Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:02:54 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adieu... _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/) Ed, While it's very big of you to post evidence that proves my point - we both stated we would drop this thread. If you still desire to continue this discussion, let's take it offline. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Ed Gould wrote: On Jul 24, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all ostensibly OS experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts about a platform we all use on a regular basis. There seems to be a level of ignorance among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs that only serves to reinforce the stereotypes. Ed, I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two? IMHO it's far off-topic. Of course mainframers, especially gray-haired ones do not need to know detailed news about computer games. (*) However if one doesn't know, then he shouldn't express opinions about WinXP, modern games and DOS mode. For example I never take part in discussion what model of S/360 had two cranks, or steam whistle. (*) BTW: Sometimes I have an impression, that the only game mainframers know is StarTrek. The same apply to the movie. Personally I saw only TV version of that and have to admit it's outstanding trash and cr*p. My opinion only. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:29:03 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For everyone's sake, why don't you refrain from making authoritative statements when you don't know the subject matter. Also, if someone suggests to you the possibility that things may not work the way you assume, maybe you should have a more open mind and accept that you could be wrong. Ignorance isn't a crime./rant Learned that in 1st grade, been trying to rectify it ever since. The only authoritative statements that I think I've made. Gaming PCs cost more and have more horsepower, can still order with DOS or XP gave you a link to the Systemax Warbird, the tigerdirect.com site has 27 hits for No-OS. I've got a box of 3.5 diskettes that have stuff from Flight simulator to Donkey Kong that ran on an XT and delighted the kids. My current P4 won't read them 'cause they're 256k. Lastly, gaming sites are virus prone even with current Norton Suite 2005. Guess about the 7th grade I learned the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Since joining this list in '86 I've tried to inject personnel experience of what I've tried and what did or didn't work. That's why the list was set up. Mostly, other people agree or give a better explanation. I'm not good at arguing for the sake of arguing. No personnel axes to grind. Got another PC to rebuild as a result of 'Gameitis'. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Agree. We have wandered too far off. Time to end the thread. *NOW* (Remember Darren's posting). No last words, nothing. End. Hal -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2 IMHO it's far off-topic. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On 25-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Rowe) wrote: Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound themselves. It seem rather strange to me that you would omit the statement that started this whole issue. Not wanting to continue this argument - I am wondering how much demand there will be for business applications to handle graphics and sound in advanced ways. Certainly there will be continued needs to use such for identification purposes. Maybe salesmen in stores will be told by their terminals the name of the customer who walked in the door (which the mainframe recognized from the security camera).Lots of these applications will want to be in big, fast databases. As the ability to do things gets cheaper, users will want to include them with their other business needs. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/25/2005 10:36:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seem rather strange to me that you would omit the statement that started this whole issue. If I'd said PC-CD instead of DOS I'd be more aligned with the EA catalog. Other than that I believe every word and agree this thread has dragged on longer than BSOD. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:00:45 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I'd said PC-CD instead of DOS I'd be more aligned with the EA catalog. ...but the second part of the sentence would still have been absolutely wrong.Of course, PC-CD really just means WinXP, so I guess you're finally admitting your mistake, so I'll drop it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:21:54 -0500, Hal Merritt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agree. We have wandered too far off. Time to end the thread. *NOW* (Remember Darren's posting). No last words, nothing. End. My apologies. I use the digest, and I had used the online search to find Ed's replies by searching on subject and author, so I did not see this until now. I am done. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Howard, Welcome to your local Custom's Checkpoint. I believe that a few countries have been using this technology to spot criminals and terrorists for a few years now. Ron -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 12:45 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2 Not wanting to continue this argument - I am wondering how much demand there will be for business applications to handle graphics and sound in advanced ways. Certainly there will be continued needs to use such for identification purposes. Maybe salesmen in stores will be told by their terminals the name of the customer who walked in the door (which the mainframe recognized from the security camera).Lots of these applications will want to be in big, fast databases. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:11:08 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand. Most games are written for the 128bit chipsets in Playstation, Nintendo and X-Box. They have to be tinkered to run on XP. I've got a box full of 3.5 diskettes that all run under DOS compliments of various students. Haven't played most of them in years. Don't know don't care. When you say chipsets, I am assuming you mean the graphics processing unit (GPU) chips? I don't understand what you mean by tinkered? There are PC (WinXP) versions of many of the games that run on game machines, but making them run on multiple platforms requires a bit more than tinkering. There are also many games that only run on PCs, sometimes because they require more resources than the game machines provide. In any case, these games are typically not written for a specific GPU, even if they are written to run on game consoles. They are written to use APIs for graphic/sound, since code portability is important. In the case of the XBOX, this API is almost identical to the WinXP API, so there is an even higher level of portability. If this code was written directly to the hardware, as you seem to think, then it would not work on the vast majority of PCs in the world today, since there are numerous different GPU and sound hardware variations with vastly different hardware specs and interfaces. If a game developer were to try to support even 75% of the installed hardware base, they would have to write literally hundreds of versions of their game. In addition to providing a common set of APIs (which are then executed by I/O drivers provided by the hardware provider), WinXP provides many other services that would not be available in DOS (ie virtual storage, multitasking, interrupt handling). I seriously doubt today's complex 3D games could be made to run any better under DOS (if at all), even if one were willing to re-invent the wheel so many times. What I don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all ostensibly OS experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts about a platform we all use on a regular basis. There seems to be a level of ignorance among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs that only serves to reinforce the stereotypes. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Jul 24, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all ostensibly OS experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts about a platform we all use on a regular basis. There seems to be a level of ignorance among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs that only serves to reinforce the stereotypes. Ed, I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two? Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Ed Gould wrote: I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two? A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you advocate SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two sessions??! IMHO, that seems like a tremendous mistake! -- .-. | Edward E. Jaffe|| | Mgr, Research Development| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801| | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | '-' -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/24/2005 3:45:02 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Huh? Just what does any of that have to do with anything we were talking about? I don't know. Whatever misconceptions I have sure won't be changed by your attitude. Period end. What I was pointing out is my observation of the way things work best for us in our household. No stereotypes, just rudimentary tool usage. Hammers for nails, ratchets for screws. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Jul 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote: Ed Gould wrote: I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two? A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you advocate SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two sessions??! IMHO, that seems like a tremendous mistake! Why? I see as it is a furtherance of basic education, no? Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Ed Jaffe's point was subtle, but on point. I would estimate that SHARE's non mainframe content is close to 40 or even 50% these days. Anyway, a lot more than one or two sessions. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2 On Jul 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote: Ed Gould wrote: I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two? A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you advocate SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two sessions??! IMHO, that seems like a tremendous mistake! Why? I see as it is a furtherance of basic education, no? Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:36:27 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know. Whatever misconceptions I have sure won't be changed by your attitude. Period end. OK, I guess I do have a bit of an attitude by now... I started off trying to inform you how far from reality your conceptions were - without being insulting. I could have said something like you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I tried to be nice. I guess I failed to get my point across - not that you made it easy. For everyone's sake, why don't you refrain from making authoritative statements when you don't know the subject matter. Also, if someone suggests to you the possibility that things may not work the way you assume, maybe you should have a more open mind and accept that you could be wrong. Ignorance isn't a crime./rant What I was pointing out is my observation of the way things work best for us in our household. No stereotypes, just rudimentary tool usage. Hammers for nails, ratchets for screws. That's fine, but you gave me no frame of reference, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject being discussed, so it sounded like jibberish. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:11:04 EDT, Bill Fairchild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't play games on any kind of computer. I am a computer professional, I work on z/OS products, I use a PC as a tool to help me do my work, and I gave up games 20+ years ago. I guess I am also a grumpy old man. I don't think of my PC or z/OS as a platform. It is a commodity that lets me connect my fingertips to mainframe-centric software. I am quite happy being stereotypically ignorant. I am also oblivious to all the fine nuances of the ball point pen, pencil, and eraser I sometimes use on the job. These are merely commodities to me, just like my PC. I've got no problem with that, since I've never known you to make authoritative statements about how PCs work ;-) A man has got to know his limitations. - Dirty Harry -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:38:21 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guess the argument is the chipset is so robust, don't want the bloat of XP interfering with splaterring of aliens or monsters or police officers and hearing the lamentations of the vanquished. Who's argument? Who would make such an argument when no such games exist? Show me ONE current commercial game that runs under DOS? I am no fan of Microsoft, yet I understand that developing these games would not be possible without the functionality provided in WinXP. For anyone to assume that a game developer would rather write their own device support routines, rather than use the services built into the OS, is just ridiculous. A developer would never be able to complete a single product using that methodology. The target, both in terms of hardware technology and gaming standards, moves faster than you could write the code. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/23/2005 11:28:50 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A developer would never be able to complete a single product using that methodology. The target, both in terms of hardware technology and gaming standards, moves faster than you could write the code. I don't understand. Most games are written for the 128bit chipsets in Playstation, Nintendo and X-Box. They have to be tinkered to run on XP. I've got a box full of 3.5 diskettes that all run under DOS compliments of various students. Haven't played most of them in years. Don't know don't care. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Leonard Woren wrote: [1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed and a friend suggested Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to replace all your SCSI disks. Turns out that OS/2 can't be installed on IDE disks 4 GB. And don't bother to tell me about alternate drivers and hacks and whatever. I don't want to bother you, but this problem is just fixed. There are PTFs for that. The same problem exist when you want to install/run z/OS 1.4 on z/990 machine. You need Exploitation Support (FMID + PTFs) for that. IMHO z/OS is not completely dead BTW: Similar problem existed with Win 3.1 (no support for drives over 512MB in '32-bit mode'), it was BEFORE Win95 came to market. Similar problems existed with Novell NetWare, good system, well supported. There was a need to download new disk drives. IMHO bad diagnoze, despite of OS/2 death. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:35:22 -0600, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents to? Does XP allow viruses? They thrive nonetheless. What? A usermod to allow the program to reboot the system under a different operating system, while continuing to use WinXP services (disk access, network, DirectX for display/sound)? That's not only silly, that's downright absurd. Ed: I took a look over at Alienware and didn't see options for DOS or NONE, so I'm interested in how you got there. I haven't seen a PC sold with DOS for several years, but NONE can be found as an option on occasion. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/21/2005 10:15:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed: I took a look over at Alienware and didn't see options for DOS or NONE, so I'm interested in how you got there. I haven't seen a PC sold with DOS for several years, but NONE can be found as an option on occasion. I don't know. This is pretty typical for Gamer Customizations. _http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=12 72096_ (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=1272096) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:24:52 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know. This is pretty typical for Gamer Customizations. _http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=12 72096_ (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=1272096) Well, I never actually buy pre-built systems (I build my systems myself), but I hadn't seen DOS recently. I'm still wondering what DOS they are referring to, since MS-DOS is no more. It could be Caldera's DOS or Free-DOS, but they don't specify. In any case, I don't think you should assume that DOS is used for any of the current commercial PC game software, the additional development effort required to replicate all of the graphic/sound, etc functions of WinXP would be astronomical. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:00:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: current commercial PC game software, the additional development effort required to replicate all of the graphic/sound, etc functions of WinXP would be astronomical. Guess the argument is the chipset is so robust, don't want the bloat of XP interfering with splaterring of aliens or monsters or police officers and hearing the lamentations of the vanquished. Goes way back to Woz and PACMAN.. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 06:43:32PM -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, Yes! I'd love to see an equivalent in Linux. My recollection and understanding is (was?) that when most people ask for IBM to open-source OS/2, it's the WPS that they want in order to port just that to Linux. If WPS gets ported to Linux, why would anybody care that OS/2 is dead? [1] So a good question would be does the WPS by itself have IP that IBM would not be able to open-source? [1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed and a friend suggested Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to replace all your SCSI disks. Turns out that OS/2 can't be installed on IDE disks 4 GB. And don't bother to tell me about alternate drivers and hacks and whatever. I wasted days on them. They don't work. I bought a big SCSI disk for a ridiculous amount of money and immediately committed myself to abandoning my once-beloved OS/2 system. I've powered it up for a total of maybe 2 hours in the last 3 years. Footnote to the footnote. I just read a lot of the stuff on ecomstation.com . It's pretty funny... the whole thing is an argument for why ECS is NOT a viable option in today's world. And BTW, after using NT4 and XP for years, I still miss OS/2 and hate Winblows. /Leonard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/21/2005 at 11:31 AM, Leonard Woren [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: My recollection and understanding is (was?) that when most people ask for IBM to open-source OS/2, it's the WPS that they want in order to port just that to Linux. If WPS gets ported to Linux, why would anybody care that OS/2 is dead? [1] Applications that aren't available for Linux, e.g., Family Tree/2, InCharge, MR/2 ICE. OpenDoc. So a good question would be does the WPS by itself have IP that IBM would not be able to open-source? Well, the key pieces are HPFS, PM, SOM and WPS itself. I understand that some of the Linux file systems support extended attributes. I believe that PM is encumbered. AFAIK, SOM and WPS are strictly IBM. [1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed and a friend suggested Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to replace all your SCSI disks. Turns out that OS/2 can't be installed on IDE disks 4 GB. Yes it can[1], and I've done it. You need a more current release. Although on my primary machine I use SCSI, by choice. [1] Although I believe that the new limit is still lower than the limit for SCSI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:55:40 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound themselves. What high end games are you referring to here? The games written 10 years ago? I doubt they would qualify as high end today. AFAIK, all current PC based games run on WindowsXP, which does not allow the behavior you describe. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What high end games are you referring to here? The games written 10 years ago? I doubt they would qualify as high end today. AFAIK, all current PC I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or none. