Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OS/2 Community Tries Bounty System

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the warped-minds dept.

Software 293

Grayskull writes "The OS/2 and eComStation community are trying to get open source software ported to that platform by opening bounties and allowing people to chip in with prize money. Currently the most important open bounties are Java 6 port, Icon routines in OS/2, VirtualBox port, Extend multimedia and OpenWengo ports."

cancel ×

293 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bounties? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912287)

Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty.

Re:Bounties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912767)

But it's the quicker picker upper!

Re:Bounties? (1)

Kreplock (1088483) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913363)

OS/who??

Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912293)

Who cares?

Open source the OS (5, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912297)

And more people will port Open Source software to it.

Re:Open source the OS (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912357)

It can't be done. The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors. Sun had quite a time releasing Solaris as open-source, and they owned almost all of it.

Not the whole OS, but large subsystems can be (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912539)

What IBM could do:

1) Open-source the code it owns

2) Binary-blob all non-royalty-bearing code it doesn't own.

3) Sell the complete package including royalty-bearing code for the cost of royalties plus a small markup to cover business expenses.

4) Repeat for older versions

They've already all but open-sourced JFS. If memory serves, the version of JFS in the final version of Warp Server had much the same code as the version that found its way into Linux.

ReactOS, Wine (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912565)

To make matters worse, it is pretty much succeeded by Windows NT, which means any re-developed open source OS/2 clone will be irrelevant, as it will be like ReactOS, but years behind. And let's not forget Wine, of course. I generally love how people can get enthusiastic about vintage operating systems, to the point where they develop clones of them, it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

Re:ReactOS, Wine (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912651)

it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

Fanboys, perhaps?

Re:ReactOS, Wine (2, Interesting)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913449)

I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.

Re:Open source the OS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912567)

The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors

It can be done, but you would need to take a BSD approach to it. That is, people who have (legal) access to the source would need to rewrite/replace all those components for which they can't obtain permission to release.

So it would take a legally limited pool of developers a lot of time and effort, all to open source an operating system that hasn't been updated since 2001. All-in-all, possible, but unlikely to be worth it.

Re:Open source the OS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912679)

The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors.

Oh, a stew?

Re:Open source the OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912745)

That's right. Better to let it die and hope that you can resurect it later as abandonware. But with Microsoft having its hooks in there it will never be really free or safe to use.

Let that be a lesson to anybody who thinks it's safe to partner with Microsoft. They made their reputation the old fashioned way; they earned it.

Re:Open source the OS (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912903)

Better to let it die, period.

Re:Open source the OS (3, Insightful)

monsul (1342167) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912415)

And more people will port Open Source software to it.

Not really. There are loads of open source OSes out there, and only the big and famous ones get a substantial amount of developers, and developers tend to contribute where their code will have more probabilities of being used (that is, big, established OSes). It's kind of a chicken and egg problem

Re:Open source the OS (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912801)

That's true for all operating systems, not just the free ones. It's one of the reasons Mac OS X adoption had been so slow until the Intel switch. One pretty much had to go cold turkey when buying a Mac.

Re:Open source the OS (1)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913405)

Also, it's true for all software projects, not just operating systems.

Re:Open source the OS (1)

calmond (1284812) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912457)

This may sound a bit ridiculous on the surface, but why not port WINE and GCC with its libraries to it - then most of the other stuff would get support through that.

Re:Open source the OS (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912625)

Odin [wikipedia.org] tries to, but the project's been moribund for about ten years.

Re:Open source the OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24913305)

Why spend resources for license auditing etc? Nobody cares about OS/2, except 8 fanboys.

Re:Open source the OS (2, Interesting)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913497)

I, for one, am a fanboy that doesn't care.

OS/2 was the first real operating system I ran, and was pretty amazed by it, falling in love at the first run.

For some years (from 2.0 to "War" 4.x) I used it at my primary OS (ie, a Windows partition for the occasional gaming), and it was sad when it died. The possibility of coming back to Windows was glooming.

But Linux came to the rescue. It was just as good, minus the Presentation Manager (OS/2 neat object-oriented desktop). Although I did not realized at first how important it was, being Free sounded interesting.

