Death Knell for OS/2 Client 224
markhb writes "I hate to be the one to submit this story, but the end may finally have arrived for the OS/2 client. Stardock Systems announced today that IBM will not allow them to OEM a client package, and that IBM has no plans for, or strategic interest in, a new OS/2 client. Is anyone ready to get the source for SOMObjects and implement EA's and the Workplace Shell in Linux?"
Re:Are they preparing to GPL it? (Score:1)
Open-source is not a rocket to a software, just to keep the software not dying. Tons of projects is running well without a lot of attention from public.
IBM, can you hear me? If you want to give up something, replace it with a "recycle bin", why don't you donate it to someone who care and love it?
GPL OS/2? (Score:1)
If so,
-Would anybody want to work with it?
-Would it happen soon enough? (a la GEM desktop, Turbo Pascal, etc, although these aren't GPL)
Hmmmm...
Re:This is depressing. (Score:1)
I've just installed OS/2 3.0 on a machine at home, and I'm disappointed with it. In particular, it doesn't run Windows applications! If you want to use Windows apps on it, you have to install a copy of Windows as well.
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:1)
Ultimate GUI test (Score:1)
Two very experiended users; one OS/2 (any version) and one Windows (95 or later).
Each has their mouse die, pointer frozen, click does nothing.
Ask each to save data, close all apps, shutdown normally.
Who wins! Now that's proper implementation of a GUI!
Re:I didn't know they made Outlook for OS/2? (Score:1)
Brad, AFAIK, doesnt really care what OS he develops on/uses, as long as he can write some software that people will buy.
Re:Are you crazy? (Score:1)
OS/2 by itself may not be a "business model", but have you ever tried to sell it to a friend?
Would you start a company that sold OS/2 as its primary source of income?
IBM does not consider the development of the OS/2 client to be a profitable undertaking.
Would you disagree?
Linux may not be a good car, but helps a good car to make!
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
Microsoft wants to be the end-all in every market. IBM however has major problems trying to get into markets that aren't its core business. It seems like IBM is able to "self-regulate" itself. Its managers may be so "focused" that they can't see other markets. This might be the best thing that could happen to IBM...
-Brent--
Re:Anyone care to help me? (Score:1)
$15-20 might just get you enough diskettes to copy from the Warp CD, as several other appends have suggested. Not to worry, many others have been there before you. I just hope that you get it right the first time (ALWAYS install plain-old VGA support, then upgrade afterward) so you don't have to do it again, and again, and again.
If you can't boot the thing because of a video problem, remember; Alt+F1 at the "boot blob" (.... OS/2) to get your recovery menu, where anything can be fixed, given enough knowledge.
Remote Software Updates via Internet (Score:1)
Yes, upgrading 2.x was painful.
Wanna see something REALLY neat? I don't know what your Internet speed is like, but you just HAVE to check out RSU (service to Warp4) at this site;
http://ps.boulder.ibm.com/pbin-usa-ps/getobj.pl
Apply service to all components, without a single diskette or CD. Live from the Internet, and a single (automatic) re-boot at the end!
Would that Linux reaches this level of sophistication some day!
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:1)
But for now, it's the difference between driving someplace in a nice new Limo/Mercedes/BMW/Porsche/Car-of-your-choice, and an 30-year-old, unmaintained 2CV.
Sure, they'll both get you to the same place, but one is actually enjoyable, whereas the other is barely more than a rusty bucket-of-bolts (nothing against the 2CV -- but they ain't the same as a BMW!)
Get familiar with them. Hell, I use GNOME right now, and it gets the job done. But it's nowhere near as fun as the WPS ever was (even in it's old, clunky 2.0 days)!!!
One's fun, the other's simply a utility.
* - * - * - * - *
I guess it's sorta like your first love... there's always a fondness that you'll never be able to quite recapture.
OS/2 was my first love.
--
- Sean
OS/2: Isn't IBM in business to make money? (Score:1)
I can't believe after all this time and all of the OS/2 following still around that IBM wouldn't continue to court a cash cow! I mean, come on, they continued with the RPG machines (AS400 now) long after everyone thought they'd never see and RPG program again; and now the AS400 line and 'strategy' is big winner.
What's next IBM? Is the venerable and highly effective MVS, a.k.a. OS/390, going to be replaced with MS Win/390 because it would be cheaper to support?
Oh, and give us a break on this 'strategy' thing; IBM is the world's biggest computer company and has many many irons in the fire, (read 'strategies'), at the same time. All good businesses do have multiple pots cooking on the stove.
OS/2 may be a stuggle for you IBM, but even MVS had to be remarketed to the business community; it was and is good technology that is hard to pass up once the facts are presented.
The same can be said of OS/2!
Bill Pier
Long Beach, CA, USA
OS/2 = Netscape (Score:1)
So, powers-that-be, what does this tell you about antitrust activity?
"Competition everywhere" indeed.
Well, at least the internal helpdesk still supports it... for now.
Security through obscurity? (Score:3)
MacOS as 'security through obscurity' is the stupidest concept I've ever heard. 'security through inability' is more like it- and that is exactly, exactly, what they want.
Re:WorkPlace Shell is great (Score:1)
From what I saw of Warp 4, it looks like IBM finally cleaned the PM up quite a bit. For those of us who were there in the 2.x era, Presentation Manager was one of the ugliest and confusing GUIs ever invented (and, yes, that does include Windows 3!).
For example, OS/2 2.x shipped without icons for many PM programs. Which means you had to launch them from a command shell. OK, except the command shell icons were buried about 3 folders deep some place.
And here's another for those who think that dragging a floppy to the trash is confusing: How about right-clicking on the desktop to shut down? In this context a 'Start' menu starts to make sense.
Sorry to be ranting, but all of this talk of the "powerfullness" of PM is kinda moot because for many years the uglyness of it was getting in right in your face. (And yes, I know that there were some wonderful $50 shareware improvements. Tell that to the people who were paying the client licences.)
Don't forget (Score:1)
IBM marketed OS/2 heavily to IBM mainframe shops. One of the big sells of the "extended edition" (which only ran on authentic IBM PS/2s, IIRC) was that it included terminal emulation software.
