Slashdot Mirror


OS/2 Community Tries Bounty System

Grayskull writes "The OS/2 and eComStation community are trying to get open source software ported to that platform by opening bounties and allowing people to chip in with prize money. Currently the most important open bounties are Java 6 port, Icon routines in OS/2, VirtualBox port, Extend multimedia and OpenWengo ports."

79 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Bounties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty.

  2. Open source the OS by armanox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And more people will port Open Source software to it.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    1. Re:Open source the OS by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Informative

      It can't be done. The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors. Sun had quite a time releasing Solaris as open-source, and they owned almost all of it.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Open source the OS by monsul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And more people will port Open Source software to it.

      Not really. There are loads of open source OSes out there, and only the big and famous ones get a substantial amount of developers, and developers tend to contribute where their code will have more probabilities of being used (that is, big, established OSes). It's kind of a chicken and egg problem

      --
      Make It Secret Protect your privacy
    3. Re:Open source the OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors

      It can be done, but you would need to take a BSD approach to it. That is, people who have (legal) access to the source would need to rewrite/replace all those components for which they can't obtain permission to release.

      So it would take a legally limited pool of developers a lot of time and effort, all to open source an operating system that hasn't been updated since 2001. All-in-all, possible, but unlikely to be worth it.

    4. Re:Open source the OS by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Odin tries to, but the project's been moribund for about ten years.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    5. Re:Open source the OS by doti · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I, for one, am a fanboy that doesn't care.

      OS/2 was the first real operating system I ran, and was pretty amazed by it, falling in love at the first run.

      For some years (from 2.0 to "War" 4.x) I used it at my primary OS (ie, a Windows partition for the occasional gaming), and it was sad when it died. The possibility of coming back to Windows was glooming.

      But Linux came to the rescue. It was just as good, minus the Presentation Manager (OS/2 neat object-oriented desktop). Although I did not realized at first how important it was, being Free sounded interesting.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    6. Re:Open source the OS by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      As the sibling poster mentions there is Odin.
      As for GCC, it was first ported to OS/2 in about 1990 along with the EMX libc. IBM paid for a fork of EMX (removed all GPL parts and replaced with BSD and LGPL) for Mozilla and that is what we now have. GCC is at version 3.3.5, KLIBC allows most programs to be built with little effort.
      Unluckily our X server hasn't been updated since the X.org fork and now Firefox is rejecting some of our patches as they are workarounds for our old GCC.
      Now the thing we most need os an updated GCC. Without an up to date browser OS/2 will finally die.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:Open source the OS by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I worked at a site in the 1990's which used OS/2 as the main corporate desktop. It was disliked by most of the users for various reasons:

      • Being attached to big a tokin ring LAN it was slow to start up
      • The desktop background had this really sickening dark green color
      • It had a tendency to stack icons in folders at the same x,y coordinate, requiring the user to manually position them

      Now none of the above is really the fault of the OS. The UI issues are fairly typical of environments where more effort is given to the internals and where desktop support is a long way away. I think the big problem was that it was the OS favoured by BIG IT and had to be killed because of that association.

      One thing I can say for sure: absolutely nobody who had to use it during the day would choose to use it at home, perhaps excluding a few technical people.

    8. Re:Open source the OS by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right. If it isn't a UNIX-based or Windows-based OS, it doesn't deserve to live regardless of what it might have contributed to history or what functional/technical merit it might have for future generations. POSIX and Redmond have all of the computing answers, and are the only technologies that were ever worth anything...

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  3. Qutecom instead of Openwengo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Openwengo is dead, it's now called Qutecom. Also I'm wondering whether Ekiga is not much mature, especially now version 3.00 is around the corner.

  4. Team OS/2! by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    OS/2! Named after the number of users remaining!

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:Team OS/2! by motherjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ahh show some respect. :)

      Long before there was talk of Linux supplanting Windows, it was OS/2.

      I was one of them, from version 2 through Warp 4. Let the Star Trek puns rain down on me for that one! :)

      Take care all.

      Just my .02 worth :)

      --
      "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
    2. Re:Team OS/2! by S.O.B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The biggest problem was the Win/OS2 holodeck that allowed vendors to say they supported OS/2 without having to write a native port. Using Wine as a substitute for native ports (as others here have suggested) would continue that same flawed strategy that only works if there is already a large portfolio of native software.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    3. Re:Team OS/2! by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm with you on that. I really loved working with OS/2 way back when. My first NAT gateway ran on OS/2 before most people never even heard of it.

