Definitive obituary for OS/2 (from Gordon Letwin)
on
25 Years of IBM's OS/2
·
· Score: 1
The definitive obituary for OS/2 was written in 1995 with this long USENET post fro Gordon Letwin, who was the lead architect of OS/2 on the Microsoft side.
Excerpt:
"What was OS/2's problem? Why was it doomed? Because it's main attraction
was as an engine to run MS-Windows applications. The problem is one of
standards, and one of critical mass. Standards are of incredible importance
in the computing world. They're critical in other domains that folks
don't often think about. Your HiFi CD player, for example. It plugs into
your preamp. And that plugs into your amp. And that connects to speakers.
Each of those can, and usually does, come from a different manufacturer.
The RCA connectors, and the signal levels themselves, are standardized.
Standardization is a big plus in the computer field. You're much better off
having thousands of products and vendors compatible with a single standard,
even a mediocre one, than having dozens of products, one or two each for
each of a dozen fragmented standards."
...that are proven to use the headset port for accessing peripherals? Given their obsession with control, that seems like exactly the kind of thing they might want to restrict with T&C's.
Conservatives are superficially lumping network neutrality in with the rest of the anti-Obama/government/socialism rhetoric, but the issue is far too complex to capture in partisan soundbites.
This Bill Moyers broadcast from a few years ago (well before Obama arrived on the scene) explains the network neutrality issue extremely well, representing multiple viewpoints, including business, politics, consumers etc.
The broadcast is about an hour long, but I have yet to come across a better way to get the complete picture of what network neutrality is all about (each of these videos gives a useful illustration of a key tradeoff):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmlpfXzSfhg>Part 1
Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 4Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9
Your link didn't make it, but it's a good find. I didn't know the Smithsonian collected computer documentation. As the description of this item points out: "Although Windows 3.0 proved to be successful, Microsoft wished to continue developing a 32-bit operating system completely unrelated to IBM's OS/2 architecture. To head the redesign project, Microsoft hired David Cutler and others away from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).".
NT was a rename of the OS/2 3.0 development snapshot which Microsoft ended up with after their spat with IBM in the early 1990's and continued to evolve into the NT kernel
That's not entirely correct. Microsoft did use some OS/2 technology in the development of Windows NT, but the NT kernel itself was based on a rewrite of VMS, which was performed by one of the key developers of VMS, Dave Cutler. The OS/2 technology built into NT was primarily included for compatibility with earlier versions of OS/2.
The reason NT started at version 3 is because versions 1 and 2 were already released as the collaborative effort and named OS/2 versions 1 and 2.
Actually, from what I understood, the reason that NT started at version 3.1 is because it matched the release level of the existing (16-bit) version of Windows at the time, and Microsoft wanted to emphasize NT's compatibility with 16-bit applications in the hopes of upgrading mainstream users to NT as quickly as possible. Of course, delivering acceptable compatibility for 16-bit Windows applications in NT turned out to be a lot harder than expected, and most mainstream users did not migrate to the NT kernel until Windows XP was released in 2001.
The next logical question is, if you password-protect and encrypt your hard drive to thwart precisely this kind of unwarranted and unjustifiable privacy invasion, can Customs force you to divulge your passwords?
I wonder what his career options in the industry are, since he essentially represents the "anti-Linux", and outside of Microsoft, there are now very few companies that aren't involved in Linux somehow. He would have to claim to convert and "see the light", or go somewhere else that has a low interest in Linux succeeding...Sun perhaps? Apple?
On that day, OS/2's architect, Gordon Letwin, posted USENET message explaining why the system was doomed in the market. After that, it was all downhill.
Legality of reverse-engineering protocol?
on
John Dvorak Hypes Skype
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So what are the legal ramifications of reverse-engineering the protocol based on docs like these? If someone where to implement a reverse-engineered client, could the Skype folks come after developers with the DMCA?
As others have said, SCO hasn't offered the court even poor evidence that any of that happened.
The trial doesn't start until November, so why should they reveal their evidence now? IANAL, but it makes sense that any litigant would want to wait as long as possible to reveal their evidence, in order to minimize the opportunity for their opposition to attack that evidence, no?
Another big thing to keep in mind that most people leave out is that Monterey, while cross-platform, was aimed largely at the IA-64 architecture with has nothing to do with SCO's supposed "expertise" with x86.
IA-64 was designed to couple the x86 architecture with a next-generation VLIW-like design. It turned out that IA-64's x86 binary compatibility would be a joke, but nobody knew that at the time Monterey was being designed. The focus then was on building a smooth upgrade path into Monterey for users of existing x86 applications. SCO was the leading provider of UNIX for the x86 platform, and the deal with IBM had *everything* to do with its x86 expertise.
JFS and RCU which were developed with ZERO input from SCO.
Well, we won't know that until we compare that code with SCO's code, will we?
IBM used the Monterey agreement to get access to SCO's source code so that it could be combined with AIX, resulting in an enterprise-grade environment for the Intel platform. But around the same time, IBM decided that Linux was the future, and allowed the Monterey project to die. Since SCO was counting on licensing revenue from Monterey, it was screwed by IBM's switch to Linux.