Qutecom instead of Openwengo (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912305)

Openwengo is dead, it's now called Qutecom [qutecom.org] . Also I'm wondering whether Ekiga is not much mature, especially now version 3.00 is around the corner.

Wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912315)

Who uses OS/2 other than some old corporations that has software that still works on it and consider?

Re:Wtf (2, Interesting)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912383)

This is why Virtual Box would be useful. VMs will allow OS/2 users to receive new features/programs via other OSes.

Re:Wtf (3, Insightful)

toriver (11308) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913425)

Ooh, the Win16 layer reprise: Having the Win16 support in OS/2 was a major contributor to its downfall since there was no reason for vendors to make native apps when they could make Win16 apps and sell to both Windows and OS/2 users.

Re:Wtf (1)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913531)

Or just run the legacy OS/2 software on a VM instead?

Team OS/2! (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912317)

OS/2! Named after the number of users remaining!

Re:Team OS/2! (4, Interesting)

motherjoe (716821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912449)

Ahh show some respect. :)

Long before there was talk of Linux supplanting Windows, it was OS/2.

I was one of them, from version 2 through Warp 4. Let the Star Trek puns rain down on me for that one! :)

Take care all.

Just my .02 worth :)

Re:Team OS/2! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912503)

I think OS/2 suffered from a warp core breach.

Re:Team OS/2! (2, Interesting)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912605)

The biggest problem was the Win/OS2 holodeck that allowed vendors to say they supported OS/2 without having to write a native port. Using Wine as a substitute for native ports (as others here have suggested) would continue that same flawed strategy that only works if there is already a large portfolio of native software.

Re:Team OS/2! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912595)

I know it was cruel. But fair. Or "fair but cruel."

Re:Team OS/2! (2, Interesting)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913111)

I'm with you on that. I really loved working with OS/2 way back when. My first NAT gateway ran on OS/2 before most people never even heard of it.

Not to mention, OS/2 was a pretty darned good DOS multitasker, and a good number of DOS games ran well under OS/2 as well.

It was a pretty good Operating System, low footprint, and it took quite a few years before Linux distributions got as good as OS/2.

Re:Team OS/2! (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912551)

OS/2 is and has been for many years now a very useful and stable product (once you install the proper fixpacks) and find some software to run on it. I recommend StarOffice 5.1 and Opera.

Re:Team OS/2! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912609)

So has DOS and CP/M.

Re:Team OS/2! (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912781)

Oh you kids!

Re:Team OS/2! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912785)

Hey, I cut my teeth on RSTS/E!

Or... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912329)

You could just use an OS that people are actually still developing for.

Re:Or... (5, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912365)

Exactly. OS/2 is dead, guys. Where have you been?

OS/2 has all kinds of really neat features. In many ways, it's still a signpost of things to come. Unfortunately, it's all built on top of a kernel that incorporates all the mistakes/oversights of early 80s programming techniques.

Re:Or... (5, Interesting)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912601)

I remember when I first fired up the Workplace Shell in v. 2.1. Everything was interconnected, and theoretically would Just Work--hell it worked better than Windows 3.11. But the problem was that everything was dependent upon "and ifs".

Want to print a document? Just drag its icon to the printer icon and if your word processor is written right, the document will print without having to start your word processor.

Don't like the color of your terminal window? Drop a color from the color palette to the window and if its written right, it'll not only change to the color you want, but the program will remember!

That's just scratching the surface; hpfs, multimedia, Christ, even the GNU tools all ran under OS/2 (heck, that's how I discovered tcsh, which has been my command line shell for longer than I've known *nix!).

Of course history chose the winner. The WPS was the Win 95 shell done right. It took MS, what, 6 years? to get Windows to the stability of OS/2. Alas, OS/2 is now a corpse. I understand it's still being used, but not to the extent that it could have been. OS/2 was elegant, and Win 95 brutish--having the feel of someone trying to forge the Mona Lisa with a Crayola. Of course, time marches on, and I was able to dodge the Microsoft tax all throughout college by using Linux, which has slowly pulled itself up to start feeling vaguely like the WPS. KDE 4.2 and its promise of further integration of ... stuff has my curiosity piqued. You're right, though, OS/2 is dead, and people should be looking to migrate their software to something a little more modern.

