Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2005 08:43 UTC, submitted by OS2World News Master
OS/2 and eComStation Many OS/2-eCS users knows that we are currently requesting signatures to ask IBM to open source OS/2 (or at least the OS/2 components that are possible to be opened). We are getting close to send the petition, so if you haven't sign yet, go ahead!
Thread beginning with comment 2649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
why would
by on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:09 UTC

Member since:

anyone want to still use OS/2. My lord it has to be the worst piece of interface design ever thrust upon an unsuspecting computing public. I had the misfortune of having to install OS/2 on a machine recently to test browser support for a product our company was working on and I can say without any doubt that OS/2 is down right aweful. The installation process and the usability of the interface was just horrid to say the least. I am not sure why anyone in their right mind would want to still use this piece of junk when there are so many good operating system alternatives out there right now. I think the Open Source community could find better things to do than bring this zombie back to life.

Reply Score: 0

RE: why would
by Sparrowhawk on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:40 in reply to "why would "
Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

You clearly were not running eComStation. IBM's own Warp 4.x certainly has a ghastly installation routine, one of the very worst around in fact.

Compare this to eCS 1.2 which is about as easy an installation as you could wish for.

As for bad UI design? Funny how so many other modern OS's are copying the Object-Oriented approach of the Workplace Shell...

You would use it if your business ran OS/2 software, usually in vertical applications.

Or, like me, because although I love my iMac G5 (what a beauty!) and even enjoy my WinXP laptop, nothing quite beats the WPS for elegance and user-centric power/flexibility.

As I said in a post many months ago, this is not a zombie - Up Java, PHP, MySQL, OOo, Firefox, Visualage Smalltalk, PostrgeSQL, etc, etc

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: why would
by on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:37 in reply to "why would "
Member since:

anyone want to still use OS/2.

Because it's fast (unlike modern Windows flavors), it has a stable desktop API (unlike modern Linux flavors), and it's relatively user-friendly.

My lord it has to be the worst piece of interface design ever thrust upon an unsuspecting computing public.

Could you be more specific? The installation program for OS/2 itself is text-mode at first and then GUI, and it's quite servicable.

The OS itself offers the WorkPlace Shell GUI which is somewhat ugly by default but easily prettied up, but which is also more flexible than most modern GUIs, and its command line is quite powerful when one realizes that Rexx permeates everything (even the GUI).

I had the misfortune of having to install OS/2 on a machine recently to test browser support for a product our company was working on and I can say without any doubt that OS/2 is down right aweful. The installation process and the usability of the interface was just horrid to say the least.

Please be specific. OS/2 has existed in some form for almost 20 years. Which version?

I am not sure why anyone in their right mind would want to still use this piece of junk when there are so many good operating system alternatives out there right now.

Because there *are* no other alternatives if one wants a lightweight, high-performance single user OS that has a decent level of DOS and Win 3.1 support and a stable native API. BeOS, Windows, Linux, and the BSDs all fail to meet the above criteria -- only OS/2 and its eComStation offspring meet those requirements.

I think the Open Source community could find better things to do than bring this zombie back to life.

Yeah, a desktop API that doesn't change drastically every 24 months would be a nice start...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: why would
by on Tue 12th Jul 2005 04:31 in reply to "RE: why would "
Member since:

Because there *are* no other alternatives if one wants a lightweight, high-performance single user OS that has a decent level of DOS and Win 3.1 support and a stable native API. BeOS, Windows, Linux, and the BSDs all fail to meet the above criteria -- only OS/2 and its eComStation offspring meet those requirements.

OK, I used OS/2 for a couple of days back in the day and quite enjoyed what I saw there but now youŽre way off base here with this assertion.

Linux CAN meet the requirements that you mentioned:

Windows 3.1 - I believe that WINE has partial support for the Win32 API but 100% support for Win16. Pretty much any app that doesnŽt depends on some obscure feature of Windows 3.x (youŽd be surprised on how many of them existed), chances are that it is going to work.

DOS - Dosbox and/or DOSEMU fits the bill here, including reliable emulation of a SoundBlaster 16 for multimedia apps. Even most of those "demanding" games (like those that used DOS4GW) works without hassle.

Small Footprint - Is there a point in arguing about this? One could perfectly setup one of those lightweight window managers and stay fully productive while on Linux, even more than with OS/2 since Linux tends to have more up to date software available. IŽd give BeOS a slightly advantage on this topic, since the whole shebang is damn fast with all the bells and whistles turned on.

The single user thing, from where IŽm standing, is a disadvantage. Not a good thing. IŽll concede for the API part. The API/ABI on Linux are moving targets and I donŽt see that changing anytime soon.

Kind regards,

DeadFish Man

Reply Parent Score: 0