Slashdot Mirror
Keeping the OS/2 Flame Alive
nanday writes "Ever wondered what happened to OS/2? With IBM officially abandoning the operating system last year, users are relying on a third party version of OS/2 -- and, increasingly, using free and open source software to keep
it alive." From the article: "According to Haverblad, the main reason that users stay with OS/2 is for 'features that Windows and Linux don't have yet.' He singles out the REstructured eXtended eXecutor (REXX), an interpreted programming language known for its ease of use, a 'rock solid kernel,' 'excellent multitasking,' and low system requirements. Haverblad also claims a lack of viruses and spyware and, referencing a report on OS/2 Warp Server by Secunia, fewer security vulnerabilities." Newsforge is also an OSTG site.
REXX was also available for Amiga...and others...
See: http://rexxla.org/Links/
Unfortunetly for OS/2 is that the installed software base is very small. So if you are content with whatever software is out there for OS/2 (old versions of browsers, etc) and don't have a fast computer then yes I agree OS/2 is worth it. Otherwise you're better off with Linux, Windows or maybe even Solaris.
I would still be using OS/2 if it was receiving regular updates for new hardware. I feel that if IBM was to relook at the OS, they may gain some market share because users are now more educated as to the workings of a computer.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I suppose there are people using the abacus too.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Considering the timeframe OS/2 was developed in, and its complexity excuse me if I don't believe it is secure. Most of the software from that timeframe has been shown to have a LOT of security problems, primarily because the training, and tools to discover holes didn't exist at the time.
... I don't think so... Linux, and BSD, in their lifetimes have had lots of security problems, particularly as they have grown in popularity.
/appears/ to be secure is because it isn't worth any one's time trying to crack it.
Plus a complete OS that is secure?
If OS/2 was released OpenSource tomorrow and got popular you'd have it with the MOST security venerabilities by years end I guarantee it.
The ONLY reason OS/2
Haverblad also claims a lack of viruses and spyware.
um, having a lack of USERS tends to do that.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
Well, on Windows there's nothing to stop REXX calling COM methods.
There are about a dozen more than this. See Interpreters. Its a pretty well supported language on just about every platform. Though its really only naturally at home on Z-OS and I-OS and that's where it makes sense to use it.
I developed for OS/2 for about 7 years. Yes the kernel had threads and a solid multitasking support but the flawed design of Presentation Manager (PM) caused a single rogue app to lock up the desktop and making it useless. The single message queue that IBM designed in PM, was one of the worst technical design decisions ever made. There added many workarounds to kill rogue apps but the results were pretty unreliable.
No, NT was developed by Microsoft independently of IBM. NT did offer an OS/2 compatibility layer early on, but it has a completely different kernel.
And its not the stuffy old version that came with OS/2 either, it's the more modern ObjectREXX. Enjoy.
I used to code in REXX in 1989.
It was pretty handy for scripting, useful as "glue" between different things and all that.
By 1989 standards, mind you.
I think modern things (like AppleScript/Automator) can probably do everything REXX could ever do, and more, while being more readable to us humans.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I tend to agree. I had/have OS/2 v4 and maybe I'll get around to adding it to Grub, but its really a legacy system at this point. What I would like to see, is for OS/2 to be open sourced. I'm sure IBM wouldn't care, but I suspect there may be some legacy MS component lurking in the background, as it was orignally a joint MS/IBM venture. Who knows - an open sourcing of API's could help. Even MS might benefit if they really thought about it, as its old technology and, as they view open source as a competitor, better that open source spend time on the old, rather than the new.
BTW, what's "unsolid" about the NT kernel itself?
-- Bill Gates, from "OS/2 Programmer's Guide" (forward by Bill Gates)
Paid Q&A/Research
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/obj-rexx/
We have apps running in Object REXX on Windows.
There are probably elderly PCs running Dow Jones feed servers in many banks still, probably even running OS/2 1.3 on the command line as it Just Worked, even to the point that there were attempts to port applications to v4/Warp when it was released. It had an amazingly fast boot time even compared to DOS but even when IBM had a burst of zealotry over Warp and tried to promote it as the Internet desktop of the future (I still have a few of those 60 day trial CDs that got everywhere at the end of 1994). It's good to know that it's being kept alive as despite its foibles, it had a potential that neither Linux, Windows or OS X have managed to really live up to, as a light, fast, multithreading application server. Just perhaps not a desktop.
On that day, OS/2's architect, Gordon Letwin, posted USENET message explaining why the system was doomed in the market. After that, it was all downhill.
Pretty sure there's also a standalone REXX for Windows. I'll let somebody else do the Googling and leech the +1, Informative.
I think it's worth pointing out this petition over at OS2World.com (which is still accepting signatures), asking IBM to release the source of OS/2.
