Slashdot Mirror
User Group Urges IBM To Open OS/2
axonis writes "A report on Tom's Hardware tells of one of the last active OS/2 user groups, which has announced an initiative to garner support for IBM to release its long-neglected OS/2 operating system into the open source community. IBM announced earlier this month that it will withdraw its operating system OS/2 officially from sale on December 23 this year and will offer support only through 2006." From the article: "Making OS/2 Open Source will benefit all IBM customers that had invested in this OS...Customers that are willing to continue using OS/2 will get the benefits of an open OS that will be continuously developed by individual developers and/or software companies, their ownership fees will decrease and they will have the enhanced security of an OS that will continue to be relevant due to the open-ended nature of open source (following the BSD and Linux examples)."
Either you think IBM hasn't thought about releasing OS/2 or that IBM is missing a business opportunity.
The cold hard fact is that IBM can't release the source code. So many non-disclosure agreements have sealed the fate of OS/2. The only good thing that can come from OS/2s demise is that people will think very carefully before going into software that has a shelf life with no possibility of saving.
Competition!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Another open source OS would be welcome. At the very least ideas and features can be examined and possibly implemented in the bigger players (Linuxes). But diversity is always good, and what does IBM have to lose?
Unless of course they are making a successor, but that doesn't seem very likely.
I would imagine that OS/2 may contain proprietary code that IBM is still using in products that it still supports. If that's the case, the chances of OS/2 being open sourced are pretty much nil.
If OS/2 truly contains nothing but obsolete code that IBM no longer has any use for, then they might do this to throw a bone to the Open Source community, but it might not be of much use to anyone but OS/2 zealots.
The article explains exactly why IBM wouldn't release it as open source. They don't want customers to get their support via the open source community... They want their customers to buy support from IBM, regardless of the operating system that must be used.
I've heard of it and used it a little back in the day but wan't too up on the history: Wikipedia to the rescue!
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Isn't this a dupe? I seem to recall the reason they don't open-source it is because Microsoft still owns some bits of it and banks who still use OS/2 wouldn't be happy for people to go look for holes in the code.
I've definitely told the story on slashdot before of the support line for a german company (Heilersoft?) who pronounced the name like 'Oh Ess Half'.
This has been covered a million times. Due to all the code they share because it was a joint project with Microsoft, it'll never be opened. Pieces probably could be, but I doubt IBM will spend the time or effort to decide what's theirs and whats microsofts and rip it apart.
There's too many license agreements involved for this to ever work.
A wiser tack would be to ask if the Workplace shell itself, and the system object model, couldn't be open sourced. Neither of those technologies appear in Windows, and I think they were some of the greatest features of OS/2. If they are Microsoft-free, maybe IBM can help those technologies come back to life.
For example (I admit, I don't know), but does OS/2 support:
USB?
High End Video Cards?
Wireless Networking?
If not, then why???
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
"oh, shit, how are we going to explain that it's just a bunch of cats taped together?"
Tell me if I am wrong, but to me it looks like the same thing as many windows users asking to see the source code of, say, windows 95? There is almost 0% chance of this occuring, so why bother posting it on /.?
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
Do non-disclosure agreements expire necessarily? Or is that something that would only happen if it was written into a contract for some reason?
-Valiss
This will not happen, as the potential risk to existing customers is extensive.
These archaic systems may hold sensitive data which thus far has been protected by security through obscurity (at least in part).
Surely the code contains proprietary software that IBM doesn't want to open source, but that doesn't mean that they can't open up the rest. Part of the magic of open source is that people will write the necessary software to fill those gaps.
However, I can't see IBM releasing the source until after December 23rd. It's not until that point that OS/2 becomes immediately unprofitable. If IBM holds up its promise to support OS/2 through 2006, then the source will hit the ground running and be able to get help from its parents while the teachers begin to take over, thus the transition from closed to open goes well and is supported by the original developers, even if only for a year.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Do you really need all these for a server/atm configuration ? Obviously, no.
The Raven
all the ATM machines that still use OS/2...releasing the code for a product that handles money is probably not the wisest of ideas...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
...as you can see by reading this comment. It is, however, good to see more support for this idea though.
