Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Return of OS/2 Warp Set For 2016 (techrepublic.com)

Posted by timothy on from the also-the-return-of-velcro-shoes dept.

An anonymous reader writes: We all know the ill-fated history of IBM's OS/2 Warp, while some others may not know about the first OS/2-OEM distribution called eComStation. Now a new company called Arca Noae, not happy with the results of this last distribution, has signed an agreement with IBM to create a new OS/2 version. They announced a new OS, codenamed "Blue Lion," at Warpstock 2015 this last October; this will be based on OS/2 Warp 4.52 and the SMP kernel. The OS/2 community has taken this news with positivism and the OS2World community is now requesting everybody that has developed for OS/2 on the past to open source their source code to collaborate.

49 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. WTF is "positivism"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> The OS/2 community has taken this news with positivism

    WTF is "positivism"? It sounds like a drug advertised during football games.

    1. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Informative

      positivism
      päztivizm noun
      PHILOSOPHY
      1.
      a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.
      2.
      the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.

      So Sayeth Google.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So...some company signed a distribution agreement with IBM to revive an old operating system and the OS/2 community reacted by taking up philosophy instead of developing or porting any software? Seems about par for the course to me.

    3. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, come on, cite the Marxist definition, it's so much more fun:

      A trend in bourgeois philosophy which declares natural (empirical) sciences to be the sole source of true knowledge and rejects the cognitive value of philosophical study. Positivism emerged in response to the inability of speculative philosophy (e.g. Classical German Idealism) to solve philosophical problems which had arisen as a result of scientific development.

      https://www.marxists.org/refer...

      See, a bourgeois operating system for a bourgeois philosophy.

    4. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Introducing New Positivism

      Positivism can help with feelings of negativity, despair, hopelessness and issues arising from low self esteem. Positivism is not for everyone, ask your doctor if they are stupid enough to prescribe Positivism for you. Positivism may cause sudden sexual arousal and should only be used around really good friends. Test subjects also reported uncontrollable urges to lick someone's ear. Other reported side effects include sudden explosive flatulence combined with diarrhea, random rectal bleeding, finger and or toenails turning orange, and the desire to write computer code no one will ever use. If you experience any of these side effects don't say we didn't warn you. Talk to your doctor before discontinuing Positivism. Try to see him while you have the explosive flatulence combined with diarrhea, as studies show most doctors will allow you to discontinue Positivism if you go crap up their office...

      BigPharmaConglomicon
      Building a better life for our upper management.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 2

      drivers in OS/2 are 16bit.

    6. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      It means someone meant to say 'positivity' and used the wrong word. Perhaps it's because Chrome's spell checker seems to think 'positivity' isn't a word (it's underlined in red as I type this post).

      They should just have written "The OS/2 community has reacted to this news positively" which has the advantage of being normal English.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:WTF is "positivism"? by coldsalmon · · Score: 2

      Logical positivism holds that "only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful." They reject any metaphysical entities that have no basis in reality, such as "the OS/2 community."

  2. OS/2 was great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I never used anything past Warp 3, but it was great running Win 3 software alongside OS/2. This was also stated as its biggest downfall, although this is really overplayed. I don't think any party not inclined to develop for OS/2 was influenced by this at all.

    The DOS compatibility was exceptional.

    Wine is really good now. I don't see this impacting Linux development in the slightest.

    1. Re:OS/2 was great by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      I remember being so blown away by OS2/Warp's ability to multi-task so many applications at once, with such a clean UI. That was in the Windows 3.11 days, before Win95 changed everything. I had a friend who migrated to OS2, and I was seriously considering it myself. But in the end, I decided to wait for Win95. I think if OS2/Warp had come out just a little earlier and gotten more promotion in non-geek circles, it may have become the dominant OS and we would be looking at a very different desktop landscape today.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:OS/2 was great by xdor · · Score: 2

      The OS/2 UI was completely unusable.

      Mouse movement stuttered and input regularly stalled as foreground and background processes took over. While you could occasionally get the same effect in Windows 95 or Windows NT – on OS/2 it was normal operation. Hair pulling frustrating.

    3. Re:OS/2 was great by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      I remember being so blown away by OS2/Warp's ability to multi-task so many applications at once, with such a clean UI.

      As an older programmer, let me suggest one ought to be reticent about saying things like that. I know that by any reasonable standard it should make you sound experienced and therefore worth listening to, but if you have any gray in your hair it's bound to have a very different effect. Like the time I sat next to a guy at a banquet who was reminiscing about when his department got an IBM 701. "Yep," he said with evident satisfaction, "that was a stored program jobbie."