      Not to mention, OS/2 was a pretty darned good DOS multitasker, and a good number of DOS games ran well under OS/2 as well.

      It was a pretty good Operating System, low footprint, and it took quite a few years before Linux distributions got as good as OS/2.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    4. Re:Team OS/2! by motherjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think OS/2 suffered from a warp core breach.

      And how!

      Just after they were caught by the Borg leader Gerstner and resistance was futile. :)

      Couldn't resist!

      Take care.

      --
      "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
    5. Re:Team OS/2! by bsdewhurst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about the US but in New Zealand a certain three lettered corp paid to have their product advertised before each episode of TNG during it's original run. I still remember the voice over "Star Trek: The Next Generation, brought to you by OS/2 Warp"

    6. Re:Team OS/2! by slashgrim · · Score: 2, Informative

      The biggest problem was the Win/OS2 holodeck that allowed vendors to say they supported OS/2 without having to write a native port. Using Wine as a substitute for native ports (as others here have suggested) would continue that same flawed strategy that only works if there is already a large portfolio of native software.

      Considering that wine is not an emulator, I wonder about that statement.

      Microsoft programs are not the most efficient and so it seems possible that programs written for windows could run more efficiently in future versions of wine compared to future versions of windows, as wine reaches critical mass.

      Plus wine benefits from all the optimizations constantly done to Linux internals, whereas look at how games run slower in the newer Vista than XP.

  5. Re:Or... by realmolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. OS/2 is dead, guys. Where have you been?

    OS/2 has all kinds of really neat features. In many ways, it's still a signpost of things to come. Unfortunately, it's all built on top of a kernel that incorporates all the mistakes/oversights of early 80s programming techniques.

  6. Re:Wtf by madsenj37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is why Virtual Box would be useful. VMs will allow OS/2 users to receive new features/programs via other OSes.

    --
    Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
  7. Truly hopeless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, this is like getting grandma a boobjob so maybe she can score a young IT guy with money.

    Donate it to the community or give it up!

    1. Re:Truly hopeless by darkpixel2k · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can't open source it. It's encumbered.

      Are we still talking about OS/2 or his grandmother?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    2. Re:Truly hopeless by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you, I'm going to have to scrub my brain with bleach now.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  8. What! by k33l0r · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone is still using OS/2? Perhaps there should also be bounties for porting software to Win 95 & NT 4.0 and Linux kernel v1.0...

    1. Re:What! by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are several embedded systems till using OS/2. One of the biggest is ATM machines, new ones too.

      My bank just installed a load of brand new machines, all running OS/2.

      --
      Gone!
    2. Re:What! by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I can see a huge bright future for ATMs running Java and GIMP and Firefox and Chrome.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:What! by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I still remember the cash register at my first job ran OS/2... I pressed the key combo to get out of a full screen POS application (can't even remember what the combo was), and realized I was in OS/2. From that point on I always wanted to bring in Doom and run it on the cash register.

  9. What does OS/2 offer today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used OS/2 Warp a long time ago. It was good, in its day. But why do people still use it late 2008?

    Is it love?

    Are there any technical advantages?

    If it is because of a key legacy application instead of getting stuff ported to OS/2 maybe that application should get ported to the other OSs?

    1. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by Atomic+Frog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple. It works well for what most users do.
      - The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.
      - No virus, no spyware.
      - Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.
      - A real GUI for the OS. Come on, Linux is very pretty (I use Ubuntu everyday at work), but there's a lot of inconsistencies and at heart, it's still basically a X-Window manager. You think it's great, but not after you've used a real GUI. (Dang I wish GNOME or KDE would _copy_ from some of the best GUI's).
      - OS X is a possibility, but you have to buy Apple hardware only.
      - It's not a resource hog. I can fit my OS and all my applications (Yes, including OpenOffice 2, GIMP and everything you need under the sun) in a couple of GB if you wanted to.

      Let's face it, most people (and that would not be people in Slashdot) just check their e-mail, browse the web and write up the occasional document. OS/2 does that easily and simply. I have to use WinXP and Linux (and Solaris and HP-UX and...) at work, but I'll fully switch when Linux or someone else gets their act together. All the alpha-blended, draggy morphing windows in the world won't make a great UI if the _behaviour_ isn't there.

