Slashdot Mirror
Is OS/2 Coming Back?
mstansberry writes "Is IBM considering relaunching OS/2? One source close to IBM says Big Blue plans to repurpose OS/2 services atop a Linux core. IT managers ask, why now?" Hey, back in simpler times OS/2 was super badass. Both of the guys who ran it were hard core.
Although there are a lot of virtues in UNIX programming, some people just don't like it. They prefer richer APIs that Windows and OS/2 provide.
So with OS/2 aging, it makes sense for IBM to put the APIs onto a modern OS. App migration becomes a cinch, and the future of the system is guaranteed.
Does OS/2 have enough customers to make this porting effort worthwhile? I don't know.
For a lot of companies, if something works there is no reason to mess with it. As hardware gets old and is difficult to replace with devices supported by OS/2, this may be attractive for some companies. In the past 12 months I have visited clients running critical applications on OS/2 and Xenix, while it is easy for an outsider to say "Just upgrade it to a newer application", replicating all the business logic and surrounding process would be costly and disruptive.
Can we have a new tag: "Rhetorical questions to which the answer is 'No'"
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
From TFA, it doesn't sound so much like a desktop environment as it does server protocols. Kinda like Samba, LikewiseOpen, netatalk, etc, provide services and/or connectivity to other OS's protocols, but they don't actually change anything about the Windows environment.
From that standpoint - it's neat, I guess, but I don't think any regular users will care. This is something to throw to those places running systems on legacy installs of OS/2 so that they can move up to modern hardware and a modern OS without having to redo their core applications.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
That's right. OS/2 is the COBOL of operating systems.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Although I agree a new flavor of Linux is never a bad thing, the strengths that made OS/2 a contender back in the day don't exist now. There were very few viable desktop operating systems back then to choose from. Today is a vastly different landscape. From a technical standpoint this is interesting stuff, but certainly not something to write home about. I just don't see something like this making much of an impact to the current landscape.
Oh noes, you've set her off again ... she's going to be reminding everyone how "unique" she is all bloody day now :-(
Amiga is dead. This is good for the computing community as a whole. People need to support something viable to develop on, such as BSD, Linux, Android, or another OSS platform.
There was no more rabid, frothing at the mouth fanbase than the Amiga people. The current Mac advocates or the people that hand you an Ubuntu burn and say "SUK LESS" have nothing on the insanity the Amigoids had for their platform. The fact that a checkered ball could bounce around a screen while a floppy was formatting was awe-inspiring to them for almost three decades. Go hit a NNTP archive site, and look at comp.sys.amiga.advocacy in the early 1990s if you want a taste of this keening insanity.
It took over two decades for the mindless advocacy for a dead platform to finally die down. These days any garden variety Mac or Windows box can do video and sound.
AmigaOS was cool way back when. However, PCs caught up, and because C= didn't bring anything new to the platform, people moved on, and the Eggplant/Implant/Video Toaster setups ended up either in the ashbin of history, or in an attic for a future Stan Veit to comment on.
The platform is dead; deal with it.
Well..., duh. Back in them days, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM..." was a literal truism. Still didn't make it a good idea, then or now.
You think there are more "viable" desktop operating systems available today than back when OS/2 was released?
Are you sure?
You are welcome on my lawn.
"I would not be so delighted to again deal with the SIQ lockups" - by Improv (2467) on Wednesday April 14, @12:57PM (#31846640) Homepage
This can, & has been, "gotten around" on OTHER OS', such as Windows NT-based ones (&, probably others as well of more modern variety), by using MULTIPLE MESSAGE QUEUES (so there isn't just a single one to lockup)...
----
"I also would worry about EA corruption" - by Improv (2467) on Wednesday April 14, @12:57PM (#31846640) Homepage
Then, instead of HPFS? You'd tend to think that IBM would stick by some variant in the LINUX world, like ext3 etc./et al, instead... simple!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly, pPer the subject-article's concluding quote:
"Hey, back in simpler times OS/2 was super badass. Both of the guys who ran it were hard core."
Well, per that line, & the way you speak? I must be replying to that "other guy", because I ran OS/2 2.1 - 3.0 here back circa 1994-1995 & I like it, a lot... I had all kinds of good tools for it, like GammaTech's utilities (much like Norton Utitilties was for DOS, with your defragger, GUI chkdsk, & more), The DeScribe Word Processor (good for its day), Borland C++ for OS/2 & I was "all set" pretty much, & loved it...
So, I agree - it'd be nice to see it "make a comeback", albeit with a LINUX solid core underneath & yet, to still have the cmd.exe command processor tty console too, & its functions as well in concert w/ those of LINUX command prompts/consoles/tty's too, like BA$H etc. also! apkj
I think you need to brush up on your history, and maybe use a less "book" definition of OS - there were several competitors even in the PC market. Also, there's a bit of apples-to-oranges comparison with the "per platform" qualifier, as there was more platform diversity back then.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Os2 was still used heavily up until a few years ago. Many ATM machines ran it because it was 8000% more stable than any of microsoft's Operating systems.
Honestly OS2 can certainly thrive it has big blue's name behind it, If they make a Linux distro with it that is really hardened and stable, they can own several markets quite quickly.
Look at the government. They dont have a stable OS to use for any military operations.
I know a lot of people that wish that microsoft would make a real industrial OS instead of a Consumer grade OS with some security slapped on it for servers. They could do it, they choose not to because it's cheaper to maintain a single codebase and simply enable or disable features.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Would it not make more sense to open source the existing code base? As I understand it some of the code was created by Microsoft so they probably can't do so with that, but the Wikipedia article suggests that code from ReactOS might be able to fill the gap. That said, I guess it would have years of development to catch up on anyway, but surely it would require less work that way than something like Haiku?
The Amiga had proper co-operative multitasking around a decade(!) before Windows
Amiga multitasking was pre-emptive, not cooperative. Much better. Windows multi-tasking was cooperative (if that) until Windows NT/95. Pre-emptive multitasking was where Amiga OS had a ten year advantage over common versions of Windows. The Mac didn't get co-operative multitasking until System 7, and pre-emptive multitasking on the Mac didn't come until Mac OS X.
The main problem with AmigaOS was that there was no security or process isolation to speak of. That made it _extremely_ fast, but also rather vulnerable to a variety of problems.