      Employers are looking for programmers who were in diapers while you were being blown away by OS/2, so ixnay on that kind of alktay. Instead practice saying things like "Node.js is so 2015." And when someone asks you what you mean, turn to them, raise one eyebrow, then literally turn your back on them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:OS/2 was great by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      For me, Warp was a love-hate thing. I loved it compared to Win 3.11 for how it ran multiple programs and made good use of memory. I hated it because of the Matrox video card driver and having so many problems with networking. Hand editing net.cfg was so fun! I worked at HP at the time, and running OS/2 at work was an exercise in courage.

    5. Re:OS/2 was great by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I think it was more due to really bad advertising from IBM. I remember OS/2 Warp Commercials, I was computer savvy enough to know OS/2 was an Operating system. Others at that time had no idea what they were trying to sell. Just a bunch of psychedelic colors and people looking amazed at the screen... Without actually showing the OS or its features.
      Microsoft actually showed the product and what new features it could do, although many of such features were inferior to what OS/2 can do, people actually could see them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:OS/2 was great by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      OS/2 Warp was great. Windows at the time was junk. OS/2 would have been Windows if Microsoft hadn't abandoned the partnership and gone their own way. True, IBM wasn't the greatest of companies at times but they did have a better grasp of the big picture beyond a simplistic "make it run applications".

    7. Re:OS/2 was great by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      No, it was 16-bit. And all kernel the drivers (VxD) were also completely 16-bit. In essence, Win95 was just a very complicated DOS application. The 32-bit layer was built on top of it.

  3. My goodness, what fortuitous timing! by kheldan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Draconic, fascist Windows 10 comes out and Microsoft proceeds to try to force it down everyone's throat, and out of left field comes, after what seems like a geologic age, a new version of OS/2. Wow. Not sure what to think of that timing.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:My goodness, what fortuitous timing! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Draconic, fascist Windows 10 comes out and Microsoft proceeds to try to force it down everyone's throat, and out of left field comes, after what seems like a geologic age, a new version of OS/2. Wow. Not sure what to think of that timing.

      This was prophesised in Revelations.

      Lo, and the huge and evil beast with 10 horns was smote by the small usurper, bent over twice in rebirth, and cast out of the heavens into the fiery pit.

      Yea and verily, not until this comes to pass shall the chip be righted, and a thousand years of peace come to pass.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:My goodness, what fortuitous timing! by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

      The chances of OS/2 achieving a significant binary compatibility with Windows NT, or even make a dent in Windows 10's usershare, is unlikely. If you want that to happen, contribute to ReactOS. OS/2 will likely just be used to replace a few ATMs.

  4. OS/2 is still alive? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

    I remember 2.0 back in about 92 or 93 and it was alright but not really special. And then it pretty much died. I can't imagine there are any significant projects still using it. Though I'll probably be told about several who never gave up on it. After all, there are still projects running Motif...

    1. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 2

      OS/2 is relegated to neckbeard's still maintaining their Amigas and C/64 machines playing block/character graphics games.

      I really don't think so. The commercial interest in OS/2 isn't in desktop use or retro computing, but embedded and industrial appliances where OS/2 thrived years after the general public had forgotten it.

      This new release is about protecting investments in such OS/2 based equipment.

    2. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amigas and C/64 machines playing block/character graphics games.

      Amiga, block/character games? You obviously haven't grown up with computers from that era, because the C/64 had graphics that were way ahead of the other similar 8-bit computers and the Amiga had the best graphics of them all. The competition at the time was the Color Computer 2, the TI-99/4A, the PC with either Hercules, CGA or EGA graphics, the Mac with black and white graphics or the Atari ST with much fewer colours on the screen.

      Both the C/64 and the Amiga were king of their own class of computers. That is, until Commodore sat on their asses and everybody passed way ahead of them.

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    3. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      I think the old saying was "Windows aint done until Lotus won't run"

      I had heard the "Windows ain't done until Novell won't run" as well. Microsoft went out of their way to build in incompatibilities that broke all of their competitors. There's no myth about that. It just gets swept under the rug.

    4. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Guys, the actual quote was 'DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run' and that was in reference to Lotus 123.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Being able to preemptively multitask DOS, 16-bit Windows and 32-bit OS/2 apps was pretty special in 1992. And an object-oriented GUI was pretty much exclusive to OS/2 for some time.

