[Pc_Support] Re: OS/2 to Linux Migration: IBM links

[Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>]

From:  Wise Linux User <pberry2 at cfl.rr.com>
> OS/2 ran a good race, for 20 years, they say.  IBM will cease support on
> December 23, 2005, and offers a migration path to GNU/Linux; links in this 
> article:  http://theinquirer.net/?article=24625

From: "Justin M. Keyes" <m9u35g at gmail.com>
> No, it didn't. It's an old, old, old, piece of software that is
> slightly better than Windows 95, and that retards continue to use for
> god knows why.

Because its _damn_stable_!
You could leave it up for _years_ and it would _never_ crash.

MS-DOS 5.x/6.x + Windows 3.1x, as well as MS-DOS 7.0/7.1 + Windows 4.0
(aka Windows 95/98/ME) "386Enhanced" is essentially OS/2, only using a
Real86 20-bit addressing mode for Int20-3Fh services (Real DOS) and then
shunting the processor in and out of Protected386 back to Real86, c/o the
DOS Protected Mode Interface(DPMI) service provided by the 20-bit Real DOS.

OS/2 itself never uses Real86.  NT went beyond OS/2 and added at least
some user privilege security (something IBM added later).

Diebold, IBM and many others in the financial, medical, law and other
industries used OS/2 until very recently.  Now they offer both Linux and NT.
Unfortunately, NT typically gets the nod because people think it's easier
to support -- especially at banks.  Diebold technicians are actually really
good guys, but they are forced into supporting really insecure products.

Which is why I think PC-based voting is the _worst_idea_ in the universe.


From: George Laiacona <glaiacona at aikencountysc.gov>
> Not to start a war or anything, yes, OS/2 is old. But, it's way better
> than Win95,

Which is merely DOS7+Win4 in "386Enhanced" mode, just like DOS6+
Win3.1x before.  The former just got a "shot in the arm" with OS/2
2.x/Warp code which IBM gave away in the Windows 95 licensing
agreement.

> and is what WinNT should have been.

Agreed.  NT itself was _better_ than OS/2 in many respects.
The problem was that "Chicago" (DOS7+Win4) code "infested" NT,
which as resulted in Win32 and most of the dev kits for it (e.g.,
Visual Studio) destroying Win32's inherit and better non-time-share
(i.e., multiple users on a system, but a single user at a time)
security model.

> Had IBM continued with development of that OS, it would be far
> better than anything MS has offered.

Actually, they _did_.  The problem was that anything IBM wrote,
Microsoft got _full_access_ to c/o the Windows 95 agreement,
even though the 1981 agreement expired in 1993.  Anyone who
saw the early Win95 Alphas, and even the first Beta, _saw_ a
lot of OS/2 files with extensions, components, etc... _unchanged_.

> But, IBM dropped the ball on that one.

OS/2 was doomed because IBM maintained their PC division that
had to sell PC's with Windows.  IBM should have cut their PC
division a _long_ time ago.

> They apparently didn't want to spend money on it when they get
> Linux for free.

IBM does not want to be an OS vendor, but a vertical and services
vendor.  The only time they violate that is when it messes with
their ability to deliver high-margin products, like Power/AIX,
390-400/host, etc... _or_ they can exert pressure.

Make no mistake, their partnership with Microsoft is _key_ to their
vertical and services markets, so they have to maintain that
relationship.  At least far more than ... say ... their relationships
with SCO, Sun and even HP, etc...  In those cases, IBM has much
more control than they do over ... say ... Microsoft.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org