Slashdot Mirror
Death Knell for OS/2 Client
markhb writes "I hate to be the one to submit this story, but the end may finally have arrived for the OS/2 client. Stardock Systems announced today that IBM will not allow them to OEM a client package, and that IBM has no plans for, or strategic interest in, a new OS/2 client. Is anyone ready to get the source for SOMObjects and implement EA's and the Workplace Shell in Linux?"
Don't be silly. You've been listening to the wrong FUD. The Macintosh is not more secure because it is more obscure. It is more secure because it is not multiuser, does not have an interactive command layer, is not remotely adminnable- in other words, it is utterly hobbled and limited as a server. That's what they wanted. There _are_ no secrets to getting root on a Mac because the concept doesn't even apply. If you can use it at all you're 'root', but you have to be sitting in front of the box mouseclicking- that's the way it was designed, and that's the way it is.
MacOS as 'security through obscurity' is the stupidest concept I've ever heard. 'security through inability' is more like it- and that is exactly, exactly, what they want.
interface leaves much to be desired????
Try any of this in windoze:
1) Move the thing a shadow (shortcut) points to in OS/2, and the shadow (shortcut) still knows where it is...right down to config.sys entries.
2) Do the above with a whole group of things
3) Change the colors for every element of an application using OS/2's system color pallette and drag drop. No need for ANY code to be written to take advantage of this feature...it's all in the OS/2 core SOM/DSOM model.
4) All containers from EVERY OS/2 PM application can be SHARED AMONGST THEMSELVES!!! For example, I could use the PMView file selector that does nice thumbnails (The thumbnails actually become a part of the actual image file through EA's) to drag a thumbnail to a folder's background image container...voila! I just changed that folder's background image! With an application that the OS didn't know anything about!
5) TEMPLATES! I can create, say, an FTP Folder just by dragging an FTP Template to the place I want to make it. Yeah...I can see FTP servers as if they are a folder on my desktop...THAT is REAL internet integration, Microsoft!!! (And was done a year or two before you thought of it) Other templates exist for EVERY OBJECT you can use under OS/2.
6) REXX Scripting. Unlike Linux, we only have one main scripting language...but it is used for everything and is consistent....Take for example ZOC, PhotoGraphics Pro, GTIRC.... If you prefer PERL...it can be embedded in REXX!
7) Consistent context menus. OS/2 has had RMB context menus since long before Microsoft thought of them. You see...In OS/2's WPS, EVERYTHING is an OBJECT. ANYTHING you can do with an object will appear on it's context menu.
8) An interface that MAKES SENSE! The right button to drag, left to select makes sense! You don't accidentally move things that way!
I'm sure others can add much much more, but these are the things you are missing. You obviously didn't take the time to learn the WPS and how it works...assuming that the Windows interface is somehow 'right'
I started using OS/2 at version 2.0. I first got it because I wanted to multitask on a 386/25. I had a BBS I ran, and needed to use the computer while it was going. A BBS doesn't use much in the way of system resources, so I figgured it would be easy.. it wasn't. DesqView was as close as I could get. Then I found OS/2.
:) If you want an easy to use GUI, in a system you can get up and running very quickly without editing text files, it's great. If you want flexability and source code, UNIX is where it's at. It all depends on what you want in an OS. I use Linux a lot, and I really like it. I still load up OS/2 once in a while, but I've moved so much of my work to Linux now that I just don't need it as much anymore. I still miss the GUI though.
Keep in mind, this was about 1993, Win95 had not even been announced. There was talk about Ciaro, Chicago, or whatever, but it was all vapor.
I still like it's GUI better then anything else I can find. Including KDE and GNOME. WPS is intuitive, fast, and can be very good-looking with help. IBM is a business company, so the defaults were a bit dry, but with a little config it can be really nice. And there are no config files you need to mess with to do it. You can improve performance by editing CONFIG.SYS, but it's not required. OS/2 can perform resonably well on my old 386/25. Linux/X is painfull.
As for your comments, Yes, it has a command shell, with DOS-like commands. It was marketed as a DOS replacement, so they wanted it to be familiar. There were 2 command shells, the OS/2 shell, and the DOS emulator. It's DOS emulation is amazing, more so considering the time it was written. There were programs I couldn't run in real dos that worked great in OS/2's DOS box.
The GUI is of thier own design. It's object oriented, and very feature rich. M$ only wishes they could write such a good GUI. The default configs sucked though, you really had to take a little time and edit the color scheme and maybe throw a background up. It is nothing at all like X, nor was it ever intended to be as far as I can tell. I found it much eaiser to learn WPS then most X window managers.
It does not come with remote administration. That is one area I always thought they needed to work on. There are programs like PCAnywhere for it, but that's not nearly as good as a UNIX system's capabilities.
I thought the interface was eaiser then anything else I've used before or since. It made a ton of sense once you remembered you have more then one mouse button. EVERYTHING could be right-clicked to get a context menu. And most programs included that support too. The Win-OS/2 program was a bit of a hack, but it was a pretty good emulator. It basicly ran Win3.1 under it's DOS emulator. The windowed version was a video driver hack. There is probably some stuff the WINE team could use in that area.