Where is there copyright infringement?
SCO is claiming that instead of using its code for the Monterey project, IBM siphoned the code over to its Linux development efforts. This violated the terms of their agreement.
Was SCO fully aware how quickly Linux would develop, that it would replace Unix, or did it take them by surprise?
What SCO was or was not "fully aware" of at the time is irrelevant...the dispute is about IBM's violation of its contract with SCO.
The issue is really quite simple. IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux. Everything else being said about this case is just rehashing of religious fervor and procedural issues.
Has anyone actually tried to implement this? It would require:
* Dual-ended iPod cables
* Ability to develop and download iPod software to do the transfer
* Ability not to get sued by Apple (or RIAA) for commercializing the solution
I'm sure others have thought of trying to do this as soon as the iPod appeared. It would obviously be a huge hit to "mate" iPods and swap collections, but who has come closest to making it happen? What is the current technical and legal status of each of these barriers?
"If the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from the general population. This robs them of a tremendous source for learning,"
This sounds overblown. Giving computers to 1 million of the country's poorest citizens will *grant them* a tremendous source for learning, regardless of the operating system that is used. I don't think the ability to hack the source code is going to have an impact on the "learning" for the vast majority of these users.
"[Open] source serves not only as an example of programming ideas and implementations, but also the development community serves as an accessible social learning community of practice."
Huh? What does this sentence even mean? It just looks like a jumble of pleasant-sounding words. I mean, who can argue with "learning", "community", "ideas", and "social"?
>> How exactly does Linux in a VM run Wine better than Linux
>> not in a VM?
> Well separation of states and state flow for one
Yes, but won't the impedance mismatch between the flow and the state potentially result in a performance penalty? I would think that one of the most significant properties of this environment would be that the system resource flow rate is constant in a steady-state flow system. This means there would be no accumulation of resources within any component of the system.
Linux-VServer uses a soft partitioning technique based on Security Contexts. It is more akin to Solaris Containers and commercial packages like SWsoft than VMware or Xen. It allows you to create many independent Virtual Private Servers (VPS) simultaneously on a single physical server. However, there is only instance of the operating system running on the server. Each VPS has the illusion that it is running a separate OS, including separate instances of ssh, mail, Web and databases, user account database, root password etc. But there is only one actual operating system, so every VPS is running the exact same OS distribution, release level, patch set etc.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE
The definitive obituary for OS/2 was written in 1995 with this long USENET post fro Gordon Letwin, who was the lead architect of OS/2 on the Microsoft side.
Excerpt: "What was OS/2's problem? Why was it doomed? Because it's main attraction was as an engine to run MS-Windows applications. The problem is one of standards, and one of critical mass. Standards are of incredible importance in the computing world. They're critical in other domains that folks don't often think about. Your HiFi CD player, for example. It plugs into your preamp. And that plugs into your amp. And that connects to speakers. Each of those can, and usually does, come from a different manufacturer. The RCA connectors, and the signal levels themselves, are standardized. Standardization is a big plus in the computer field. You're much better off having thousands of products and vendors compatible with a single standard, even a mediocre one, than having dozens of products, one or two each for each of a dozen fragmented standards."
...that are proven to use the headset port for accessing peripherals? Given their obsession with control, that seems like exactly the kind of thing they might want to restrict with T&C's.
Conservatives are superficially lumping network neutrality in with the rest of the anti-Obama/government/socialism rhetoric, but the issue is far too complex to capture in partisan soundbites. This Bill Moyers broadcast from a few years ago (well before Obama arrived on the scene) explains the network neutrality issue extremely well, representing multiple viewpoints, including business, politics, consumers etc. The broadcast is about an hour long, but I have yet to come across a better way to get the complete picture of what network neutrality is all about (each of these videos gives a useful illustration of a key tradeoff): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmlpfXzSfhg>Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 4 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9
Your link didn't make it, but it's a good find. I didn't know the Smithsonian collected computer documentation. As the description of this item points out: "Although Windows 3.0 proved to be successful, Microsoft wished to continue developing a 32-bit operating system completely unrelated to IBM's OS/2 architecture. To head the redesign project, Microsoft hired David Cutler and others away from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).".
NT was a rename of the OS/2 3.0 development snapshot which Microsoft ended up with after their spat with IBM in the early 1990's and continued to evolve into the NT kernel
That's not entirely correct. Microsoft did use some OS/2 technology in the development of Windows NT, but the NT kernel itself was based on a rewrite of VMS, which was performed by one of the key developers of VMS, Dave Cutler. The OS/2 technology built into NT was primarily included for compatibility with earlier versions of OS/2.
The reason NT started at version 3 is because versions 1 and 2 were already released as the collaborative effort and named OS/2 versions 1 and 2.
Actually, from what I understood, the reason that NT started at version 3.1 is because it matched the release level of the existing (16-bit) version of Windows at the time, and Microsoft wanted to emphasize NT's compatibility with 16-bit applications in the hopes of upgrading mainstream users to NT as quickly as possible. Of course, delivering acceptable compatibility for 16-bit Windows applications in NT turned out to be a lot harder than expected, and most mainstream users did not migrate to the NT kernel until Windows XP was released in 2001.
er looks like you didn't RTFA...the iPhone SDK only works on Intel-based Macs
(sigh) if only he were around to combat spam today
The next logical question is, if you password-protect and encrypt your hard drive to thwart precisely this kind of unwarranted and unjustifiable privacy invasion, can Customs force you to divulge your passwords?
not YET...