      If you need to get an updated, currently supported, purchasable version of OS/2, you can use eComstation.

    2. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by markdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.

      Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.

    3. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.

      Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    4. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by squiddog · · Score: 2, Informative

      I remember dragging and dropping the entire desktop (the folder that represented my desktop) from the install/boot drive to my second SCSI drive. I figured I'd break it all and have to reinstall, but it was worth the experiment. OS/2 didn't break. Not only did my system still work right then during the move, but it worked fine after a reboot as well. Remember folks, this was before Windows 95, NT and all the spawn thereafter. Really nicely thought out system, without a marketing monster behind it to shove it down the throats of the consumer.

    5. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      - No virus, no spyware.

      A few bounties can fix that right up.

      --
      I hate printers.
    6. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No virus, no spyware.

      That's entirely due to lack of interest on the part of virus makers and spyware makers, as OS/2 is not very secure. For example, important libraries used by all processes are mapped to shared, writable memory. It's trivial for a malicious process to take over any other process and run arbitrary code in that other process.

      From a security point of view, OS/2 is in the same ballpark as Windows 95, far below Linux, OS X, and any Windows decended from NT (such as NT, 2K, XP, Vista).

    7. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by steampoweredlawngnom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is the OS/2 link a hard link?

      No, it's not a file system object at all. The Workplace Shell keeps all "shadows" in its ini file. Shadows are visible to neither the command line nor non WPS-aware apps.

      Since the WPS is almost always running, it's not an issue, but if you do what he says without the WPS running (e.g. you edit config.sys to force OS/2 to use CMD.EXE as the user environment), the shadow will not be updated. It will just show a broken link icon. While the WPS is running, it pays attention to what's happening in the command line, and will update shadows as necessary.

      An interesting thing I found while tooling around with an OS/2 ini editor was that all files have a filename that users use, and then a hex string that the system uses, separate from the Extended Attributes. I suspect this is why you can relocate an installed program to another drive, and it will continue to work. The WPS simply points to the static hex value of each file, and the FS redirects to the filename.

    8. Re:What does OS/2 offer today? by knarf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hard links can not cross filesystem borders. This makes hard links unusable for common linking tasks on the desktop. Soft links can cross filesystem borders but they suffer the same fate as Windows 'shortcuts' when the target file is moved: the link goes dead. This does not happen with OS/2's shadow copies. One of the biggest problem with these is that they only work within the Workplace Shell (from which they derive): try to use them from the command line and you'll find they simply do not exist.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
  10. Not very bountiful by rickkas7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    How hard up for money do you need to be to port GTK+ 2.x to OS/2 for $ 30?

    1. Re:Not very bountiful by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't be so dismissive, I'll be investing my $40 from recovering data from a zeroed disk into a new keyboard to work on this port.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  11. Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What IBM could do:

    1) Open-source the code it owns

    2) Binary-blob all non-royalty-bearing code it doesn't own.

    3) Sell the complete package including royalty-bearing code for the cost of royalties plus a small markup to cover business expenses.

    4) Repeat for older versions

    They've already all but open-sourced JFS. If memory serves, the version of JFS in the final version of Warp Server had much the same code as the version that found its way into Linux.

    1. Re:Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) Open-source the code it owns

      It already has. Large portions of it, in fact. Where do you think Linux implementation of JFS came from? It was in OS/2 before it was even in AIX or Linux. The SMP and some of the NUMA stuff it bought from Sequent I think was also in OS/2 at one point or another. That stuff is also open sourced and part of Linux.

      So, yeah, large parts of OS/2 code are alive and well and already open sourced -- in Linux

    2. Re:Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be by chez69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a couple of things dude,
      - JFS was in AIX way before it was in OS/2.
      - The NUMA stuff from sequent never had anything to do with OS/2, they ran their own unix OS.

      I liked OS/2 back in the day. However you must realize that there are NO 'large parts' of OS/2 that have been open sourced.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    3. Re:Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be by lwriemen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The eComStation owners don't own the source code; they just license the binaries from IBM for resale. If they had access to the source code, then they would be upgrading and maintaining it.