OS/2 always was (and probably still is) the mainframe gateway OS of choice. What they (and the PC hardware guys) never really caught onto was that there was a huge market out there for running network applications on PC server hardware. Enter Compaq and Windows NT.
WorkPlace Shell is great (Score:1)
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:4)
Try any of this in windoze:
1) Move the thing a shadow (shortcut) points to in OS/2, and the shadow (shortcut) still knows where it is...right down to config.sys entries.
2) Do the above with a whole group of things
3) Change the colors for every element of an application using OS/2's system color pallette and drag drop. No need for ANY code to be written to take advantage of this feature...it's all in the OS/2 core SOM/DSOM model.
4) All containers from EVERY OS/2 PM application can be SHARED AMONGST THEMSELVES!!! For example, I could use the PMView file selector that does nice thumbnails (The thumbnails actually become a part of the actual image file through EA's) to drag a thumbnail to a folder's background image container...voila! I just changed that folder's background image! With an application that the OS didn't know anything about!
5) TEMPLATES! I can create, say, an FTP Folder just by dragging an FTP Template to the place I want to make it. Yeah...I can see FTP servers as if they are a folder on my desktop...THAT is REAL internet integration, Microsoft!!! (And was done a year or two before you thought of it) Other templates exist for EVERY OBJECT you can use under OS/2.
6) REXX Scripting. Unlike Linux, we only have one main scripting language...but it is used for everything and is consistent....Take for example ZOC, PhotoGraphics Pro, GTIRC.... If you prefer PERL...it can be embedded in REXX!
7) Consistent context menus. OS/2 has had RMB context menus since long before Microsoft thought of them. You see...In OS/2's WPS, EVERYTHING is an OBJECT. ANYTHING you can do with an object will appear on it's context menu.
8) An interface that MAKES SENSE! The right button to drag, left to select makes sense! You don't accidentally move things that way!
I'm sure others can add much much more, but these are the things you are missing. You obviously didn't take the time to learn the WPS and how it works...assuming that the Windows interface is somehow 'right'
ATMs and OS/2 (Score:2)
Fot those who have neve rdealt eith the financial market place, legacy hardware/software is more or less the rule. These machines will be running OS/2 for quite some time.
Besides ATMs many popular credit card imprint machines run OS/2 as well.
/dev
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:3)
Keep in mind, this was about 1993, Win95 had not even been announced. There was talk about Ciaro, Chicago, or whatever, but it was all vapor.
I still like it's GUI better then anything else I can find. Including KDE and GNOME. WPS is intuitive, fast, and can be very good-looking with help. IBM is a business company, so the defaults were a bit dry, but with a little config it can be really nice. And there are no config files you need to mess with to do it. You can improve performance by editing CONFIG.SYS, but it's not required. OS/2 can perform resonably well on my old 386/25. Linux/X is painfull.
As for your comments, Yes, it has a command shell, with DOS-like commands. It was marketed as a DOS replacement, so they wanted it to be familiar. There were 2 command shells, the OS/2 shell, and the DOS emulator. It's DOS emulation is amazing, more so considering the time it was written. There were programs I couldn't run in real dos that worked great in OS/2's DOS box.
The GUI is of thier own design. It's object oriented, and very feature rich. M$ only wishes they could write such a good GUI. The default configs sucked though, you really had to take a little time and edit the color scheme and maybe throw a background up. It is nothing at all like X, nor was it ever intended to be as far as I can tell. I found it much eaiser to learn WPS then most X window managers.
It does not come with remote administration. That is one area I always thought they needed to work on. There are programs like PCAnywhere for it, but that's not nearly as good as a UNIX system's capabilities.
I thought the interface was eaiser then anything else I've used before or since. It made a ton of sense once you remembered you have more then one mouse button. EVERYTHING could be right-clicked to get a context menu. And most programs included that support too. The Win-OS/2 program was a bit of a hack, but it was a pretty good emulator. It basicly ran Win3.1 under it's DOS emulator. The windowed version was a video driver hack. There is probably some stuff the WINE team could use in that area.
It's great because at that time there was nothing that could touch it based on technology and usabilty. I think there are a few things they should have fixed early on, that they knew about and gave us kludges for. Like the SIQ problem. Now, I'd say Linux has gotten close to it's technology, but has a ways to go before usability can even come close. We had that in OS/2 in 1993! Win95 and NT have decent GUI's, but still lack when compared to OS/2. WPS and SOM still have no equal, IMO.
Is it better then UNIX? That all depends. For UNIX users, probably not. For OS/2 users, certainly. For Windows users, well, anything is better!
I really wish IBM would just open the source under GPL or some other OSS license and let those of us who want it work on porting the parts we like to Linux. With Linux as the kernel and SOM/WPS as the UI it would really rock. But so far Big Blue has declined many efforts to get the code. In this latest situation Stardock even offered to pay for it, just to make a new version of OS/2 Client. *sigh*
Of course, now there is little software available. So it's been going down for a while. There's some great stuff, but Linux is getting all the attention now. Hopefully IBM will see the light and help us get some of the great parts of OS/2 into Linux. Come on IBM! Follow the lead of SGI! They're giving us XFS, can't you give us WPS/SOM?
Re:This is depressing. (Score:2)
Consider things like the Amiga, the Atari's, and even the Mac. All were better than the MS stuff of the day, yet they failed utterly in the face of the brick wall that Microsoft turned out to be.
Yes, OS/2 was a better OS than Windows in every aspect when it came out. It may still be now (I haven't used it in several years), but the fact is that OS/2 is dead. As is the Amiga, the Atari ST, and all the other computers I held dear. Even Apple, which has always had a bigger maketshare than Amiga, OS/2, et all, has been struggling.
It is the nature of the real world that for the most part only "new" things can have a significant impact. Linux (despite really being a 30 year old OS) is "new" enough that it might have an effect. We can only hope that the community will win where IBM has failed.
