OS/2 Community Tries Bounty System 293
Grayskull writes "The OS/2 and eComStation community are trying to get open source software ported to that platform by opening bounties and allowing people to chip in with prize money. Currently the most important open bounties are Java 6 port, Icon routines in OS/2, VirtualBox port, Extend multimedia and OpenWengo ports."
Bounties? (Score:5, Funny)
Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty.
Community? (Score:4, Funny)
And I thought that Trekkies were nerdy.
My bounty is for O/S2 to be open source. (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise go the way of Commodore.
Open source the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open source the OS (Score:5, Informative)
Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be (Score:5, Interesting)
What IBM could do:
1) Open-source the code it owns
2) Binary-blob all non-royalty-bearing code it doesn't own.
3) Sell the complete package including royalty-bearing code for the cost of royalties plus a small markup to cover business expenses.
4) Repeat for older versions
They've already all but open-sourced JFS. If memory serves, the version of JFS in the final version of Warp Server had much the same code as the version that found its way into Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) Open-source the code it owns
It already has. Large portions of it, in fact. Where do you think Linux implementation of JFS came from? It was in OS/2 before it was even in AIX or Linux. The SMP and some of the NUMA stuff it bought from Sequent I think was also in OS/2 at one point or another. That stuff is also open sourced and part of Linux.
So, yeah, large parts of OS/2 code are alive and well and already open sourced -- in Linux
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just a couple of things dude,
- JFS was in AIX way before it was in OS/2.
- The NUMA stuff from sequent never had anything to do with OS/2, they ran their own unix OS.
I liked OS/2 back in the day. However you must realize that there are NO 'large parts' of OS/2 that have been open sourced.
Re: (Score:2)
Unluckily IBM doesn't have any interest in open sourcing OS/2. Our JFS is a closed source fork. When IBM open sourced Object Rexx all the OS/2 parts were removed and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
ReactOS, Wine (Score:5, Insightful)
To make matters worse, it is pretty much succeeded by Windows NT, which means any re-developed open source OS/2 clone will be irrelevant, as it will be like ReactOS, but years behind. And let's not forget Wine, of course. I generally love how people can get enthusiastic about vintage operating systems, to the point where they develop clones of them, it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.
Re:ReactOS, Wine (Score:4, Insightful)
it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.
Fanboys, perhaps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting thing about OS/2 community is, it is very hard to find any clueless fanatics. Even in 1995, unless you claimed a completely stupid thing like "MS-DOS is better than OS/2" or "Windows 95 is 32bit", they (especially team os/2) would listen.
I am on OS X now and I can't find quality ezines, communities like OS/2. I find myself sometimes posting as AC to Apple related stories since I am sick of fanatic community.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is really hard for some people to understand that not everyone disliking Windows likes Linux or FreeBSD.
If one remembers these are the people who paid more than Windows 95 to IBM and the fact that OS/2 was/is a commercial operating system, it will be easier to understand.
I notice a lot of the OS/2 community migrated to Apple OS X. On the other hand, some people could be still happy with OS/2. It is not Windows 95 or 98, it is a 32 bit operating system still having some software released. One can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed.
At a previous company I worked for, our voice mail system was ran by an OS/2 machine. Microsoft's OS/2. When you typed "ver" that's what it said. "Microsoft OS/2" (and some version and copyright info I don't remember anymore). And in classic Microsoft fashion, it wasn't y2k compliant. After the turn of the millennium, I would have to dig through a calendar to find a year that matched up with 2000, 2001, 2002, etc.
When I le
OS/2 was the only acceptable option (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.
Of course. Heck, OS/2 is still in use in a lot of ATMs, voice mail systems, and so on today, although it's being phased out due to lack of support. But there are ATM's in my area that I know are running OS/2. Our Nortel Norstar voice mail unit at work runs OS/2. In the 1980s and 1990s, OS/2 was very commonly used when you wanted to embed a general-purpose computer system into an "appliance" scenario. That's because it was, to a large extent, the only acceptable option.