    4. Re:Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be by lwriemen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the information on wikipedia is subject to the competence of the provider. IBM has absolutely nothing to do with the development of eComStation. The only participation IBM has is in providing bug fixes based on the level of support contract that Serenity has for OS/2.

      eComStation isn't an operating system; it is a distribution of OS/2, like Redhat, Ubuntu, or Debian for Linux. The OS/2 kernel, PM shell, and many other parts are still closed source belonging to IBM, and as far as I've heard, IBM doesn't want to make the source available even under a development contract, where Serenity could create a branch of (for example) the kernel.

  12. I'm not sure that this is the place for bounties.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at the list of bounties, I was struck by their paltriness(and, in certain cases, their complete implausibility, "Oh, sure, I'm sure I've got the Skype sourcecode sitting around here somewhere, definitely worth 130 bucks."). I find it difficult to believe that they'll get too many people to work on a closed and rather necrotic OS for that kind of money.

    Bounties make a certain amount of sense as a means to reward the efforts of people who work on projects of community interest, and they might even direct the attention of people who are likely to be working on something in any case in the direction you want it to go. They aren't a way of hiring programmers(not at this size anyway), they are only an added motivation for the already interested.

    Does an OS used primarily by a dwindling number of corporate legacy customers, often in semiembedded applications, really have a large enough pool of already interested contributors? The fact that OS/2 is closed isn't an automatic kiss of death for community involvement with a legacy system(just look at Amiga and BeOS); but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

    Perhaps this will work for them, if so, great; but I have to wonder.

  13. You should all be ashamed by JochenBedersdorfer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.
    OS/2 was a technology leader for a long time, it was the first OS to take the desktop metaphor seriously. Its programming model (SOM) and template system is still marvelous after all these years. It was the first OS with proper multi-threading support, with voice support etc. etc. Lots of innovations happenend on this platform.

    It just had one problem: It was managed by IBM!

    When OS/2 version 3 came out, it kicked ass compared to Win 3.11 and Win 95. Just imagine what would have happenend if IBM had decided to put a proper fight in the desktop war.

    We would have a far more advanced OS by now.

    Currently we are stuck with Vista, which is a graphical update of the interface concepts of Windows 3.11!

    It's a shame we are stuck in the 90s wrt human computer interaction.

    1. Re:You should all be ashamed by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.

      We're not making fun of OS/2. We're making fun of the losers who wont admit to themselves that the ship has sailed.

    2. Re:You should all be ashamed by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really d-bag? How has Linux gone past cli and gui concepts that are implented in Windows, Mac OS X, other Unices? He was just disparaging Windows in case you have reading comprehension problems.

  14. ReactOS, Wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To make matters worse, it is pretty much succeeded by Windows NT, which means any re-developed open source OS/2 clone will be irrelevant, as it will be like ReactOS, but years behind. And let's not forget Wine, of course. I generally love how people can get enthusiastic about vintage operating systems, to the point where they develop clones of them, it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

    1. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

      Fanboys, perhaps?

    2. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    3. Re:ReactOS, Wine by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s

      Indeed.

      At a previous company I worked for, our voice mail system was ran by an OS/2 machine. Microsoft's OS/2. When you typed "ver" that's what it said. "Microsoft OS/2" (and some version and copyright info I don't remember anymore). And in classic Microsoft fashion, it wasn't y2k compliant. After the turn of the millennium, I would have to dig through a calendar to find a year that matched up with 2000, 2001, 2002, etc.

      When I left there in late '03, it was still running strong.

      I can honestly say I don't know the state of it these days. The company is still there in a small suite in a corporate park. I've can only imagine that thing is still running...

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    4. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Tekoneiric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the Amiga OS is a bit different from BeOS and OS/2. It did reach a critical mass back in the late '80s and early '90s. Amiga PCs were everywhere and heavily used in the graphics and video industries. It only subsided because the execs at Commodore would rather take trips to the Bahamas than invest in marketing. When Commodore went bankrupt; the video industry was scrambling to locate Amiga 4000s; driving prices up to higher than retail on them. It was years before low priced alternatives were available to them. The Amiga was also at the core of the game industry for years back then for players and developers. Had Commodore Execs been smarter, the computer industry would have been a much different place these days.

      --
      *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
    5. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The interesting thing about OS/2 community is, it is very hard to find any clueless fanatics. Even in 1995, unless you claimed a completely stupid thing like "MS-DOS is better than OS/2" or "Windows 95 is 32bit", they (especially team os/2) would listen.

      I am on OS X now and I can't find quality ezines, communities like OS/2. I find myself sometimes posting as AC to Apple related stories since I am sick of fanatic community.