      OS/2 is a special OS - because unlike modern OSes designed for portability, it's one of the few that exploited a lot of x86 specific features. That's how it could not only intermingle 16 bit DOS, Windows and OS/2 apps together, but OS/2 1.x was actually a 16-bit OS. Later versions moved to 32-bit, but had the capability of running drivers in 16-bit mode.

      And not just run them, run them pre-emptively. Remember formatting a floppy disk in Win9x and how it would stall out your PC? That was because the Windows 9x kernel called into the BIOS to do that, and when it did, it went to a 16-bit DOS VM to do so (this was how Windows 9x could run DOS drivers as a compatibility mode), but doing so halted the scheduler. Since formatting a floppy disk was a BIOS call, that meant the OS was stalled out into the BIOS.

      NT based kernels didn't have this problem because the NT OS has its own 32-bit routines for formatting a floppy disk, which meant the scheduler kept running.

      OS/2 did one better - it not only could do this, but it kept the scheduler running as well, which meant the system not only wouldn't stall out, but you could mix in ancient drivers with modern drivers and the system would still be functional. And unlike the terribleness that happened when Microsoft tried to do WDM in WinME, mixing drivers in OS/2 didn't result in the stability or huge performance penalties that Windows had.

      So yeah, having a device that would basically never go obsolete since even the oldest of drivers still worked in the newest of OSes... (might be a challenge now since x64 can't run 16-bit code...).

    6. Re:OS/2 is still alive? by styrotech · · Score: 2

      What else could you buy at the time that had preemptive multitasking? That was pretty special.

      An Amiga? Sure it didn't have memory protection (ie Guru Meditations) but it did have preemptive multitasking.

  5. You're so mainstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's some very nuanced shit somewhere between nouveau-modernism and post-primitive relativism that is popular in New York. It has to be viewed through thick black glasses while sipping PBR and smoking American Spirits.

    I'd tell you more about the movement, but at 42, I can't skateboard as fast as I used too.

    Gotta get home!

  6. Change the interface! by Aethedor · · Score: 2

    Cool! Hopefully they change the interface to a more modern one. Because no matter how good the underlying kernel and system is, it will totally ruin the overall experience for sure.

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    1. Re:Change the interface! by fnj · · Score: 2

      Perhaps your recollection isn't very good at all, because OS/2 2.0+'s user interface with the object-oriented Workplace Shell was a triumph, with superlative user and programming documentation. I can't think of anything modern that betters or even equals it. OS X? Not even close. Windows XP, 7, 8, 10? Bah. GNOME? Sorry Charlie.

    2. Re:Change the interface! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps your recollection isn't very good at all, because OS/2 2.0+'s user interface with the object-oriented Workplace Shell was a triumph,

      What? I used 2.1, 3.0, and 4.0, and all of them had shit UI. The defaults were all insane and made you use more buttons for no reason. The GUI elements were all oversized, too, so they wasted screen real estate. OS/2 was contemptuous of computing resources, because it came from the IBM mindset that anything worth doing is worth spending a lot of money on. When Open Source Unixlikes became a thing, it had no more reason to exist.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. I liked OS/2 by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The release is probably mostly for embedded use where OS/2 had quite some use since it was so much better and stable than contemporary MS Windows.

    I quite liked OS/2 in its time and found it very superior to contemporary Windows versions.

  8. Still In Use by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 2

    I work for one of the big three car companies, and OS/2 Warp was just recently retired. It may still be in use at a few plants for specific tasks though. PC-DOS is still going strong though.

  9. small company, not IBM by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

    RTFA, this isn't IBM releasing a new version of OS/2, it's a small company that has gotten a license for OS/2 and is making a release. OS/2 is still as dead as it has been for years.

    if the production value of the YouTube announcement linked to above is any indication, this is a tiny company run by people who are a little out of touch with current tech.

  10. Digging up some history... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Informative
    IBM chief: Microsoft killed OS/2

    The deposition and testimony provided by Garry Norris - IBM's chief negotiator with Microsoft before and after the introduction of Windows 95 - has provided a cornucopia of fascinating evidence in the Microsoft trial. Much of it was previously unknown or unconfirmed. His evidence showed how Microsoft effectively controlled IBM's PC hardware and software businesses by making the price of Windows considerably higher than for other comparable PC makers. Mr Norris described in detail to Philip Malone, counsel for the Department of Justice, five cases where Microsoft had succeeded in modifying, or had attempted to influence, IBM's choice of ...

