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.
I would be delighted to switch my window manager back to the Workplace Shell (well, provided that there were keyboard shortcuts). I would not be so delighted to again deal with the SIQ lockups (but I imagine a port of WPS to X11 wouldn't have that problem, except to the extent that its own components might themselves use their own queue). I also would worry about EA corruption, which was always a concern with OS/2 as the collection of cruft in EAs kept growing and often a little mistake led one to need to repair them (or reinstall the system).
Anyhow, point is if I could just have the interface back, with some light Unix sensibilities injected, I'd be happy to switch from WindowMaker back to WPS. (Actually, having Stardock's Object Desktop as part of that would be a huge plus).
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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.
This is just typical of IBM Services missing a delivery target.
The article is really an April 1st joke, but the 12th was the closest they could come. Probably need a few more contractor billable hours next time.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People moan and whine because there's Gnome and KDE (although there's increasingly a bit of a norm unifying the whole thing thanks to opendesktop) and now they pull, out of all things, OS/2 services ?
Granted, why not ? But the few who actually worked on OS/2 programming let it go a long time ago. And why OS/2 and not [insert whatever other dead system here] ?
Everybody nowadays either uses Unix or Windows. Come up with something new or work with the crowd. Out with the IT necromancy I say. Bring out the torches and pitchforks !
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
You seem to miss the thousands of banks and financial institutions that were using it as well. OS/2 was far more prevalent in large businesses than it ever was with home users.
.technomancer
OS/2 is still running ATMs, train systems, all kinds of important things. It never went away.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Gnome and KDE are fine, but if IBM really wanted to, they could make them both obsolete pretty quickly with an update WPS interface. Plus, let's face it, at this stage in the "Linux on the desktop" battle, Linux *needs* an official, fully-funded commercial desktop environment. The Gnome vs. KDE battle is retarded, and both DEs are starting to get kind of nutty. IBM could restore sanity.
I'm all for it, personally. But I also think it's obvious that this is just a rumor.
They could port the OS/2 userspace APIs to linux. It would probably work pretty well. They could probably make it load and run OS/2 EXEs and DLLs unchanged. That would be cool.
(Spent some years of my life working on IBMs C++ compiler for OS/2.)
Ian Ameline
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.
Finally, I've been dreaming for this day to come for years now. I've been using the PS/2 to USB adapter on my model M keyboard but it's adding unnecessary latency, not to mention USB's slow polling rate sucks. Now I can finally plug my keyboard into a native PS/2 port!
What? What do you mean TFA wasn't talking about the port?
I am one of them :D
Ran it, wrote code for it, supported it for 10,000 users from version 2 to version 4.
Unfortunately, they kind of pulled the wind out of the sails around the time Win 95/98 came out, so it didn't really make sense to stay with it.
I still miss little things like being able to reset the video to the default driver with a key combo, SNA/3270 support (which matters if you're not addicted to using a VB front-end for your mainframe), the first graphical remote desktop support, and a really great CDE style dock.
Oh, and REXX. I loved REXX... that was a great language.
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
I also would worry about EA corruption
Did EA even make any games for OS/2?
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.
SOM programming was a pain in the ass: code an IDL, precompile and get C header file from Hell (it was akin to the first C++ precomilers that would implement everything in C), link, and then there was a binding operation - IIRC. For the WPS, you'd create a dll that would extend it - your application was really a dll that was run by the desktop. It did allow multi threading BUT it was all in the same address space meaning, a bad app took out the whole desktop.
In a nutshell, GNOME and KDE is better than what IBM had invented 18 years ago.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
When I worked for the state there was a company contracted to develop a whole suite of Windows applications to move us off the old VAX green-screen interfaces into the modern world. Most of the department ran on Windows NT 4.
So naturally, the contractor developed all of their applications on a Windows NT 3.51 emulator running under OS/2.
Aaaaand after millions of dollars spent, the contractor demonstrated their applications (working flawlessly under the emulator in OS/2) got their money and high-tailed it, leaving us IT schlubs to implement the applications. All the apps immediately crashed when we attempted to run them in the real NT 4 environment. We never did get them working, except on the few workstations actually running OS/2 with an NT emulator.
Your tax dollars at work. Remember kids, watch your specifications when hiring a contractor!
Since MS has won the desktop OS battle, IBM has been behaving as a small company, but they are not. Sure the company that IS big IT must have more aspirations then just being a service provider?
And of course they are a lot more, but once they were the face of IT to ordinary people. You bought an IBM or at least an IBM compatible.
And now?
So if this story has some truth in it, it could mark an attempt by IBM to get back out there and fight in a crowded market place and not just charge 1000 dollars per hour for its personnel.
