Some history & facts and OS/2 relation to Linu
on
The Sad Parable of OS/2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, OS/2 3.0 Warp was great, I used it for a year and a half and it was really stable and powerful.
It did have its share of bugs, the keyboard queue could hang for example, leaving the system running but non responsive to user input, or it didn't protect the swap file (one could hang the system, if I recall correctly, by writing into the swap file!).
Despite, it was clearly better than Windows 3.x and Windows 95. It run almost everything DOS related, even games (Mortal Kombat 2 in a window anyone? ) and most Windows apps, sometimes faster than Windows itself and surely more stable.
Pricing for personal users was also right, I recall I bought it for less than the equivalent of $50.
It had a number of powerful commercial apps, a lot of shareware/freeware good ones, a very active user/developer community...
But it didn't have proper support from IBM itself. Period. What killed OS/2 was IBM as a company, since it never showed faith that it could succeed and never had a consistent plan as to what it should achieve.
Was it a big company OS? A personal computer one? Was it a Windows replacement? Something entirely different? IBM used to shift positions and the result was that the killer big name app never came.
The result is that now OS/2 is a niche product, used mostly in financial institutions and getting replaced slowly but steadily by alternatives.
Is OS/2 related to Linux? In a way. But OS/2 started as the next big thing and became a niche product, while Linux was not even a niche product and now is the next big thing.
Applications are here, support is here, publicity is here, only one thing can reverse Linux's course; inconsistency.
Diversity is a good thing, but some well chosen standards are better. Give the choice to those who need it, but have a common set of choices defined for those who don't.
If Linux is to succeed in all these different markets it targets (server, desktop, embedded), there a must be a clearly defined path and set of options for each. One size fits all was never the answer in computing.
OS/2 was killed because IBM didn't have a consistent vision as to what it should have been, while Windows was everywhere and good enough for most.
Linux could succeed, by not repeating this mistake.
I think the really interesting part is the IDE; If you have a fairly simple way to extend your computer experience, you get a little more attached to what you use and enjoy it a lot more.
Don't forget there are a lot of intelligent people who enjoy tinkering with things (computers and OSes included) but can't afford to spend too much time...
If the developers also choose a well rounded set of applications, then we'll have an interesting alternative to packing a zillion apps (almost) noone will use and creating yet another distro that confuses users about the choices, rather than being itself an alternative choice.
By having something simple you can use and extend, you are also a lot more motivated to actually use it and stick with it, rather than observe at amazement and then go back to .
Perhaps, simplicity is itself a choice sorely missed all too often nowadays...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, OS/2 3.0 Warp was great, I used it for a year and a half and it was really stable and powerful.
It did have its share of bugs, the keyboard queue could hang for example, leaving the system running but non responsive to user input, or it didn't protect the swap file (one could hang the system, if I recall correctly, by writing into the swap file!).
Despite, it was clearly better than Windows 3.x and Windows 95. It run almost everything DOS related, even games (Mortal Kombat 2 in a window anyone? ) and most Windows apps, sometimes faster than Windows itself and surely more stable.
Pricing for personal users was also right, I recall I bought it for less than the equivalent of $50.
It had a number of powerful commercial apps, a lot of shareware/freeware good ones, a very active user/developer community...
But it didn't have proper support from IBM itself. Period. What killed OS/2 was IBM as a company, since it never showed faith that it could succeed and never had a consistent plan as to what it should achieve.
Was it a big company OS? A personal computer one? Was it a Windows replacement? Something entirely different? IBM used to shift positions and the result was that the killer big name app never came.
The result is that now OS/2 is a niche product, used mostly in financial institutions and getting replaced slowly but steadily by alternatives.
Is OS/2 related to Linux? In a way. But OS/2 started as the next big thing and became a niche product, while Linux was not even a niche product and now is the next big thing.
Applications are here, support is here, publicity is here, only one thing can reverse Linux's course; inconsistency.
Diversity is a good thing, but some well chosen standards are better. Give the choice to those who need it, but have a common set of choices defined for those who don't.
If Linux is to succeed in all these different markets it targets (server, desktop, embedded), there a must be a clearly defined path and set of options for each. One size fits all was never the answer in computing.
OS/2 was killed because IBM didn't have a consistent vision as to what it should have been, while Windows was everywhere and good enough for most.
Linux could succeed, by not repeating this mistake.
I think the really interesting part is the IDE; If you have a fairly simple way to extend your computer experience, you get a little more attached to what you use and enjoy it a lot more.
Don't forget there are a lot of intelligent people who enjoy tinkering with things (computers and OSes included) but can't afford to spend too much time...
If the developers also choose a well rounded set of applications, then we'll have an interesting alternative to packing a zillion apps (almost) noone will use and creating yet another distro that confuses users about the choices, rather than being itself an alternative choice.
By having something simple you can use and extend, you are also a lot more motivated to actually use it and stick with it, rather than observe at amazement and then go back to .
Perhaps, simplicity is itself a choice sorely missed all too often nowadays...