    1. Re:Digging up some history... by rcase5 · · Score: 2

      Interesting read. Thanks for sharing it.

      This paragraph made me chuckle:

      It was revealed that Bill Gates was "surprised" that IBM was not prepared to "jointly and exclusively promote Microsoft products [and] reduce shipments of OS/2".

      This in a nutshell is Microsoft's culture; so self-assured of the superiority of their products when nothing could be further from the truth. OS/2 was a great operating system, and ran circles around anything Microsoft put out until Windows NT (which, as it happens, shares lineage with OS/2). IBM was ultimately too big and too slow to prevent what happened to OS/2, but one thing they know how to do well is design stuff.

      This paragraph also gave me a good chuckle:

      When Microsoft was described by Lou Gerstner in Business Week as 'a great marketing company, but not a great technology company' Mr Gates was furious according to evidence presented. He is said to have complained about 'smear campaigns' against Windows 95.

      Truth hurts, doesn't it Billy Boy? Microsoft's ability to market it's products is the only way to explain how they can get away with putting out really mediocre products when there are so many better alternatives (in terms of stability and quality) out there.

  11. Re:Its done put a fork in it by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of OS/2 would be at this time. It's straight from the days of Windows 3.1 and maybe Win95.

    If you want an alternative to Windows 10, we already have many Linux distros. OS/2 was nice in its day, but it's not going to provide support for modern hardware, or a reasonably modern user interface.

  12. Re:46:37 Says It All by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> where is the OS for the Transgendered African-American-Polynesian Differently-abled community?

    I thought that was Ubuntu. Remember the "Nongendered Noncontinental Nubian" release (v11.31)?

  13. Leasons learned by mejustme · · Score: 2

    Started my career with OS/2, and IBM's C++ compiler. Worked on some really nice systems in the 90s that used OS/2: automated trains, banking systems, robotics. But I was burned by IBM: first when they killed OS/2, then when they killed off OCL and their C++ suite for both Windows and OS/2. Jumped to linux in 2001 and haven't looked back since. But lesson learned: I'd have a hard time trusting an IBM OS or compiler suite.

    What does bringing back OS/2 do today? Nothing. It would need something really innovative to make it worthwhile again. E.g., let it run Linux binaries and Win64 .exe files? Having some kind of package translation layer that allows people to install .rpm or .deb files to take advantage of existing Linux repos and software?

    It is unfortunate that IBM gave up on both OS/2 and OCL/Visual C++ when they did. But "OS/2" is now 15-20 years behind the curve. Go ahead and make it available as a toy to remember the old days if you must, but I suspect it would take non-trivial development investments to re-awaken it.

  14. Re:Editing? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is interesting, but maybe we could have some grammatical editing before throwing up a story on the main page?

    I think that's exactly how they upload their stories.

    Fight for your bitcoins!

  15. Re:As a Linux refugee, I'd seriously consider OS/2 by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    Even OS X has become bloated in the last few updates. I think the last true great one was Snow Leopard, maybe Mountain Lion.

    Fight for your bitcoins!

  16. Re:As a Linux refugee, I'd seriously consider OS/2 by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    What about BeOS/Haiku?

    Fight for your bitcoins!

  17. Re:As a Linux refugee, I'd seriously consider OS/2 by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

    . I don't have that much time to spend just getting my system working.

    Try switching to Linux Mint. I recommend the KDE version, but if you don't like that, there's 3 other variants: Xcfe, MATE, and Cinnamon.

    There's a lot more distros out there than just Debian and Gentoo.

  18. Re:Fools! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    Lemmings Thankyouverymuch!

  19. Re:Its done put a fork in it by dryeo · · Score: 2

    OS/2 (actually eCS+Arca Noae latest) will install and run on some modern hardware. Being 1990's tech it does have limits, needs to see a BIOS and only supports up to 2TB drives (plan is to split larger drives into virtual drives), no video acceleration, no USB3 currently, shitty wireless support, sound supported by an Alsa port, printing limited to CUPs, any memory over 3.5GBs only usable as a RAM disk, limit of 64 cores (only licensed for one physical CPU)

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  20. The ill-fated history of IBM's OS/2 Warp .. by nickweller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    July 1991: 'SteveB went on the road to see the top weeklies, industry analysts. The meetings included demos of Windows 3.1 (pen and multimedia included), Windows NT, OS/2 2.0 including a performance comparison to Windows and a "bad app" that corrupted other applications and crashed the system".'