Re:Or... (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913365)

Unfortunately, it's all built on top of a kernel that incorporates all the mistakes/oversights of early 80s programming techniques.

One word: Unix.

Bounties? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912353)

Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty

Bounties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24913123)

Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty

Truly hopeless (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912389)

Seriously, this is like getting grandma a boobjob so maybe she can score a young IT guy with money.

Donate it to the community or give it up!

Re:Truly hopeless (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912481)

They can't open source it. It's encumbered.

Re:Truly hopeless (4, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912513)

They can't open source it. It's encumbered.

Are we still talking about OS/2 or his grandmother?

Re:Truly hopeless (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912805)

No, that would be en-cucumbered.
*ducks*

Re:Truly hopeless (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912945)

God help me, I parsed that as "cucumber", and now I feel like the Sam Neill character in Event Horizon...

Re:Truly hopeless (4, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912641)

Thank you, I'm going to have to scrub my brain with bleach now.

Re:Truly hopeless (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913347)

Maybe they can rehire the Cobol programmers from the retirement homes in Florida? The ones they brought out of retirement for the Year 2000 crisis? I bet that 8 years later, their skills haven't rusted a bit. _Congealed_, perhaps, but not rusted.

Last time I used OS/2... (0)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912407)

...was right before I switched to NT 4.0.

Seriously, why?

What! (3, Funny)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912441)

Someone is still using OS/2? Perhaps there should also be bounties for porting software to Win 95 & NT 4.0 and Linux kernel v1.0...

Re:What! (4, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912535)

There are several embedded systems till using OS/2. One of the biggest is ATM machines, new ones too.

My bank just installed a load of brand new machines, all running OS/2.

Re:What! (4, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912647)

Yeah, I can see a huge bright future for ATMs running Java and GIMP and Firefox and Chrome.

Re:What! (1)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913073)

Yes, you can photoshop, so to speak, your holiday pictures while getting cash.

Re:What! (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912815)

ATMs, cash registers and other non-computer computers aside, I bet there are far more Linux 1.x systems out there than OS/2...

Re:What! (1)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913025)

True enough, I suppose.

What does OS/2 offer today? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912493)

I used OS/2 Warp a long time ago. It was good, in its day. But why do people still use it late 2008?

Is it love?

Are there any technical advantages?

If it is because of a key legacy application instead of getting stuff ported to OS/2 maybe that application should get ported to the other OSs?

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (3, Insightful)

Atomic Frog (28268) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912583)

Simple. It works well for what most users do.
- The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.
- No virus, no spyware.
- Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.
- A real GUI for the OS. Come on, Linux is very pretty (I use Ubuntu everyday at work), but there's a lot of inconsistencies and at heart, it's still basically a X-Window manager. You think it's great, but not after you've used a real GUI. (Dang I wish GNOME or KDE would _copy_ from some of the best GUI's).
- OS X is a possibility, but you have to buy Apple hardware only.
- It's not a resource hog. I can fit my OS and all my applications (Yes, including OpenOffice 2, GIMP and everything you need under the sun) in a couple of GB if you wanted to.

Let's face it, most people (and that would not be people in Slashdot) just check their e-mail, browse the web and write up the occasional document. OS/2 does that easily and simply. I have to use WinXP and Linux (and Solaris and HP-UX and...) at work, but I'll fully switch when Linux or someone else gets their act together. All the alpha-blended, draggy morphing windows in the world won't make a great UI if the _behaviour_ isn't there.

If you need to get an updated, currently supported, purchasable version of OS/2, you can use eComstation.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912777)

I know nothing of the inner workings of OS/2, but a hard link in Linux will still work if you rename the file. Is the OS/2 link a hard link?

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (5, Informative)

markdavis (642305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912833)

> Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.

Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912841)

I like your bullet points. Ill comment on them.

- The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.

The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".

- No virus, no spyware.

