OS2 World.Com Forum

Subject  :  IBM and OS/2 and other free associations
Author  :  blwallen b-wallen@uiuc.edu
Date  :  01 Dec, 2004 on 09:20
In another thread, I had mentioned and Kim had commented on IBM's apparent wish to make OS/2 just go away. There is ample evidence in IBM's business practices--they used to be much more generous in sharing downloads and tech support on their Web sites--and the continual removal of references to OS/2.

I just came across one of the most glaring examples I've seen of this prejudice against a former child--a Redbook entitled:
OS/2 to Linux Client Transition
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246621.pdf
with cover topics like, "Discover how to replace OS/2
clients with Linux"

That must seem like rather a slap in the face, since the eCS folks mention the cooperation of IBM in developing eCS 1.2. Some of you that read and contribute to this forum may have more details about IBM's attitude and what their contribution amounted to and about the original licensing agreement to allow Serenity Systems to continue to develop OS/2.

Professionally about 1996, I found myself on the losing side of a project to select an operating system for the office I worked in. I proposed Warp 4 and Warp Server; the promoters of Windows NT won that battle. That cost me some credibility and the roughly four years of my life that I dedicated to learning the ins and outs of OS/2. In the last year, I've been experimenting with different flavors of Linux, an iBook with OS X, and recently bought a copy of eCS 1.2 for a desktop replacement for W2k. I have also been looking for a platform for a small personal networks, including a Lotus Domino server. This will eventually feed into small consulting projects, generally in the volunteer area.

In general, I have not been impressed with Linux as a desktop client, other than the version that Xandros publishes. Red Hat and SuSE seem to have clumsy interfaces, though that is undoubtedly partly due to my relative ignorance about how to tweek them to be more appealing. Xandros seems to provide more features for adjusting desktop preferences, but again I am judging from experience with OS/2 and the Win NT family. Xandros uses Crossover, the commercial exploitation of the Wine project, to run a selected group of Win32 applications and does this well. This seemed to be a well-founded business decision by Xandros management, many of whom were with this product when it was WordPerfect Linux. Applications were a major reason that OS/2 conceded the desktop market to Microsoft, and Crossover's ability to run the most popular Win32 applications does an end run around this problem. Xandros has certainly been my choice for a migration away from Windows--a long held desire that has been a long time in coming. While it is early days for my judgement about eCS, it seems like the OS/2 that I would have liked as a followon to Warp 4. The OS/2 object model was so far ahead of the one that Microsoft used for NT that I think OS/2 has aged well in the intervening years. It was a joy to start using eCS with the controls that fell readily to hand, though dragging with the right mouse button is going to take some relearning. I am looking forward to seeing how eCS can deal with Win32 apps and how seamlessly eCS can join a SMB peer network.

About the time that Windows NT4 took over my desktop, I started a Lotus Notes database to record screwups in the operation of NTW4, later W2k, and to a more limited extent, some of the other MS products. This has grown to a collection of over 400 Notes documents, complete with smoking gun screen shots and explanations of the context in which the errors occurred. My intention has been to distill the content of that database into a Web site that more dispassionately, but convincingly summarizes my collection. I've gotten as far as a few pages addressed to the vulnerabilities of MS software and what computer users can choose as an alternative to Windows. I will certainly add eCS to that list of alternatives. If you would like to review my organized rant against MS products, you can find it at:
http://www2.famvid.com/rneg1/public_html/Systems/TechPol/WF/WVHead/WFEIndex_VunerabHeadlines.htm

Two notes: This group of pages was written for a non-technical audience, partly as an answer to the frequent question, "Well if you dislike Microsoft so much, what would you suggest?"
Recently I have not kept the site current with announced vulnerabilities.

Critiques of the site are always welcome, especially from an informed set of readers like yourselves.

Brian Wallen


Subject  :  Re:IBM and OS/2 and other free associations
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  01 Dec, 2004 on 20:52
I have used the feedback section of the support and download area of http://www.ibm.com to request/suggest they open source OS/2 Warp (at least ver 3). I will probably continue to do so for a while. I give them reasons why they should do so (supports open source projects which they say they do, will allow them to eventually drop OS/2 developement, gives Warp users something they can work with after IBM drops support, etc).

