640k ;-)
But - this was back in the days when I quad-booted OS/2, a Win95 beta, Windows 3.1 and a RedHat distrubution just because I could. I finally outgrew that phase and understand that people with multiboot machines have way too much time on their hands ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
The OP stated that because OS/2 could run Windows applications, it must be that Microsoft helped IBM make that happen. That was pure bull and my reply was TRYING to shed light on how wrong that statement was.
:-/
It appears that my reply glanced off the top of a few heads. Oh well, here it goes again....
I guess my reply was more about OS/2's inability to run Windows apps beyond Win16/Win3.x, but the main point I was TRYING to get across was that although Microsoft ORIGINALLY worked with IBM to create OS/2, Microsoft had nothing to do with OS/2's ability to run Windows apps and after the split, they did things to PREVENT OS/2 from running Windows apps. Heck, they did things to prevent Windows app vendors from porting to OS/2 but that's another book...
It was really the IBM DOS compatibility layer that enabled Windows to run in IBMs virtual DOS. Yes the full OS/Environment ran in OS/2s DOS session with some tweaks. One version, Ferengi, even would use the original Microsofts Windows 3.x installation disks to add Windows support. IBM had access to the Windows 3.x source code and I'm sure that helped. I was told that it was a combination of the OS2-DOS and the optimized Watcom compiler which made Windows run faster on OS/2 than on MS-DOS. After all, Windows 3.x and Windows 95/98/ME are all DOS based operating environments.
It must have been Microsofts lies to the press which lead people to believe they were not DOS based operating environments. But everybody knows that Microsofts statements to the public/press are never factual and very seldom have any element of truth to them. Yeah, right.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
On July 12, IBM announced withdrawal of active marketing and end of support for OS/2, see http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/announcem
This announcement covers the IBM plans for the IBM distribution of the OS/2 products. The announcement does not impact OEMs who may use OS/2 and other IBM products as part of their product solution.
"eComStation will remain available as long as it is a good business. There is no end in sight". - Bob St.John, Director of Business Development,Serenity Systems International
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/