Just like Linux, the more popular you become, the more nasties are abound. And even with Linux, if you run that naughty binary, whats stopping that naughty bin to downloading a public key from a keyserver and encrypting/overwriting your ~ ? I could even show a nasty message "Pay X$ to Y_Swiss_account number" for private key and decryption code.

In fact, that was already done, but with no keyserver. Rather nasty attack. What matters more: /bin or ~ ?

- Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.

Softlinks on Linux prevent simple renaming problems, and even works across disparate partitions. Hardlinks work only on that same disk system. Windows has a softlinks system, but refuse to use that instead of .lnk garbage. I have no clue why.

- A real GUI for the OS. Come on, Linux is very pretty (I use Ubuntu everyday at work), but there's a lot of inconsistencies and at heart, it's still basically a X-Window manager. You think it's great, but not after you've used a real GUI. (Dang I wish GNOME or KDE would _copy_ from some of the best GUI's).

I LIKE Xwindows. I can run any program on any machine on my network from and machine. I have complete run-ability. In Windows, I have to use Rdesktop (or whatever they call it) or VNC. And that only provides per-desktop granularity. I can run independent programs from anywhere I can SSH in to. I can also get any amount of graphic candy I can either run or program up.

Or I can run X itself and end up with a basic screen input, with 1 shell window. Windows, Mac, OS/2 all offer 1 choice. Linux offers all.

- OS X is a possibility, but you have to buy Apple hardware only.

Hopefully, that will be chalenged in court for illegal bundling. Not that I would like to run it... If I want Unix, Ill install FreeBSD or Linux.

- It's not a resource hog. I can fit my OS and all my applications (Yes, including OpenOffice 2, GIMP and everything you need under the sun) in a couple of GB if you wanted to.

Debian is the same. I install only what I want. I run what I want. I dont want X, I dont install X. I dont want some server program, I dont install it. I happen to run Ubuntu 8.04 and it works perfectly on my T61 thinkpad. I can optionally re-compile my kernel for the accel sensor in my hard drive, but I dont drop my laptop, and its all backed up anyways.

Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS. I wouldnt be bitching saying that Windows programs run badly on Linux: Id go run Windows either directly, or in a vBox.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (1)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913125)

The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".

Really? Now compare Windows Media Player, Office 2003, Office 2007, Internet Explorer, Notepad, Visual Studio, and Windows Update. None of these, you might notice, are third-party applications, yet you might notice that they have some rather fundamental differences.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913149)

Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.

Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912843)

- The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.

Agreed.

- No virus, no spyware.

Because no-one uses it. You don't have viruses and spyware for CP/M either.

- Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.

I doubt it even comes close to Unix as far as command line power is concerned. I see your point with the links, but honestly I think that's just a single example.

- A real GUI for the OS. Come on, Linux is very pretty (I use Ubuntu everyday at work), but there's a lot of inconsistencies and at heart, it's still basically a X-Window manager. You think it's great, but not after you've used a real GUI. (Dang I wish GNOME or KDE would _copy_ from some of the best GUI's).

Agreed. Gnome and KDE are getting better every day though.

- OS X is a possibility, but you have to buy Apple hardware only.

Honestly Mac OS X Leopard looks cool and has a lot of cool features. On the other hand, I would really not say it's the most stable OS ever; actually, Mac OS X has become much more unstable with every release. I have to reboot my Macbook Pro at least once a day, and I don't use it very heavily.

- It's not a resource hog. I can fit my OS and all my applications (Yes, including OpenOffice 2, GIMP and everything you need under the sun) in a couple of GB if you wanted to.

Same thing for Linux. Also, by installing OpenOffice, Mozilla or pretty much any "real" program on OS/2, you lose your praised GUI consistency.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (2, Informative)

squiddog (1218058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913165)

I remember dragging and dropping the entire desktop (the folder that represented my desktop) from the install/boot drive to my second SCSI drive. I figured I'd break it all and have to reinstall, but it was worth the experiment. OS/2 didn't break. Not only did my system still work right then during the move, but it worked fine after a reboot as well. Remember folks, this was before Windows 95, NT and all the spawn thereafter. Really nicely thought out system, without a marketing monster behind it to shove it down the throats of the consumer.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (2, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913209)

- No virus, no spyware.

