Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st May 2010 12:45 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation After god knows how many years, it's finally here: the final release of eComStation 2.0. We first reported on eComStation 2.0 back in December 2005, when the first beta was released, and between then and now, we've seen countless betas and release candidates come and go, but the wait is finally over.
Thread beginning with comment 426098
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by robbiec
by nt_jerkface on Sat 22nd May 2010 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by robbiec"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Oh how was I misbehaving there mommy? Because I think running Ecomstation is pointless unless it is for legacy software? Linux has better driver and application support and costs $0 so I am really not seeing the point.

I don't even consider Ecomstation to be OS/2, to me OS/2 was buried long ago and this is some bastard offspring. It's too bad that IBM bungled OS/2 because they at least could have continued its development as a server OS. But IBM is ran by chicksh|t beancounters who are scared of Microsoft which is why they dumped it so quickly.

I usually don't recommend Linux on the desktop but this is one of those cases where yes you are better off running Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by robbiec
by robbiec on Sun 23rd May 2010 03:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by robbiec"
robbiec Member since:
2010-05-21

Doubt very much you're misbehaving but would believe that maybe you're misinformed. As I've said before, OS/2 is renowned for its reliability once setup correctly. The problem being setting it it up with its lack of driver support. This is a major issue. Not so much with basic functions such as ACPI or SATA support but more in the graphics and network driver arena. It's a failing yes, to be sure but not one that should rule out an OS that has proven reliability and also has an UI that still has features yet to be matched by current compatative OS's. Those that have used and grown to understand OS/2 are still confused by the lack of support, the lack of continuation, and basically the lack of an OS with equivalent feature set. No more to be said really, there is (was) as OS that was available that is (was) superior in many areas to current offerings but is slowly dying due to lack of support. I for one will not stop supporting it.
S!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by robbiec
by nt_jerkface on Sun 23rd May 2010 04:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by robbiec"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Doubt very much you're misbehaving but would believe that maybe you're misinformed.


Oh am I? How exactly?


It's a failing yes, to be sure but not one that should rule out an OS that has proven reliability and also has an UI that still has features yet to be matched by current compatative OS's.


It's well established that Windows Server 2008, Linux and FreeBSD are all capable of 99.99% uptime.

I see no reason to believe that Ecomstation is any more reliable than a standard Linux distro.

It isn't 1998 anymore. Reliability is a standard feature.

Reply Parent Score: 2

OS/2 stability???
by Kebabbert on Sun 23rd May 2010 18:35 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by robbiec"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Sure, OS/2 is renowned for it's stability once correctly setup. But, you have to remember that OS/2 are not used in large demanding servers of today, like running an entire stock exchange or something similar. Instead, OS/2 are running small apps.

It is not difficult to run small apps and get good uptime. The problem is running large server apps with huge demands and fail over and all that stuff - with good uptime. That is the problem. And, OS/2 does not cut it, then. It is good for small tasks like, a cash machine, or, a calculator.

But it is not correct to believe it suffices for extreme demanding tasks. I mean, 32bit CPU with maximum 4GB RAM for extremely large servers? It is ridiculous. OS/2 will never play in the big league with the big boys.

Reply Parent Score: 2