Doubt this is the case but I have always had the thought that if anyone can break the current stalemates it is IBM. It could force both hardware and software makers to worry about competition again.
Not that I think it is likely, IBM does quite well as it is. But it would be more intresting if it is true.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Buying software from IBM just encourages them to write more.
How about because the X Window System actually sucks?
How about because there is a better way of doing things?
How about because a standardized UI is better than the crap out there now?
Is that reason enough for you?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Hmm... by the last count in this thread, there's three of us. I shall dispose of the usurper and set things right.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Actually, there was some exchange of technologies going on between Amiga and OS/2. IBM gave Amiga REXX in exchange for some general desktop enviroment tech; something like that.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Now called z/OS, it is still popular too, mostly as the backend to all those OS/2 ATMs. However, neither will see a resurgence. The PC market is 'mature' and will not have room for another general purpose OS. The future of operating system is in the mobile device, then in dedicated purpose devices such as cars, appliances, and gadgets.
OS/2 was a basterd child. I had the first OS/2 developers kit. It cost $3,000, had no GUI (PM came later), and wouldn't compile "Hello World." The day after I got the SDK, I drove from SF to Seattle to attend the first OS/2 developers' conference at the Westin. Balmer was there but Gates was not. I wondered why the head geek did not show up for such a "big event." Now we all know why.
In 1996 I called IBM Support about the fact that my IBM Aptiva was having memory problems. When they found out I had OS/2 Warp installed they refused to help unless I installed MS Windows. I have not purchased an IBM product since.
That was a move I just couldn't understand - IBM dropping OS/2 just as Windows 95 came out.
Here's the situation - Microsoft is forcing it's user base to migrate off of DOS and Windows 3.x. Both Windows 95 and OS/2 are backward compatible with DOS/Windows 3.x, and at the time, there were more native applications available for OS/2 than applications that used Windows 95's exclusive features, and OS/2 was far and away acknowledged to be the technically superior OS. Since Microsoft was forcing a migration to an unfamiliar environment in any event, you'd have thought it would have been the perfect opportunity for IBM to swoop in and grab some of Microsoft's user base.
So, given a golden opportunity to capitalize on a disruption in the OS market, what did IBM do? Dropped OS/2 like a hot potato and walked away without looking back. I just couldn't understand their reasoning.
A resurgence of OS/2 at this point might be a cute trick, but I doubt it's going to happen. Given that IBM is currently doing everything it can to cut costs and is laying off people left and right, I can't really see them investing resources into a product that has limited interest in it. It's not even clear that they still have the expertise on the payroll to pull it off. It's a great rumor, but sorry, in the current environment, I'm just not seeing this as happening.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
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.
> ...the first graphical remote desktop support...
The X Window System was first.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
BeOS, AmigaOS User Groups Say OS/2 Not As Worthy Of Rebirth As Their OS, Scuffle Ensues
General Availability (GA) Release 2.0 Of eComStation Announced For Autumn 2009
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"2 guys who had it" jokes aside, back around 1994-95, OS/2 was way more common than Linux seems to be today. I knew several friends who had it and it blew Win 3.1 away. I actually considered getting it myself, until MS started touting Win 95. I remember them selling OS/2 pretty much everywhere you could buy software. IIRC, you could even buy it at Walmart. I suspect this was one of the main reasons that MS launched such a heavy-duty ad campaign for MS 95 (one of the biggest software ad campaigns ever launched up until then). After Win 95 came out, it pretty much disappeared, but there for a while it was pretty well regarded in computer-savy circles as a superior choice to Windows.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Are you kidding? I was running OS/2 back in the day (1994-1997) and IBM did not just drop it. They picked a really weird campaign to promote OS/2 Warp (as in hippy warped, and not Warp-speed). What really killed IBM was the existing Microsoft OEM licensing - there just wasn't a chance to get OS/2 in the marketplace.
When a computer cost $1500-$2000 for just the low-end, a $250 OS price difference on top of that was a non-starter. If Windows95 has to stand on it's own on the shelf at Computer City or CompUSA like OS/2 did, it might, *MIGHT*, be a different world now.
Up until rather recently, a large majority of bank ATM's ran OS/2.
Many call centers ran software that used OS/2.
OS/2's attempt to reach the consumer market were laughable - they sponsored the OS/2 Fiesta Bowl in the 1990's, without explaining to the public what OS/2 even was - but the software was everywhere in the corporate world it seemed. (for those slashdotters who don't know what the Fiesta Bowl is, it's one of the biggest college football ball games.)
