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 2720
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: why would
by on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:37 UTC 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

RE[3]: why would
by rcsteiner on Tue 12th Jul 2005 18:26 in reply to "RE[2]: why would "
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I originally posted (under Anonymous -- sorry, I didn't notice my auto-login didn't take until too late):

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.

and you responded:

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.

No, I'm really not (as you appear to agree at least in part below). :-)

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.

While I've heard that Wine is relatively decent at running some Win32 programs (as Odin is under OS/2), Wine simply isn't as easy to use under Linux as WinOS2 is under OS/2. Once I can get a newer distro to install satisfactorily on one of my boxes, I plan on running Wine through its paces again. I have lots of software I can test. :-)

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.

I've not personally succeeded in getting programs like Executor, New Deal Office, the SEA3 graphics viewer, or the QuickView AVI movie viewer to work under DOSEMU, but all of those run just fine in an OS/2 VDM.

DOSBOX is Yet Another Program that won't run under the slightly old Linux versions that I currently have installed, so I can't comment on it. :-(

Small Footprint - Is there a point in arguing about this?

Yes. Many newer desktop distros require well over a GB of disk space (sometimes two) for a base installation, while a full Warp 4 install plus WinOS2, MMOS2, etc, is roughly 300MB, and while many of the new Live CD distros like DSL don't need any, I've had real problems getting some of them to boot on my ProLiant while OS/2 doesn't have an issue.

The old "mem=exactmap mem=640k@0m mem=63m@1m" trick used to work, but that was before I added a new video card. Now most Linux versions just kernel panic or fail to detect enough memory. Mandrake 8.2 is fine, of course, with just a simple "mem=64m" directive.

For those saying "disk is cheap" -- for some of my older SCSI systems, a GB for a boot filesystem is unacceptable.

IŽd give BeOS a slightly advantage on this topic, since the whole shebang is damn fast with all the bells and whistles turned on.

BeOS is a very slick system, and I used all of the x86 official releases of BeOS through BeOS 5 Pro, but I finally set it aside because it simply didn't have enough software to compete with OS/2 or Linux. There were too many things I couldn't do. Maybe the BeOS version of DOSBOX would change some of that...

The single user thing, from where IŽm standing, is a disadvantage. Not a good thing.

In most respects it is. I was just clarifying its single-user nature so folks wouldn't play the "Linux is multi-user" card when I really don't care in my own well-protected single-user LAN context.

IŽll concede for the API part. The API/ABI on Linux are moving targets and I donŽt see that changing anytime soon.

Yes, and neither do I. I understood the need for the libc -> glibc change a few (several?) years ago, but the gtk+1.x -> gtk+2.x change has frankly pissed me off. It has resulted in bloat and some key compatibility issues for very little functional gain, at least that I can see as an end user. People need to THINK when designing their APIs in the first place and do it right the first time...

Reply Parent Score: 1