Agreed. The 1.1 and 1.3 versions of OS/2 were really like the Windows product. OS/2 was really stunning when we moved to 3.x and 4.0 Warp. It was still a heck of a lot easier to program for the interface using the ICLUI tool set than anything MS had at the time. I remember Borland coming out with OWL for Windows in a parallel timeframe - it tried to mimic ICLUI but was really a pain to develop with.
Funny thing happened on my way to the forum.
A few years back I had to get some information out of a OS/2 help file, and had no install. I ended up downloading a copy of the OS from the internet to quickly get access - I did end up uninstalling as I had no other use for the install. Still I wonder if it is worth having a box laying around to tinker with. http://archive.org/details/OS2Warp
I spent may hours working in the ICLUI interface building apps for OS/2. For the most part it was good at memory management, tools were mature and the interface was object oriented. I was always frustrated about the MS & IBM split on the interface and I think MS took the wrong route in getting to Windows. Had the alliance stuck around who knows what would have happened to this OS.
What I haven't figured out (and this is an outside in view working in an aggregation business for a number of year) is why authors don't create an open publishing platform and kick companies like WK or E to the curb? It would be a simple thing to make a publishing business run for the sole purpose of review and share. Papers submitted to the site are passed to reviewers round-robin style. Reviews on the work are shared with peers. To publish you must referee, to referee you must publish and rate high. Cost of material is reduced, content is created and refereed, quality is high, win-win-win.
If it is a government supported institution the professor got paid for it and it should be in the public domain. If the institution is private, then the policy of the institution should hold the rights to anything created by the professor - just like the rest of the private sector. This nonsense of private publishers taking ownership of publicly created works is upside down. It just makes sense that if the work was funded with public monies, even in salary, then it should be open for all. The fact that other public institutions have to pay an outrageous sum to get access through the publishers for this data is crazy. Some of these publishers are even asking for upwards of 50% (or more) royalty on the works. And the author sometimes gets the same amount - so they are effectively double dipping into the cost of goods! (Pay me a salary and pay me for my content.)
Good for Princeton.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The 1.1 and 1.3 versions of OS/2 were really like the Windows product. OS/2 was really stunning when we moved to 3.x and 4.0 Warp. It was still a heck of a lot easier to program for the interface using the ICLUI tool set than anything MS had at the time. I remember Borland coming out with OWL for Windows in a parallel timeframe - it tried to mimic ICLUI but was really a pain to develop with.
Funny thing happened on my way to the forum. A few years back I had to get some information out of a OS/2 help file, and had no install. I ended up downloading a copy of the OS from the internet to quickly get access - I did end up uninstalling as I had no other use for the install. Still I wonder if it is worth having a box laying around to tinker with. http://archive.org/details/OS2Warp
I spent may hours working in the ICLUI interface building apps for OS/2. For the most part it was good at memory management, tools were mature and the interface was object oriented. I was always frustrated about the MS & IBM split on the interface and I think MS took the wrong route in getting to Windows. Had the alliance stuck around who knows what would have happened to this OS.
What I haven't figured out (and this is an outside in view working in an aggregation business for a number of year) is why authors don't create an open publishing platform and kick companies like WK or E to the curb? It would be a simple thing to make a publishing business run for the sole purpose of review and share. Papers submitted to the site are passed to reviewers round-robin style. Reviews on the work are shared with peers. To publish you must referee, to referee you must publish and rate high. Cost of material is reduced, content is created and refereed, quality is high, win-win-win.
If it is a government supported institution the professor got paid for it and it should be in the public domain. If the institution is private, then the policy of the institution should hold the rights to anything created by the professor - just like the rest of the private sector. This nonsense of private publishers taking ownership of publicly created works is upside down. It just makes sense that if the work was funded with public monies, even in salary, then it should be open for all. The fact that other public institutions have to pay an outrageous sum to get access through the publishers for this data is crazy. Some of these publishers are even asking for upwards of 50% (or more) royalty on the works. And the author sometimes gets the same amount - so they are effectively double dipping into the cost of goods! (Pay me a salary and pay me for my content.) Good for Princeton.