There are apparently some legal issues -- the most frequently cited one is that IBM might not hold copyright to all the code, since the project was originally done in collaboration with Microsoft and Corel -- but the request is that IBM open up all of the code that it has available and can legally release, and note what parts it can't, so that they could be re-implemented.
I'm not sure it's ever going to happen, but it sure would be nice if it did.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
wonder if anyone could offer me a quick bit of advice (Sorry, I know this is O/T!). Our phone system, apart from being ancient, runs on a 166Mhz Cyrix (lol!) with OS/2 installed. If the hard disc in that machine fails, we are buggered as our telco no longer supports OS/2 and wants us to upgrade (a snap at £8,000!).
My question is - does anyone know how I can make a perfect hard disc image that I can restore from if the Rickety 2Gb Segate in the box fails? Any advice greatly appreciated.
Jonny.
"Ever wondered what happened to RSX? With Digital Equipment Corporation officially abandoning the operating system, users are relying on a third party version of RSX -- and, increasingly, using free and open source software to keep it alive." From the article: "According to Strobe, the main reason that users stay with RSX is for 'features that RSTS and RT-11 don't have yet.' He singles out the Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System (or MUMPS), a database programming language known for its ease of use, a 'rock solid kernel,' 'excellent multitasking,' and low system requirements. Strobe also claims a lack of viruses and spyware and, referencing a report on RSX showing fewer security vulnerabilities."
Ever wondered what happened to OS/2?
No.
Could we stop chauking up the lack of virii to the quality of the OS?
I mean, honestly, no OS/2 virii? Is there any reason to target the 10 people out there still running OS/2 Warp with a virus?
While I will agree that good OS design will prevent the kind of zombie take over of a machine that allow viruses to propogate and activate without user intervention, I don't believe for a second that ANY OS is virus proof.
Virii are weapons of mass desctruction, that is, they want to have the greatest number of targets. An OS/2 virus, even if it had a 100% infection rate, would not make the news rounds, and might get a quick blurb on Slashdot. Virus writers are not going to waste time exploiting OS/2.
We have seen a virus launched against OSX recently, probably due to the higher profile Apple has been getting recently with their new Macintel machines. Before this, people assumed OSX was virus proof, but its just that it wouldn't make an impact to write an OSX virus unless the writer can claim some fame by having it affect the greatest number of people and be talked about in the news.
Also, when it comes to OS/2 having lower system requirements, it WAS written for computers designed about 15 years ago. I doubt OS/2 Warp server would be able to run or peform well with the typical client load that most servers today have to contend with. Email spam filtering alone can bring a modern server to its knees, I doubt OS/2 Warp Server would be able to function properly with 256mb of RAM, 10 gb hard drive space running on a Pentium class CPU even handling the email load a typical small business puts on today's servers.
Anyways, I don't believe that OS/2 has any better ability to fight off virii then any other OS, just that its been forgotten about except by those too cheap to upgrade to a new computer and OS.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
OS/2 is the crappiest OS ever!
How's that for keeping a flame alive?
Joking... just joking...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
80% of the ATM machines in North America are running OS/2 right now. I'd call that one hell of an install base. I know this becuase my company does remote IT support for several banks, including one that plans to be the largest financial institution by the end of 2007. In that bank, a civil war is being fought between the Wintel and Unix/Linux side to decide what these ATM machines will run when IBM drops support. I do not know about you, but it scares the crap out of me to put in my ATM card and the next thing I see is a blue screen. That is when Mr. Crowbar will have to take over.
Sorry, I actually program in REXX, and "ease of use" is not the first thing that comes to mind. FUCKING HEADACHE, maybe. There are a dozen languages right handy that are easier to use, and especially debug, than REXX. Whenever possible I avoid it. If I'm doing glue scripting, TCL is my language of choice these days.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I use/used it for about 10 years now. I dont use it for my primary duties though, mostly just playing around on it and enjoying the WPS. I just recently setup an old Netfinity server running WSEB (v4.5) with RAID, Mozilla, Staroffice, VPC, Java, Netfinity apps, a newsreader and some other goodies. Sytem is rock solid and stable and pretty snappy on dual PII 450s no less. OS/2 will never be opensourced because there's too much M$ and IBM code mixed in together. For machines that just have to run attended for years doing something, OS/2 is a perfect match. The only thing that sucks now is that any updates (fixpaks,drivers,USB) for the operating system require a paid subscription which I cannot afford. I wish they allowed access for hobbiests.
-- After all is said and done, more is said than done.
(I know, the article is about IBM OS/2, not Microsoft's. Microsoft and IBM parted ways after version 1.3, with IBM working on version 2, while Microsoft focused on building a more ambitious version 3, which eventually became Windows NT version 3. The rest is history. But yes, Windows NT in its embryonic stages was originally supposed to be Microsoft OS/2 version 3. Windows NT could still use HPFS file systems and run OS/2 binaries until, I believe, Windows 2000. Not that there were a lot of killer apps out that used the OS/2 v1.x API, but you could actually still run them on NT 3 and NT 4)..