I'm sure that as I type a hundred people will have posted the reasons why IBM could not open the code even if they wanted to (Microsoft co-own it, etc), but I personally think opening it would not really benefit many people. The code-base is years old and an attempt to getting it running on newer hardware would probably be doomed to failure so, since a lot of the reasons people like it was the GUI design of the thing, why not just clone it and re-implement all the great ideas? I wouldn't be at all surprised if a re-write of the shell on top of Linux/ BSD wouldn't take a lot less time and effort than dragging an ancient code-base into the 21st century and torturing it into something that works well on current hardware.
Yeah, it would never happen, because, as you mention, there are too many NDAs, restrictive licenses and copyrights tied up in OS/2's code.
Which is a shame, really, because releasing the source would not only give eternal life to OS/2, it would also vastly improve the other free software out there by allowing them to integrate (or at least port) portions of OS/2 to their systems. Linux might be able to add support to run OS/2 binaries or learn how its scheduler handles pre-emptive or realtime tasking.
Unfortunately, since OS/2 is closed source, the product will eventually die off when the hardware that can run it becomes obsolete. This is one of the real unfortunate sides to closed source software -- when its owner abandons it, it's dead.
Aw, come on. No-one really needs anything other than a 25-pin RS-232 serial interface and 16-colour VGA. Wireless networking? Dangerous, man! The waves will cook you. Also, you should really be happy only with a single-speed CD-ROM drive. Anything faster, and the disk melts from the centrifugal force. Cd Burner, yeah right. You really have to pay a lot more in homeowner insurance for that. I won't even touch "firewire", not without asbestos gloves anyway.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
IBM has been championing Linux for servers for quite a while now. By creating demand for Linux based servers, IBM creates a customer base that excludes the MSFT/DELL alliance and creates a base for their lucrative service contracts. Any success an open-sourced OS/2 would have would distract from this.
It's very important for companies' initiatives to be well-focused. If IBM released OS/2 to the community, they will dilute their Linux marketing campaign and further fragment the customer base they are trying to build. If OS/2 took off like mad, that would be yet another OS that IBM has to qual test it's servers with. While I have fond memories of using OS/2 and realize that many of its innovations are standard features in today's operating systems, I wouldn't want it polluting the OS base for all time to come. And apparently, neither does IBM.
I was at an ATM in a convenience store last summer during a thunderstorm. The power went out and when it came back on, I watched the ATM boot. Guess what? OS/2. There is no way that IBM's lawyers are going to let that code loose so that people can pick it apart. Just the suggestion probably gives them visions of a pony-tailed hacker going from ATM to ATM and filling his Volkwagon mini-bus with cash.
IBM has open sourced about as much of OS/2 as it is going to. OS/2's file system (JFS) was opened up as well as IBM's Omniprint driver. So it isn't like we can really claim that IBM is entirely opposed to opening up OS/2. They've already opened large swaths of it to be rewarded by constant complaints that what they've opened isn't enough.
The balance is probably so tainted by third party licensed code (and not only from Microsoft) as to make separating out the IBM code from the third party code an expensive proposition.
One thing that might be interesting is that there was an unsupported IBM WPS clone that could replace PROGMAN.EXE as the shell for Windows. It might be interesting if that particular skunkworks product could be released as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Why is it when an OS dies a needed death (Be, OS/2) there are groups that want it to go open source. Like some how that will save it for the scap pile insted of insureing that it will always be a decade behind the times. That's what happened to UNIX.
In the same way Linus was tired of the closedness of UNIX (think VAX, AIX, etc); freeBSD from BSDI, OpenDOS (and many DOS variants) from DOS- rebuild OS/2 if it has such advantages.
/dev/null.
I used to love OS/2 back in the day, but if certain elements prevent IBM from releasing it all, either (a) get them to release parts and fill in the gaps with open-licensed code, or (b) start from scratch.
I'd agree though- it's a shame to see thousands and thousands of lines of code head over to
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
So here goes: After reading the first wave of posts it seems that there are other entity's source code in OS/2. So is it possible for IBM to make available its source code for OS/2 only? If they provide the code with gaps, couldn't those in the Open Source Community fill them in? My gut tells me that to do so would be far too complicated for the benefits, but not being a Software Engineering type I don't know for sure.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Some people in this discussion might be interested
to know that there is a project underway to create a "from scratch" clone of OS/2, under an open-source license.
See http://www.osfree.org/index.php for more details.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
But there was an IBM skunkworks WPS clone that could replace PROGMAN.EXE as the shell in Windows 3.x. I remember downloading it to put install over Windows for Workgroups to alieviate the cognitive dissonance I encountered on those occasions when I had to dual boot to run one of those few programs that wouldn't run under OS/2's version of Windows 3.1 running on OS/2's dos box.
