IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New IBM later stated that . . .
. . the discontinued products were mainly packaging formats - in other words, the package with box and printed manual is discontinued, but a product that is just a CD-ROM with on-line documentation replaces it.

IBM also stated that they would continue selling OS/2 for as long as anyone wanted to buy it.

IBM cannot open source OS/2 because any commecial product that complex is shot through with intellectual property that does not belong to IBM, but is licensed to IBM. Some of the intellectual property belongs to Microsoft.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New So OS/2 is not dead then, just pining for the Fjords? ;)
You can get the CD-ROM and online documentation, but for cheaper than the package with hardcopy docs and other stuff?

Is there an upgrade copy from Warp 3 available? I happen to have a copy of Warp 3, thanks to a member here. I'd like to upgrade to Warp 4 sometime and try it out.


[link|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey|
New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
New Pricing and sourcing...
\r\n

IBM cannot open source OS/2 because any commecial product that complex is shot\r\nthrough with intellectual property that does not belong to IBM, but is licensed to\r\nIBM. Some of the intellectual property belongs to Microsoft.

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

I guess this raises a couple of possiblities / questions:

\r\n\r\n
    \r\n
  • Pricing. Presumably IBM could price the product at as low a price\r\nas they cared to choose. What is current pricing? I'm finding\r\nacademic pricing of ~$100-125.
  • \r\n\r\n
  • Source. Both Netscape and OpenOffice had to deal with this. One\r\noption is to use a license that allows mixed-mode licensing (IBM's PSL\r\nand the Mozilla Public License both do this). That is, open source and\r\nproprietary codebases can be mingled in a single executable. Then\r\nre-engineer the proprietary modules. Of course, the main problem is\r\nthat GNU/Linux has tremendously greater momentum. Still, it might be\r\npossible to get some of the useful features of OS/2 into the free\r\nsoftware ideosphere. Workspace Shell, anyone?
  • \r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

I have to admit virtually complete ignorance of OS/2, but would be\r\ninterested in what those who do know think.

\r\n
--\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
   Keep software free.     Oppose the CBDTPA.     Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
New Re: Pricing and sourcing...
Karsten wrote:

One option is to use a license that allows mixed-mode licensing (IBM's PSL and the Mozilla Public License both do this). That is, open source and proprietary codebases can be mingled in a single executable. Then re-engineer the proprietary modules.

I think I can anticipate the biggest roadblock: Since nobody dreamed the codebase would ever be opened up, nobody took the least bit of care to keep the components from different sources distinct. Coders borrowed snippets from all available resources, and expose themselves nonchalantly to business partners' trade secrets while doing their work. And so on. You may recall that Sun Microsystems took about a year combing through Star Office code and records concerning it, merely making sure that they weren't going to infringe third-party rights in carrying out the OpenOffice.org source release. And they were highly motivated to complete that release, in order to try to injure Microsoft Corporation's interests.

Additionally, I've heard that the code is riddled with i386-dependencies.

Still, it might be possible to get some of the useful features of OS/2 into the free software ideosphere. Workspace Shell, anyone?

It might be easier and less... fraught for IBM Corp. to just publicly document its design, for the benefit of those who might wish to reimplement it.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com


If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
New Re: Pricing and sourcing...
Additionally, I've heard that the code is riddled with i386-dependencies.

A large amount of the kernel is coded directly in assembler.

OS/2 began as an MS/IBM joint project - but Bill smoked too many joints and we ended up with Windows instead.

I know IBM used the BSD code as model for their TCP/IP stack (just like everyone else). Other than that, I can't see a closed development environment like IBM using a lot of non-homegrown stuff, unless it derived from the joint effort days.


-drl
New Micrografx did a lot of PresManager. MS did HPFS. Etc., etc.
New Re: Pricing and sourcing...
Ross wrote:

Other than that, I can't see a closed development environment like IBM using a lot of non-homegrown stuff, unless it derived from the joint effort days.

My recollection is that the development stage of WPS did (partly) hail from the partnership days.

In any event, smarter people than thee and me have been driven insane by attempting to make sense of IBM corporate strategy.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com


If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
New The WPS was first in 2.0 (post split) and was all IBM.
New Re: The WPS was first in 2.0 (post split) and was all IBM.
Another Scott wrote:

The WPS was first in 2.0 (post split) and was all IBM.

My wording was very careful, in an (ineffective) attempt to ward off posts exactly like yours. Here it is, again: My recollection is that the development stage of WPS did (partly) hail from the partnership days.

It is not at all clear that the WPS was "all IBM" in the sense of having no patent, trade-secret, or copyright claims against it from third parties. It is reasonable to surmise that that is exactly the problem.

