Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Officially Kills OS/2

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the rest-in-peace dept.

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."

8 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. They didn't say anything about the eComStation OEM by Locutus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  2. Re:OS2 is still in use? by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. Re:Won't somebody please think of the ATM machines by cheese_lord · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the love of god it's ATM not ATM machine. No one goes to the Automatic Teller Machine Machine

    --
    http://www.streetracingwar.com/
  4. get eComStation instead by user_ecs · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

  5. Re:OS2? by jm92956n · · Score: 4, Informative
    I wonder what will happend with all the OS/2 code? IBM should publish it and make it public. Maybe someone can use parts of it in non-commercial ways (so M$ does not exploit it).

    I would love for IBM to publish the source for OS/2, but it won't happen for two reasons:

    1. Because OS/2 was written in conjuction with Microsoft, I'm sure the original agreement with MS prohibits this sort of action (and MS would never agree to it now, especially as the two aren't nearly as cozy as they once were).
    2. Companies that still use OS/2 would apply pressure against such an action if IBM even considered it. The code hasn't been through the same review that Linux has been subjected to, and I'm sure there's an exploit or two in there that could be readily discovered if the code were available (think: "if you ever want us to purchase your services again, don't open-source it").

    --
    An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
  6. Re:OS2? by Locutus · · Score: 5, Informative
    Good luck with that. Microsoft helped IBM develop OS/2; how do you think it ran Windows stuff so well?



    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
  7. Re:Won't somebody please think of the ATM machines by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  8. Re:This may tick some off... by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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