I doubt that it was much more than a hack. It almost certainly didn't contain all of SOM classes. Nonetheless, it was pretty slick.
Of course given that most of the kernel was written in assembler gives it limited practicality, but it would be an great exercise in kernel design to look at OS/2's SMP engine that was so wickedly fast.
Let's face it - OS/2 likely contains proprietary code and trade secrets that IBM merely licenses from a 3rd party. Also, IBM will likely want to spend some significant time to examine exactly what it would be opening - and that means scouring every line of code.
To me, that means big $. I think if people want it opened, they should partner with IBM and kick in some $$$ to make it happen.
It isn't easy to open something that was never designed to be opened.
http://oldos.org/oshistory/os2v1.php
:)
Check out OLDOS!
Jay | http://oldos.org
Er... I thought we didn't like security through obscurity.
You are mistaken. Security through obscurity is good when it is one of many methods. Using it as your one and only method of security is what is bad. It's just another tool.
IBM has already raided the OS/2 code base for projects that it felt would be helpful to be released as open source. While it would be neat if they could release the WorkPlace Shell or the OS/2 2.1 SMP kernel as open source, if they haven't done it by now, there is probably a good reason such as the code being tainted with third party licences.
Even if OS/2 cannot be made open source, I think they should at least give it a license so that it can be gotten for free. I've wanted to try it for years, but have never been able to because I'm not going to spend $$$ on something I might not even use after trying. It's a part of computer history that I think should be shown, what Windows could have been (As I understand, OS/2 was a decent competitor to Win 3.1 early on in Win 3.1's life).
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Sure, the WPS was ahead of just about any other desktop at the time and even now stomps on most, though it's not portable.
The time needed to adapt the WPS -- the main part of OS/2 that was so sweet -- would be better used to add WPS capabilities to other open source projects.
Fellow programmers: If IBM does indeed release the source...use it for inspiration, though don't reuse it.
Opening the OS/2 source code is a great idea ;).
Would the OS/2 source code, integrated into WINE, help it to run 32-bit Windows apps? Does OS/2 support for Windows apps require any approval from Microsoft? Could OS/2 finally create a real competitor to Windows with its death rattle?
--
make install -not war
Why would IBM want to do this? It would make business sense to kill OS/2 dead and start sales on its replacement.
Whatever ideology it is we delude ourselves with what IBM has morphed itself into these days, they are first and foremost a business
And besides, is OS/2 really that great? Some things deserve to die. I'm not saying OS/2 *does* (i've never actually used it myself).
Is it wonderful or is it crap? This is something that needs to be considered as well.
do() || do_not();
Is that you can't Open Source the entire Operating System, and at this point it would cost more to perform the code audit and legal audit to make this happen that it would to simply take the black eye of killing it. If you think about it, it makes sense. OS/2 is, and never was, just the operating system. Think back to installing OS/2, especially in the pre 4.0 days. You didn't just install OS/2, you also installed LAN Server (or LAN Manager in earlier days), TCP/IP for the Internet, eventyually you got MMPM and others, but these are all seperate packages that are more or less bolted onto the core. It's probably reasonable to release parts of OS/2, but you can't release all of it, particularly the parts licensed from third parties. That's the real kicker. In order to Open Source OS/2 in the sense that most people want is a logistical nightmare that would encompass years and a cost that IBM would have no hope of ever recovering. So what is the next best option? release the source for the important parts. SOM ? can't because of Microsoft licensing. WPS? can't, Adobe PostScript font rendering engine. Those are just items from the top of my head, and I haven't used OS/2 in close to 10 years now. It's a nice dream, but it's unlikely to ever happen. kanga
tells of one of the last active OS/2 user groups
Wow, just wow. I think we should all write our congressman and tell them that these people need to be protected before they become extinct. Does anyone know if they're on the endangered species list?
The use of words expressing something other than their lit-er-al inteeention,
Now thaat is iroooonyyyy..
it has SCO code in it!
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
OS/2 was not a great operating system way back when it came out. It didn't keep up with Windoze. Why on earth would you want to resurrect its smelly corpse now? That horse died a long time ago. Stop beating it.
but it wasn't SOM-based at all. It looked like (and acted like) like the WPS to a certain extent when it came to basic file/folder manipulation, but that's about the extent of it.