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2 Warp-ed/eComStation-ed to the very end.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subject  :  Re:IBM and OS/2 and other free associations
Author  :  The OS2Guy os2guy@gmail.com
Date  :  02 Dec, 2004 on 02:56
[quote]blwallen (01 Dec, 2004 09:20): said:
>In another thread, I had mentioned and Kim had
>commented on IBM's apparent wish to make OS/2
>just go away. There is ample evidence in IBM's
>business practices--they used to be much more
>generous in sharing downloads and tech support
>on their Web sites--and the continual removal of
>references to >OS/2.

>I just came across one of the most glaring examples
>I've seen of this prejudice against a former child--a
> Redbook entitled: OS/2 to Linux Client Transition
>
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246621.pdf
>with cover topics like, "Discover how to replace
>OS/2 clients with Linux"

>That must seem like rather a slap in the face, since
>the eCS folks mention the cooperation of IBM in
> developing eCS 1.2.

The OS/2 Guy responds...

I don't understand why any OS/2 user would be 'up in arms' over IBM's anti-OS/2 actions. As "The OS/2 Guy" I was hurt by IBM's 1996 announcement conceding the operating system desktop to Microsoft because I was and remain heavily invested in OS/2 - but I understood it was a decision that *had* to be made. Microsoft destroyed any possible future for OS/2 by their monopolistic actions. It would have been senseless of IBM to devote two billion dollars a year in OS/2 advertising and support for an OS that would never be preloaded on the majority of machines sold in America. Was it right of Microsoft to have such power? Absolutely not. Could IBM stop them? No, only the Federal government could and to this day, the Federal government has turned and coughed while outstreatching their MS greased palm and looking the other way.

The fault is not with IBM so please stop the IBM/OS/2 bashing. IBM took the best step possible for a non-Microsoft corporation. They embraced an open-source OS they knew Microsoft could not control. By doing so they mooned MS even though, to survive as a viable company, they are forced to sell MS' product on their own hardware. But they can also keep money out of MS' hands by supporting Linux and that's what they've done.

Use OS/2 for as long as you can and enjoy it's power and beauty and thank IBM for allowing it to continue this long.

eComStation and the promises made by Serenity are a joke. Those of you investing and lying to yourself that eComstation/Serenity are going to 'save the day' need a reality check.

The OS/2 Guy


Subject  :  Re:IBM and OS/2 and other free associations
Author  :  blwallen b-wallen@uiuc.edu
Date  :  02 Dec, 2004 on 08:41
You've written one of the better explanations of the reality that we have faced and the other half of my feelings about the situation. You just caught me in flagrante delicto with my nostalgia up after having just used eCS for the first time. Unlike me, you apparently didn't desert OS/2, but found ways to supplement it as new technologies were introduced.

I am not sure I agree that IBM couldn't have changed the direction of desktop computing. They had, from roughly 1991 when they released OS/2 2.0 until August of 1995, only Windows 3.1 and NT 3.x as competition. Windows 3.1 was a sad excuse for and operating "environment" and NT was immature and memory intensive. IBM is a huge company that could afford to invest in a profitable enterprise. But IBM is a big ship and top management was still trying to turn it from a very out-dated management and marketing style to one that could be successful in the mid-90s marketplace.

Had OS/2 been marketed more agressively and creatively, particularly highlighting the differences between it and Windows, in a four year period, they might have established a viable desktop alternative. Had they worked more supportively with OS/2 application developers, they might not have found themselves in 1995 to be left with dregs in popular applications to run on OS/2.

From the perspective of IBM management and shareholders their strategy was a winner. That aside, I am very sorry to see innovative projects like OS/2 and Notes/Domino be edged out by Microsoft. And I will feel the same way as any successful start up, like Xandros, is squashed or swallowed if their growing success threatens Microsoft's monopoly. It's a kind of Gresham's law of technology--bad technology drives good technology out of circulation.

And if you think I was bashing IBM, you should check out my Microsoft Vulnerabilities site.
http://www2.famvid.com/rneg1/public_html/Systems/TechPol/WF/WVHead/WFEIndex_VunerabHeadlines.htm

Brian Wallen
.


Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <www.ub2k.com>