Ford car dealerships ran a satelite uplink system that required OS/2.
I used it to ran a multiline BBS. It was good stuff. Even today, many of the guts (and filenames) of Windows stem from MS's long ago partnership with IBM....the more stable portions of Windows.
Not sure what the relevance of it today would be, but it was more widespread than you might think.
OS2 is what pushed me unto the unix for good. My bad ass 486-25 sx (with math coprocessor), 16 meg of ram and WHOPPING 1.2gig full height scsi drive was hungering for some more fun. I had been running a hodge podge of operating systems and had settled on DESQView/X. I had it all, running windows 3.0 apps, command shells, x applications, even X apps from remote! But then a new version of OS2 came out (2.0? 2.1?) that promised me everything DESQView/X was giving me, but running with out DOS! THE FUTURE HAD ARRIVED!
OS/2 promptly ate my partition table and destroyed all my DVX, windows and dos partitions.
I was so effing pissed that it did this without really asking me anything that I swore it off. Fortunately something sorta BIG had just happened there on them ol' USENETs: The new 11 Floppy version of Slackware dropped. I installed it... and never looked back.
--- I do not moderate.
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?
For those who don't know, a Workgroup Folder allowed one to put a group of programs and/or documents in a single folder and then open/close those elements as a single logical unit. Open the folder, and all of your programs and associated documents popped open. Close the folder, and everything closed as a unit. It was very slick...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Or both
According to IDC, IBM shipped a total of 4.5 million units of desktop OS/2 (with another 275,000 as servers) in 1995.
To put that in perspective, note that Apple shipped 4.8 million Macintoshes in 1995, all running System 7.5, plus another 800,000-900,000 System 7.5 upgrades.
It was almost as popular as the Mac in 1995, and the Mac was #2 to Windows at that time.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
It ran useably with 4 megs, and it flew with 16. All versions.
OS/2 worked quite well on "business-class" hardware ... 3Com and Intel NICs were almost always support, Matrox was well known for its quality OS/2 drivers, Creative Labs soundcards were well-supported through the AWE64 until they completely changed the chipset and stopped writing drivers for OS/2, etc.
With a little research, it wasn't difficult at all to get a PC to run with OS/2, but sometimes that meant replacing a component. OS/2 had the same issue that Linux did at the time ... most hardware manufacturers tended to provide drivers for Windows only, so you were somewhat limited in what you could use. But sometimes the hardware switch was well worth it ... the original Matrox MGA Millenium was one of the fastest cards around on all platforms for a while, for example, and its OS/2 drivers were second to none.
OS/2 also had EXCELLENT SCSI support, and that plus SCSI's performance advantages over IDE drives of the early/mid 90's made Adaptec controllers the priimary choice for many of the OS/2 folks I knew. Linux had good support for those SCSI cards, too.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Sigh, I wish my unfinished OS/2 Warp installation on VMWare Fusion didn't hang so I could play a bit with it for nostalgia. To the credit of VMWare, that emulates perfectly what it used to do on more than one system.
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.
That's correct; the Amiga came out in mid-1985, a matter of months before Windows 1.0. But my point was that the Amiga still had an advanced version of this functionality before even the most crude version of Windows was available. More significantly is that Windows took 8 (with NT) or 10 years (with Windows 95) to get "real" pre-emptive multitasking, even when it had long overtaken the Amiga in terms of raw power.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I used OS/2 1.3 - Warp between 1993 and 2000 both as a user and a developer with it as a target platform. Although at the top when I switched to Warp (1994), it was streets ahead of Windows (with the exception of NT 3.1/3.5 - but they had heavy resource consumption for the time!), there were still major problems:
1) The SIQ - Truly horrible - just as for Windows 3.0/3.1, it was just far too easy to get the whole system to lockup (basically all PM based apps used a single system input queue, thus if any blocked for long........)
2) Hardware support, though much improved with Warp was still very iffy, especially back in the days of OS/2 2.1, I remember setting up the netware drivers on my desktop - sheets of typed up A4, lots of config.sys hacking etc.
3) Even back then, the moment Windows 95 appeared (irrespective of it's technical merits), the GUI LOOKed ugly compared to Windows 95s.
It was fast and efficient though, I'll say that for it - a kernel written in assembler, rather than C, but that was probably the very same reason that it was inherently non portable apart from the briefly seen PowerPC version and the briefly living OS/2 2.1 SMP ("Special version"). I don't believe they even supported SMP on anything except that OS/2 2.1 build (i.e. they dropped it again for OS/2 Warp 3 and Warp 4 - maybe I'm wrong).
Linux fan and Win32 developer