It's great because at that time there was nothing that could touch it based on technology and usabilty. I think there are a few things they should have fixed early on, that they knew about and gave us kludges for. Like the SIQ problem. Now, I'd say Linux has gotten close to it's technology, but has a ways to go before usability can even come close. We had that in OS/2 in 1993! Win95 and NT have decent GUI's, but still lack when compared to OS/2. WPS and SOM still have no equal, IMO.
Is it better then UNIX? That all depends. For UNIX users, probably not. For OS/2 users, certainly. For Windows users, well, anything is better!
I really wish IBM would just open the source under GPL or some other OSS license and let those of us who want it work on porting the parts we like to Linux. With Linux as the kernel and SOM/WPS as the UI it would really rock. But so far Big Blue has declined many efforts to get the code. In this latest situation Stardock even offered to pay for it, just to make a new version of OS/2 Client. *sigh*
Of course, now there is little software available. So it's been going down for a while. There's some great stuff, but Linux is getting all the attention now. Hopefully IBM will see the light and help us get some of the great parts of OS/2 into Linux. Come on IBM! Follow the lead of SGI! They're giving us XFS, can't you give us WPS/SOM?
IBM really just wants those of us who admire OS/2 to go away. We don't, and it pisses them off to no end. While Microsoft tries endlessly to bribe people into writing false testimony about their operating systems, IBM has to pretend they don't hear us. It must be embarrassing to be a multibillion dollar company who can't even KILL OFF an operating system properly.
I doubt OS/2 is quite dead yet, but this is certainly a very, very disappointing event to those of us who still use it.
On the other had, I guess this is the first time OS/2 has ever received the front-page Slashdot treatment. Too bad it had to be such bad news before Slashdot would recognize it...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Since people are having problem with the link:
---
From: "Brad Wardell"
Subject: Judgement Day results
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:46:45 -0400
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: stardock.os2
Path: prospero.stardock.com
Xref: prospero.stardock.com stardock.os2:2342
NNTP-Posting-Host: brad.stardock.com 209.69.142.81
In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected
plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users
and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with
IBM to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client
available.
To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened
negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually
it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on
proceeding.
For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together
in hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential
names down to which minute components would or would not be included. These
meetings included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives
here at Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week
in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented
their case to IBM as a whole.
The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM
has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided
that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license
any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials,
technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally
made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their
strategic directions.
Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in
particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond
the call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you
meet folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2,
that their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a
whole sets policy.
Everything that could be done was done.
Brad
---
Brad Wardell
Product Manager: Object Desktop & The Corporate Machine
http://www.stardock.com
---
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I've been running an OS/2 machine since 1993 when OS/2 2.0 came out. Since then, I've upgraded to 2.1, 3.0, and 4.0. In fact, I'm STILL using it for my Quicken & TurboTax stuff. Three of my boxen are linux, but I'm still keeping that spunky little 486 with OS/2 around. This is really a depressing day.
Presentation Manager still has (IMHO) the best OOUI out there. None of this foo.lnk B$ from Micros~1 that breaks every time you move the item you supposedly have a shortcut to. Instead, PM shadows were managed such that they *always* knew where the original was.
Not to mention being a better Windows than Windows. I remember as an undergrad...running a WinDOS circuit design package that kept crashing on the Pentium Win3.1 machines in the labs. Running it under OS/2 on my 486 was a little slower, but it knew how to actually use a swap file and not run out of memory halfway through loading the final 32-bit RISC processor (designed from basic components) and crash.
It's a real shame that OS/2 is/has died. IBM probably should have spun it off into its own entity a la Lexmark. Maybe then someone would have had an incentive to push it a little harder, market it a little better, and actually care if it succeeded.
OS/2, you WILL be missed.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
First, this does NOT mean the death of OS/2, or of the client. You can STILL buy OS/2 Warp 4, and it STILL works great. I won't waste your time touting the benefits of OS/2 Warp 4, but they do exist. I'm perfectly happy with my three computers at home running OS/2 Warp, and I know of a lot of cool software that's being developed and will be relaesed over the next six months (and beyond). In fact, I'm not even sure I'd buy Warp 5 if it did come out. If I did, it'd be mostly to show my support.
Second, even if Stardock did come out with a Warp 5 (or whatever they'd call it) client, it would be more for marketing than technology. Any Warp 5 client created would be based on the Warp 5 server, and the only thing that would be different between Warp 4 and Warp 5 is the addition of SMP support. Considering that only 1% (at most) of computers out there have SMP support, it wouldn't help much. There would be no real new technology in Warp 5. There won't be any support for Windows 95 apps or anything major like that. Anyone could take Warp 4 today and create a CD that installs XFree86, EMX, Gimp, Star Office, Object Desktop, and whatever else is currently available, and it would be identical to Stardock's Warp 5.
Why? Stardock, since they won't have the OS/2 source code, can only do so much (i.e. nothing). And if IBM releeased a new client instead, they WOULDN'T add any new features that don't already exist in Warp 5 server.