Amen (Score:2)
While I appreciate the ability to customize Slashdot to include the headings from OS/2 News and Rumours [os2ss.com] and Warpcast [os2ss.com], the lack of OS/2 coverage at Slashdot has always been a major disappointment. After all, the byline is News for Nerds, not News for Linux Users, and OS/2 users(like myself) tend to be rather nerdly :-)
Anyway, I don't see this as a death knell for OS/2. IBM has a habit of saying NOTHING about what their plans are until it's just about to bear fruit. I suspect this is a result of their dealings with the DOJ, and can only hope that Microsoft will behave in a similiar fashion after the DOJ finishes with them(ie: no more vaporware announcements.) I consider the fact that IBM is still releasing fix packs, and other items for OS/2, to say a lot more about IBM's support of OS/2 than any lack of news from IBM. These items are things such as the just released Java 1.1.8 update and the beta of Netscape 4.6. It's rather hard to pronounce something dead if the vendor is actively updating it.
I suggest waiting to see what comes out at Warpstock [warpstock.org] (one of those OS/2 related news items I would have expected to see grace Slashdot's front page). IBM plans to have representatives there and I'm sure the OS/2 users will be after them for information. Weither or not it's something us OS/2 users would care to hear remains to be seen.
Re:Bitterly disappointed (Score:2)
the C64 long after the Amiga. Remeber the white C64 and the C64 based gaming console?
The problem with Commodore was:
1. Bad marketing, the marketing was usually
targeted at a different crowd than the
people who actually would benefit from
buying the system.
2. Premature entry into the information appliance
market (CDTV).
3. Production of a non-competetive gaming
consoles (C64G and CD32).
4. Loosing the blueprints of the new graphics
chips.
5. Overspending on retaining marketshare in the
US, when Europe went well.
6. Lousy CEO wich didn't use computers, didn't
understand what drove the market and
spent millions on a corporate Jet when the
company was struggling. (I guess he also
alienated loads of talent within the company).
The fact that IBM drops further investments into
OS/2 comes as no surprise, although the product
has allways been superior to Windows it has also
been a bit expensive for most people and again
the marketing has been a bit off. I remember
adverts in Dr. Dobbs where IBM tried to highlight
the power of their GUI, only the screenshot looked
totally incomprehensible, with tons of different
icons -- this at a time where programmers where
willing to loose performance (Windows 3) in
exchange for a easy to understand GUI. The retail
price of OS/2 has also been about
twice that of Windows.
My experience with IBM is that they DO support
their technology for an extended period of time
when their customers need it. One example is the
continued support for Java 1.1 when Sun has pushed
on to the Java 2 platform.
It is sad that OS/2 didn't make it further, since
it was (from a technological standpoint) a truly
superior choice in comparision to Windows.
Hail to all the systems consultants who decided
on OS/2 instead of Windows. The decision is
probably a pain in the butt today, but at least
it was the right technical decision to make at
the time.
Re:I'm not dead yet! (Score:1)
I understand what that suggests about its reliability and stability, but that doesn't have anything to do with IBM's desire to get rid of it as a desktop operating system.
Re:ATTENTION, ATTENTION; PM the best OOUI! (Score:1)
I had to learn IBM SAA/CUA in order to create a text-based mainframe interface that emulated OS/2 1.3 back in '89. It was not only a learning experience, and fun, but a real eye opener! The CUA standard covers it all; text, GUI, mouse, keyboard. If adhered to during interface development, it makes it so easy to add voice, thought-control, whatever!
Re:This is a sad day. (Score:1)
Re:OS/2: Isn't IBM in business to make money? (Score:1)
IBM employs about 300,000 worldwide.
They all need at least one computer.
That computer requires an image.
Most of the world uses Win95 and IBM communicates (shares files) a LOT with the rest of the world (customers).
Most applications only run on Windows.
Most corporations run Win95, which is (soon to be?) not supported.
IBM is in negotiations to upgrade (purchase a 300,000-user license).
Micro$oft hates (any) competition.
Micro$oft will do anything in its power (including price fixing) to destroy competition.
I don't think I need to go on.
Re:OS/2 secure? (Score:1)
As an OS/2 fan, the lack of security in the product was always troubling
No more OS/2? (Score:1)
Re:ATTENTION, ATTENTION; PM the best OOUI! (Score:1)
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:1)
Right. It should be noted that the OS/2 kernel is riddled with so much i286 and i386 assembly code that it's apparently unportable. (IBM tried porting to the PPC but never got out of beta.)
NT was designed to be the solution to that problem. See the
(Note that NT has lots of OS/2 code in other places, specifically the file+print sharing LanMan code.)
Not Working (Score:1)
Re:ATTENTION, ATTENTION; PM the best OOUI! (Score:1)
MacOS (Score:1)
I'm curious why you think the MacOS 8.x UI is a rip-off from OS/2? Especially since, aside from some window dressing, the MacOS UI has been pretty static since 1984.
Could it be the contextual menus? OS/2 didn't invent those - they were in the Xerox PARC GUI, and I think Apple Lisa and early Unix UIs might have had them as well.
Re:ATMs (Score:1)
Well, last year I saw a voice mail system running Microsoft OS/2 1.3 - The technician indicated that there was some problem with later versions so they buy it from Microsoft for $600 a box.
I would imagine that ATM manufacturers have enough resources to engineer around the 16-bit to 32-bit OS/2 issues, especially because vendor support is probably critical in this area, so maybe the issue isn't as general as I made it out to be.
Bitterly disappointed (Score:3)
I doubt OS/2 is quite dead yet, but this is certainly a very, very disappointing event to those of us who still use it.
On the other had, I guess this is the first time OS/2 has ever received the front-page Slashdot treatment. Too bad it had to be such bad news before Slashdot would recognize it...
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
There were LOTS of other 32-bit OSes for cheap Intel hardware, too, like Coherent and DesqView/386. (Those who deny that DesqView is an operating system should read Andrew Schulman's excellent work, Unauthorized Windows 95, although I'm sure OS purists won't like it
Besides, OS/2 isn't a fully 32-bit OS: it has some 16-bit code, although most of it is for running legacy applications.
Re:Ultimate GUI test (Score:1)
Here's the full message (Score:4)
---
From: "Brad Wardell"
Subject: Judgement Day results
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:46:45 -0400
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: stardock.os2
Path: prospero.stardock.com
Xref: prospero.stardock.com stardock.os2:2342
NNTP-Posting-Host: brad.stardock.com 209.69.142.81
In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected
plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users
and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with
IBM to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client
available.
To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened
negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually
it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on
proceeding.
