Linked by David Adams on Mon 30th Jan 2012 18:07 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation Les Bell has released (Jan 2012) his course material "Introduction to OS/2 Warp Programming" under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. The course had been released with its original files, OOXML, ODF, PDF version and lab exercises.
Thread beginning with comment 505189
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Awesome!
by zima on Mon 30th Jan 2012 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awesome!"
Member since:

Yeah, that was kinda the point... it isn't something what makes OS/2 inherently superior, it's just something the parent poster loves and that's it (a love seemingly not shared by too many, seeing where UI paradigms went; it is prudent to simply take note of that when chatting about OS history)

Edited 2012-01-30 21:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Awesome!
by Tuishimi on Mon 30th Jan 2012 23:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Awesome!"
Tuishimi Member since:

I think the failure of the UI paradigm in this case was as one of the posters said the fault of IBM. They truly dropped the ball with marketing and target audience.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Awesome!
by zima on Mon 6th Feb 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Awesome!"
zima Member since:

They weren't the only ones using this paradigm (for example, the mentioned RISC OS) - which, actually, is also available for a long time, to some degree, in the "winning" Windows. Where drag'n'drop also seems somewhat underutilized, used in quite limited degree (I'm positive that expecting from people to use it, when training etc., brings... disasters)

I believe market interest in OS/2 always appeared much smaller than in Windows, even without dirty tricks of MS or IBM ineptitude ...however painful it might be to admit, maybe Win just fit much better overall.
Yes, OS/2 had some niceties - and some weaknesses, which by themselves would be quite possibly enough.

Lagging in hardware support for example (in times when PCs were more chaotic) - maybe IBM wanted OS/2 to drive sales of its hw ...well, tough luck (and at some late point they were essentially giving it away IIRC; too late / nobody wanted it). IIRC also "hanging" UI design (yes, I think it was fixed later - but after the times when it had a chance) or unusually allergic, filesystem-wise, to resets or power cuts.

And I think that dragging was done by right mouse button - why? / that goes into habits & nostalgia*

Again with the example of parent poster: why dragging the recipient into fax? (you don't send the first to the 2nd, but the opposite) Shouldn't that add info about the recipient into the text of the fax? (or maybe... why not show a ~menu will previous communication?). Or why "Drag a fax template onto the desktop" starts a fax document? (why not creates a copy of the template, to be edited and used later? Why not a shortcut or symbolic link? Would it be worse?)

So it's not only about awkwardness of dragging per se, but about how arbitrary actions it tends to have attached to the same kind of action / movement, without much of an indication what will happen.
Generally, one more observation about this model: pushing for its usage tends to end in such absurdities as dragging a floppy to the bin, to eject it ;)

*with "past & rose-coloured glasses" look also at the nearby post of Lorin, about how using OS/2 in ATMs "shows how solid the OS still is today"...
...or maybe it all comes down to how IBM was a precursor of ATMs, and very involved / cooperating / part-owning / etc. some of the major ATM manufacturers?
(and then, ATMs also run many older Windows versions, even ~DOS variants, I believe)

Edited 2012-02-07 00:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2