On a pure opinion tidbit, with little basis in fact.
Let me preface this by mentioning that I get paid to write Windows software, I do it using a Mac, or Linux (Novell's Linux Desktop).
This guy hasn't paid too much attention to the reasons for the Microsoft hate. Most senior technology people have a certain distaste for Microsoft not because of the pedantic political tripe spread by the hardcore anti-MS people, but because of bitter experience. I personally have a strong opinion about how poorly Adobe treats it's customers, but I'm not out to tell you why I feel that way.
Microsoft has put out products that are consistantly just good enough. They have more often than not, used illegal, or unethical behaviour to strong arm products into the marketplace. In very few instances have the used free market success. The XBox being one, and it only worked because they had nearly infinite resources to sell the hardware at a loss.
There is a love & hate relationship with Microsoft within the tech community. While I respect what they have accomplished, I don't feel that it's realistic to characterise their success as completely legal or ethical. Raising prices on the software to hardware vendor simply because that vendor wants to preload an alternative operating system on some systems, not even 10% of them. Forcing licensees to pay for a Windows installation for every computer shipped regardless of if the computer shipped with Windows on it or not, and refusing to offer fair pricing to other vendors. Believe it or not, this would be termed 'price fixing' in many industries, as Microsoft has effectively been setting the price you pay for computers for 15 years now.
No, it's not that MS is evil, it's that after 15-20 years of Microsoft's business practices, people are looking at other alternatives, which has only served to bring some of Microsoft's abuses into a more public light. Insiders have known about this stuff for years, but it wasn't until they became public knowledge that governments felt any pressure to actually do anything to make it appear that they care (they don't, Microsoft, IBM and Apple generate billions in revenues for governments worldwide).
Is that you can't Open Source the entire Operating System, and at this point it would cost more to perform the code audit and legal audit to make this happen that it would to simply take the black eye of killing it.
If you think about it, it makes sense. OS/2 is, and never was, just the operating system. Think back to installing OS/2, especially in the pre 4.0 days.
You didn't just install OS/2, you also installed LAN Server (or LAN Manager in earlier days), TCP/IP for the Internet, eventyually you got MMPM and others, but these are all seperate packages that are more or less bolted onto the core.
It's probably reasonable to release parts of OS/2, but you can't release all of it, particularly the parts licensed from third parties.
That's the real kicker.
In order to Open Source OS/2 in the sense that most people want is a logistical nightmare that would encompass years and a cost that IBM would have no hope of ever recovering.
So what is the next best option? release the source for the important parts. SOM ? can't because of Microsoft licensing. WPS? can't, Adobe PostScript font rendering engine.
Those are just items from the top of my head, and I haven't used OS/2 in close to 10 years now. It's a nice dream, but it's unlikely to ever happen.
kanga
Slashdot Mirror
On a pure opinion tidbit, with little basis in fact. Let me preface this by mentioning that I get paid to write Windows software, I do it using a Mac, or Linux (Novell's Linux Desktop). This guy hasn't paid too much attention to the reasons for the Microsoft hate. Most senior technology people have a certain distaste for Microsoft not because of the pedantic political tripe spread by the hardcore anti-MS people, but because of bitter experience. I personally have a strong opinion about how poorly Adobe treats it's customers, but I'm not out to tell you why I feel that way. Microsoft has put out products that are consistantly just good enough. They have more often than not, used illegal, or unethical behaviour to strong arm products into the marketplace. In very few instances have the used free market success. The XBox being one, and it only worked because they had nearly infinite resources to sell the hardware at a loss. There is a love & hate relationship with Microsoft within the tech community. While I respect what they have accomplished, I don't feel that it's realistic to characterise their success as completely legal or ethical. Raising prices on the software to hardware vendor simply because that vendor wants to preload an alternative operating system on some systems, not even 10% of them. Forcing licensees to pay for a Windows installation for every computer shipped regardless of if the computer shipped with Windows on it or not, and refusing to offer fair pricing to other vendors. Believe it or not, this would be termed 'price fixing' in many industries, as Microsoft has effectively been setting the price you pay for computers for 15 years now. No, it's not that MS is evil, it's that after 15-20 years of Microsoft's business practices, people are looking at other alternatives, which has only served to bring some of Microsoft's abuses into a more public light. Insiders have known about this stuff for years, but it wasn't until they became public knowledge that governments felt any pressure to actually do anything to make it appear that they care (they don't, Microsoft, IBM and Apple generate billions in revenues for governments worldwide).
Is that you can't Open Source the entire Operating System, and at this point it would cost more to perform the code audit and legal audit to make this happen that it would to simply take the black eye of killing it. If you think about it, it makes sense. OS/2 is, and never was, just the operating system. Think back to installing OS/2, especially in the pre 4.0 days. You didn't just install OS/2, you also installed LAN Server (or LAN Manager in earlier days), TCP/IP for the Internet, eventyually you got MMPM and others, but these are all seperate packages that are more or less bolted onto the core. It's probably reasonable to release parts of OS/2, but you can't release all of it, particularly the parts licensed from third parties. That's the real kicker. In order to Open Source OS/2 in the sense that most people want is a logistical nightmare that would encompass years and a cost that IBM would have no hope of ever recovering. So what is the next best option? release the source for the important parts. SOM ? can't because of Microsoft licensing. WPS? can't, Adobe PostScript font rendering engine. Those are just items from the top of my head, and I haven't used OS/2 in close to 10 years now. It's a nice dream, but it's unlikely to ever happen. kanga