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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
...
Right, and security through obscurity works so well, which is why Windows is so much harder to hack than Linux.
Um
Oh, wait
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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
Both sides of the argument are valid. But what you're missing here is that Windows, Linux, OS X, etc are actively developed systems. Security through obscurity may be a stupid path for MS to take, but at least they *do* release patches.
How often does OS/2 get updated? And what are the odds that the ATM machines will get the latest patches if/when they come out?
OS/2 may or may not be dead in the water, but it probably is. Making the job of finding buffer overflows and other exploits ridiculously easy for a EOL'd system just seems like foolhardy behavior to me.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
it has SCO code in it!
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
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..
*Scalawags are a subspecies of Sperry-Remington engineer. I'm pretty sure.
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.
Right, and security through obscurity works so well
For what has been a quite secure system (ATMs wouldn't use it otherwise), and that is at EOL, actually it is.
Opening up a code base is the best way to get a stable, bugfree codebase *in the end*, but it certainly has growing pains. Particularly since you don't have an incremental model, suddenly you expect everyone to look at everything. Chances are developers would look at interesting features, crackers would run around looking for holes.
What purpose would it serve to push bughunting and patching back into high gear at this point? It'll do nothing to serve the customers in neither the short nor the long run, since in the long run they won't be using OS/2. Get them migrated over on Linux, and let it die. Ask IBM to port any interesting bits (if they haven't done so already) to Linux.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Right, and security through obscurity works so well, which is why Windows is so much harder to hack than Linux.
Security through obscurity sucks compared to active development, testing, bug-fixing and patching.
But security through obscurity is a lot better than no security at all, which is exactly what you get if you open the source without any mechanism for updates to be deployed.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Are you new here too? It's also the slashdot way to wildly generalize about slashdot posters as though they are a single gigantic hive mind. :D
;)
You're on target with the way you called me names and insulted my intelligence while posting as an AC though, that's definitely also the slashdot way.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Nader asked IBM to do this years ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/06/08/213122 7&tid=136
That song works so much better when you replace all instances of the word "ironic" with the words "a bummer."
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
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.