    6. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it is really hard for some people to understand that not everyone disliking Windows likes Linux or FreeBSD.

      If one remembers these are the people who paid more than Windows 95 to IBM and the fact that OS/2 was/is a commercial operating system, it will be easier to understand.

      I notice a lot of the OS/2 community migrated to Apple OS X. On the other hand, some people could be still happy with OS/2. It is not Windows 95 or 98, it is a 32 bit operating system still having some software released. One can have both OS/2 on a PC and PS/3 for games.

    7. Re:ReactOS, Wine by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably worked better on OS/2! I think all replacement shells play havoc with Windows. Too many poorly documented APIs to screw up with.

    8. Re:ReactOS, Wine by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're under the impression that Windows NT somehow succeeds the 32-bit OS/2 clients released by IBM, then no wonder you don't understand the OS/2 community that survives -- you think we still use the old 16-bit POS that was created in the IBM+Microsoft days. Methinks not. :-)

      OS/2 still has advantages in process prioritization and multithreading that neither Windows now Linux can touch, and you can feel the difference on old enough hardware. OS/2 responds quickly where WinNT 4, Win2K, and various Linux variants will hesitate and/or pause when performing tasks. With modern hardware this isn't as important, since you can throw enough hardware at the problem, but not everyone wants to trash the older hardware they have lying around...

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  15. Re:Or... by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I remember when I first fired up the Workplace Shell in v. 2.1. Everything was interconnected, and theoretically would Just Work--hell it worked better than Windows 3.11. But the problem was that everything was dependent upon "and ifs".

    Want to print a document? Just drag its icon to the printer icon and if your word processor is written right, the document will print without having to start your word processor.

    Don't like the color of your terminal window? Drop a color from the color palette to the window and if its written right, it'll not only change to the color you want, but the program will remember!

    That's just scratching the surface; hpfs, multimedia, Christ, even the GNU tools all ran under OS/2 (heck, that's how I discovered tcsh, which has been my command line shell for longer than I've known *nix!).

    Of course history chose the winner. The WPS was the Win 95 shell done right. It took MS, what, 6 years? to get Windows to the stability of OS/2. Alas, OS/2 is now a corpse. I understand it's still being used, but not to the extent that it could have been. OS/2 was elegant, and Win 95 brutish--having the feel of someone trying to forge the Mona Lisa with a Crayola. Of course, time marches on, and I was able to dodge the Microsoft tax all throughout college by using Linux, which has slowly pulled itself up to start feeling vaguely like the WPS. KDE 4.2 and its promise of further integration of ... stuff has my curiosity piqued. You're right, though, OS/2 is dead, and people should be looking to migrate their software to something a little more modern.

  16. Linux ate OS/2 market share IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a very fanatical OS/2 user. Not fanatical in a zealotish way but fanatical in that I liked doing all I needed on my PC using OS/2. Some minor issues which couldn't be done were usually easily solved when opening up OS/2 Windows. Another issue is that I actually paid for my sofware. And OS/2 knew some great software packages! If you like GQView these days; I was using something very similiar long before we even heard from Gnome and KDE.

    But it became awfully tricky when IBM dropped support for OS/2 and eventually I made the jump fully to Linux. Right now I'm very happy with Ubuntu using a KDE desktop. And the fact that it doesn't have to cost me much is naturally a very welcome benefit as well.

    Now, this was years ago. I sometimes try to install my Warp and Merlin CD's in some kind of virtual machine but mostly to no avail (I did got Warp running though). However, I have tried a few of the ComStation live cd's to see what it was all about. And quite frankly; it doesn't manage to impress me one bit. Sure; its a nice revival of the old OS/2 but its main problem (IMO ofcourse) is that it didn't go along with recent developments but instead got stuck somewhere in the last century.

    Now; bear with me. I can understand that the developers can only do so much with it. But it would have been a lot better if they would have tried to utilize other people's researches and developments as well. OS/2 had some very powerfull desktop enhancers. Some of those even managed to build an entire business out of their single product because.. it actually sold (I bought several copies myself as well). But.. None of that on eComstation. The interface is basically the same as what we were used to, but which most of us have most likely outgrown.

    So instead of wasting money on projects like these I'd think that money would be better put into OS development. But even that might not be enough to get back much of the marketshare. Lets face it; Linux has ate up a lot of marketshare. I sure wouldn't even consider going back anymore. So my stance on this? "Too little, too late", even though I admire the effort.

