Slashdot Mirror


eComStation 2.2 Beta, the Legacy of OS/2 Lives On

An anonymous reader writes "Yes, those OS/2 Warp bastards just don't want to quit. Today the eComStation 2.2 beta live CD was released for public download. There is also this positive review from TechRepublic, and OS/2 Zelots partying/ranting at their community sites."

14 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Somehow OS/2 is the antitheses of HURD by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    HURD lives on in a half-life without ever being born. OS/2 lives on in a half-life without ever dying. You wonder why either of them still exist

    1. Re:Somehow OS/2 is the antitheses of HURD by smash · · Score: 2

      I've seen ATMs still running OS2 / eComStation within the past couple of years.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:Somehow OS/2 is the antitheses of HURD by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those of us who do support on systems from many different clients really don't wonder why they still exist.

      HURD is one thing; we don't really wonder why it's stillborn. OS/2, or more specifically eComStation, is something else entirely. OS/2 has a history of commercial support, which means it's also got a history of applications with support. Support means that people used those applications, on the OS, in a business capacity. Think of OSes like: SCO, DOS, and yes, OS/2.

      Just because the OS, and application, support goes away doesn't mean those applications aren't still needed. There are a LOT of applications out there which were written one-off, for a single client in a specific role. The companies that wrote them may not even be in business anymore, but the application still works and the the cost of

      So people are running their applications on legacy operating systems, sometimes on some pretty janky hardware (I once saw an old box with IDE controllers on a proprietary IDE RAID controller - with half the RAID consisting of CF cards on adapters). Maybe they've managed to virtualize the platform, or partially virtualize it (such as when there's a hardware platform to the application, requiring COM port bridging to the guest so that a USB to COM adapter can be used to interface with a proprietary reader/etc. - you get the point).

      No, it's not an ideal business scenario, and there are certainly situations where a lot can go wrong, ruining your day. But There are a lot of these companies, which means there's a special use case for support. Or just in-house people needing to upgrade things to keep as much of their stack compatible as they can.

      So yeah, there is still a need for such legacy platforms. Just because it's not shiney and new doesn't mean it's lacking a valid business case.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Somehow OS/2 is the antitheses of HURD by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      I've seen ATMs still running OS2 / eComStation within the past couple of years.

      Probably, because they have been running for the past couple of years. They were started once and just kept running, and never needed to be rebooted.

      Warp, eh? I remember it when it was still called Cruiser . . . get off my lawn filled with stacks of OS/2 install diskettes . . . with unfeasibly long titles, that start with: "IBM SAA AD/Cycle OS/2 . . . "

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Somehow OS/2 is the antitheses of HURD by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Comcast still have NT 3.51 servers running in headends that are making them lots of money every day for Tv commercial insertion. IF you have halfway competent networking people, you can keep running an OS on legacy hardware forever safely.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  2. For those who don't get it ... by MacTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OS/2 was used by major corporations back in the day. Even though most of those installations have been replaced with Windows, a few of them remain because: the cost of replacing custom or specialized software can be quite high, and the cost of replacing equipment that is currently in service can be quite high. Serenity Systems (the people who maintain eCS) was created to service these installations.

    A nice benefit is that OS/2 remains (moderately) updated for other users.

  3. Re:A reminder... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a good reminder of why Microsoft should never be trusted. Ever.
    OS/2 was gaining significant ground and (in theory) could have been *Linux* today.
    OS/2 was very advanced at the time.
    Excepting, MS paid off IBM to kill it so it wouldn't interfere with their race to the desktop.
    No jail time, no DoJ investigation; nothing...

    Let's see how well secure boot works.

    Actually, OS/2 and Linux co-existed side-by-side in the 1990s and one of the most frustrating things was that it was easier to get free Linux support from open-source resources than it was to get paid OS/2 support from one of the largest companies in the world. And we had 2 multi-CPU IBM mainframes at the time, which should have counted for something. As it was, every time we finally found someone in IBM who could help us, they ended up leaving IBM shortly thereafter, and us without support.

    OS/2 support sucked. The IBM program products all used different and incompatible preferences and logfile formats, typically only readable by a proprietary IBM program; compare to Linux where the preferences and logs were/are in text files (and thus processable by text utilities) and in well-defined, consistent locations.

    Yes, OS/2 had some worthwhile features, but in the end, they weren't enough, especially with Microsoft patting them on the back with knife in hand. Windows contains some of the same horribleness that OS/2 did, but less of it, and that made a lot of difference.

  4. Please by Cornwallis · · Score: 2

    What the hell is a "Zelot"?