Consider, it's 1990, and you want to build some kind of computerized "appliance". Maybe it's a voice mail system, or a bank ATM, or an electronic message board, or whatever. You want to use a general-purpose computer, because that lowers costs and enables third-party "layered product" options. GP hardware is cheaper, software development on a GP platform is easier (since the test target can be the same as the development environment), and there's a bigger third-party community to tap.
So what are your choices? Linux doesn't exist yet. Commercial Unix platforms (SGI/Irix, SunOS, HP-UX, DEC/Ultrix, etc.) are very expensive. BSD is tied up in legal wranglings, and support for commodity micros (IBM-PC, Mac) is limited at the time. DOS barely provides disk services and is useless for everything else, so you'd practically have to write your own OS. MS Windows runs on top of DOS and is basically just a GUI -- inappropriate for most embedded applications -- and has stability issues. Win NT doesn't exist yet. Xenix is a joke. SCO Unix is painfully clunky and hideously expensive.
And then there is OS/2. It's a preemptive multitasking, protected memory OS. It runs on IBM-PC-compatible computers, the platform with the biggest market presence and the most third-party support -- and also the cheapest hardware. It's from IBM, the single biggest name in computing. IBM and Microsoft both say it's the wave of the future. It's relatively inexpensive when purchased in bulk. Seems like a no brainer, right?
Obviously, looking back with 20/20 hindsight today, OS/2 seems like a strange choice, but at the time, it made perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.
They're not that different from fans of BeOS, Amiga OS, or a dozen other platforms that never reached critical mass, despite their many virtues. For that matter, your see the same stubborn refusal to see economic sense from Mac and Linux fans when they complain about publishers not supporting their platforms.
Brad Wardell has this really insightful take on what it's like to be an OS/2 fanatic, and how his fellow fanatics turned on him when he started hedging his bets.
http://www.stardock.com/stard [stardock.com]
Re:ReactOS, Wine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably worked better on OS/2! I think all replacement shells play havoc with Windows. Too many poorly documented APIs to screw up with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're under the impression that Windows NT somehow succeeds the 32-bit OS/2 clients released by IBM, then no wonder you don't understand the OS/2 community that survives -- you think we still use the old 16-bit POS that was created in the IBM+Microsoft days. Methinks not. :-)
OS/2 still has advantages in process prioritization and multithreading that neither Windows now Linux can touch, and you can feel the difference on old enough hardware. OS/2 responds quickly where WinNT 4, Win2K, and various Linux
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors
It can be done, but you would need to take a BSD approach to it. That is, people who have (legal) access to the source would need to rewrite/replace all those components for which they can't obtain permission to release.
So it would take a legally limited pool of developers a lot of time and effort, all to open source an operating system that hasn't been updated since 2001. All-in-all, possible, but unlikely to be worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's right. If it isn't a UNIX-based or Windows-based OS, it doesn't deserve to live regardless of what it might have contributed to history or what functional/technical merit it might have for future generations. POSIX and Redmond have all of the computing answers, and are the only technologies that were ever worth anything...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And more people will port Open Source software to it.
Not really. There are loads of open source OSes out there, and only the big and famous ones get a substantial amount of developers, and developers tend to contribute where their code will have more probabilities of being used (that is, big, established OSes). It's kind of a chicken and egg problem
Re: (Score:2)
That's true for all operating systems, not just the free ones. It's one of the reasons Mac OS X adoption had been so slow until the Intel switch. One pretty much had to go cold turkey when buying a Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's true for all software projects, not just operating systems.
Re:Open source the OS (Score:5, Informative)
Odin [wikipedia.org] tries to, but the project's been moribund for about ten years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As the sibling poster mentions there is Odin.