  17. Yes, but no virus or trojans by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    I run OS/2 as my primary desktop. I'm safe from viruii as there is none for it.

    There is some security through obscurity.

  18. Re:I'm not sure that this is the place for bountie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

    Ah, you should have seen the 90s! There were OS/2 fanboys that made the Apple guys look like sissy boys. They were rabid. Just say, "OS/2 is what, DOS 5.0?"
    Ooooo Weeee! It would have been better to call their mother a whore!

  19. They should port the OS/2 API to Linux by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to be a OS/2 user, but I stopped about 4 years ago. I sympathize with the OS/2 community, because it was my geek "home" for a while, but they're going about it all wrong. I tried to convince them a long time ago, but they never listened.

    The OS/2 kernel is seriously outdated. Hardware support is minimal, and the kernel itself is just dated. It's mostly 16-bit. So there's no reason to keep it. A few people insist that the OS/2 kernel is "nicer" or "better" than the Linux kernel is some way, but these people don't know anything about kernels. It's a stupid argument.

    The OS/2 community should port the OS/2 API to Linux. This will allow them to run the WPS (the illustrious GUI that OS/2 users rave about) and every other OS/2 application. This would be a one-time effort, because the API is stable. It hasn't been updated in almost 10 years. Not only that, but it's very well documented

    Instead, these guys keep trying to port Linux applications to OS/2. If every OS/2 developer dropped what he was doing and worked on porting the OS/2 API, they'd be done in about a year. They would never have to ask for any more help ever again. The user base would actually grow, even. They'd be able to use all of their applications forever, even on newer hardware. Device support would never be a problem. Even businesses that are based on OS/2 would start moving to Linux. It would be win-win for everyone.

    In fact, the WPS might even become quite popular. Someone might try to make an open source version of it, and it might even become a replacement GUI for Linux, competing with Gnome and KDE.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:They should port the OS/2 API to Linux by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike ... Linux, the OS would prevent applications from overwriting protected memory, accessing I/O devices directly, or reprogramming the interrupt controller

      What... the... hell? Linux has always prevented userland applications from doing these things, as have modern versions of Windows.

  20. Some bounty! by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For the Tuniac port - Tuniac/2

    Below it, it says: Current Bounty: $0

    I used to be an OS/2 developer. For me to get a compiler, the OS, a machine to install all that stuff on, and the time to do it, I would want a lot of money to do it. Let's put it this way, enough to buy a new car.

  21. Who would want to? by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously. Who really wants to write for OS/2 that already isn't doing it? I remember, about ten years ago, a club I belong to was auctioning off a copy to raise money. A good friend of mine outbid everybody, even though he made it clear he was going to take it outside after the meeting and throw it in a random trash can on his way home. He'd just finished a project that required porting something to OS/2 and he hated the OS so much that he was willing to pay good money for the privilege of trashing a copy.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  22. Already a well-supported guest on VirtualBox by digitalderbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I appreciate that I'm likely missing the point, isn't the fact that OS/2 already well supported on VirtualBox good enough? Isn't it sufficient for your application needs to run it as a guest on a Linux or Windows host?

    What's the motivation?

  23. Barrier to entry by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As i understand it, OS/2 still costs money to obtain...
    So there's very little incentive for a hobbyist programmer to obtain a copy just to play with... The only people using it, will be those who are stuck with it for legacy reasons, it won't gather any new users.
    There are several niche open source OS's out there, and there's no barrier to stop people downloading them to try (i regularly download new builds of AROS, Reactos, Syllable etc)

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  24. NEWs? by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of these bounties were created in 2005.

  25. This just in, OS/2 users drive Ford Pintos by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Funny

    I surveyed the OS/2 user community. 95% of them drive vintage Ford Pintos. The other 5% still drive their Mom's station wagon.

  26. This will be my next project by Alonzo+Meatman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll accept a few of these bounties as soon as I have the chance. However, right now I'm too busy porting OpenMUMPS to the Atari ST. I'll get back to you in a year or so.

  27. Re:Wtf by toriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ooh, the Win16 layer reprise: Having the Win16 support in OS/2 was a major contributor to its downfall since there was no reason for vendors to make native apps when they could make Win16 apps and sell to both Windows and OS/2 users.

