It's definitely true that they do not have access to the original OS/2 source - this has been confirmed by people from Arca Noae in various interviews/presentations I've seen. I've never heard a definitive explanation for why, but two reasons are usually speculated:
1) Due to the amount of third party code in OS/2 (most notably, the DOS and Win 3.x layer) that IBM is unable to license out the code, or unwilling to go to the trouble to figure out the legal implications.
As far as I know, yes. There were no changes made to eCS which required source - everything was implemented as drivers, or layers on top of the base OS.
I have not heard or seen any direct confirmation of this anywhere. If you have, I would really like to know. I am looking at a follow-on review and this would be great background info.
> most notably, the DOS and Win 3.x layer
I think what you put in parentheses here is the real reason.
IBM probably still has the source. It seems to be methodical, unlike say Symantec which lost the QEMM and DESQview source.
But IBM and MS co-developed OS/2. MS has joint ownership of this code.
MS has a 50+ year history of being a deeply dishonest and unreliable company. It hates FOSS and only releases what it has to. MS-DOS 4 only got out became someone found it and made it public.
Satnav Nutella has no more understanding of this than the Queen of England. He will do and say whatever is needed to make Number Go Up.
MS releases tiny token gestures to make the incomprehending loud FOSS advocates believe them. Notepad, Calc, ancient DOS releases... nothing that matters.
It won't release Windows 3 because some of that code is still in Windows today.
MS does not love Linux. WSL2 is an embrace-and-extend tactic. If MS had a real clue left then WSL1 would never have been a product: it would have just extended the NT kernel POSIX personality to run Linux binaries.
Remember the core of Windows is the NT kernel and it can natively run OS/2 binaries and Unix binaries.
It doesn't because MS turned it off. NT is a version of VMS with native Unix and OS/2 binary support and a GUI built on Windows 3 code and MS won't let that code out. If it did the ReactOS people could make a ReactOS that was Good Enough. The WINE people could make a seamless one that make .EXEs a 1st class Linux citizen.
MS is terrified of that because it doesn't have the skills to do the equivalent any more, and WSL2 is the existence proof of that. It couldn't even get systemd working in WSL2 until it hired Poettering to do it. Then he stayed there just long enough to get the money and he's off out again.
The reason IBM won't release the OS/2 source, even to Arca Noae, is Microsoft.
As much as I like the performance and the power consumption of the current apple lineaup, the problems is I can not install Linux on the Neo. I can beraly install it on the M1, M2, and M3. And not everything works. If I could install Linux and have everything working, I will buy a Macbook (not a Neo) right away.
Linux will always be a second class citizen on Apple hardware. I have the M1 and have tried Linux a few times at different stages of maturity. As it is right now, it's still a far cry from the experience of a Linux on x86 hardware, and specifically Thinkpads. Bottom line is, even though I really like my laptop, I do NOT like Mac OS (and with every update I like it _less_) and will probably go back to a thinkpad for my next laptop. It's a big shame.
A used ThinkPad with way more than 8 GiB of RAM can cost way less than $600. I picked two up for $300 each. You're not gonna run frontier open-source models on it but it's a very nice dumb machine for basic tasks, or even the archaic practice of programming by hand.
So you have become a reviewer instead of a programmer? Is that so? hones question. And if so, what is the advantage of looking a code for 12 hours instead of coding for 12.
Build features faster. Granted, this exposes the difference between people who like to finish projects and people who like to get paid a lot of money for typing on a keyboard.
Why does understanding computer science principles and software architecture and instructing a person or an ai on how to fix them require typing every line yourself?
Because they are an industry, aren’t they?
Printing, binding, cover productions, transportation and storage, all that are much easier and much cheaper with a few standardized sizes.
Sort of. It won't be save between machines, for example, as chrome's implementation does. If Firefox crashes, most of th time it is lost. It is also not as clean as chrome's native implementation. I have tried it.
Oh yeah well I run 500 VMs of Windows Vista each with an instance of DeepSeek botting Neopets stocks for me. I make more neopoints in a day than you'll make in USD in a year.
/s but I suppose I've developed a work flow that adapts to the RAM I've always had. I've seen people with zillions of tabs and I do wonder if it's really that much more productive than the occasional HTTP request to reopen one. I find leaving things open as a form of bookmarking clouds my mental space too much.
I do intend to have beastly RAM on my new desktop so who knows, maybe I'll be like you in a year.
In Argentina we can transfer using our account number (or account Alias, for example my alias could be kwanbix) directly, account to account, instantly, it costs 0.
In US also... but here in US, my bank (Bank of America) would print a check, put it in an envelop, send it to the other bank (e.g. US Bank). So, it is not instantaneous, but it is still free.
The drawback is when the US Bank office down the street that hosts the account closed for water damage, it stopped receiving the checks, and it took forever to bounce, so I had no idea that I was not paying my HOA... And this happened in San Francisco, California where the Bank of America and the US Bank are on the same street, a block away...
I cannot wait for FedNow or anything trying to fix this mess.
Really nice OS. Which it was a more reasonable $50 for personal use.
reply