As for GCC, it was first ported to OS/2 in about 1990 along with the EMX libc. IBM paid for a fork of EMX (removed all GPL parts and replaced with BSD and LGPL) for Mozilla and that is what we now have. GCC is at version 3.3.5, KLIBC allows most programs to be built with little effort.
Unluckily our X server hasn't been updated since the X.org fork and now Firefox is rejecting some of our patches as they are workarounds for our old GCC.
Now the thing we most need o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, am a fanboy that doesn't care.
OS/2 was the first real operating system I ran, and was pretty amazed by it, falling in love at the first run.
For some years (from 2.0 to "War" 4.x) I used it at my primary OS (ie, a Windows partition for the occasional gaming), and it was sad when it died. The possibility of coming back to Windows was glooming.
But Linux came to the rescue. It was just as good, minus the Presentation Manager (OS/2 neat object-oriented desktop). Although I did not realized at first h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked at a site in the 1990's which used OS/2 as the main corporate desktop. It was disliked by most of the users for various reasons:
It had a tendency to stack icons in folders at the same x,y coordinate, requiring the user to manually position them
Now none of the above is really the fault of the OS. The UI issues are fairly typical of environments where more effort is given t
Qutecom instead of Openwengo (Score:4, Informative)
Openwengo is dead, it's now called Qutecom [qutecom.org]. Also I'm wondering whether Ekiga is not much mature, especially now version 3.00 is around the corner.
Team OS/2! (Score:5, Funny)
OS/2! Named after the number of users remaining!
Re:Team OS/2! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahh show some respect. :)
Long before there was talk of Linux supplanting Windows, it was OS/2.
I was one of them, from version 2 through Warp 4. Let the Star Trek puns rain down on me for that one! :)
Take care all.
Just my .02 worth :)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it was cruel. But fair. Or "fair but cruel."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with you on that. I really loved working with OS/2 way back when. My first NAT gateway ran on OS/2 before most people never even heard of it.
Not to mention, OS/2 was a pretty darned good DOS multitasker, and a good number of DOS games ran well under OS/2 as well.
It was a pretty good Operating System, low footprint, and it took quite a few years before Linux distributions got as good as OS/2.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too.
I was amazed when I first installed it, I discovered a menu option on the installation program to open a terminal window with a shell. From that, I could run the programs that was just finished being installed, while the installation of the system continued in the background. I played some games during the rest of the installation, and it ran smoothly. Impressive, considering it was early 90's, on a 386 with 16MB RAM.
Ahh.. the memories.
Re: (Score:2)
I was too! I was even developing software for OS/2. I don't remember what happened, after writing three small utilities (I can't even recall what they are at the moment) I stopped writing software. Seemed to me at the time I was the only one in 100 miles that used it as a desktop...
I actually didn't even have a CDROM for OS/2 War
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem was the Win/OS2 holodeck that allowed vendors to say they supported OS/2 without having to write a native port. Using Wine as a substitute for native ports (as others here have suggested) would continue that same flawed strategy that only works if there is already a large portfolio of native software.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think OS/2 suffered from a warp core breach.
And how!
Just after they were caught by the Borg leader Gerstner and resistance was futile. :)
Couldn't resist!
Take care.
Re: (Score:2)
OS/2 is and has been for many years now a very useful and stable product (once you install the proper fixpacks) and find some software to run on it. I recommend StarOffice 5.1 and Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
So has DOS and CP/M.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you kids!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I cut my teeth on RSTS/E!
Truly hopeless (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, this is like getting grandma a boobjob so maybe she can score a young IT guy with money.
Donate it to the community or give it up!
Re: (Score:2)
They can't open source it. It's encumbered.
Re:Truly hopeless (Score:5, Funny)
They can't open source it. It's encumbered.
Are we still talking about OS/2 or his grandmother?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God help me, I parsed that as "cucumber", and now I feel like the Sam Neill character in Event Horizon...
Oh God.
Do you SEE!!?!1?one?!?
Actually, I think he's the original inventor of putting '1' and 'one' into verbal speech.