A few bounties can fix that right up.

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (2, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913315)

No virus, no spyware.

That's entirely due to lack of interest on the part of virus makers and spyware makers, as OS/2 is not very secure. For example, important libraries used by all processes are mapped to shared, writable memory. It's trivial for a malicious process to take over any other process and run arbitrary code in that other process.

From a security point of view, OS/2 is in the same ballpark as Windows 95, far below Linux, OS X, and any Windows decended from NT (such as NT, 2K, XP, Vista).

Re:What does OS/2 offer today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912749)

I used OS/2 Warp a long time ago. It was good, in its day. But why do people still use it late 2008?

Is it love?

Probably. It's the same reason people are clinging to AmigaOS 3.9 and 4.0.

Not very bountiful (4, Funny)

rickkas7 (983760) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912517)

How hard up for money do you need to be to port GTK+ 2.x to OS/2 for $ 30?

Re:Not very bountiful (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912545)

I think the idea is a bunch of people offer bounties for something worthwhile. So, if someone else wanted GTK, maybe they would offer $50, and then someone else $100, someone else $10, and so on, so the bounty grows.

Re:Not very bountiful (1)

dekropisvol (801636) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913323)

Did the same with the OS2 folder moving it within WP shell from c: to d:, yes the os2 system software folder, had only config.sys the PATHs to c:\os2 renamed to d:\os2 and after a reboot everything worked. It was very funny.

Re:Not very bountiful (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912663)

Well, did they say the port has to work?

Re:Not very bountiful (2, Funny)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912969)

Don't be so dismissive, I'll be investing my $40 from recovering data from a zeroed disk into a new keyboard to work on this port.

There's an active OS2 Community?!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912549)

Wow,
The lengths some people will go to to avoid change astounds me!

Don't get me wrong, it was great, cool, etc FOR ITS'S TIME, but but it's time has passed and now it's just more dated junk.

I used to absolutely LOVE Amiga OS, it was the greatest (of it's time) but I use Linux & windows now....

I'm not sure that this is the place for bounties.. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912557)

Looking at the list of bounties, I was struck by their paltriness(and, in certain cases, their complete implausibility, "Oh, sure, I'm sure I've got the Skype sourcecode sitting around here somewhere, definitely worth 130 bucks."). I find it difficult to believe that they'll get too many people to work on a closed and rather necrotic OS for that kind of money.

Bounties make a certain amount of sense as a means to reward the efforts of people who work on projects of community interest, and they might even direct the attention of people who are likely to be working on something in any case in the direction you want it to go. They aren't a way of hiring programmers(not at this size anyway), they are only an added motivation for the already interested.

Does an OS used primarily by a dwindling number of corporate legacy customers, often in semiembedded applications, really have a large enough pool of already interested contributors? The fact that OS/2 is closed isn't an automatic kiss of death for community involvement with a legacy system(just look at Amiga and BeOS); but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

Perhaps this will work for them, if so, great; but I have to wonder.

it can't work like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912639)

if they really want this to work they need a central body that assigns the bounties from sponsored funds. They could let sponsors vote on the top 3 priorities and just put a price tag on those.

The way it is now they are guaranteed to have a bunch of projects with tiny bounties instead of 1-3 with meaningful ones.

Re:I'm not sure that this is the place for bountie (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912711)

...but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

Ah, you should have seen the 90s! There were OS/2 fanboys that made the Apple guys look like sissy boys. They were rabid. Just say, "OS/2 is what, DOS 5.0?"
Ooooo Weeee! It would have been better to call their mother a whore!

You should all be ashamed (2, Interesting)

JochenBedersdorfer (945289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912563)

It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.
OS/2 was a technology leader for a long time, it was the first OS to take the desktop metaphor seriously. Its programming model (SOM) and template system is still marvelous after all these years. It was the first OS with proper multi-threading support, with voice support etc. etc. Lots of innovations happenend on this platform.

