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)."

10 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 AuMatar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was originally a colaboration between MS and IBM. So chances are MS owns some of the code.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. 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...

    3. Re:Is IBM is stupid? by CptSkippy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They really have nothing to gain from open sourcing OS/2 and potentially a lot to lose from doing so.

      If Solaris is any example, it costs money to open source code. You have to pay someone to scour the code for inappropriate or confidential information.

      Lawyers need to work through any licensing agreements with third parties and so forth.

      They're potentially exsposing themselves to lawsuits by showing their knickers to the world. I mean for all we know OS/2 could be filled with stolen UNIX source code and the last thing IBM wants is to actually validate SCO's claims!

      Bottom line is that IBM has nothing to gain from spending (wasting?) money to open source OS/2. It's a shame, but that's life.

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Is IBM is stupid? by mschaef · · Score: 5, Informative

      "It was originally a colaboration between MS and IBM. So chances are MS owns some of the code. "

      In the summer of 1995 [1], I worked at IBM in Austin for the OS/2 Lan Server Enterprise [2]group. OS/2 LAN Server was a direct descendent of the LAN Manager product that shipped with the original joint IBM/MS versions of OS/2 [3]. As a result of its origins, OS/2 LAN Server had huge amounts of Microsoft code baked in.

      In an effort to eliminate the Microsoft code, IBM had divided the development team into two groups: "Clean" and "Dirty". "Dirty" staff being staff that had seen Microsoft code and was not eligible to help in the rewrite. I don't know how far the effort went.

      1] I saw a beta of Windows 95 for the first time running on a Pentium 100 in an IBM FV Test lab.

      2] LS Enterprise entailed the conversion of LS Advanced to use DCE services for authentication, etc.

      3] LAN manager was originally part of OS/2 "Extended Edition".

    6. 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. 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.

  3. Never Gonna Happen by Old+VMS+Junkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. The problem with Open Sourcing OS/2... by kangadru · · Score: 5, Informative

    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