There is an effort underway to create an open source clone of OS/2. You die-hard OS2'ers might want to check it out and get involved...
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Another thing i liked a lot about OS/2 is the WPS, that maybe by now there are better desktops, but back then was wonderful, still waiting some of their features in modern desktops like KDE.
I ended up working for IBM doing OS/2 technical support after a couple of years. IBM really did have a highly rated support line despite the fact that out of all the people training with me, I was the only one who'd ever used the system. After about a year on the phones, they promoted me to electronic forum support, where I answered questions from users posting on CompuServe. Remember CompuServe? We had quite a presence there. I specialized in REXX and networking, although I would frequently hit the other forums as well.
I was also an advocate for the OS because it really did suck less than Windows. In fact, it sucked less than Windows right up until the Windows XP/ME timeframe. In many ways, the OS/2 interface is still superior to Windows. I attended a couple of COMDEXes with Team OS/2 and attended several local Team OS/2 events at ham fests and things like that.
At its peak, OS/2 had an estimated install base of 10,000,000 users despite the PCCO's refusal to pre-install the OS on systems for customers. We're all familiar with why they didn't -- Microsoft would revoke the volume discounts for any manufacturer preinstalling a competing OS on systems being sold. That was one of the nails in the OS/2 coffin. Others included the attitude in IBM that PCs weren't real machines and if you wanted a real OS you should be running AIX, the refusal of engineering to fix several really annoying little bugs, and several other factors as well. The two most annoying bugs were the tendency for the Workplace Shell to become corrupt (Binary registry files and all that...) and the single system input queue which would allow one application to hang the entire shell. Half-assed hacks were made to work around both problems, but they were half-assed and sucked.
Around 95, I saw the writing on the wall for OS/2 and downloaded a copy of slakware 1.0 off the Internet. I've been using Linux ever since then.
As for its advantages, REXX was an advantage over the DOS batch file language, but honestly what isn't? Perl, ruby and python all provide similar features and you're far more likely to find someone who knows how to write in one of those than in REXX. REXX was also quite limited, possibly even intentionally crippled, in what it was capable of doing. Interacting with the WPS and GUI components was always a pain in the ass, if not completely impossible. Network communications was impossible with the version of it that I used.
The OS/2 kernel WAS rock solid outside its third party drivers, and as far as I know no one ever managed to write a virus for it. The WPS was always the biggest draw but IMHO IBM ruined it after OS/2 2.0 or 2.1. It was hideous in Warp 3 and later. Gnome kind of looks like the WPS -- very similar object desktop concepts, and the WPS used an early version an object system similar to CORBA to provide access to desktop objects. I never really liked icons on my desktop to begin with, so I don't really miss it all that much.
Inside IBM most of the OS/2 people I knew switched to Linux after IBM killed the system. There might still be a few hold-outs lurking in the bowels of the company, but most of the stuff you need for t
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A while back, IBM released ObjectRexx to the opensource world. The OORexx project is hosted on Sourceforge http://oorexx.org/ It runs just fine under Linux, and can be used as a straight scripting language for shell scripts.
OS/2 runs under bochs. Though not very well. (I actually have a screenshot of OS/2 running in bochs from just a couple of weeks back.) You can find factory sealed copies of OS/2 warp v3 on eBay for very little money. I paid $9.99 +shipping for my factory sealed copy, which I bought 2+ years ago on eBay. OS/2 warp v4 still gets $75+ based on the auctions I've seen.
Complexity and security are not oppposites. All modern operating systems are complex but they tend to have varying levels of security. Cryptography and fine-grained access control significantly increase complexity but also harden a system. In otherwords, complexity can make security weaker or stronger.
Given multiple products competing in the same space for any timeframe, some will have lower standards than others. You cannot conclude logically that all products for a given timeframe will therefore have lower standards. The reality is quite the opposite of your statement. OS/2 had a market presence the same time as DOS and Windows 3.1 but it was far superior, offering features found in all operating systems today. In terms of stability and security, it was years ahead of the game, hence its popularity. When a system is designed does not necessarily indicate its performance for any metric. How a system is design and built, on the otherhand, does.
What training would that be? The techniques for cracking systems today have been around for as long as computing. Computer science and cryptography with computers are likewise just as old as any computer system. As for tools, you mean debuggers, packet sniffers, profilers, and so forth?
Besides your guarantee, what are the reasons for this? Apache HTTPD is open source yet has far fewer vulnerabilities than Internet Information Server. Why does open source mean more vulnerabilities?
