Home > OS/2 > REXX-based OS Successor to OS/2?REXX-based OS Successor to OS/2? Submitted by Ulrich Moeller 2003-04-01 OS/2 21 CommentsA volunteer group of OS/2 developers has announced REXX/OS, a successor to the OS/2 OS based entirely on the interpreted REXX language that so many considered one of OS/2’s best features…About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 21 Comments 2003-04-01 8:04 pm I converted the core os code with the Rexx to Netrexx converter (Rexx2Nrx). I get errors when compiling to java bytecode, but i hope it’s just a matter of hours to debug it and then i will try to make a binary with gcj. 2003-04-01 8:05 pm I love the command-line and batch scripting, It makes *nix systems unbelievable powerfull. But I’ve very good memories about REXX (on the amiga, that is), I really miss it! 2003-04-01 8:39 pm So there we go again. Yet another diehard group trying to raise the dead. Some people just have trouble admitting that certain operating systems (BeOS, OS/2, DOS) are dead. Perhaps not long gone, but dead. Isn’t it just better to let sleeping dogs lie?? Sure, ya fellas are free to do whatever you like with your spare time, but wouldn’t it be time better spent if you did something that actually had any FUTURE?Already existant operating systems that are under heavy development are in need of your help! Why not make something already good better than trick yourselves into thinking that what you’re doing has significant meaning? It’s not like anyone cares, anyhow. And you could make a difference – to say Linux, OpenBSD etc. 2003-04-01 8:48 pm Each time see a product whose main “feature” is to be written for a specific environment or with a specific language, I carefully stay away. In my experience, those are relatively poor products. 2003-04-01 9:14 pm OS/2 was an intensive user of the most obscure and less known features of the PC architecture. It isn’t portable, never meant to be, and most of the kernel (mixing 16 and 32 bit code, using both the flat and segmented memory models, etc.) is glue code that can’t be written in anything other than x86 assembly. An April’s fool, and quite an obvious one at it 2003-04-01 9:51 pm Keep it as a byte code, many so called “smart phones” have Java chip built-in. All you need to have is a small wrapper that will let you load this REXX/OS directly to the mobile phones. I had somewhere a semi-working module for antenna manipulations – let me know if you need it. 2003-04-01 10:10 pm Can’t use the link, havn’t be able too all morning, no news of this on /. I think I smell a prank… 2003-04-01 10:24 pm “So there we go again. Yet another diehard group trying to raise the dead. Some people just have trouble admitting that certain operating systems (BeOS, OS/2, DOS) are dead.”I don’t mind. It’s competition and diversity… – Mark 2003-04-01 11:42 pm If little used and not-well understood. OS/2 took a good idea and ran with it. The guy (who’s name escapes me) who first created AREXX, based off of the original REXX, as an interprocess communications standard and then put it in the public domain, changed the way the AmigaOS was written and utilized. 2003-04-01 11:53 pm Frankly. 2003-04-02 12:02 am See this: http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/dnf2600.htmlHot hot hot! 2003-04-02 3:05 am if i recall, ibm had a version of os/2 for ppc. I could be wrong though. Can anyone confim/deny this.jesus loves me, this i know…(the rest of the song)…,jon 2003-04-02 3:20 am Yes they still do have it. It’s probably in storage somewhere with the rest of the goodies IBM will never release. *sigh* 2003-04-02 5:27 am William S. Hawes was his name if I’m not mistaken. 2003-04-02 10:01 am Guys, that was a joke, check the date of the news, check the revision of the Kernel in the screenshot and check the timestamp of the file on the FTP. Yes we had fun, big fun 🙂 2003-04-02 3:17 pm Yes, it’s a joke, but whatever…(A)REXX is one the features that I miss the most on more ‘modern’ OSes. That really changed the way you could use the whole system. This is the kind of functionnality that saves time and money. And it was easy & fun to use.No volunteers to port it on <insert your favorite OS here> ?? 2003-04-02 4:06 pm Finally got to the site… To bad its 2/04 now… Oh well 2003-04-02 5:55 pm I thought the best line was this:“Ulrich Moeller also announced that he is working on new folder interfaces which will be able to display thumbnails, using ASCII representations of all graphics formats supported by MMOS/2.”Thanks for the read!Yours truly,Jeffrey Boulier 2003-04-02 6:23 pm …I really feel a need to respond to Victor.Victor, go to http://www.ecomstation.com, and note that OS/2 (or in this case, an OS/2-derived product) is still for sale, still has a small-but-active user base, and still has a useful level of formal support from its distributor.Also note that eComStation and OS/2 are able to run a VAST array of software, ranging from classic DOS and Windows apps, native OS/2 packages such as Mozilla and StarOffice, Linux programs such as GIMP that have been recompiled as native OS/2 applications, and even a certain amount of Win32 software via direct API translation (Odin).I realize that the press has been calling for OS/2’s death for a decade or so for various reasons, but a platform’s actual *utility* is what makes it alive or dead, not its overall market share or the wishful thoughts of industry pundits.I’ve been using Linux in some form or another for over a decade, but it still falls short in a number of areas when I compare it to OS/2. You might be willing to use a young and relatively inconsistent platform as your desktop; I am not, and I’m not alone (yet <g>) in my assessment.Until the folks that develop the various desktops for Linux take a SERIOUS look at the WPS and at some of the features it has supported for a decade, Linux will continue to fall short in my book, at least in terms of general desktop usability. 2003-04-02 9:28 pm The REXX OS people could use a new kind of approach to queues and lists.For instance, we now have the “push”, “pop” “insert,” and “delete” choices, but how about these:SHOVE: Given a list, the new element (or elements,) are inserted someplace ina “weak point”, where other list elements aren’t “paying attention” to what’s going on. Drawback: The List Manager might respond to a “shove” command by actually setting the calling object to a solitary area of memory, preventing any more list operations for a period of time….TUSSLE: This is where a group of new elements is offered as an argument, and the elements place themselves in a “variable priority queue,” wherin it’s impossible to tell which (if any) actually get into the list. The List Manager would take various arbitrary actions upon a TUSSLE command, depending on which parts of memory the applied arguments came from.SNIPE: This is like a random “pick”, except that nothing is returned from the list, and the list manager may even delete the destination from memory.There are a number of other possible commands, including: WEASEL, FILCH, EMBEZZLE, and others, which I won’t go into here.Just my $.00 2003-04-08 2:38 pm if i recall, ibm had a version of os/2 for ppc. I could be wrong though. Can anyone confim/deny this.WorkplaceOS. . .shelved because minimum system memory for reasonable use was 96MB. It had some really interesting design features the likes of which we will now probably never get to see in a desktop OS. . .unless the HURD . . .oh, nevermind. . .I still maintain a faint hope that someone with influence at IBM will remember it and dust off the servers that the source lives on then put together a team to polish out the bit-rot and compile up some fresh binaries to run on their latest and greatest G5. . .After all, that 96MB requirement isn’t so bad when compared with the latest horrorshows from Microsoft. . .