Or International Business Machines Corporation could, I suppose, be sitting there sphinx-like, inexplicably failing to open-source a codebase it owns free and clear, despite it being in their interest to do so, in order to protect a decades-long reputation of behaving in puzzlingly self-destructive ways. On the subject of the Workplace Shell itself, I frankly no longer care, having moved on. However, I thought it was an interesting case study in the business obstacles to taking a codebase open-source that has previously been not only proprietary but also binary-only, like other real and hypothetical cases people have discussed, such as Star Office, Netscape Communicator, and WordPerfect.

In the waning hope that others might be interested in that sort of substantive discussion -- as opposed to drive-by comments in subject headers -- there are a couple of other problems that give companies pause, when considering open-sourcing a long-time proprietary, binary-only codebase: (1) Extra legal exposure. First, the company has to be able to justify a long and potentially costly code review and related legal review, aimed at identifying third-party claims on the codebase. Since the source code would be exposed to public scrutiny for the first time, there is inevitably greater probability of patent claims against the code, as third parties will now be able to comb through the code to see all the algorithms used. (2) Reputation. If it becomes necessary to yank substantials amounts of code prior to release, because of possible third-party claims, then that creates the worry that resulting poor condition of the resulting rump codebase will reflect badly on the firm, offsetting any advantages of release. Rumour says this is part of what prevented HP from open-sourcing OpenMail (which, although end-of-lifed at HP, is fortunately still available from Samsung as the proprietary Contact database). (3) Perception of business loss. Even if a company is making no money from a codebase -- e.g., now-bankrupt Gobe Software's GobeProductive office suite -- there's the perception that the right to source code access under an open-source licence is commercially valuable and should not be "given away". Thus, the effort to open-source GobeProductive has [link|http://linuxmafia.com/wpfaq/future.html#ALTERNATIVES|died] and that excellent codebase will simply vanish, because Gobe Software's officers can't afford to sign off on the proposal and get sued by corporate creditors for improper disposal of company assets.

The irony, there, was that the specific licence proposed, the GNU GPL, was one that arguably would not have prevented subsequent issuance and commercial exploitation of other instances of the codebase under proprietary terms: The GPL would prevent competitors from creating proprietary forks of their own, and reserve that right to the copyright holders.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com


If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
New Some clarification.
Hi Rick,

In your post that I responded to, you wrote:

My recollection is that the development stage of WPS did (partly) hail from the partnership days..

In my reply, I didn't claim that there was no non-IBM patent constraints on the WPS. I was simply trying to address the fact that all the evidence and discussion I've seen indicates that the WPS was an IBM project and had nothing to do with the pre-split agreements IBM had with MS. So our recollections are different.

As some evidence that the Workplace Shell had no input from Microsoft, I'll present the following:

0. The IBM and MS split was in [link|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&th=2cddd935db86acea&rnum=3|September 1990].

1. The version of OS/2 2.0 that Microsoft released to its OEM Citrix (the only version of OS/2 2.0 that Microsoft released AFAIK) didn't use the Workplace Shell.

2. The Workplace Shell is trademarked by IBM.

3. The Workplace Shell is built on top of SOM - IBM's System Object Model.

4. It took 3+ years after IBM's OS/2 2.0's Workplace Shell was released for Microsoft to have a (sort-of) comparable shell for Windows 95.

5. Moskowitz and Kerr - "OS/2 2.1 Unleashed" - ISBN: 0-672-30240-3, p. 122, write:

With the release of OS/2 2.0, IBM introduced the first of a new generation of user interfaces built around an object-oriented design. Extensive usability and human-factors studies by IBM indicated that first-time users of computer systems had trouble learning to use existing computer-user interfaces. Early in 1991, the OS/2 development team made the most significant decision affecting the OS/2 2.0 product. Based on a prototype created by a small group of programmers, IBM made the Workplace Shell a component of the operating system.

During the ensuing 12 months, the Workplace Shell team grew from that small group of programmers to include many other areas of IBM's research and development community, including usability testing, human-factor research and object-oriented programming technology, compiler research and development, information development, graphics design, and, of course, the tens of thousands of beta testers both inside IBM and in the industry who provided invaluable guidance, advice, and feedback.


6. [link|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=5ajp1v%24b14%40nnrp1.toronto.ican.net|This] USENET post by Keith Medcalf.

I have no inside information on whether the WPS for OS/2 was coded by external companies or is encumbered by IP or patent rights held by others. My gut feeling is that it's an exclusive IBM product, but I don't have any information other than the above. (Deitel and Kogan's "The Design of OS/2" may have more details, but I can't find my copy at the moment.) I wouldn't be shocked if outsiders helped as I believe that the WPS for Windows 3.x was done externally. But I believe the evidence shows that the WPS was a project done by IBM after the divorce from Microsoft.