For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together
in hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential
names down to which minute components would or would not be included. These
meetings included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives
here at Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week
in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented
their case to IBM as a whole.
The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM
has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided
that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license
any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials,
technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally
made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their
strategic directions.
Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in
particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond
the call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you
meet folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2,
that their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a
whole sets policy.
Everything that could be done was done.
Brad
---
Brad Wardell
Product Manager: Object Desktop & The Corporate Machine
http://www.stardock.com
---
---
Re:OS/2 aint dead yet! (Score:1)
Actually, it's a rule that the deader a system gets, the higher it's consultant rates go up.
Look at the undercutting Windows NT consultants. The price of popularity is cheap labor.
Re:This is depressing. (Score:1)
a) Use OS/2 4.0 - It's MUCH neater, cleaner, etc.
b) Don't make yourself look silly by trying Win95 software on OS/2...
*click* (Score:1)
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
It should be noted that OS/2 1.x (1987?) was designed to run on the 286 and was 16-bit, and that 32-bit support didn't come in until 1990 with OS/2 2.0. By then, I'm sure someone (SCO?) was selling a i386 Unix.
During the 2.x and 3.x era, there still was 16-bit code in OS/2. I don't know about today.
This is depressing. (Score:3)
Presentation Manager still has (IMHO) the best OOUI out there. None of this foo.lnk B$ from Micros~1 that breaks every time you move the item you supposedly have a shortcut to. Instead, PM shadows were managed such that they *always* knew where the original was.
Not to mention being a better Windows than Windows. I remember as an undergrad...running a WinDOS circuit design package that kept crashing on the Pentium Win3.1 machines in the labs. Running it under OS/2 on my 486 was a little slower, but it knew how to actually use a swap file and not run out of memory halfway through loading the final 32-bit RISC processor (designed from basic components) and crash.
It's a real shame that OS/2 is/has died. IBM probably should have spun it off into its own entity a la Lexmark. Maybe then someone would have had an incentive to push it a little harder, market it a little better, and actually care if it succeeded.
OS/2, you WILL be missed.
Re:It's still alive (Score:1)
OS/2 runs a lot of the older DOS games better than DOS ever did. And did you ever see OS/2 *native* Quake? WOW. Makes the windoze and linux versions look like they are running on half the machine!
That's one thing I miss under linux...not being able to play stuff like Epic pinball, jazz jackrabbit, etc.
...but linux has quake III, if you have the hardware (which I don't)
Re:The rumors of my death . . . (Score:1)
Does it work?? How well? I'm getting a new machine soon, and might try this.
The full text for those of you that can't read it. (Score:1)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:46:45 -0400
From: "Brad Wardell"
In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with IBM to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client available.
To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on proceeding.
For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together in hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential names down to which minute components would or would not be included. These meetings included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives here at Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented
their case to IBM as a whole.
The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials, technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their strategic directions.
Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond
the call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you meet folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2, that their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a whole sets policy.
Everything that could be done was done.
Brad
---
Brad Wardell
Product Manager: Object Desktop & The Corporate Machine
http://www.stardock.com
Och, we hardly knew ya' (Score:1)
Most of my time was in Win/OS rather than straight OS/2, but I was the only one in the rez hall who could do that while still keeping Descent, NASCAR Racing and a terminal session running. I've got to say that OS/2 was the closest I ever got to actually having Big Iron in my computer. I defy anyone to name an OS that has 2 kernels running at the same time and can switch them when one of them fails. Yes, the single ended input queue blew chunks, but a good app was written to expect that. I've since moved to a Mac but I still kinda miss the OS/2 desktop and having 3 copies of needed files on hand when the whole deal bites the dust. Reboot, wait for the little box, hit alt-F1 and select the most recent desktop backup and !bang! there you were again. To bad the rest of the world went for bloatware and frills. By the way playing with the appearance manager and the thickness of the lines made for a much better looking desktop.
OS/2 Sourcecode (Score:1)
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:2)
True only if you further qualify "first 32-bit multi-tasking OS"; 32-bit machines supporting multitasking OSes existed long before the 80386 came out.
It might have been the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS for "IBM-compatible PCs" - did it, in fact, come out before, say, System V/386? If not, then you might have to further qualify it as "the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS that might've become mass-market" (feel free to insert debate here about whether a PC UNIX, back then, was likely to become mass-market).
In what way does that constitute "fragmentation"? I'd consider OS/2 "fragmented" only if there were multiple versions that weren't fully binary-compatible and weren't fully source-compatible (other than "not all applications built on/built for/written for release N run on Release N-1")
It's not that big of a deal (Score:5)
First, this does NOT mean the death of OS/2, or of the client. You can STILL buy OS/2 Warp 4, and it STILL works great. I won't waste your time touting the benefits of OS/2 Warp 4, but they do exist. I'm perfectly happy with my three computers at home running OS/2 Warp, and I know of a lot of cool software that's being developed and will be relaesed over the next six months (and beyond). In fact, I'm not even sure I'd buy Warp 5 if it did come out. If I did, it'd be mostly to show my support.
Second, even if Stardock did come out with a Warp 5 (or whatever they'd call it) client, it would be more for marketing than technology. Any Warp 5 client created would be based on the Warp 5 server, and the only thing that would be different between Warp 4 and Warp 5 is the addition of SMP support. Considering that only 1% (at most) of computers out there have SMP support, it wouldn't help much. There would be no real new technology in Warp 5. There won't be any support for Windows 95 apps or anything major like that. Anyone could take Warp 4 today and create a CD that installs XFree86, EMX, Gimp, Star Office, Object Desktop, and whatever else is currently available, and it would be identical to Stardock's Warp 5.
Why? Stardock, since they won't have the OS/2 source code, can only do so much (i.e. nothing). And if IBM releeased a new client instead, they WOULDN'T add any new features that don't already exist in Warp 5 server.
So in the end, 99% of everyone who uses Warp 4 and has downloaded the standard add-ons is already running Warp 5.
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:1)
OS/2's DOS support is *NOT* emulation. It is a true VDM (this is a HARDWARE feature of the Intel chips).
You can have up to 254 VDM's (Virtual Dos Machines) running simultaneously under OS/2. The windows programs are the same.