Even so, it really wasn't a bad Windows shell.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
This was already discussed on slashdot not too long here. As others have said, this is a stupid idea and it's never going to happen. You can see my specific response and some follow-ups here.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I think you have been listening to Bill Gates too long.
PS. Mr Gates said that about circa 1990. If you can't count that far back that was 15 years ago. Living 15 years past dead is an amazing feat.
And just how old do you think UNIX is? Or how about MVS or OS/400?
Just because you have no interest, doesn't mean no one else does.
A lot of information about OS/2's USB Support can be found on the web, and as others have said a lot of video support is being provided by Scitech. Compare the numbers between the OS/2 and Linux versions. :-)
Don't know about wireless networking, but some info can be found here.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I used OS/2 for the better part of os/2 2.1, warp 3 & 4.. and it rocked..
They already released JFS and ObjectREXX.. now we just need the WPS and possibly the TCP/IP stack.. (it was fast.. i mean REALLY FREAKING FAST)
ahh the good ole days.. running gimp in Xfree86 window, injoy on a 486 in the back with multi-linkPPP to the ISP (yea.. dual 56K modems pfffft!) open office, netscrape, bitchX and slurrrp readin the newsgroups for ya.
I gave up with warp 4 fixpack 32 (i think.. it was getting kinda silly by then).
OS/2 has been kinda overtook by ecomstation http://www.ecomstation.com/ so it's not quite dead yet..
I see a niche market for support of OS/2 opening up for a while. You know not everyone has a plan available to transition to something else. And somebody can make some money on this.
*Scalawags are a subspecies of Sperry-Remington engineer. I'm pretty sure.
OS/2 Warp 4 was released 10 years ago.
:-)
The last public FixPak was released in January 2001, or just a little over four years ago.
eComStation 1.2 was released in August, 2004, or a little less than a year ago.
Maybe you're just out of the loop?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I have been trying to find the old innoval guys to get the source for Post Road Mailer, so I could fix and upgrade it. When they dropped J Street Mailer, they ended up providing source code and it became Polar Bar Mailer.
Fight Spammers!
Linux already got the JFS from OS/2. Next the WPS and then the VDM's and you could pitch WINE and run win apps the way OS/2 did
Of course a union between IBM and MS *has* to be the work of Satan...but where does this stuff come in?
http://www.serina.org/~achain/comike/index.html
I am so confused.
Couple of things: 1. The objection was that BSD requires attribution -- and the claim was the MS was still using BSD code but not giving attribution -- therefore violating the BSD license (which allowed them to use it) therefore violating the copyright. I don't know whether that's true or not -- but that was the claim. 2. You're serously asserting that slashdot posters advocate downloading copies of windows xp? (Legal or not?) I don't think I've ever seen that. I've seen a lot of Microsoft bashing -- and a couple of times I made the suggestion that a very reasonable thing for the Federal Government to do was to refuse to handle ANY Microsoft copyright violation cases while Microsoft failed to comply with antitrust laws - or the consent decree microsoft also completely ignored. The last time I made that suggestion was at least three years ago -- I probably posted as an AC -- I read slashdot, but didn't post much and didn't have an account. So: Criticise slashdot posters for what they really do -- oversimplify the issues and demonize microsoft. Copyright scofflaw'ing has a small amount of support, but it's certainly not the norm. BTW - I think Microsoft deserves much of the abuse it gets -- I just wish more of it was well reasoned, rather than knee-jerk.
Thousands of people post to Slashdot. Many of them might have different opinions. Unlike some sites, Slashdot does not attempt to censor or otherwise limit people's expression of those opinions. Even when, like yours, those opinions demonstrate extreme stupidity.
This might appear as hypocrisy to idiots who believe that Slashdot is the work of one extremely prolific author. But it's really just free speech.
Your words:
This isn't ironic, it's unfortunate - much in the same way all the examples of 'irony' in Morisette's Ironic are unfortunate rather than ironic.
Your example could be ironic if there was something specific to whatever it is that prompts ".... oh crap" that made it ironic in that particular case.
A worked example:
Alanis says:
# It's like a traffic jam when you're already late
#
# Isn't it ironic
The person who understands irony (and maybe has seen the routine by Irish comedian Ed Byrne) says:
"Sorry love, that's not ironic. What would be ironic is if you were stuck in a traffic jam, when you were already late, while on your way to a town meeting about chronic congestion problems on motorways and roads in the local environs, and you were the town planner in charge of roads and civil engineering."
Sarcasm (roughly) equals being sardonic - it involves stressing something in such a way that it implies to the listener that the opposite meaning is intended by the speaker.
Its OS/2, for Christ's sake. Get over it.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
In short, this pretty much nails OS/2's coffin closed.
Regardless, there isn't much I can think of that OS/2 offered that the Linux distros don't by way of the GUI. Toolbox? Use GNOME panels and drawers. Fixpaks? Don't need to download and install - Mandrake has URPMI, Debian (and debian based) has APT, and Gentoo has emerge, and all three do that for you. Workplace shell? Nautilus does a good job.
I'm going to miss the old half-an-OS, though - it was a damn good product that didn't crash without a good reason, and would've beaten Windows 95 if it weren't for poor marketing.
This sig no verb.
Does anyone know how much code is shared between OS/2 & NT 4.0?
I always thought they were cousins, am I correct?
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Due to all the code they share because it was a joint project with Microsoft, it'll never be opened.
Teacher: OK kids, what does this lesson teach you?
Kids: "Don't make pacts with the devil".
'Nuff said.
Nader asked IBM to do this years ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/06/08/213122 7&tid=136
IBM is focused on Linux; it's a business thing for them. There is no reason why thy should distract people from that by open sourcing OS/2.
Heck, I have some working software I could open source that I don't want to open source, not because I ever want to make money from it, but because I think the software is just not good for you; I'd much rather you use one of the alternatives.
And I say that as an old OS/2 user.
Why in the world would anyone want an open-source derivative of an irrelevant PC OS?
Save yourselves years of heartache and just make a window manager for Linux that improves upon the old Workplace Shell, and then move on to bigger and better things.
why would anyone want to continue to use it. It was slower than anything. Just a horrible weighted down peice of garbage.
I assume there so many patents x-lic'd used within OS/2 and given the (assumed) lack of meta data about which code is covered (or not), it would be hard to produce a clean vers.
We need patent lic. that is as of right like a jukebox music (you can play any record in your juke box and the copyright lic. fee is fixed).
I'd like ALL OF this to be FREE, but here is a workable middle ground... For software, computers, etc..
A fund to help users, patent holders and fighters..
Free patent use for all non-commerical uses
Fixed rate for per application to cover all patents (say yearly $25)
If you hold patents you can register w/ the clearing house to get your % of the $$.
If you fight a patent and win making it void and if $$ had been prev. paid as royalties, your legal bill(s) could also be covered by the "fund." (cost is >$1 million , so not sure how many of those can be handled..
If you fight and lose, that's your problem.
http://www.hawknest.com/
Usually an NDA is a way of getting access to information. Either it expires contractually when the information is disclosed or you would lose legal access to the information if you disclosed it.
Think of an NDA as just another IP license.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
IBM is investing heavily in Linux, they are offering a migration path from OS/2 to Linux. Therefore they have a vested interest in NOT open sourcing it as doing so would cut down some of their consulting business.
Even forgeting all of the NDAs that cover the code, I doubt there are enough OS/2 users out there to pressure them into open sourcing something out of "good will" or "loyalty" that will actually hurt their business.
AC beat me to the punch. But glad anyway.
eComStation from Serenity Systems is an outgrowth of the Warp 4 client, mentioned in a previous slashdot "OS/2 is dying" article.
OS News Review of eComStation 1.0 (lots of info and links about OS/2 history)
Have you Meta Moderated t
Shit, I'm shocked. I had no clue this old dog was still available for purchase. I thought it died in the mid-90's. And, who the hell is BUYING this OS now???
If i am not mistaken , Os/2 was supposed to be the next version of windows when it came out. It had actually windows code in it .
Microsoft decided to stop and devlope the next windows on their own.
I think its winnt code that os2 has in it i am not sure.
Releasing os2 code would mean releasing some propritary microsoft code too.
The last fix for your darling OS/2 came out more than four years ago and the vendor is dropping it.
Deal with it, loser.
Why do people want to save OS/2? Why has it stuck around this long? Isn't there some other, better operating system around that fills whatever niche OS/2 satisfied?
They've flooded the market with the damn things. However, there IS hope. Several of the smaller players are already going over to Linux, being fed up with MS charging what they charge on the machines and not having anything more stable than they have to begin with. It's just going to take time (Hell, those self-check-out kiosks in the stores lately use Windows XP, not even embedded XP- I know, the silly thing crashed in the middle of my checking out over at Wal-Mart and they rebooted it in front of me, like it wasn't anything at all (Like it was commonplace...)) and more people being bit hard by the damn stuff MS has been jamming down their throats.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
OS/2, on the other hand, hasn't even been fixed for over four years.