Or perhaps it is well designed. Another false argument along these lines is used to explain why Windows has more vulnerabilities than any given Linux distro: because its ubiquity. When you consider the wide-spread use of Apache versus IIS, you see this argument holds no water.
Join Tor today!
Even when it was a so called supported product, we could never understand why they had zero interest in developing a browser. When they finally did it was a personal project of guys inside IBM that got product-ized but basically not supported. Similarly the nntp client and bunch of other stuff like that.
We could never understand why IBM could NEVER fix the single threaded IO queue no matter how many times we complained about it.
We could never understand why they never made an effort to improve or at least fix the fixpack process which could often as not leave you with a non operating system.
We could never understand why the desktop utilities were so incomplete that freeware or sharware like FM/2 were necessary.
We could never understand why we could get a bunch of APPC/APPM com tech support engineers on the phone but NO ONE inside the company was allowed to acknowledge the existence of Ethernet.
When you consider the wide-spread use of Apache versus IIS, you see this argument holds no water.
All I really see from this statement is that you have no understanding of logic. That's not too much of a problem here on Slashdot - handwaving and misdirection seem to win most arguments I read on this site.
Note: I am not speaking to the assertions regarding vulnerabilities in any way. I am merely pointing out that the quoted statement has no value as the rebuttal it was intended to be.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
It is now being developed by a company called Serenity Systems. They struck a deal with IBM to continue to develop OS/2 and release new versions under the name eComStation. You can down load a demo CD (70 MB iso) from the eComStation Web site. It won't install to a hard drive but is a bootable live CD version of the OS.
I bet you there is some SCO code in there :-)
A lot of OS/2 geeks got their first woody, viewing interleaved GIF 87 files, via Compuserve Information Manager on OS/2 in 1024x768. ( GO OS2PR0N )
*sniff* You speak of things I know all too well... It's a good thing you didn't talk about hacking your parent's cserve password to get into the Adults Only forum. Then I'd cry.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
If an argument supports that a claim is true in general, the argument is shown to be invalid if an example to the contrary is found. Mind clarifying the mistake for my benefit?
Join Tor today!
But saying that it has few viruses, is like saying Unicorns don't need rabies shots...
Yes, exactly what I was going to say.
Yes, and AppleScript is very tightly integrated with MacOS, giving it extra value (this coming from someone who doesn't like Macs, mind you). While GNU/Linux may "suffer" from not having a scripting language tied to everything in it, it benefits from the flexibility of having all languages be on equal footing and having to compete on features rather than favored language status. Although, if I had to pick a language to be tied into my OS, it would probably be Lisp. And, yes, I've used Rexx and AppleScript.
It's not exactly the WPS, but DFM is working in that direction. I tried it out a long time ago (when I had first switched from OS/2 to GNU/Linux) and gave it up shortly thereafter. I used to be a hardcore OS/2 user, but I switched to GNU/Linux in college to learn it for a job, and I haven't looked back since. There were some things I missed in the beginning, but over time GNU/Linux has made much more headway, and kept the features that OS/2 *still* doesn't have, that I have been extremely happy with GNU/Linux. Not to mention GNU/Linux is Free and OS/2 isn't.
Nathan's blog
It's worth noting as a minor nitpick that it's not actually AppleScript itself that's tied to the OS, but rather the Open Scripting Architecture, which is basically akin to the Amiga's "ARexx Ports" approach -- any language that can be built to talk with OSA can be used instead of AppleScript. There aren't many other OSA languages -- Frontier and JavaScript are the two most well-known ones -- but there's nothing intrinsic to AppleScript to prevent more from being developed. (Philip Aker has produced "OSAComponents," which claim to make Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP and Tcl/Tk "peer-level" scripting languages in the system, but I haven't tried them.)
Also, even non-OSA languages can use the "osascript" utility to execute an OSA script. I find AppleScript profoundly annoying, but it's not that difficult to write, say, a Ruby or an Expect script which does all of the heavy lifting in its native tongue and passes just what it has to via AppleScript.
Been there, done that. Never again. I now use software that I am 100% certain will last forever. Linux may not be as fast as Amiga OS and KDE may not be as "nifty" as WPS (although it's actually getting pretty decent), but at least I don't have to worry about the future. Even the Microsofties aren't this safe.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Oh, sure, IBM says OS/2 will run on 2 MB of RAM, but you won't get decent performance unless you spring for 4 MB. And if you want it to fly with graphical apps, be ready to empty your bank account for a 486 with a full 8 megs!
If you are in a mainframe (excuse me zSeries Server) enviroment, the HMC, the ESCON director, MOSS/E console for the 3746-900, the APPN Network Node Processor on the 3746-900, and the console for older 2105's (Shark's) are all still OS/2. The newer sharks (2150-800) use Linux for the consols and I hear that the z9's HMC is Linux.
The natural home is z/VM where it was orignally developed. It was then ported to all other of IBM's OS's.