In addition, you can run several Windows programs under the same VDM to save resources (basically acting like another computer running windows just like windows does) *OR* run troublesome apps in their *OWN SEPARATE* VDM.
Re:GPL OS/2? (Score:1)
The real end, not now... (Score:1)
Sure Worplace Shell was nice (even great for some things). However OS/2 itself had some annoying bugs (or behaviours). Hardware support was not very good, almost all recent sound cards don't work with it, many video cards don't either.
Re:GPL OS/2? NITL (Score:1)
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:2)
contender to Windows 3.1 for the desktop on Intel hardware, and was Windows NT's first strong (and superior, IMhO) opponent. It's a 32-bit operating
system with an extremely flexible and consistent desktop, enough native software to be useful, and very good DOS/Win 3.1 support. Plus lots of ported Unix stuff.
[1] Unlike Windows NT, the GUI in OS/2 is completely decoupled from the kernel, and the shell is actually useful.
[2] The default shell is a DOS derivative and superset. Other shells (4OS2, tsch, bash) are much better, IMhO.
[3] The OS/2 WorkPlace Shell was first released in 1992, long before Microsoft designed their limited WPS knock-off GUI. It's also extensible - programmers can create new desktop objects which inherit the chacteristics of the base object class they're based on. Very slick.
[4] I use it as a client, not a server, so I'm uncertain. But even the client version of OS/2 Warp 4 comes with a telnet server which is quite useful.
[5] Again, much of the interface in OS/2 predates Windows, so I consider Windows an OS/2 hack rather than the reverse. Since I use Xit, I have LOTS more buttons than a normal OS/2 setup.
I still use OS/2 as my main desktop OS at home (even though I also have Windows 95 and NT, Linux, FreeBSD, and BeOS) because I'm more comfortable in the WPS than in KDE, GNOME, or AfterStep under Linux, and because (like Linux) OS/2 has a "real" command prompt, so I can use text-based console-mode tools like lynx, pine, slrn, Yarn, FTE, or whatever in comfort. And it lets me play Quake and C&C in the background.
--
-Rich (OS/2, Linux, BeOS, Mac, NT, Win95, Solaris, FreeBSD, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
Re:In which case he'd still be wrong. (Score:1)
SCO Unix (SV-based, I think), or SCO Xenix (originally V7-based, I think, with System N stuff added on)?
Did Dynix run on PC's, or just on Sequent's machines (which were, as far as I know, not "IBM-compatible PCs", even if they did use 386's as processors)?
If you're thinking of BTOS, wasn't that actually Convergent Technology's CTOS, or something based on CTOS?
If so, did that run on PC's, or just on Convergent's x86 machine (which I also thought weren't PC-compatible, although they - or Burroughs or Unisys, depending on whether they bought Convergent before or after the merger - may later have made it run on PCs)?
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
Heck, Sun had a port of SunOS 4.0 to the Compaq Deskpro 386, or whatever it was called - they didn't sell it, though, as they were just using the Compaq as a development mule for the Sun386i; the latter was definitely not a PC-compatible machine (Sun-style boot monitor rather than a BIOS, for one thing). I don't think the port included SunView, and I've no idea whether it would've run on anybody else's PC. (In any case, it doesn't count very much, as Sun never sold 4.0[.x] on PCs.)
I'm not sure when the first Solaris 2.x release for x86 came out, but I think it might've been after 1990.
Re:ATTENTION, ATTENTION; PM the best OOUI! (Score:2)
Of course, since the WPS was built to be compatible with PM-16 and to replace Microsoft's PM-32 in OS/2 2.0, various documents refered to WPS features and programming as PM features and programming. And the difference made little practical difference since the WPS program provided PM services to things like mshell anyway, and nobody bothered writing PM apps for 16-bit OS/2 anymore anyway.
But, it does make a major difference now, since the WPS is IBM code and thus could theoretically be released under an open-source license by IBM. Also, it (theoretically, at least) could be reengineered to work on top of X graphics services instead of PM graphics services, giving you an OOUI with all the features of both X and WPS...
Re:WorkPlace Shell is great (Score:1)
I have to disagree with you here. I feel that right-clicking on the desktop is the correct thing to do. After all, for everything else, you right-click to pull up a menu of things to do to/with that object. When you have your desktop, IOW your "computer", the proper OO manner to select an action to perform on it (such as shutting down) is to right click, just like every other object in the system.
I guess to me it just made sense to think of the desktop itself as "just another object" which behaved like everything else on the desktop. It's the consistent approach to everything (well, most things) that made PM & WPS such a joy to use.
Granted, there were quirks in some of the performable actions, and the improvements between 2.x and 3.0 (and 3.0 and 4.0) are definitely nothing to sneeze at.
Not lies or exaggerations. (Score:1)
I find it amazing that a post made by someone who didn't read either the Slashdot write-up or the linked article got moderated up at all, much less so far (to a 4 as I reply), but I know how I'd M2 the moderation...
Well, at least Linux is mature enough now.. (Score:3)
Linux is mature enough and X now has nice enough
Window Managers to make it usable by ex-OS/2
users. I made the switch a few years ago (a bit
after 4.0's release)...
OS/2, like any OS, had it's problems and it's
strengths. Let's go down the line with
NT, Linux, and OS/2...
Unix compatibility
OS/2 -- Pretty good. Could run X, and had the
EMX libraries to make porting Unix apps
fairly painless. Port of GCC available,
lots of tools available
NT -- Ok. No free X, but various libraries
(Cgywin, etc) make porting Unix apps less
painful. Lots of tools available
Linux -- Duh.
Windows Compatability
OS/2 -- Ok. Win32s and Win16 done well, a binary
converter that works well on some Win32
apps is available for free on the net
NT -- Duh.
Linux -- Ok. WINE and DosEmu do ok here.
Stability
OS/2 -- Ok. Better than Win95, and if you don't
consider the WPS hanging to be hanging
the OS, then the OS is very stable. Of
course, the WPS does hang sometimes, and
occasinally when the WPS databases get
corrupted, you need to do some fairly
ugly and destructive things to recover.
NT -- Good. Occasionally the OS hangs, but not
very often, and when it does, you normally
just need to reboot.
