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 426417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: OS/2 stability???
by Brett Legree on Tue 25th May 2010 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OS/2 stability???"
Brett Legree
Member since:
2005-07-17

I did read your post. Yes, you are correct, an ATM is not a large demanding server app.

I was responding to the part where you said "OS/2 is good for small things. It is an unproven os."

Just because you use something for "small things" does not make it "unproven". You seemed to be writing off the whole OS because you can't use a single machine running it to control NORAD HQ.

I would guess that ATM's are not considered "small things" to banks.

Perhaps you can't run the bank's entire network on one OS/2 machine (and likely you could not), but then again it would probably be stupid to trust something like that to one of anything, right?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: OS/2 stability???
by Kebabbert on Tue 25th May 2010 13:09 in reply to "RE[5]: OS/2 stability???"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Just because you use something for "small things" does not make it "unproven". You seemed to be writing off the whole OS because you can't use a single machine running it to control NORAD HQ.

But I am writing it off, in Enterprise server environments. OS/2 may be good for desktop and small things, but for large servers - hell no as it is unproven.


I would guess that ATM's are not considered "small things" to banks.

Heh, but they are small things. An ATM is nothing more than an complicated calculator with some I/O.

A large server running for instance, a big stock exchange with thousands of users connected, is a different thing. This is extremely difficult to do well. Very very complex and finely tuned. Change one small thing, and everything may break.

You can not compare those two. One is a client (ATM) the other is a big server distributed on many large servers.


Perhaps you can't run the bank's entire network on one OS/2 machine (and likely you could not), but then again it would probably be stupid to trust something like that to one of anything, right?

Yes. Perhaps, or perhaps not. We dont know. It is unproven, yes?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: OS/2 stability???
by Brett Legree on Tue 25th May 2010 14:13 in reply to "RE[6]: OS/2 stability???"
Brett Legree Member since:
2005-07-17

I agree with you - it is unproven for enterprise servers, I don't think we are arguing that.

Just as an enterprise server OS is unproven as a bank machine OS.

An ATM is physically a small thing, yes. Perhaps just a complicated calculator.

But I was not referring to physical size, I was referring to *importance* to the business itself. ATM's are quite important to the banking business, regardless of physical size.

For the average person, a bank provides a service - reliable service is "where the rubber hits the road" when we speak of personal banking via ATM's.

OS/2 was an extremely reliable platform for the ATM's. I have noticed a decline in reliability since the banks where I live switched away from it to a Microsoft product.

Crashed machines, longer access times to get to my money or banking information, and so forth.

That was really my point, that OS/2 and eComStation shouldn't be written off as not having any use just because they don't fit your own personal application and experience.

(Now, is OS/2 the best choice today for an ATM operating system? Not sure. Perhaps some kind of Linux, or BSD might be better. Certainly cheaper!)

Reply Parent Score: 1