If you have any contrary evidence, even if annecdotal, I'd like to see it. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Some clarification.
WPS is often confused with PM. If you were learning to spit out text etc. in early OS/2, you were doing PM. WPS arrived well after PM was developed.
-drl
New Re: Some clarification.
You are correct in that, I recall Presentation Manager with an old copy of OS/2, I cannot remember if it was 1.3 or 2.0 that used it. In a College Computer Lab we ran for students to use, we had some PS/2 Machines running IBM's OS/2. I even did a report on it, saying how much better than Windows it was, and that it was the better choice. Of course I didn't take into account the marketing power of Microsoft at the time, my mistake. I even did another report on how the Amiga was better than the PC or the Macintosh. It was for a Systems Analysis class.

WPS came later, because my memory is a little fuzzy with OS/2 2.0 and 3.0, I worked with it at another company later, but we converted the systems from OS/2 to DOS/Windows 3.1 as per the request of the VP of IS. Once Warp 3.0 came out, we were beta testing Windows 95, I remember it was called Chicago, and the Warp 3.0 Beta said "Arrive in Chicago a little sooner than expected", stating that it was the better product.

But when Management favors Microsoft products, over other products, what can you do?


[link|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey|
New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
New Re: Some clarification.
We are somehow failing to communicate. Here is a key pair of sentences from my immediately preceding post: "On the subject of the Workplace Shell itself, I frankly no longer care, having moved on. However, I thought it was an interesting case study in the business obstacles to taking a codebase open-source that has previously been not only proprietary but also binary-only, like other real and hypothetical cases people have discussed, such as Star Office, Netscape Communicator, and WordPerfect."

It seems that you still do care about WPS, and not just as a case study in obstacles to open-sourcing. That's fine, but I simply don't.

Accordingly, my concern was not whether "Workplace Shell has input from Microsoft", but rather, in part, whether Workplace Shell is encumbered by patents, copyrights, or trade secrets held by any third party.

The fact that you talk, in your post, about trademarks suggests that you probably didn't follow what I was talking about, since it's inherently irrelevant to the open-sourcing question. Your use of the meaningless term "IP" is unfortunate, as it lumps together four vastly different categories of abstract legal rights.

And:

I wouldn't be shocked if outsiders helped as I believe that the WPS for Windows 3.x was done externally.

This, of course, is purely and simply changing the subject. (Yeah, yeah, you can't see why that is, and want me to prove it to you, right?)

At this point, I'm obliged to give up on this discussion as hopeless. I'm sorry I tried.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com


If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
New Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject!
Can't you just fucking admit that you were WRONG?!? But then, you NEVER do that, do you?

Please prove me wrong -- a simple link will do...


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
New Re: Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject!
You know, Christian -- my longtime friend, Christian -- that's twice in one week you've personally gone far, far out of your way to make me wish that wIWETHEY had a killfile.

If you ever decide you would like to discuss what might be holding IBM Corp. back from open-sourcing WPS, as opposed to reverting to Team OS/2 catechism, then... I was going to say, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But the truth is, in that event, frankly I'd rather you discussed it with someone else.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com


If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
New The Horror! Subject creep on zIWeThey! Whoda thunkit. :-/
     IBM to discontinue sales of OS/2 - (Andrew Grygus) - (32)
         LOL - (cwbrenn) - (8)
             ...? - (admin) - (7)
                 eCS = eComStation - (SpiceWare) - (6)
                     Odd. - (admin) - (5)
                         never read them - (SpiceWare) - (1)
                             Tim Martin AKA The Martian - (jake123)
                         Rarely valid, always strident. - (cwbrenn) - (2)
                             Re: Rarely valid, always strident. - (admin) - (1)
                                 LOL - (cwbrenn)
         Psyche - (admin) - (1)
             That's good news... - (folkert)
         Re: IBM to discontinue sales of OS/2 - (deSitter) - (3)
             don't bet on it - (cwbrenn) - (2)
                 LRPD Alert? (new thread) - (CRConrad)
                 Actually... - (n3jja)
         Does this mean the Death of OS/2? - (orion) - (16)
             IBM later stated that . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (15)
                 So OS/2 is not dead then, just pining for the Fjords? ;) - (orion)
                 Pricing and sourcing... - (kmself) - (13)
                     Re: Pricing and sourcing... - (rickmoen) - (12)
                         Re: Pricing and sourcing... - (deSitter) - (11)
                             Micrografx did a lot of PresManager. MS did HPFS. Etc., etc. -NT - (Another Scott)
                             Re: Pricing and sourcing... - (rickmoen) - (9)
                                 The WPS was first in 2.0 (post split) and was all IBM. -NT - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                     Re: The WPS was first in 2.0 (post split) and was all IBM. - (rickmoen) - (7)
                                         Some clarification. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                             Re: Some clarification. - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                 Re: Some clarification. - (orion)
                                             Re: Some clarification. - (rickmoen) - (3)
                                                 Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     Re: Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject! - (rickmoen)
                                                 The Horror! Subject creep on zIWeThey! Whoda thunkit. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott)

Lobsters are the mermaid versions of scorpions.
106 ms