Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2008 23:33 UTC
OS/2 and eComStation IBM pretty much slammed the solid oak door on open sourcing os/2. "As stated in our response to your September 2005 letter we have considered the positioning of os/2 and open source several times in the past, and for a variety of business, technical, and legal reasons we have decided to not pursue any os/2 open source projects."
Thread beginning with comment 297093
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Just a guess ...
by sbergman27 on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Just a guess ..."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

OS/2 contains complete details on SMB/CIFS something that Microsoft does not want public.


Then what did the PFIF just get from Microsoft for 14,000 euros? This year's Betty Crocker cookbook?

Edited 2008-01-22 00:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Just a guess ...
by jonsmirl on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 00:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Just a guess ..."
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a big difference between a spec from Microsoft which will be chock full of bugs (maybe on purpose) and a working, tested implementation. Did they get the spec for SMB as well as CIFS, or CIFS only?

There are a bunch of other secret MS technologies in OS/2 too. Remember, this was a joint venture between Microsoft and IBM, not an IBM only project. I worked on OS/2 full time and was a Microsoft employee.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[4]: Just a guess ...
by jonsmirl on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 00:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Just a guess ..."
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is not going to want to open the code for the HPFS file system. Has the disk format for HPFS ever been made public? MS wrote HPFS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Just a guess ...
by sbergman27 on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 00:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Just a guess ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, a working and tested implementation would be Samba. Jeremy has already described how they would treat the spec. They'll be checking everything out with formal regression tests to make sure the details of the spec actually work with real clients, and then make any changes within those real world constraints.

I'm not disagreeing with you that MS would be unlikely to OK the release of a FOSS OS/2. I'm just quibbling over that particular reason.

There are a number of things that I can think of off the top of my head that would excite me more than an open source release of OS/2, anyway.

It was a very advanced OS... for its day.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Just a guess ...
by robertojdohnert on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 07:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Just a guess ..."
robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

IBM doesn't want to Open Source OS/2 for several reasons. Microsoft not even being associated with those reasons. But, with their "commitment" to open source and their inability or desire to even work on this just makes me wonder how deep that commitment runs.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Just a guess ...
by psychicist on Tue 22nd Jan 2008 09:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Just a guess ..."
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I didn't know you were a Microsoft employee at the time, but then again I was still in high school. I think this OS/2 thing should be put to rest as a legacy OS. Nice to run on your hardware or in a virtual machine if you can get it or need it, otherwise not really relevant.

I'm actually far more interested in your work on Xorg, particularly concerning Xegl. Will we ever see that completed or in some other way integrated into Xorg?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Just a guess ...
by RawMustard on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 09:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Just a guess ..."
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

Then what did the PFIF just get from Microsoft for 14,000 euros? This year's Betty Crocker cookbook?


ROFL ;)

Reply Parent Score: 0