It just had one problem: It was managed by IBM!

When OS/2 version 3 came out, it kicked ass compared to Win 3.11 and Win 95. Just imagine what would have happenend if IBM had decided to put a proper fight in the desktop war.

We would have a far more advanced OS by now.

Currently we are stuck with Vista, which is a graphical update of the interface concepts of Windows 3.11!

It's a shame we are stuck in the 90s wrt human computer interaction.

Re:You should all be ashamed (-1, Flamebait)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912603)

Damn right. We should be stuck in the 1970's. The command line is the right interface for a computer. My own system is nothing but shells.

Re:You should all be ashamed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912661)

My own system is nothing but shells.

Mine, too. Oh wait, that's my Demolition Man themed bathroom.

Yes, but no virus or trojans (2, Funny)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912677)

I run OS/2 as my primary desktop. I'm safe from viruii as there is none for it.

There is some security through obscurity.

Re:Yes, but no virus or trojans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24913023)

"Viruii"? That just hurts.

Re:You should all be ashamed (1, Interesting)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912979)

OS/2 was pretty much a Miscrosoft product.

The desktop, written in SOM by IBM was a bitch to develop for. It was big. bulky, clunky, and prone to crashing the desktop. Because, each little SOM desktop item as a dll that the desktop program called. So, they all ran in the same address space as the desktop. Oh, and each had at least one thread and if you left a few open, you're desktop would run slower than molasses.

I almost got fired from my contracting gig because I mentioned that the best parts of OS/2 were written by MS and the most complained about parts of OS/2: the networking, install, and some of the desktop things, were written by IBM.

The thing that could save OS/2 at this point .. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912573)

... would be if Serenity opensourced eComStation. They probably aren't making a huge profit off sales anyway, and they could still sell a "Corporate Edition" or something bundled with a payware software suite of their choosing.

Amiga also has it.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912585)

AROS system has some bounties, IIRC

Re:Amiga also has it.. (-1, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912693)

But at least AROS is better than OS/2.

These frivolous thoughts do not concern me (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912597)

You all should know that this is totally irrelevant because I am GOD!

Linux ate OS/2 market share IMO (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24912629)

I was a very fanatical OS/2 user. Not fanatical in a zealotish way but fanatical in that I liked doing all I needed on my PC using OS/2. Some minor issues which couldn't be done were usually easily solved when opening up OS/2 Windows. Another issue is that I actually paid for my sofware. And OS/2 knew some great software packages! If you like GQView these days; I was using something very similiar long before we even heard from Gnome and KDE.

But it became awfully tricky when IBM dropped support for OS/2 and eventually I made the jump fully to Linux. Right now I'm very happy with Ubuntu using a KDE desktop. And the fact that it doesn't have to cost me much is naturally a very welcome benefit as well.

Now, this was years ago. I sometimes try to install my Warp and Merlin CD's in some kind of virtual machine but mostly to no avail (I did got Warp running though). However, I have tried a few of the ComStation live cd's to see what it was all about. And quite frankly; it doesn't manage to impress me one bit. Sure; its a nice revival of the old OS/2 but its main problem (IMO ofcourse) is that it didn't go along with recent developments but instead got stuck somewhere in the last century.

Now; bear with me. I can understand that the developers can only do so much with it. But it would have been a lot better if they would have tried to utilize other people's researches and developments as well. OS/2 had some very powerfull desktop enhancers. Some of those even managed to build an entire business out of their single product because.. it actually sold (I bought several copies myself as well). But.. None of that on eComstation. The interface is basically the same as what we were used to, but which most of us have most likely outgrown.

So instead of wasting money on projects like these I'd think that money would be better put into OS development. But even that might not be enough to get back much of the marketshare. Lets face it; Linux has ate up a lot of marketshare. I sure wouldn't even consider going back anymore. So my stance on this? "Too little, too late", even though I admire the effort.

They should port the OS/2 API to Linux (5, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912715)

I used to be a OS/2 user, but I stopped about 4 years ago. I sympathize with the OS/2 community, because it was my geek "home" for a while, but they're going about it all wrong. I tried to convince them a long time ago, but they never listened.