Re:Truly hopeless (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, I'm going to have to scrub my brain with bleach now.
Re: (Score:2)
What! (Score:4, Funny)
Someone is still using OS/2? Perhaps there should also be bounties for porting software to Win 95 & NT 4.0 and Linux kernel v1.0...
Re:What! (Score:5, Informative)
There are several embedded systems till using OS/2. One of the biggest is ATM machines, new ones too.
My bank just installed a load of brand new machines, all running OS/2.
Re:What! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I can see a huge bright future for ATMs running Java and GIMP and Firefox and Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can photoshop, so to speak, your holiday pictures while getting cash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still remember the cash register at my first job ran OS/2... I pressed the key combo to get out of a full screen POS application (can't even remember what the combo was), and realized I was in OS/2. From that point on I always wanted to bring in Doom and run it on the cash register.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, I suppose.
What does OS/2 offer today? (Score:4, Interesting)
I used OS/2 Warp a long time ago. It was good, in its day. But why do people still use it late 2008?
Is it love?
Are there any technical advantages?
If it is because of a key legacy application instead of getting stuff ported to OS/2 maybe that application should get ported to the other OSs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple. It works well for what most users do.
- The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.
- No virus, no spyware.
- Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search no
Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (Score:5, Informative)
> Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.
Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your bullet points. Ill comment on them.
- The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.
The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".
- No virus, no spyware.
Just like
Re: (Score:2)
The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".
Really? Now compare Windows Media Player, Office 2003, Office 2007, Internet Explorer, Notepad, Visual Studio, and Windows Update. None of these, you might notice, are third-party applications, yet you might notice that they have some rather fundamental differences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.
Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A few bounties can fix that right up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's entirely due to lack of interest on the part of virus makers and spyware makers, as OS/2 is not very secure. For example, important libraries used by all processes are mapped to shared, writable memory. It's trivial for a malicious process to take over any other process and run arbitrary code in that other process.
From a security point of view, OS/2 is in the same ballpark as Windows 95, far below Linux, OS X, and any Windows decended from NT (such as NT, 2K, XP, Vista).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is the OS/2 link a hard link?
No, it's not a file system object at all. The Workplace Shell keeps all "shadows" in its ini file. Shadows are visible to neither the command line nor non WPS-aware apps.
Since the WPS is almost always running, it's not an issue, but if you do what he says without the WPS running (e.g. you edit config.sys to force OS/2 to use CMD.EXE as the user environment), the shadow will not be updated. It will just show a broken link icon. While the WPS is running, it pays attention to what's happening in the command
Not very bountiful (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is a bunch of people offer bounties for something worthwhile. So, if someone else wanted GTK, maybe they would offer $50, and then someone else $100, someone else $10, and so on, so the bounty grows.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not sure that this is the place for bounties.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bounties make a certain amount of sense as a means to reward the efforts of people who work on projects of community interest, and they might even direct the attention of people who are likely to be working on something in any case in the direction you want it to go. They aren't a way of hiring programmers(not at this size anyway), they are only an added motivation for the already interested.
Does an OS used primarily by a dwindling number of corporate legacy customers, often in semiembedded applications, really have a large enough pool of already interested contributors? The fact that OS/2 is closed isn't an automatic kiss of death for community involvement with a legacy system(just look at Amiga and BeOS); but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).
Perhaps this will work for them, if so, great; but I have to wonder.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).
Ah, you should have seen the 90s! There were OS/2 fanboys that made the Apple guys look like sissy boys. They were rabid. Just say, "OS/2 is what, DOS 5.0?"
Ooooo Weeee! It would have been better to call their mother a whore!
You should all be ashamed (Score:2, Interesting)
OS/2 was a technology leader for a long time, it was the first OS to take the desktop metaphor seriously. Its programming model (SOM) and template system is still marvelous after all these years. It was the first OS with proper multi-threading support, with voice support etc. etc. Lots of innovations happenend on this platform.