    1. Re:Please by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      zealot + Grammar Nazi = zelot

  5. Re:A reminder... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When I signed on with their support center in 1993, pretty much anyone could call the OS/2 support line for anything and get some of the best-rated support in the industry. A lot of the level 1 guys didn't have any experience with computers when they started, but even if you got someone completely inept at searching the problem database, they'd queue your ticket up to level 2 without complaint. You might get a call-back a couple days later, but you'd probably get an answer. That answer might be "Oh, that's working as designed," but you'd get an answer. We also provided electronic forum support through Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy forums.

    It didn't take too long after I signed on before they instituted the processes requiring you to prove you owned a legitimate copy of the product and limiting the amount of support you could get for free. Someone mentioned a number for what just answering the phone cost IBM. I don't recall the exact number, but it was surprisingly large -- somewhere in the $30-$40 range IIRC. So they did away with the call screeners who had previously been taking down customer information before transferring the call to support. The support person answering your call still had the same daily call quota, but also the added responsibility of requiring the customer to prove they were entitled to support, jockying the new 900 number support line and dealing with the technical question. As a reasonably competent level 1 guy, maybe I could fix your shit, but now I had just enough time to understand your problem (or sometimes not,) and take down your information for a level 2 person. I transferred to electronic forum support as this was taking place, and that really was the best place to go to get an answer while we were doing it.

    Despite the cost constraints, the people down in Boca really were committed to delivering quality support and the highest customer satisfaction with the support that we could muster. IBM has always had the smoothest process of any place I've ever worked, and they had 5 or 6 different contracting companies in rows of cubes there all working together cohesively. I've never seen that large a team working together that smoothly, before or since. At one point there was a plan that all the level 1 guys would get their IBM "OS/2 Certified Engineer" certification, though I think I may have been the only support person ever to have actually done so -- the were doing the cert test for free at the 95 spring COMDEX and I knocked it out. A few months later, IBM announced they were closing the Boca Raton site and it was over.

    IBM's problem with OS/2 was they viewed it as a profit-making enterprise. Microsoft knew their OS was a conduit for all their other products. When you control the OS and the APIs, you have a tremendous amount of leverage for the platform. Microsoft squeezes a little more money out of their OS now that they're at nearly market saturation, but I think they still realize the value of controlling the OS on the desktop. IBM never seemed to. Anything at IBM was either profitable on its own or an enabler to the sale of their big iron. OS/2 was always fantastic at talking to the big iron, but didn't move units. People would buy the mainframe and then get OS/2 as an afterthought instead of some mainframe terminals.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  6. It had its moments by XB-70 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I ran OS/2 for a couple of years during its heyday in our shop. The key was to put in lots of expensive RAM. When we did so, our users were actually running 3-4 apps at once. For the time, this was very powerful. Moreover, when one app crashed, it rarely took down the whole machine. At a time when lots of things crashed for a lot of reasons, I got my users' uptime to about 90%.

    In short, everyone in my office had higher productivity which more than paid for the expensive RAM: They were not constantly waiting for machines to re-boot.

    If ever there has been a case for a class-action lawsuit, it should have been against Microsoft for all the business hours lost waiting for Windows to re-boot due to a windows bug. If our cars ran the way Windows used to, we'd all have walked to work.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  7. Re:A reminder... by angulion · · Score: 2

    Back in the 90-ies I used to run a popular BBS, I tried to go modern and multitask with win31 instead of desqview. Users forced me to change and I went for OS/2 which worked wonders (maybe - 92).. What I remember to this day is that some stuff just was much more logical in OS/2 than still in this day in windows (DnD, drag on appicon etc.)

    Really liked it and it is nice to see that its legacy is living on.

  8. Re:OS/2 was XP A decade earlier by dryeo · · Score: 2

    VirtualBox was originally written to run OS/2 by an OS/2 vendor, Innotek who amongst other things had previously fixed Virtual PC to run OS/2 and run on OS/2. Of course then MS bought VPC.
    VirtualBox ended up the fabled OS/2 killer app but backwards, running OS/2 instead of running under OS/2 and took off. Unluckily Sun didn't care much for OS/2 and now...

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  9. osFree = FOSS OS/2 by unixisc · · Score: 2

    It's there - heard of osFree? Essentially, it consists of the L4 microkernel, which has multiple personalities riding over it - a Presentation Manager personality, a win16 personality, a win32 personality and a neutral personality. The last one is the native personality that provides the microkernel services to all the overriding subsystems. This is somewhat similar to IBM's Workplace OS that they were trying to do in the 90s to give PPC a native OS of its own, except that instead of the slow Mach 3 microkernel, they are using a real, modern microkernel this time. The project also has in its agenda support for OS/2 features such as REXX, DSOM, et al. The best part of this project is that since L4 has been ported to multiple CPUs, this osFree can ride on several different CPUs, not just x86. Last but not least, it's dual licensed under both GPL/LGPL and BSDL.

    Unlike Windows/ReactOS, since OS/2 never had a whole lot of native software, this platform could have its own collection of FOSS software for it. Now, if only the OS/2 community threw its lot behind it...