Linux -- Excellent. Uptime is frequently
measured in months.
Interface
OS/2 -- Highly customizable, very sophisticated,
and sometimes slow. For the adventurous,
it's possible to run other desktops apart
from the WPS (Some of which use PM, or you
can run X)
NT -- Much less customizable, very standardized,
and with the advent of IE4 integration,
often slow. It's possible to run other
desktops, but more difficult than under
OS/2 or Linux, and reduces system
functionality
Linux -- Highly customizable, no standard
interface. Networking functionality
built-in.
Overall, I'd have to say that the interface was
the high point of OS/2, and I kind of miss it...
Damn. My cat is sitting on my mouse and I can't
click submit.
*moves cat*
There we go
Another reason to go with OSS exclusively (Score:2)
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
- They're too busy providing NT support services to want to compete with Microsoft.
- The consumer launch of Warp 3 (remmber the Italian nuns?) was a support nightmare, as their help desk was flooded with "How do I get DOOM to run with sound?" calls (OS/2 controls hardware access, like any good OS. DOOM, of course, used its own, non-compatible DOS sound drivers.)
- PC Company gets a much better preload discount on Windows if they don't produce or preload a competing OS.
IBM still supports OS/2 for existing, large customers in "vertical industries" like banking and insurance. This translates to things like JVM updates, Y2K and Euro fixes, and miscellaneous fixpacks. Significant updates for things a home user might want, like DIVE, USB (currently only on Intel and I believe VIA chipsets), and multimedia in general are probably not forthcoming.Re:I'm not dead yet! (Score:1)
The DOS kernel is an emulation, tho. (Score:1)
That's why DOS program in a VDM can use the OS/2 mouse and sound drivers instead of having to load their own.
--
-Rich (OS/2, Linux, BeOS, Mac, NT, Win95, Solaris, FreeBSD, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
Re:GPL OS/2? (Score:1)
It would be difficult - much more difficult than, say, letting Stardock package a new client - to determine what source is IBM's to give away and what is not. Remember, Microsoft was a co-developer (through version 1.2). Microsoft recently said that they have been considering Open Source for the last two years, but that probably didn't include the OS/2 code.
Converting a large project to open source is difficult, particularly late in the game, even if you have management backing.
Remote Admin notes (Score:1)
1. The os/2 command shell talks to an ansi terminal (and likewise, shell windows are ansi terminals).
2. telnetd is built-in with the tcp/ip package.
3. DOS sessions were given the same ansi-terminal capability several years ago. I'm not sure how far this goes, but possibly full-screen text dos apps can run over telnet.
(slashdot is really slow today, so I'm retrying - sorry for dupes)
Re:I'm not dead yet! (Score:1)
I use the Credit Union (also in Canada), they used to use Os/2 and recently spent alot of (my) money to switch over to an NT based system. Just this morning I went in and the tellers machine constantly kept freezing, and problem that they never had until they switched to NT.
Not trying to be a troll here, but Os/2 is designed more towards the business side of things wich IMHO is why they never really tried to market it as a desktop OS.
Chris
Re:Sad thing ! (Score:1)
I'm sure OS2 has many settings stored all over the place (just like linux).
The more entries, the more you can change for customisation.
Re:No more OS/2? (Score:1)
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:1)
eh? Who pushes apply before ok unless they want to see the applied settings in place without closing the dialog.
OK does an apply then closes. Apply just does an apply.
YEESH.
ALL MICROSOFT SOFWARE DOES THIS.
Most windows applications (all i used) do this....those that don't prolly have old unix programmers
Re:SOM/PM and Linux (Score:1)
Not the first time (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=os%2 F2 [slashdot.org]
--
Re:Amen (Score:1)
What might make $$$ in homes though is a fat PC acting as a server with IBM NetStations in many rooms. Not a NetStation for every family member because anyone can use any station. The 'server' could be managed by the ISP to some extent by providing applications delivers off hours and caced on the home server. Sure makes sense when compared to the cost of maintaining many PCs in a home and especially Windows PCs.
my $1.02
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
You're right. I wasn't specific enough. It was the first 32-bit OS written for the x86 "desktop" market. There were of course many other 32-bit OS's but none we'd see running Wordperfect.
It might have been the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS for "IBM-compatible PCs" - did it, in fact, come out before, say, System V/386? If not, then you might have to further qualify it as "the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS that might've become mass-market" (feel free to insert debate here about whether a PC UNIX, back then, was likely to become mass-market).Again, that's true. There were, I'm guessing Unix ports, but they weren't in a position to be mass-market. I couldn't consider Unix at the time a contender to running Wordperfect either.
In what way does that constitute "fragmentation"? I'd consider OS/2 "fragmented" only if there were multiple versions that weren't fully binary-compatible and weren't fully source-compatible (other than "not all applications built on/built for/written for release N run on Release N-1")I am refering fragmentation the same way the Microsoft does. Not the there isn't compatibility, either source or binary within multiple versions. MS would never claim that 98 and NT were fragmented. But MS claims that fragmentation is within a group of OS's that all seemingly exist for the same function. IE, the server market. According Microsoft, if I write a program and it doesn't compile under a different OS, then that OS is fragmented. I disagree, of course, but for MS's sake I acknowledge their logic. For in the desktop market, if I write an app, and try to compile it for another OS, if I can't compile it, it must be fragmented. So I can write an app for Linux and compile it under FreeBSD, Solaris, Unixware, BeOS, but it'll fail miserably under Windows. So Windows, according to the gospel of Microsoft, must be fragmented. Of course, according the the same logic OS/2 and MacOS are also fragmented. But, as I noted before, we can overlook that for the uses the OS/2 and Mac serve. Now, there are "libraries" to provide POSIX.1 compatibility to Windows and others, but that's not the Windows API, just a third party library.
Anyways, FWIW, I don't think fragmentation is a problem. I think it's good to have a little fragmention, but not as much as Windows has. But MS has blown their fragmentation PR up so much to get people scared of "Unix" and started using their much worse OS, that I've felt I've needed to start pointing out the real fragmentation where ever I had the opportunity.
-Brent--
Ditto the desire for SOM/DSOM + WPS (Score:1)
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:1)
Ah, yes. The anti-trust trial.
