I have a case and power supply from my 1987 Zeos 386SX with an AMD K6-2 475mhz processor running FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE.:) I have some older hardware around but it isn't really being used.
Well, I can't say I agree with the whole article, but there is definitely some truth to it. For instance, cyrix based CPUs (which ran quite hot) had a suspend on halt setting which would put the CPU into power save mode whenever it got a halt intruction. Without a special utility Windows would not do this, but OS/2 would by default. So an idling OS/2 machine would run a hell of alot cooler than an idling Windows machine. Which would cause undo wear on the processor. However I would not suggest that this is a good reason to run OS/2 over Windows. There are tons of better reasons than that.
In any case OS/2 still is feasible on the desktop, and servers. I work at a software company and I have been porting and rewriting our networking software so it is crossplatform.
I wrote a Linux, Windows NT/2K/XP device driver and maintain the OS/2 driver. I am also working on ports of it to Solaris and FreeBSD. (the usermode applications are already ported). And by far my favorite of them all os OS/2. And I can't see that changing anytime soon.
The only thing I can see causing me to change my main development environment away from OS/2 is a complete divergence from hardware that will run OS/2. Basically if everything switches to IA64, Sparc64, Sledgehammer, or other platform that will not run OS/2. But even if that happens I am still relatively confident that OS/2 will be ported to those platforms. It hasn't let me down in the almost a decade I've been running it... so I can't see it letting me down then either.:)
I would have to say that it is microsoft code that makes windows unstable. By this time perhaps the microsoft code has stabilized but the APIs they developed are awful. This makes it difficult for windows programmers to develop stable code. Which makes windows unstable. When Microsoft finally decides to dump their crappy Win16/Win32 APIs we will be rid of at least part of Windows Hell. I think the blame definitely is on Microsoft, however indirectly.
Brian
Well, I have a dancing tux plugin for my MP3 player in OS/2. That doesn't mean I am running Linux. The same goes for quite a few apps written for Linux that build on FreeBSD (or most other unices) and have linux logos in them. I am just getting tired of people assuming "linux" for no other reason than because it is a buzzword.
I think it's rather arrogant to assume that these screenshots depict Linux. They could be produced on just about any Unix or even OS/2. But people here see WindowMaker and assume it is Linux. That annoys me.
I would say it is just as good as a unix server with one exception. It has no process level access control without an ISS (Installable Security System). Otherwise it often performs better than Unix servers and is just as stable.
Linux is far from ready. Linux (as most unices) is about as intuitive as a car crash. Even with Gnome and KDE which are making strides. They are far from even coming close to what OS/2 has done since version 2.0. Linux is hacked together, poorly documented. If you are going for a free unix go with a BSD. FreeBSD is very nice... but again still years behind OS/2 in it's user interface. Even with IBM's lack of support for a new client version of OS/2 I am much happier spending my days in OS/2 than Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
What about running a linux binary of it using the Linux ABI?
I have a case and power supply from my 1987 Zeos 386SX with an AMD K6-2 475mhz processor running FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE. :) I have some older hardware around but it isn't really being used.
Brian
Well, I can't say I agree with the whole article, but there is definitely some truth to it. For instance, cyrix based CPUs (which ran quite hot) had a suspend on halt setting which would put the CPU into power save mode whenever it got a halt intruction. Without a special utility Windows would not do this, but OS/2 would by default. So an idling OS/2 machine would run a hell of alot cooler than an idling Windows machine. Which would cause undo wear on the processor. However I would not suggest that this is a good reason to run OS/2 over Windows. There are tons of better reasons than that.
:)
:)
In any case OS/2 still is feasible on the desktop, and servers. I work at a software company and I have been porting and rewriting our networking software so it is crossplatform.
I wrote a Linux, Windows NT/2K/XP device driver and maintain the OS/2 driver. I am also working on ports of it to Solaris and FreeBSD. (the usermode applications are already ported). And by far my favorite of them all os OS/2. And I can't see that changing anytime soon.
The only thing I can see causing me to change my main development environment away from OS/2 is a complete divergence from hardware that will run OS/2. Basically if everything switches to IA64, Sparc64, Sledgehammer, or other platform that will not run OS/2. But even if that happens I am still relatively confident that OS/2 will be ported to those platforms. It hasn't let me down in the almost a decade I've been running it... so I can't see it letting me down then either.
We aren't going anywhere!
Brian Smith
I would have to say that it is microsoft code that makes windows unstable. By this time perhaps the microsoft code has stabilized but the APIs they developed are awful. This makes it difficult for windows programmers to develop stable code. Which makes windows unstable. When Microsoft finally decides to dump their crappy Win16/Win32 APIs we will be rid of at least part of Windows Hell. I think the blame definitely is on Microsoft, however indirectly. Brian
Well, I have a dancing tux plugin for my MP3 player in OS/2. That doesn't mean I am running Linux. The same goes for quite a few apps written for Linux that build on FreeBSD (or most other unices) and have linux logos in them. I am just getting tired of people assuming "linux" for no other reason than because it is a buzzword.
Brian Smith
I think it's rather arrogant to assume that these screenshots depict Linux. They could be produced on just about any Unix or even OS/2. But people here see WindowMaker and assume it is Linux. That annoys me.
Brian Smith
I would say it is just as good as a unix server with one exception. It has no process level access control without an ISS (Installable Security System). Otherwise it often performs better than Unix servers and is just as stable.
Brian Smith
dbsoft@technologist.com
Linux is far from ready. Linux (as most unices) is about as intuitive as a car crash. Even with Gnome and KDE which are making strides. They are far from even coming close to what OS/2 has done since version 2.0. Linux is hacked together, poorly documented. If you are going for a free unix go with a BSD. FreeBSD is very nice... but again still years behind OS/2 in it's user interface. Even with IBM's lack of support for a new client version of OS/2 I am much happier spending my days in OS/2 than Linux.
Brian Smith
dbsoft@technologist.com