  28. Car analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am willing to pay $150 for alloy wheels for my Ford Model T, anybody interested?

  29. Re:Wtf by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Virtual Box is actually the last OS/2 program that Innotek wrote, they just reversed the usual method and wrote a program to run OS/2 instead of a program that runs under OS/2.
    Virtual Box runs on OS/2 but the QT interface is a bit flaky so have to use the SDL interface.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  30. Re:Wtf by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A VERY large national bank/mortgage originator did just that. They had their certified software on OS/2 and porting and recertifying in all 50 states was going to cost a HUGE amount of money, so they had their windows workstations upgraded with double the ram and dropped in new HDD's that had a new standard windows image with virtual PC running OS/2 and their app. This cut their workstation count for that division in half and they had a crudload of 2 port KVM's that they sold to some reseller. It was a fun project to work on, got to see a lot of the country on the clients dime =)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  31. Instead of this by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of this, why not offer rewards to port the interesting bits of OS/2 over to Linux. Pick whichever X server is closest to OS/2, create a fork, and start reworking it.

    OS/2 is basically dead at this point. IBM no longer tries to sell it to consumers, and there isn't enough hardware support for current systems.

    Instead of being stuck of a dead-end OS, drag it into the modern era. If you port it to run on top of Linux, then you automatically get newer device drivers, the possibility to run on non-Intel hardware, free development code (gcc, gdb, etc), and a huge quantity of existing software.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  32. Please, God, let it DIE! by JasonEngel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Look, people, it's simple.

    OS/2 was a horse. More like a sway-backed nag.
    It died.
    More than 10 years ago.
    ???
    There is NO profit!


    Seriously - Stop beating this dead horse!

  33. OS/2 was the only acceptable option by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.

    Of course. Heck, OS/2 is still in use in a lot of ATMs, voice mail systems, and so on today, although it's being phased out due to lack of support. But there are ATM's in my area that I know are running OS/2. Our Nortel Norstar voice mail unit at work runs OS/2. In the 1980s and 1990s, OS/2 was very commonly used when you wanted to embed a general-purpose computer system into an "appliance" scenario. That's because it was, to a large extent, the only acceptable option.

    Consider, it's 1990, and you want to build some kind of computerized "appliance". Maybe it's a voice mail system, or a bank ATM, or an electronic message board, or whatever. You want to use a general-purpose computer, because that lowers costs and enables third-party "layered product" options. GP hardware is cheaper, software development on a GP platform is easier (since the test target can be the same as the development environment), and there's a bigger third-party community to tap.

    So what are your choices? Linux doesn't exist yet. Commercial Unix platforms (SGI/Irix, SunOS, HP-UX, DEC/Ultrix, etc.) are very expensive. BSD is tied up in legal wranglings, and support for commodity micros (IBM-PC, Mac) is limited at the time. DOS barely provides disk services and is useless for everything else, so you'd practically have to write your own OS. MS Windows runs on top of DOS and is basically just a GUI -- inappropriate for most embedded applications -- and has stability issues. Win NT doesn't exist yet. Xenix is a joke. SCO Unix is painfully clunky and hideously expensive.

    And then there is OS/2. It's a preemptive multitasking, protected memory OS. It runs on IBM-PC-compatible computers, the platform with the biggest market presence and the most third-party support -- and also the cheapest hardware. It's from IBM, the single biggest name in computing. IBM and Microsoft both say it's the wave of the future. It's relatively inexpensive when purchased in bulk. Seems like a no brainer, right?

    Obviously, looking back with 20/20 hindsight today, OS/2 seems like a strange choice, but at the time, it made perfect sense.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  34. Community? by clockwise_music · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's an OS/2 community?

    And I thought that Trekkies were nerdy.

  35. My bounty is for O/S2 to be open source. by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Otherwise go the way of Commodore.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  36. Really good points. by Ricardo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you have the solution in a nutshell here.

    Porting the OS/2 API would solve alot of these problems, quickly (relatively) and permanently.

    I wonder how many of the people who are pushing for a ground up rewrite of the OS would be happy with that.

    A few years back I got a savage requirement to relive my C64 old days, and even though there were emulators that were if anything "better than the real thing" - thanks to virtual disks etc, they were of no interest to Me. I had to have the "real thing" back.
    I don't understand it, but there it is. Thank goodness I did'nt want to run an old Cray OS :)

    --
    Move along... there is no sig here.