-Brent--
OS/2 is alive and well in Redmond (Score:1)
I must have had quite an interesting look on my face because the repairman put his left hand over the screen, put his right index finger over his mouth and gave me an elaborate "Ssssssssh!"
It was just nice to see that OS/2 had worked itself back onto campus.
--
Re:SOM/PM and Linux (Score:1)
This is the one thing I would want to make my Linux experience complete. KDE and GNOME are nice, but neither holds a candle to WPS.
Re:Ditto the desire for SOM/DSOM + WPS (Score:1)
define these guidelines?
Re:Anyone care to help me? (Score:1)
Will it run? Yes, but very slowly!
Doable? Depends on your knowledge. I can trim OS/2 down to 90MB including a full WPS. Can you?
Floppies? About 45 of them for Warp 4. Can you not procure a PCMCIA CD-ROM drive? I have a dual-speed sitting beside me. Does your laptop even have PCMCIA?
Functional? Barely. Although I'm a HUGE OS/2 fan, I recommend you install Linux via FTP! Got an Enternet card and a cable modem?
Re:Os/2??!?? (Score:2)
Hello? Not to be argumentative, but isn't what is happening to OS/2 precisely what makes closed-source software bad?
BeOS is closed source, but it has a future.
No. BeOS may have a future. Because it is closed-source, you can never be sure of its future.
Only open-source software is assured of a future, as long as anyone is still interested in it.
IBM, and others like them, are never going to sucker me into closed-source operating systems again.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
MS DOS, OS/2, Windows, WinNT and Linux/xBSD :) (Score:2)
Microsoft was smart enough to realize that people were reluctant to change from DOS to OS/2 even though it was better. They also realized that people wanted the GUI stuff, but didn't care about the other advanced stuff of OS/2 (mostly because it also meant increased hardware requirements). So what did they do? Get rid of OS/2 to IBM, and develop Windows. 1.0 was a bad joke, 2.0 wasn't even funny, and to cut a long story short, by Windows 3.1 they had a project that people actually wanted to buy. Observe a strategy here?
It's bells & whistles vs. os features again.
Customers wanted the bells & whistles of a modern GUI, but didn't bother about a new solid OS, and really wanted DOS compatibility. So Microsoft gave them just that. In the meantime they hacked together NT, which was better, and slapped on a similar interface, and got the windows users to use it as a server (familiarity being a major selling point).
Now that most software basically runs on both Windows and Windows NT, they can make the transition to a 'real' OS after all. Too bad that it took them so long and the damn OS got bloated along the way.
So what about linux, xBSD and whatnot, you say?
Consider the opposite: Power users. They want a rock solid server and they don't care if it doesn't have the bestest GUI -- or ANY GUI for that matter. After all, if someone wants to click-through system administration, he souldn't be doing it in the first place. Well, it kinda worked. The reduced hardware requirements of linux/freebsd to get full blown servers up did attract and continue to attract interest even from die hard MS fans. Heck, even Microsoft themselves are using unix for hotmail. It now even reached the point that many not-really-computer-literate persons are using it at home. That's the customers prefering features over bells and whistles buying it here.
I can see the percentage of those sensible users increasing and the percentage of users that only care about bloat decreasing. Add a bit of bloat like gnome & kde, and halfpoint there needs of users & features of free OSs meet.
All I'm waiting for now is for that moron-proof desktop environment to kill of Win2K as a desktop OS too.
Win2K will be a biggest disaster than Y2K, as they say, and lets be frank, they made a 30 million lines of code monster which should be hard to maintain, and linux/bsd hackers are more than the whole population of the state of washington
just my 0.02 EUR
-W
Want Warp 5? Get Warp UP! (Score:2)
I had the assignment of upgrading all of these servers for Y2K, and I was dreading downloading all of the fixpacks and doing the painful installs (I remember fixpacks from the 2.1 days, and they were often PAINFUL!). Then I found out about the Warp UP CD from Indelible Blue, Inc. This single disk contained all of the latest fixpacks for OS/2 and its components (like MPTN and TCP/IP), plus updates to runtime DLLs (like VX-Rexx and EMX 0.9d) and software like Netscape 4.6. All with a easy to use GUI interface.
Sorry for the testimonial, here, but this product saved me days of works. If you use OS/2, get it! I want Warp 5 as much as the next guy, but I think that getting all of the updates in one place is as good as it gets (until IBM gets its head out of its ass).
This is a sad day. (Score:3)
I'm not dead yet! (Score:2)
-cpd
why OS/2 ? (Score:3)
[1] It seems to use the same type of shell as NT..i.e. a command shell.
[2] It seems to have a DOS-like command set.
[3] It has a windows like GUI..more Win95/NT like than 98 but nothing like X.
[4] does it even have remote administration ? I saw no such thing.
[5] Its interface leaves much to be desired (kludgy win/dos hack were the first impression i got..followed by...what the heck do these weird buttons do?)
Im not trying to troll here..i'd like some informed opinion by poeple who've used it - why is it so great ? how is it better than UNIX ?
Are they preparing to GPL it? (Score:2)
If they open-source it, do you think it would fly then? Probably not. Linux has taken up that target audience. Although, it sure would teach a lot of people about proper device and memory management! You just GOTTA see the page algorithms and task dispatcher! Right out of the Big Iron manuals!
The "OS/2 client" is now Workspace On Demand, and works very nicely as a thin-client on an OS/2 Warp5 Server, thank you very much.
Long Live Linux!
Re:Bitterly disappointed (Score:2)
No wonder they're dead.
Maybe IBM could learn a lesson there...
DIA (was Re:I'm not dead yet!) (Score:2)
In a previous job, I used to design cross-platform code that ran under OS/2 as well as 16-bit and 32-bit windows. OS/2's API was, overall, the best designed of the three, IMHO, and I spent a lot of time trying to work around the shortcomings in the other two. Oh well...
Eric
--
"Free your code...and the rest will follow."
Re:GPL OS/2? (Score:3)
OTOH, the WPS was almost entirely IBM-written. The original "Microsoft OS/2 2.0" specs did not include the WPS but just an updated Presentation Manager (remember the add-on 16 bit PM subsystem for WinNT?) OS/2 2.0 was delayed after the divorce in large part because IBM decided to add the WPS.
