Linked by Michael Reed on Thu 7th Feb 2008 17:21 UTC
OS/2 and eComStation Last month, IBM made an announcement that put an end to any hope of an open source OS/2. Responding to requests from an online community that had previously collected 11,600 signatures in support of its cause, the company confirmed that they would not be releasing the source code of their OS/2 operating system. I used OS/2 as my main operating system for about four years, and unlike some former users, my reaction to the news sits somewhere between disinterest and relief.
Thread beginning with comment 300283
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Os/2 Source codes in Windows Source code base
by AnXa on Sun 10th Feb 2008 09:53 UTC
AnXa
Member since:
2008-02-10

Does anyone remember that leak of Windows 2000 source codes?

Well there are lots of people who are claiming to seen the sources and I remember to read blog of this one guy who did very accurate analysation of the code.

Althought it didn't matter much to me but I remember now that he made quite show about how every second source code file included comments like

"This material is owned by IBM" or "OS/2 Source code"
I might remember wrong but that guy had guessed that something like 40% of Windows 2000 sources contained material coded by IBM reseachers and developers for OS/2.

Windows and Os/2 are so tied in that it is just plain impossible to make it Open Source since opening Os/2 would mead almost same thing as opening Microsoft Windows sources.

Ok, I am not sure if people here remember the legal fight between IBM and Microsoft on OS/2 Sources. If I remember right IBM won it and I think that Microsoft promised to clean Windows sources from IBM material but after 5 years there still was OS/2 code in windows.

So they didn't keep their promise in the end.

And I'm pretty sure that even Windows Vista has at least 20-30% of source code made originally for IBM OS/2

But what bothers me here is that Windows NT originally was called OS/2 3.0 (at the time nt didn't exist and current version of OS/2 was 2.0, 3.0 was supposed to be completely new architecture, there fore the name. NT, New Technology)

So it might not happen like I descriped here. I guess Wikipedia can tell more. But I'm pretty sure that just plain support for WPS and PM software in win2k devkit doesn't need more that 2-10% of source code made from Os/2. There is just too much of it.

Reply Score: 1

flywheel Member since:
2005-12-28

The happy couple seperated i '87/'88 - which AFAIR was before IBM began developing OS/2 2.0 (OS/2 2.0 was partly 32-bit, the versions before was 16-bit) and OS/2 has seen heavy rewriting and optimizing in later generations like OS/2 Warp 3.0 (Enterprise) and OS/2 Warp 4.5 Server (Aurora).
The OS/2, and eCS, of today is based on the OS/2 Warp 4.5x Server - both client and server.

I hardly think that there is a great amount of MS code still to be found in OS/2 - also I hardly think that there are a great amount of IBM code to be found in Windows. W2K saw something like a rewrite for about 50mio lines of code.

With W2K Windows became the largest operating system on earth codewise - seing a few million lines of code doesn't make W2K an OS/2 clone.

Hmmm could it be the code for the Win16 subsystem ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

AnXa Member since:
2008-02-10

With W2K Windows became the largest operating system on earth codewise - seing a few million lines of code doesn't make W2K an OS/2 clone.


I didn't mean it as "a clone" but more like "relative" bastard children made outside the marriage.

And no, Os/2 3.0 is these days known as WinNT. But I'm pretty sure that there is a long, long, long way to Vista's level from WinNT 3.0

Wikipedia says following: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Breakup
Microsoft started to work in parallel on a version of Windows which was more future-oriented and more portable. The hiring of Dave Cutler, former VMS architect, in 1988 created an immediate competition with the OS/2 team, as Cutler did not think much of the OS/2 technology and wanted to build on his work at Digital rather than creating a "DOS plus." His "NT OS/2," was a completely new architecture.

IBM grew concerned about the delays in development of OS/2 2.0 and the diversion of IBM funds earmarked for OS/2 development towards Windows. Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.

Windows NT's OS/2 heritage can be seen in its initial support for the HPFS filesystem, text mode OS/2 1.x applications, and OS/2 LAN Manager network support. Some early NT materials even included OS/2 copyright notices embedded in the software.


I don't say that it can be completely trusted but it tells something about the background of WinNT.

To me Windows has always seem to be prototype of an upcoming operating system. It's funny to notice that it is more than the truth here.

Reply Parent Score: 1