It just had one problem: It was managed by IBM!
When OS/2 version 3 came out, it kicked ass compared to Win 3.11 and Win 95. Just imagine what wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.
We're not making fun of OS/2. We're making fun of the losers who wont admit to themselves that the ship has sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Only those of you still using Windows. Those of us using Linux have moved on; why don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really d-bag? How has Linux gone past cli and gui concepts that are implented in Windows, Mac OS X, other Unices? He was just disparaging Windows in case you have reading comprehension problems.
Yes, but no virus or trojans (Score:3, Funny)
I run OS/2 as my primary desktop. I'm safe from viruii as there is none for it.
There is some security through obscurity.
Linux ate OS/2 market share IMO (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a very fanatical OS/2 user. Not fanatical in a zealotish way but fanatical in that I liked doing all I needed on my PC using OS/2. Some minor issues which couldn't be done were usually easily solved when opening up OS/2 Windows. Another issue is that I actually paid for my sofware. And OS/2 knew some great software packages! If you like GQView these days; I was using something very similiar long before we even heard from Gnome and KDE.
But it became awfully tricky when IBM dropped support for OS/2 and eventually I made the jump fully to Linux. Right now I'm very happy with Ubuntu using a KDE desktop. And the fact that it doesn't have to cost me much is naturally a very welcome benefit as well.
Now, this was years ago. I sometimes try to install my Warp and Merlin CD's in some kind of virtual machine but mostly to no avail (I did got Warp running though). However, I have tried a few of the ComStation live cd's to see what it was all about. And quite frankly; it doesn't manage to impress me one bit. Sure; its a nice revival of the old OS/2 but its main problem (IMO ofcourse) is that it didn't go along with recent developments but instead got stuck somewhere in the last century.
Now; bear with me. I can understand that the developers can only do so much with it. But it would have been a lot better if they would have tried to utilize other people's researches and developments as well. OS/2 had some very powerfull desktop enhancers. Some of those even managed to build an entire business out of their single product because.. it actually sold (I bought several copies myself as well). But.. None of that on eComstation. The interface is basically the same as what we were used to, but which most of us have most likely outgrown.
So instead of wasting money on projects like these I'd think that money would be better put into OS development. But even that might not be enough to get back much of the marketshare. Lets face it; Linux has ate up a lot of marketshare. I sure wouldn't even consider going back anymore. So my stance on this? "Too little, too late", even though I admire the effort.
They should port the OS/2 API to Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be a OS/2 user, but I stopped about 4 years ago. I sympathize with the OS/2 community, because it was my geek "home" for a while, but they're going about it all wrong. I tried to convince them a long time ago, but they never listened.
The OS/2 kernel is seriously outdated. Hardware support is minimal, and the kernel itself is just dated. It's mostly 16-bit. So there's no reason to keep it. A few people insist that the OS/2 kernel is "nicer" or "better" than the Linux kernel is some way, but these people don't know anything about kernels. It's a stupid argument.
The OS/2 community should port the OS/2 API to Linux. This will allow them to run the WPS (the illustrious GUI that OS/2 users rave about) and every other OS/2 application. This would be a one-time effort, because the API is stable. It hasn't been updated in almost 10 years. Not only that, but it's very well documented
Instead, these guys keep trying to port Linux applications to OS/2. If every OS/2 developer dropped what he was doing and worked on porting the OS/2 API, they'd be done in about a year. They would never have to ask for any more help ever again. The user base would actually grow, even. They'd be able to use all of their applications forever, even on newer hardware. Device support would never be a problem. Even businesses that are based on OS/2 would start moving to Linux. It would be win-win for everyone.
In fact, the WPS might even become quite popular. Someone might try to make an open source version of it, and it might even become a replacement GUI for Linux, competing with Gnome and KDE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What... the... hell? Linux has always prevented userland applications from doing these things, as have modern versions of Windows.