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a recent note, Ed Finnell said: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:08:23 EDT In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: What high end games are you referring to here? The games written 10 years ago? I doubt they would qualify as high end today. AFAIK, all current PC I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or none. none as in install your own? Likely Linux? Legacy OS/2? Etc. As for the clipped sentence: AFAIK, all current PC based games run on WindowsXP, which does not allow the behavior you describe. Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents to? Does XP allow viruses? They thrive nonetheless. Computer: Access denied. Scotty: Override! Computer: Access granted. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a recent note, Ed Finnell said: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:08:23 EDT In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: What high end games are you referring to here? The games written 10 years ago? I doubt they would qualify as high end today. AFAIK, all current PC I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or none. none as in install your own? Likely Linux? Legacy OS/2? Etc. As for the clipped sentence: AFAIK, all current PC based games run on WindowsXP, which does not allow the behavior you describe. Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents to? Does XP allow viruses? They thrive nonetheless. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Paul Gilmartin wrote: [snip] o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to convert to OS/2? Linucians? Wow, that's so much more erudite than Linux-heads. g Kind regards, -Steve Comstock -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In a message dated 7/18/2005 10:57:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors (perhaps even with Microsoft?) that preclude redistributing OS/2 source code. That would be a formidable obstacle. Guess I was thinking more of the MVS snippets lying around. Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound themselves. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2 Paul Gilmartin wrote: [snip] o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to convert to OS/2? Linucians? Wow, that's so much more erudite than Linux-heads. g Kind regards, -Steve Comstock We prefer the name Penguinistas! Well, the more radical branch, at least. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its' content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:07 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if it really makes inroads into UNIX land. Only insofar as it adds another free competitor to the OS landscape. OS/2 and *nix aren't so alike. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:57 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors I'm thinking that IBM might have an entanglement with Serenity, which remarkets and enhances OS/2 as eComStation. See: http://www.ecomstation.com/ Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out. o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to convert to OS/2? Not this one. I'd have to give up ~way~ too much. But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, and was extensible in useful ways by Stardock and others. And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business. There's even some advice that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community. See: http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050718 -teD In God we Trust! All others bring data! -- W. Edwards Deming -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:48 AM, David Andrews wrote: On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:57 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors I'm thinking that IBM might have an entanglement with Serenity, which remarkets and enhances OS/2 as eComStation. See: http://www.ecomstation.com/ Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out. o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to convert to OS/2? Not this one. I'd have to give up ~way~ too much. But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, and was extensible in useful ways by Stardock and others. And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business. There's even some advice that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community. See: http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
Brad Wardell! Stardock! Galactic Civilizations! Woohoo! Sorry. Got a little carried away there. Jon snip And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business. There's even some advice that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community. See: http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html /snip -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/19/2005 at 10:48 AM, David Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out. Which Windows code? The for Windows version, which didn't include[1] any windoze code, or the full function version, which did. FWIW, I've never wanted to run winapps on my OS/2 system. But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, Yes! I'd love to see an equivalent in Linux. [1] That WINOS2 would run windoze 3.1 applications if you had an existing copy of windoze. The name was confusing because it was the package of choice for those that did *not* want to run windoze applications. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/18/2005 at 10:07 PM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if it really makes inroads into UNIX land. More likely someone would port the interesting stuff to Linux. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html? part=rsstag=5792778subj=news -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 7/18/2005 8:27:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html? part=rsstag=5792778subj=news They can clamor 'til they're blue in the face, ain't gonna happen. Too much IP invested. Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if it really makes inroads into UNIX land. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:25:16 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/18/2005 8:27:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html?part=rsstag=5792778subj=news (wrap repaired -- gil) They can clamor 'til they're blue in the face, ain't gonna happen. Too much IP invested. OTOH, IBM, like Netscape, SUN, and to some extent Apple, might just hate Microsoft enough to do it. On the Gripping Hand: o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors (perhaps even with Microsoft?) that preclude redistributing OS/2 source code. o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to convert to OS/2? -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