    'The demos of OS/2 were excellent, crashing the system had the intended effect -- to FUD OS/2 2.0. People paid attention to this demo and were often suprised to our favor. Steve positioned it as -- OS/2 is not "bad" but from a performance and "robustness" standpoint, it is NOT better than Windows.' ref

  21. Re:OS/2 is dead, get over it. by Nemosoft+Unv. · · Score: 3, Informative

    The kernel is outdated, but Arca Noae has released a lot of improved drivers, patches for ACPI, USB drivers (see the various updates) so it's not so dead as you think it is.

    --
    "Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
  22. Re:OS2 had Windows 3.1 by Solandri · · Score: 2

    As with DOS, IBM contracted with Microsoft to develop OS/2, so it actually started off as Microsoft's code. Both partners were on board for a while and told the entire industry DOS (a CLI running programs in real mode) was going to be replaced by OS/2 (a GUI though it could run DOS in a window using the 80286's protected mode, so a crashed DOS app wouldn't hang the entire computer), so a lot of companies began porting their software over to OS/2.

    Then there was some sort of falling out. Most people point the finger at Microsoft because Microsoft stopped talking about OS/2 and started talking about Windows (a GUI which ran on DOS). That's why early versions of Windows had a terrible reputation for crashing - because it ran on top of DOS, any app which crashed could hang the entire OS. You would typically have to reboot the computer 2-3 times a day, losing all your unsaved work each tine. This remained true all the way up to Windows ME. By Windows 3.0, Microsoft was completely pushing Windows and not OS/2. IBM wasn't happy but the contract called for Microsoft to do OS/2 development, so IBM couldn't take over or hire another company to do it. They negotiated to take over the project from Microsoft.

    Because the then-current version of Windows was built with the same GUI elements IBM had established after a lot of usability R&D (IBM's Common User Access), IBM also got rights to Windows 3.x's code. That's what allowed them to include a copy of Windows in OS/2 3.0. They just modified Windows to run on the version of DOS running in OS/2's DOS box, instead of MS-DOS. It's also one of the reasons Microsoft really pushed to release Windows 95 in 1995 (it was code-named Chicago, and the joke was that Gates made the official name Windows 95 instead of Windows 4.0 to force his developers to release it in 1995). The terms of the split only gave IBM access to Windows 3.x code, so it was important for Microsoft to push the next version of Windows out there. Starting with Win95, Microsoft played a cat and mouse game making changes to prevent it from running in an OS/2 DOS box (or on DR-DOS).

    NT was a separate project within Microsoft (built like OS/2 to not run programs in x86 real mode like DOS did), which had been on the back burner. Once they formalized their split with IBM, they began working on it in earnest, merging its API with Windows 9x. There were earlier enterprise-only releases, but the first real commercial release was Windows 2000 (in parallel with Windows ME). It's the foundation for the current versions of Windows.

    Incidentally, the switcheroo between OS/2 and Windows ended up really helping Microsoft. Both IBM and Microsoft stressed that OS/2 was the future, so a lot of software companies which dominated DOS (e.g. WordPerfect, Lotus) invested a lot in porting their software to OS/2. When Microsoft switched gears and told them to develop for Windows version instead, these companies felt they'd been lied to and balked. They either made a half-hearted attempt to port to Windows, or put it off for a year or more. That time gap is what allowed Microsoft to swoop in and take over the office suite market on Windows with Microsoft Office. And thus began the early calls for an anti-trust investigation of Microsoft (which really swung into high gear when Microsoft tried to take over the web browser market by including it in Windows for free, essentially destroying the profit model for any competitor making a browser).

  23. Arca Noae Formal Announcement about Blue Lion by martiniturbide · · Score: 2

    Arca Noae just posted his formal announcement about the project: https://www.arcanoae.com/blue-...

  24. Re:Unless it's open source... by dryeo · · Score: 2

    The AC has it right. First there was a Russian company (forget the name) contracted to write a virtual machine to run OS/2. Eventually that became Parallels for OSX. Then Innotek partnered with Connectivx to add OS/2 support to Virtual PC and port Virtual PC to OS/2. No sooner then they did this, that MS bought Connectivx and killed the OS/2 port. Then Innotek wrote VirtualBox, based partially on QEMU and released it as GPL (probably had to as it used GPL source) with propriety additions for things like USB support. Sun bought Innotek and Oracle bought Sun.
    The hard part of virtualizing OS/2 was that the DOS drivers ran in ring 2, which allowed DOS device drivers to work under OS/2. OS/2 even allows any version of DOS to run in a VDM.
     

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism