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)."

11 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Is IBM is stupid? by supercoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is IBM is stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If any of you idiots would bother to RTFA, the various code ownership issues are discussed at length. Don't let that discourage you, though...

    2. Re:Is IBM is stupid? by PaxTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you new here? It's the slashdot way.

      MS legally using BSD licensed code = "Stealing".

      Downloading a bittorrent of Windows XP = "Not Stealing".

      Violating copyright is viewed as about as serious as jaywalking on slashdot, unless the specific copyright you violate is the GPL, then it's worse than murder.

      This isn't hypocrisy though, because we don't call it that. Hope that clears things up. :)

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    3. Re:Is IBM is stupid? by runderwo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Good job on the +5, but just to clear it up:

      1) Microsoft using open source code at the same time they are attempting to outlaw open source is hypocritical. Furthermore, they violated the terms (if not the spirit) of the BSD license by not attributing the original copyright holders in their advertisements.

      2) Most people draw the line at commercial/for-profit copyright infringement, whether in the form of ripping off someone's GPL code, or in the form of copying DVDs and selling them. For my part, I draw the line at 14 years since publication.

  2. Just what Linux Needs by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just what Linux needs...

    Competition!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  3. Re:Please, IBM! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But diversity is always good, and what does IBM have to lose?

    Nothing. It's all the other companies (i.e. Microsoft) that have IP bundled with OS/2 that will lose.

    Thus it's pointless to dredge up this discussion again and again (yes, I believe this is at least the third time in many years).

    No matter how much IBM would love to open it up to us, they just can't. Go whine to Microsoft and the 100s of other code contributers first.

  4. Fillin' in the gaps by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. No Need by ssj_195 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Closed source abandonware = software death by Omega · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. IBM's shifting focus by Bazuul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Not to mention by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    Right, and security through obscurity works so well, which is why Windows is so much harder to hack than Linux.

    Um ... right?

    Oh, wait ...

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.