...as long as SCO has a pulse, Groklaw has a reason to exist.
>> per process and per CPU throttling
> you have a point there, it would be nice...
this became available in Windows Server 2003: Windows System Resource Manager
...nobody would be running Windows.
I wonder what his career options in the industry are, since he essentially represents the "anti-Linux", and outside of Microsoft, there are now very few companies that aren't involved in Linux somehow. He would have to claim to convert and "see the light", or go somewhere else that has a low interest in Linux succeeding...Sun perhaps? Apple?
On that day, OS/2's architect, Gordon Letwin, posted USENET message explaining why the system was doomed in the market. After that, it was all downhill.
No, NT was developed by Microsoft independently of IBM. NT did offer an OS/2 compatibility layer early on, but it has a completely different kernel.
Make no mistake, Linux is in professional hands
yeah, like these guys.
So what are the legal ramifications of reverse-engineering the protocol based on docs like these? If someone where to implement a reverse-engineered client, could the Skype folks come after developers with the DMCA?
As others have said, SCO hasn't offered the court even poor evidence that any of that happened.
The trial doesn't start until November, so why should they reveal their evidence now? IANAL, but it makes sense that any litigant would want to wait as long as possible to reveal their evidence, in order to minimize the opportunity for their opposition to attack that evidence, no?
Another big thing to keep in mind that most people leave out is that Monterey, while cross-platform, was aimed largely at the IA-64 architecture with has nothing to do with SCO's supposed "expertise" with x86.
IA-64 was designed to couple the x86 architecture with a next-generation VLIW-like design. It turned out that IA-64's x86 binary compatibility would be a joke, but nobody knew that at the time Monterey was being designed. The focus then was on building a smooth upgrade path into Monterey for users of existing x86 applications. SCO was the leading provider of UNIX for the x86 platform, and the deal with IBM had *everything* to do with its x86 expertise.
JFS and RCU which were developed with ZERO input from SCO.
Well, we won't know that until we compare that code with SCO's code, will we?
Where is the monetary damage to SCO?
IBM used the Monterey agreement to get access to SCO's source code so that it could be combined with AIX, resulting in an enterprise-grade environment for the Intel platform. But around the same time, IBM decided that Linux was the future, and allowed the Monterey project to die. Since SCO was counting on licensing revenue from Monterey, it was screwed by IBM's switch to Linux.
Where is there copyright infringement?
SCO is claiming that instead of using its code for the Monterey project, IBM siphoned the code over to its Linux development efforts. This violated the terms of their agreement.
Was SCO fully aware how quickly Linux would develop, that it would replace Unix, or did it take them by surprise?
What SCO was or was not "fully aware" of at the time is irrelevant...the dispute is about IBM's violation of its contract with SCO.
The issue is really quite simple. IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux. Everything else being said about this case is just rehashing of religious fervor and procedural issues.
A snapshot always help me put these predictions into perspective...
Here you go...$14.99 from Radio Shack.
Has anyone actually tried to implement this? It would require:
* Dual-ended iPod cables
* Ability to develop and download iPod software to do the transfer
* Ability not to get sued by Apple (or RIAA) for commercializing the solution
I'm sure others have thought of trying to do this as soon as the iPod appeared. It would obviously be a huge hit to "mate" iPods and swap collections, but who has come closest to making it happen? What is the current technical and legal status of each of these barriers?
"If the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from the general population. This robs them of a tremendous source for learning,"
This sounds overblown. Giving computers to 1 million of the country's poorest citizens will *grant them* a tremendous source for learning, regardless of the operating system that is used. I don't think the ability to hack the source code is going to have an impact on the "learning" for the vast majority of these users.
"[Open] source serves not only as an example of programming ideas and implementations, but also the development community serves as an accessible social learning community of practice."
Huh? What does this sentence even mean? It just looks like a jumble of pleasant-sounding words. I mean, who can argue with "learning", "community", "ideas", and "social"?
>> How exactly does Linux in a VM run Wine better than Linux
>> not in a VM?
> Well separation of states and state flow for one
Yes, but won't the impedance mismatch between the flow and the state potentially result in a performance penalty? I would think that one of the most significant properties of this environment would be that the system resource flow rate is constant in a steady-state flow system. This means there would be no accumulation of resources within any component of the system.
Linux-VServer uses a soft partitioning technique based on Security Contexts. It is more akin to Solaris Containers and commercial packages like SWsoft than VMware or Xen. It allows you to create many independent Virtual Private Servers (VPS) simultaneously on a single physical server. However, there is only instance of the operating system running on the server. Each VPS has the illusion that it is running a separate OS, including separate instances of ssh, mail, Web and databases, user account database, root password etc. But there is only one actual operating system, so every VPS is running the exact same OS distribution, release level, patch set etc.