Some bounty! (Score:2, Interesting)
Below it, it says: Current Bounty: $0
I used to be an OS/2 developer. For me to get a compiler, the OS, a machine to install all that stuff on, and the time to do it, I would want a lot of money to do it. Let's put it this way, enough to buy a new car.
Who would want to? (Score:4, Interesting)
Already a well-supported guest on VirtualBox (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the motivation?
Barrier to entry (Score:4, Insightful)
As i understand it, OS/2 still costs money to obtain...
So there's very little incentive for a hobbyist programmer to obtain a copy just to play with... The only people using it, will be those who are stuck with it for legacy reasons, it won't gather any new users.
There are several niche open source OS's out there, and there's no barrier to stop people downloading them to try (i regularly download new builds of AROS, Reactos, Syllable etc)
NEWs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of these bounties were created in 2005.
This just in, OS/2 users drive Ford Pintos (Score:3, Funny)
How about a reverse bounty ? (Score:2)
I think we should post bounties as well... to move people AWAY from OS/2. If you convince one of those hippies to switch to Linux, you win a prize!
Just let the goddamned bastard OS die with some dignity! It was interesting in, oh, 1994 ? :P Then NT4 came along and made OS/2 pretty much obsolete. Don't get me wrong, OS/2 had quite a few brilliant elements, but it doesn't hold a candle to modern OS' stability and user-friendliness.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be my next project (Score:2, Funny)
Car analog (Score:2, Funny)
I am willing to pay $150 for alloy wheels for my Ford Model T, anybody interested?
Instead of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of this, why not offer rewards to port the interesting bits of OS/2 over to Linux. Pick whichever X server is closest to OS/2, create a fork, and start reworking it.
OS/2 is basically dead at this point. IBM no longer tries to sell it to consumers, and there isn't enough hardware support for current systems.
Instead of being stuck of a dead-end OS, drag it into the modern era. If you port it to run on top of Linux, then you automatically get newer device drivers, the possibility to run on non-Intel hardware, free development code (gcc, gdb, etc), and a huge quantity of existing software.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. OS/2 is dead, guys. Where have you been?
OS/2 has all kinds of really neat features. In many ways, it's still a signpost of things to come. Unfortunately, it's all built on top of a kernel that incorporates all the mistakes/oversights of early 80s programming techniques.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to print a document? Just drag its icon to the printer icon and if your word processor is written right, the document will print without having to start your word processor.
Don't like the color of your terminal window? Drop a color from the color palette to the window and if its written right, it'll not only change to the color you want, but the program will remember!
That's just scratching the surface; hpfs, multimedia, Christ, even the GNU tools all ran under OS/2 (heck, that's how I discovered tcsh, which has been my command line shell for longer than I've known *nix!).
Of course history chose the winner. The WPS was the Win 95 shell done right. It took MS, what, 6 years? to get Windows to the stability of OS/2. Alas, OS/2 is now a corpse. I understand it's still being used, but not to the extent that it could have been. OS/2 was elegant, and Win 95 brutish--having the feel of someone trying to forge the Mona Lisa with a Crayola. Of course, time marches on, and I was able to dodge the Microsoft tax all throughout college by using Linux, which has slowly pulled itself up to start feeling vaguely like the WPS. KDE 4.2 and its promise of further integration of ... stuff has my curiosity piqued.
You're right, though, OS/2 is dead, and people should be looking to migrate their software to something a little more modern.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooh, the Win16 layer reprise: Having the Win16 support in OS/2 was a major contributor to its downfall since there was no reason for vendors to make native apps when they could make Win16 apps and sell to both Windows and OS/2 users.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just run the legacy OS/2 software on a VM instead?
Re:Wtf (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Virtual Box is actually the last OS/2 program that Innotek wrote, they just reversed the usual method and wrote a program to run OS/2 instead of a program that runs under OS/2.
Virtual Box runs on OS/2 but the QT interface is a bit flaky so have to use the SDL interface.