Maybe you should have gotten a clue when the guys who invented OS/2 lost interest in it. Those who knew it best are mostly using something else nowadays.
Get over it.
I wouldn't be pointing fingers about advocacy strategies and 'looking bad', considering that your linked website's prominent, elegant and technically well-thought-out and accurate argument about why BSD is better than Linux is simply:
complete with a poorly-rendered cartoon of the BSD mascot butt-raping Tux the Penguin. That's real mature. I'm sure that really makes people want to associate themselves with BSD.
It's full of SCO code....
Have fun, by all means... but don't even bother putting up a stink when someone says, "You are old, Father William!"
By the way, Rich... Your homepage is the most gawd-awful blinking mess I've seen since 1995. Very nostalgic.
I used OS/2 through most of the 90's as it was considerably better than windoze (okay, so the SIQ sucked). Rather than go through what I think made it superior, and reiterate the obvious marketing issues, one thing that stands out in my mind is this whole OS/2 thing wickedly points out the silliness of software patents.
Perhaps I'm looking at this from an amateur's point of view, but an OS is just a means of communicating with a machine. The inability to open OS/2 arises from the fact communication mechanisms are patented. Essentially locked away from use.
The analogy I like to give my non-tech minded friends is what if someone patented the adjective: "Method for modifying nouns to better describe an object."
Pretty silly.
Also, I've read in the comments that people seem to think open OS/2 would undercut Linux. Doesn't this undercut the "better security through variety" argument?
If they can do it, I think they should. I would love to start using OS/2 (and DeScribe!!!!) with modern capabilities. Aside from MY preferences, it would also provide a middle ground for those tired of Windoze but afraid of learning Linux.
Just my $0.02.
Only stupid people.
Or my personal response, 'only stupid answers.'
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156274&cid=131 05893
As if BSD wasn't proof enough, now people want to open source and user support... OS/2
The computer world is thick with masochists.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I beleive that OS/2 and Windows NT shared a common heritage, to the point where the API's are almost compatable.
Therefore if OS/2 did go open source, how much relevant information would become available to projects like Wine?
Four years is a very long time in some contexts, and a flash in the pan in others. As a Linux hobbyist and Unisys (Sperry/UNIVAC) OS2200 programmer, I can appreciate both extremes. :-)
My web site is hand-coded and intended to be lynx friendly. No fancy flash animations, I'm afraid...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Back in the mid '90s, I used to do desktop support in a medium- to large shop (about 800 users) that was OS/2 on both servers and workstations. I was also involved in a local OS/2 user group, and ran it at home. It was not always as rock-solid as OS/2 fanatics would want you to believe.
The HPFS filesystem was very prone to self-destructing, much more so than even FAT16. A couple of times a week, a workstation needed a rebuild because someone cold-booted without shutting down properly, and critical system files were destroyed. Much like with NTFS, the only way to rescue a system like that was to do a parallel install, get data off to the network, and then rebuild cleanly.
The networking setup utility in 3.0 was kludgy and often produced unusable configurations. Almost as bad as networking support on Windows 3.x. This was improved in Warp 4, but interest was already on the wane by then.
Boot times were very slow. Workstations took between five and 40 minutes to start, depending on hardware. (The really slow ones were underpowered MCA-bus PS/2s based on 386DX processors, with 16MB RAM.) Performance at the minimum hardware requirements level was poor.
Workstation application software wasn't that great. There was a version of Lotus SmartSuite, but it was several years behind the Windows version. Even IBM owning Lotus couldn't get Lotus to get a decent SmartSuite for OS/2 out the door.
Eventually, the users converted to the Windows SmartSuite running in the OS/2 Windows (16-bit) emulation mode. When 32-bit Windows apps arrived, the user base was slowly migrated off OS/2 and over to Windows NT 4.
Multimedia support was lacking, other than the basic functionality built into the OS. Things like wavetable MIDI and DVD playback never really worked. Sound/video applications never really appeared. Multimedia users stayed on the Mac or went directly to Windows 9x.
The server side remained OS/2 for a lot longer. I changed jobs before the OS/2 servers got decommissioned. Today, I would expect those servers have been replaced with Windows- or Linux-based systems.
