Ok, Im going to say right here why the poster is a **** wit. To start off, OS/2 is not dead and is not dieing, eComstation (the new OS/2) is kicking ass in european banks, and is even attracting quite a few developers and users to the platform.

The main problem though is how often this is said about OSs. BeOS is suffering the same problems (by the way, Kudos to the OpenBeOS team, I wish them luck, I think they will need it) with people bitching how Palm should release the source code to BeOS. But I digress..

MABYE, just mabye it will help OS/2 live on if it was dead. But what purpose would it get. The second it went opensource or free, developers will just leave because to be frank, who expects a bunch of freeloaders who wouldnt even pay for the OS to pay for software to go with it.

Now the comment about loosing a bunch a users, my response is much like the last one. What purpose do these user have the Serenity Systems (the devlopers)? They wouldnt be making money, just attracting a bunch of freeloading bastards. Too cheap to pay for an OS...bad luck. I would pefer OS/2 to die with dignity than for it to be gang raped by a bunch of users and then left to die on the curb. Which reminds me of BeOS again....

Im sorry about this.....but I needed to get it off my chest before I hurt somebody..

Really? The guy at de desk across from mine is heading a project called "OS/2 phaseout" here at ING...

The only reason OS/2 was still lingering around in a few banks was because of some obscure IBM tools that wouldn't run on any other platform. Those tools are being phased out, as is OS/2, in favour of Windows.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Yes, the people who want software released for free are looking for a free ride. The same can probably be said for the people who petition for the source code to be released. This has little to do with OSS or Free Software.

But I want to reiterate this: FREE SOFTWARE REFERS TO FREEDOM, NOT FREELOADING. If you do not understand this, you are not qualified to demerit OSS. This is because OSS depends upon the contributions of users. If people don't write code, you wouldn't have software. If people didn't write documentation, you wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it. If people didn't offer support, you would not be able to resolve your problems. If people didn't offer hosting, you would not be able to offer the fruits of your labour so freely. The success of OSS indicates that there is a large body of contributors. (Some in the OSS community even consider the meer use of their software as a contribution, because it gets their message out.)

Are there free loaders? You bet. But the same can be said of food banks and shelters. Do you forbid people from offering these services because there are freeloaders? Or do you continue to offer them for the benefit of those who need them? (Equating software to food or shelter is a tad far fetched, but a similar concept applies.)

Ranting aside: I don't think that open sourcing old closed source software will help. The early experience with Mozilla indicates that the code was not necessarily suitable for open source developers. It is probably safe to bet that the only reason for its success was the dire need of a complete browser. Second: you can easily run into licensing (ie. copyright and patent) issues, which are difficult to weed out. Just look at the patent issues which the Linux kernel is facing, and all of it is supposed to be original code. Third: usually an open source project already fills the gap. (That would be Linux in
the case of operating systems.) This could mean two things: a division of resources, or a lack of interest. Both reflect poorly on the OSS
community. Fourth: abandoned code is usually being requested. In otherwords, this represents a step backwards rather than a step forwards. And finally, the original market wouldn't be reflected by the new market. While OSS can coexist with commercial software, the distribution models do not. If you have a slew of OSS developers and users taking over an operating system, it is bound to hurt the existing market. Similarly for commercial developers latching on to open source (the consequences of that are just starting to come out). I think that this last point ties into the thinning Mac bloodline.

Its probably cheaper and easier to use an old OS that doesnt take up much space then to design a new one. I think my Atari 1040 ST ran GEM and it only has 1mb ram, a new cell phone probably is more powerfull.

shak goes to get a nokia phone, do they all have GEM, is it like the old GEM? who cares GEM is the best.

quote:

---

Its probably cheaper and easier to use an old OS that doesnt take up much space then
to design a new one. I think my Atari 1040 ST ran GEM and it only has 1mb ram, a
new cell phone probably is more powerfull.

---

Quadra 840av, prettymuchmaxedout8xcd drive
os 8.1
128 meg ram, 500 meg hard drive
3 monitors 15" & 14" & 14"

Ummm... No, it isn't. It's dead. Dead as a dodo. You're starting to sound like an Amiga user.

,xtG
.tsooJ

TOS is the OS, GEM is the GUI environment.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Atari st's run Tos/Gem,

like in windows it would be Dos/Gem

yeah?

Tos is the bussiness end & GEM is the Graphical Environment Manager

Which after consideration is the bit that I really miss, the friendly efficient interface.

shaktiman