So in the end, 99% of everyone who uses Warp 4 and has downloaded the standard add-ons is already running Warp 5.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
It seems an ok time for OS/2 to die, now that
:(
Linux is mature enough and X now has nice enough
Window Managers to make it usable by ex-OS/2
users. I made the switch a few years ago (a bit
after 4.0's release)...
OS/2, like any OS, had it's problems and it's
strengths. Let's go down the line with
NT, Linux, and OS/2...
Unix compatibility
OS/2 -- Pretty good. Could run X, and had the
EMX libraries to make porting Unix apps
fairly painless. Port of GCC available,
lots of tools available
NT -- Ok. No free X, but various libraries
(Cgywin, etc) make porting Unix apps less
painful. Lots of tools available
Linux -- Duh.
Windows Compatability
OS/2 -- Ok. Win32s and Win16 done well, a binary
converter that works well on some Win32
apps is available for free on the net
NT -- Duh.
Linux -- Ok. WINE and DosEmu do ok here.
Stability
OS/2 -- Ok. Better than Win95, and if you don't
consider the WPS hanging to be hanging
the OS, then the OS is very stable. Of
course, the WPS does hang sometimes, and
occasinally when the WPS databases get
corrupted, you need to do some fairly
ugly and destructive things to recover.
NT -- Good. Occasionally the OS hangs, but not
very often, and when it does, you normally
just need to reboot.
Linux -- Excellent. Uptime is frequently
measured in months.
Interface
OS/2 -- Highly customizable, very sophisticated,
and sometimes slow. For the adventurous,
it's possible to run other desktops apart
from the WPS (Some of which use PM, or you
can run X)
NT -- Much less customizable, very standardized,
and with the advent of IE4 integration,
often slow. It's possible to run other
desktops, but more difficult than under
OS/2 or Linux, and reduces system
functionality
Linux -- Highly customizable, no standard
interface. Networking functionality
built-in.
Overall, I'd have to say that the interface was
the high point of OS/2, and I kind of miss it...
Damn. My cat is sitting on my mouse and I can't
click submit.
*moves cat*
There we go
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
*sigh* I remember the first time I used OS/2. I was a big time Windoze fan at the time and my coworkers were begining to think I was evil. However, it was about two weeks into using OS/2 that I first uttered the phrase "I can't believe I ever used Windows, it sucks!". OS/2 was my OS of choice, but then I was introduced to Linux. Never the less, I still get all teary eyed when I think about my first OS/2 experience. I am really gonna miss it.
Just wondering why everyone considers OS/2 to be so important....The last time i tried it i gathered the following impressions about it (OS/2 Warp ..thats ver.3 i think?) :
[1] It seems to use the same type of shell as NT..i.e. a command shell.
[2] It seems to have a DOS-like command set.
[3] It has a windows like GUI..more Win95/NT like than 98 but nothing like X.
[4] does it even have remote administration ? I saw no such thing.
[5] Its interface leaves much to be desired (kludgy win/dos hack were the first impression i got..followed by...what the heck do these weird buttons do?)
Im not trying to troll here..i'd like some informed opinion by poeple who've used it - why is it so great ? how is it better than UNIX ?
Microsoft was the name developer through version 1.3, actually, and the early part of 2.0 development.
OTOH, the WPS was almost entirely IBM-written. The original "Microsoft OS/2 2.0" specs did not include the WPS but just an updated Presentation Manager (remember the add-on 16 bit PM subsystem for WinNT?) OS/2 2.0 was delayed after the divorce in large part because IBM decided to add the WPS.
Ideally, IBM would open-source the larger part of the WPS code, on which they have exclusive rights, and which is after all the best part of the OS anyway...
Well, it's a shame that it has happened, but it was unfortunately inevitable. I used to use OS/2, but gave up after Merlin--such a new OS with so little hardware support. But I always missed the PM. And I would love a chance at implementing it.
SOM is basically CORBA. If you know CORBA, then you know quite a bit already about the paradigm of SOMObjects and the PM. I know that GNOME uses an ORB (although a limited one). Perhaps some of us old OS/2ers could start putting our efforts into something like GNOME or something new entirely?
Again, it is just a crying shame to have watched OS/2 die such a slow death over the past four years. It's almost a relief; now we can get on with our lives. Instead of hoping against all hope that IBM might see the light, we can get down to the business of simply doing it better.
Farewell, OS/2.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
I work @ big blue(i even used to work on OS/2 TCP, no flames please!) OS/2 is not dead or close to it. There's not a whole lot of development going on the client side, but the server side is making lots of blue money. And lots of big customers are still using it. Just b/c your neighbor doesn't run it at his house, doesn't mean his it's not in his IS data center at work churnning away. My own team got paid a cool million to write a interface for os/2. Like I said not much new development, but if a customer is willing to fund it we'll do it! (about dos, check out PC DOS 2000, still alive thanks to some bucks or Y2k lawsuits i dunno) http://www.software.ibm.com/os/dos/