I think that if you're running a Mac (server or workstation), Windows 2003 (server), Windows XP (workstation), and/or Linux (server/workstation), there isn't much from OS/2 you would want today.
Maybe if IBM could open-source select components, it could be useful. Open-sourcing the HPFS code could improve HPFS support in Linux. Open-sourcing the WorkPlace Shell may improve user interfaces for Linux desktops (this is more questionable with more modern UIs available on Linux now).
They just hate the GPL because it is viral, as they call it. They like OSS stuff like BSD, because they are free to take what they want and use it. They dislike the GPL because it requires the opening of an entire product, if used.
They aren't anti-open source, they are anti-GPL.
The first is how much would have to be cut? You have to remember that often when you have joint commercial ventures, nearly everything is tied up in licensing, so there might be so little released that it was worthless. Kinda like Apple's Darwin core. Yes, it is the core on which OS-X runs, but it's not nearly enough for one to build an OS-X clone from, all the important things are withheld (in the case because Apple wants it that way, not because of licenseing).
the other problem is getting all that code out. You have to be absolutly, 100% sure that all the code released is yours, otherwise you are opening yourself to a lawsuit. Well, for something as complex as an OS that'd take massive audits invloving programmers, lawyers, tech writers, etc, etc. That's a lot of money you are talking.
And then, after all that, what the result? Something that's less usable than Linux. OS/2 is not at all impressive by modern standards. Some people get all foggy eyed remembering the multi-tasking combine with DOS compatibility, but forget that it came at a stability price along the lines of Windows 95 (errant 16-bit apps could hang OS/2 fairly easy).
These days Linux is more stable, better suited to modern hardware, has more apps, and so on. I cannot see a compelling reason to want OS/2. Maybe 8 years ago, when Windows was still in the 9x stage and Linux was struggling to be even geek friendly, but not now.
I have it on pretty good authority that the reason why OS/2 cannot be open sourced is that in addition to the fact that the OS contains a decent portion of code originating from Microsoft, is that THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE A LOT OF THE CODE IS.
As it turns out, when IBM closed IBM Boca Raton, where most of the development of OS/2 Warp and OS/2 for PowerPC took place, they "lost" a lot of the backup tapes containing the source to a lot of the system components.
If anyone has any code at all, its Serenity Systems, but I believe they don't have the source to the core OS, just the stuff they added or modified.
It's not a problem, because security comes from two places:
1) The physical interface. You don't have a keyboard, just a little pad, and thus can't send it commands.
2) The encryption card. All communications with the bank are secured via hardware encryption cards that are for all intents and pruposes unhackable.
The OS can be insecure since there's no way to get at it without physically getting in the ATM and then, well, you wouldn't need to now would you?
Not only that but I would imagine that a lot of the NT code and therefore the 2000 code borrows or runs along the same flow at points.
The GP or someone else has pointed out that some code is remarked with "OS/2" here and there but that is because Windows 2000 (XP and NT?) implement a OS/2 sublayer.
Being that most of the Microsoft networking code is either: Lan Manager, "the" TCP stack or their own buggy code (which is already exploited) - then Windows will be like swiss cheese on the network.
Get your Unix fortune now!
First problem is that there is still a company that is using the code base for their product. Opening the code would really piss them off.
Second, is i bet there is still microsoft code from the old days.. But perhaps they could take out those parts and leave enough to be useful? ( like the bsd camp when thru after the 'suit' and the resulting non functioning 'bsdlite' )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You left out one. The eComStation would be handicapped by releasing OS/2 as open source.
Besides WE don't need the source code. As slashdotters often remind us every time IP comes up. You can't copyright ideas because everyone has them, and once they get out into the wild they're everyones (that whole 'taper' bit). So why doesn't "The Community" do what they did to Windows (KDE) and Macs (Gnome, Gnustep)), and copy their ideas. Or is that too much like work.
"...self-check-out kiosks in the stores lately use Windows XP, not even embedded XP..."
:-)
The ones around here are running Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. Same as you, I've seen them lock-up/crash/etc and the store people just reboot the things.
I'm waiting for the day when I have to reboot a toll booth before my EZ-Pass will work.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
"Unfortunately, since OS/2 is closed source, the product will eventually die off when the hardware that can run it becomes obsolete. This is one of the real unfortunate sides to closed source software -- when its owner abandons it, it's dead."
Quick! Call up the game community. They got to hear this.