Ideally, IBM would open-source the larger part of the WPS code, on which they have exclusive rights, and which is after all the best part of the OS anyway...
Workplace Shell (Score:2)
I've been using OS/2 at work now for several years, and while my overall impression of OS/2 is mixed, I have to say WorkPlace Shell (especially with Stardock's Object Desktop improvements) is just plain brilliant. I have used many OSes and desktop GUIs over the years, and none of them measure up to WPS+OD. When OS/2's GUI gets lost in the sands of time, it will be a step backwards for the computing world. What a shame. :(
Oh well, at least they can't keep people from using OS/2 version 4. I keep waiting for the situation to arise at work where I'm forced to run some Win32-only program and finally have to do without OS/2. But even after all these years, it still hasn't happened. (There was a close call a few years ago, but the software in question turned out to be useless.) That leads me to believe it's going to take OS/2 a long time to completely fade away.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
SOM/PM and Linux (Score:3)
Well, it's a shame that it has happened, but it was unfortunately inevitable. I used to use OS/2, but gave up after Merlin--such a new OS with so little hardware support. But I always missed the PM. And I would love a chance at implementing it.
SOM is basically CORBA. If you know CORBA, then you know quite a bit already about the paradigm of SOMObjects and the PM. I know that GNOME uses an ORB (although a limited one). Perhaps some of us old OS/2ers could start putting our efforts into something like GNOME or something new entirely?
Again, it is just a crying shame to have watched OS/2 die such a slow death over the past four years. It's almost a relief; now we can get on with our lives. Instead of hoping against all hope that IBM might see the light, we can get down to the business of simply doing it better.
Farewell, OS/2.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:2)
It's command set is quite DOS-like. This is to reduce the learning curve.
I wouldn't say that it's gui was windows-like exactly. I'd say that Windows had an OS/2 like interface (albeit a much shallower implementation). But it was *REALLY* object oriented. That's the important distinction.
You can remotely admin the box. Since all tools can be command-line driven, you could telnet in and do most anything (well, at least I could do anything that I cared about).
It's interface is old. (shrug) It all depends on what you're used to really. I still like it's consistent use of the right-click (properties). *EVERYTHING* on the desktop was an object and could be manipulated as such. Stuff on the deskbar (startbar) was directly manipulatable by right-clicking. Unlike Windows.
Alas, it's all academic now. I still wish I could have Workplace Shell for Linux. That'd be the best thing that could happen for a consistent user experience. But, I digress
Lies! or exaggerations maybe. (Score:5)
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:2)
Correct. OS/2's command shell is nothing special (although with 4OS2 it's reasonably decent). This is not an aspect of OS/2 that will be missed.
The Win9x/NT4 GUI is a cosmetic knock-off of OS/2's GUI, but the similarity ends there. You can't learn anything about WPS from looking at screenshots; you have to use it. Everything just works they way it should. Instead of trying to look object oriented, it is object oriented, and after you've used it for a month or two, everything else seems cheesy. It just gets under your skin and convinces you that it's right, all on its own merits. To give you some perspective, I'm an Amiga zealot, and even I have to admit that my Amiga's UI is humbled by WPS.
As for not being like X, you make that sound like a bad thing...?
No idea, I haven't needed to do that so far. (You may have a good point there, I just don't know.)
Kludgy win/dos hack?! It's about as far from a hack as you can get! Are we talking about the same interface?
---
Have a Sloppy day!
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:2)
Some people feel that it is still a superior client (not me, anymore), because:
- It has an easy-to-use, yet very powerful object-oriented GUI shell (the Wor kplace Shell).
- It is compatible with older Windows programs (pre-Win32s 1.25).
- It is great at multitasking DOS programs (not such a big deal anymore)
- It has a nice multiple-inheriting object model (SOM)
There are some rudimentary remote administration abilities (telnet and ftp daemo ns are included with the operating system).Sadly, IBM has neglected it for so long, that it has been basically dead for years. I still have it on one machine at home (my wife uses it for email--PMMail is a nice email client), but I switched to Linux full time (I had been dual-booting OS/2 and Linux for a while before that) a couple of years ago.
This is why I will not use any proprietary software, unless I have no other choice; you are at the mercy of the company who holds the source. Never again! If it's not open source, I avoid it, to the extent possible/practical.
Thanks, IBM, for teaching me the greatest benefit of open source.
Although...they would redeem themselves in my mind somewhat if they would GPL SOM and the WPS.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:why OS/2 ? (Score:4)
OS/2 used a CMD.EXE shell, which was a little closer to a typical unix shell. True, it didn't have filename completion (though 4OS/2 did), but it had a nice history feature completely unlike DOS/WinDOS. And it had a nifty F1 help feature in its shells.
Its command set was similar, but not quite the same. And HPFS had true long filename support, and you could always use the long filenames (unlike 95, which half the time balks when I try to use the readable name). Plus it had an extensive help system that was fairly well crossreferenced.
Of course, it had ReXX as its scripting language which, even though I still can't write a script without taking a lot of time to look up syntax and the like, really tied everything together. It could manipulate anything in the system (including the GUI) through built-in extensions to the language. Want something to do foo? You could write some code, compile it to a dll, and rexx could use it like it was built-in. Try doing that with daim-bramaged batchfiles. :-)
If by "windows like" you mean "square windows, some borders, standardized buttons", then yes. Presentation Manager is still THE best OOUI that I've ever used. Everything I found about it was consistent.
It had some type of support, IIRC, but I was always the only OS/2 user around, so I never really found out. There WAS the ability to telnet and FTP to it (especially in 3.0 on, when they included TCP/IP), so you could do a lot that way.
Sure, there were a lot of problems, namely hardware support, and available software apps. But the hobbes archives made a lot of the difficulty go away. And a lot of GNU stuff had been ported to OS/2.
Comparing the PM with X is like comparing apples and oranges. PM was fairly well tied to the underlying OS, but in a good way (there were replacements, even text mode ones, which came out rather quickly). Under X, the WM mostly just handles window placements, iconifying, etc. The PM WAS your system. And everything about it was stored in a registry or in the filesystem. I don't quite know how to explain the difference, it's really something that you need to experience.