The OS/2 kernel is seriously outdated. Hardware support is minimal, and the kernel itself is just dated. It's mostly 16-bit. So there's no reason to keep it. A few people insist that the OS/2 kernel is "nicer" or "better" than the Linux kernel is some way, but these people don't know anything about kernels. It's a stupid argument.

The OS/2 community should port the OS/2 API to Linux. This will allow them to run the WPS (the illustrious GUI that OS/2 users rave about) and every other OS/2 application. This would be a one-time effort, because the API is stable. It hasn't been updated in almost 10 years. Not only that, but it's very well documented

Instead, these guys keep trying to port Linux applications to OS/2. If every OS/2 developer dropped what he was doing and worked on porting the OS/2 API, they'd be done in about a year. They would never have to ask for any more help ever again. The user base would actually grow, even. They'd be able to use all of their applications forever, even on newer hardware. Device support would never be a problem. Even businesses that are based on OS/2 would start moving to Linux. It would be win-win for everyone.

In fact, the WPS might even become quite popular. Someone might try to make an open source version of it, and it might even become a replacement GUI for Linux, competing with Gnome and KDE.

What is OS2 (1)

sammy_cda (783295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912725)

I thought after Ford dumped their "Vincent" system, OS2 was dead. Does anyone use it anymore and, if so, why? There are so many great alternatives.

Some bounty! (2, Interesting)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912783)

For the Tuniac port - Tuniac/2

Below it, it says: Current Bounty: $0

I used to be an OS/2 developer. For me to get a compiler, the OS, a machine to install all that stuff on, and the time to do it, I would want a lot of money to do it. Let's put it this way, enough to buy a new car.

Who would want to? (3, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912799)

Seriously. Who really wants to write for OS/2 that already isn't doing it? I remember, about ten years ago, a club I belong to was auctioning off a copy to raise money. A good friend of mine outbid everybody, even though he made it clear he was going to take it outside after the meeting and throw it in a random trash can on his way home. He'd just finished a project that required porting something to OS/2 and he hated the OS so much that he was willing to pay good money for the privilege of trashing a copy.

Already a well-supported guest on VirtualBox (3, Interesting)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912807)

Although I appreciate that I'm likely missing the point, isn't the fact that OS/2 already well supported [virtualbox.org] on VirtualBox good enough? Isn't it sufficient for your application needs to run it as a guest on a Linux or Windows host?

What's the motivation?

Barrier to entry (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#24912875)

As i understand it, OS/2 still costs money to obtain...
So there's very little incentive for a hobbyist programmer to obtain a copy just to play with... The only people using it, will be those who are stuck with it for legacy reasons, it won't gather any new users.
There are several niche open source OS's out there, and there's no barrier to stop people downloading them to try (i regularly download new builds of AROS, Reactos, Syllable etc)

NEWs? (4, Insightful)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913079)

Some of these bounties were created in 2005.

This just in, OS/2 users drive Ford Pintos (2, Funny)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913121)

I surveyed the OS/2 user community. 95% of them drive vintage Ford Pintos. The other 5% still drive their Mom's station wagon.

How about a reverse bounty ? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913127)

I think we should post bounties as well... to move people AWAY from OS/2. If you convince one of those hippies to switch to Linux, you win a prize!

Just let the goddamned bastard OS die with some dignity! It was interesting in, oh, 1994 ? :P Then NT4 came along and made OS/2 pretty much obsolete. Don't get me wrong, OS/2 had quite a few brilliant elements, but it doesn't hold a candle to modern OS' stability and user-friendliness.

Re:How about a reverse bounty ? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913387)

There is already such a bounty. It's called 'finding a job'.

This will be my next project (2, Funny)

Alonzo Meatman (1051308) | more than 6 years ago | (#24913139)

I'll accept a few of these bounties as soon as I have the chance. However, right now I'm too busy porting OpenMUMPS to the Atari ST. I'll get back to you in a year or so.

Car analog (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24913441)

I am willing to pay $150 for alloy wheels for my Ford Model T, anybody interested?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?