I think HPFS specs will help a great deal understanding NTFS 4.0 ;)
gtkaml.org
Really, unless I'm building ATM machines, why would I give a rat's ass about an open source version of OS/2? What would I be able to do with it that I can't already do with Ubuntu, Gentoo, Linspire, Slax, or any of the other distros of Linux that have support, software, bundled apps, device drivers, and everything else that makes an OS actually usable. Serious question, not just breezing. Why would I even bother to burn a fresh Open OS/2 ISO? Why is this important? I've not even seen a box running OS/2 since 1998, and that was in a Bank running an little application that uploads transaction data to some mainframe in another city. Not even on a desktop. I played with OS/2 WARP CONNECT and it was spiffy... but we didn't have any software for it.
MadOgre.com
http://pleasefortheloveofgodletitdie.com
or
http://os2mustdie.com/ are already taken.
No match for "PLEASEFORTHELOVEOFGODLETITDIE.COM".
No match for "OS2MUSTDIE.COM".
OK, I've done my part.
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. -- Albert Einstein
Point is, it dosn't matter what user group urges IBM to open up OS/2. I'm not going to pretend to understand all the legal stuff behind OS/2, but the fact is, the matter is much more complicated for IBM than it sounds.
is that they open source Workplace Shell. Yes, OS/2 may still have some better guts--it certainly was extremely efficient on very limited hardware even compared to Linux today--but that stuff is basically all commodity now. WPS was really progressive & unique, and made the system a joy to use. Mac OS X is good now, but still doesn't quite match WPS for usability. I want it back.
I don't really give a shit.
According to your site, you do give a shit--all over Linux. Sorry, couldn't resist.
However, this is a good point. I use BSD and I use Linux. Instead of taking pot-shots on mascots and such, perhaps we should state why our favorite OS/App/Whatever is better. Perhaps instead of "Because BSD Shits All Over Linux" it should be "Because The Others Use BSD Libs Anyway!" or something of that sort. Saying BSD shits on Linux does nothing to sway my use of Linux.
Also, merely a technicality, but if the BSD Mascot is pitching anal and Tux is catching, wouldn't it be BSD which is getting "Shit All Over" it?
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
Open Source/2
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
All these people who say IBM would have to pay huge costs to find sifte through the OS/2 code are crazy. IBM knows at the tip of its tongue and on its finger tips which code is which -- s the post stated above regarding MS knowing which parts of its code belonged to OS/2. Come on! This is they're business. The reason OS/2 is not being released in parts is that MS has a stranglehold on the desktop market and huge leverage against anyone that threatens it. IBM is terrified of pissing off MS. Linux desktop is DEAD. It has no true support among major businesses. A truly great Linux desktop could be written in ... well, about as much time as little ole Apple wrote theirs for Darwin. Period. Sorry to bust anyone's bubble.
There are currently only 9861 signed. Please all go and sign
To IBM:
What ever you cannot release Just leave closed, or absent. Have the Interface well defined, the community will work around these quickly with alternatives. Open what you can, even if first version doesn't even boot, Release it. We'll fix it fast
Free life
Boaz
Various banks still used OS/2 until recently...
So perhaps there is some demand in niche sectors for an open source derivative..
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
My web site is hand-coded and intended to be lynx friendly. No fancy flash animations, I'm afraid...
Just one small point - I couldn't find your contact details anywhere on the site. And I'm afraid I need to invoice you for the cost of an eye transplant. Thanks in advance.
I think Workplace Shell is IBM property from top to bottom. Open source community would benefit from learning the source of this unique GUI.
...as evidenced by a number of other entries in his jargon file.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
HPFS is not really all that similar to NTFS, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion. The original JFS was on AIX and the OS/2 division re-engineered it from its formal specifications for OS/2. That version was later ported back to AIX. But in the final analysis, it's fair to say that JFS was part of OS/2, even if was never released for certain members of the OS/2 family.
The OS/2 SMP engine, likewise, was only released for the OS/2 SMP product line. This doesn't mean that SMP kernel wasn't part of the OS/2 family, only that it wasn't included in the entire family of products.
The point being that IBM has taken the bits of OS/2 that it thought were advantageous to open source and have released them into the wild. Which member of the OS/2 family tree they came from doesn't really matter.
....release OS/2 or sell customers IBM Linux solution? what to do, what to do....
DUH!
Wow, when you decide to be wrong you really make sure to be wrong.
Ecomstation is the current supported OS/2 and it's had plenty of fixed since it's release.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.