OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum

OS/2 - SIGs => OS2 Petition => Topic started by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.01.22, 00:03:14

Title: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.01.22, 00:03:14
Well, thats kind of balls isnt it?

Oh well, its what I expected at least :\
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: agrisea on 2008.01.22, 00:11:05
Now everyone in the world knows how IBM lost the Operating System battle (Windows vs. OS/2).. The response letter is typical IBM and I suspect the person who wrote it has never even seen OS/2.

What a sad world we live in. :(
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.22, 00:27:32
I agree that this reply was truly disappointing; but I think that IBM just went for the easy road here and they might need to get some more good arguments why they should open up the code. Also, as stated earlier, we're actually not asking IBM to open up the entire code, just the portions that we would need to get further on with our different projects.

Among other there has been discussions to point out specific section and patents of the code that we could like to get IBM to open. As well we really need the Linux community to tag along on this one, but they need more information why the should and what they could gain. As well does IBM. But, at least we got a reply this time, we didn't get that the first time.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: John on 2008.01.22, 00:54:04
This is very disappointing news indeed, I had high hopes that that they would at least consider releasing portions of the code. Taking a look at both Novells' and Suns' business practices, one can see that both the Corporate and end users of their products have much to gain. ie openSUSE vs SLED vs SLES - the openSUSE version is freely available for download vs the bought and registered version of either SLED or SLES gives you customer support + any other benefits. Novell can also gain from the open source community by the fact that code from the open source community can be utilized in their business editions. I'd imagine Sun has similar tradeoff with it's Solaris offering. Solaris 10 is free to download after registering on their site + there is also huge online community and developer help. Imagine IBM and SSI played similar game 10years ago, bet a whole lotta issues would  have been fixed and all those Big Corporate customers IBM lost to M$ would have gone back to OS/2.

Best now to support the Voyager Project IMHO.

Cheers,

John.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: TheNerd on 2008.01.22, 00:57:47
It would have been nice to see how an open sourced OS/2 would have benefited Voyager and eCS. Ohh well, maybe we can still convince IBM to open source some stuff if the focus is shifted more towards the specific components rather than, at least, what seems to be the entire OS.

I dunno...
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: lazy on 2008.01.22, 02:06:04
stupid resellers :( blame IBM
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Fernando Celio on 2008.01.22, 04:47:17
This is a non-response.

May be IBM is afraid of what an Open Source OS could be done to their business. Specially one that they were unable to did it a success.

OK, let us know what parts are copyrighted protect and we will turn the tables.

Regards, Fernando.
Title: Petition for free download instead?
Post by: a30guy on 2008.01.22, 05:56:04
It seems to me that the reasons IBM will not open-source OS/2 have been well known for some time, so their response is predictable. However, open-sourcing is not the only way to increase interest in OS/2. Perhaps it might be more productive to petition IBM to make OS/2 available for free download. It would still be closed-source, but it would be an opportunity to expand the user base.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: aussiebear on 2008.01.22, 06:25:28
First of all, my OS/2 experience was many years ago, with OS/2 Warp, I think it was. (back when Windows 95 was released, a friend let me try it for a few hours).

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.22, 00:27:32
I agree that this reply was truly disappointing; but I think that IBM just went for the easy road here and they might need to get some more good arguments why they should open up the code. Also, as stated earlier, we're actually not asking IBM to open up the entire code, just the portions that we would need to get further on with our different projects.

Among other there has been discussions to point out specific section and patents of the code that we could like to get IBM to open. As well we really need the Linux community to tag along on this one, but they need more information why the should and what they could gain. As well does IBM. But, at least we got a reply this time, we didn't get that the first time.

Correct. IBM is brushing you aside with that response.

While I don't represent the entire Linux community, I am an active user and understand the community. The question is:

* What can you offer that we can't do ourselves?
* What can you offer which we haven't addressed?

Your approach in petition is ineffective, because you haven't given IBM a legitimate business proposal to work on.

* Why would they bother with OS/2, when they've made investments in Linux?
* How can you reason with them to re-invest in OS/2 by opening specific portions of the code up?
* Which opensource license do you propose this code be under? GPL? BSD? etc.
* How is IBM gonna release the code as there are potential legal/patent issues with Microsoft?
* If there are parts you need that are patent problematic, how would you propose to work around them? (Are you gonna do what we do in the open source world, and code around the problem?)
* Can you justify the IBM legal people needed, to comb through any documented specs or source code? (This is what one must do to avoid potential legal issues, especially if there is MS code in there!)

You need to answer these types of questions and prove to IBM, beyond any doubt, why they should release the specific portions of code you need.

Present it to the right people, and do it in person.

Quote from: John on 2008.01.22, 00:54:04
This is very disappointing news indeed, I had high hopes that that they would at least consider releasing portions of the code. Taking a look at both Novells' and Suns' business practices, one can see that both the Corporate and end users of their products have much to gain. ie openSUSE vs SLED vs SLES - the openSUSE version is freely available for download vs the bought and registered version of either SLED or SLES gives you customer support + any other benefits. Novell can also gain from the open source community by the fact that code from the open source community can be utilized in their business editions. I'd imagine Sun has similar tradeoff with it's Solaris offering. Solaris 10 is free to download after registering on their site + there is also huge online community and developer help. Imagine IBM and SSI played similar game 10years ago, bet a whole lotta issues would  have been fixed and all those Big Corporate customers IBM lost to M$ would have gone back to OS/2.

Best now to support the Voyager Project IMHO.

Cheers,

John.

You have to understand, Linux isn't potentially patent incumbent, (despite the Microsoft fear campaigning).

There isn't Microsoft involvement in our code, and thus, no potential legal issues to fear of. (MS knows it, and so does everyone else that tinkers with Linux). Not to mention, the GPL is a license that MS doesn't like, because they can't abuse and exploit it. (They've tried and failed.)

In Sun's case, they own their code, and chose to open it up on their own initiative. No MS involvement here. While they have made an investment in open source, they have mainly focused on their own Solaris rather than on Linux. (even though they may sell Linux in some of their hardware). They mainly chose to be open source friendly on they own accord.

OS/2 is a whole different story. Microsoft was involved in the development of that operating system. There is a high probability that MS will take legal action against IBM, if IBM chose to release OS/2 code. Why would IBM get into a patent shooting match with Microsoft when they don't have to? From a business perspective, its like shooting yourself in the foot. They won't take that risk.

Overall, the probability of getting IBM to open up specific parts of OS/2 is going to be low.

My suggestion is that you folks should band together and start an opensource project to reverse engineer (clean room approach) OS/2, and write your own OS/2 variant from scratch. Place it under the General Public License (GPL) version 3, so no one will screw with you.

Now before you say anything, this process is being applied to the ReactOS Project.
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

ReactOS is a Windows NT clone written from scratch, but under various open source licenses. (GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the BSD License). Because of the way they're "reverse engineering" things, (clean room approach), MS can't do anything to them. Its no different to Wine. (A compatibility layer that allows you to run Windows apps in Linux).

The only way for OS/2 to thrive, is to open source it. To open source it, it must be free of potential legal issues. To be free of them, there is no choice but to start from scratch. While painstaking it may sound, it essentially guarantees OS/2 will live on without legal issues standing in the way.

Well, I did some digging, and you don't have to start totally from scratch. :)

osFree
http://www.osfree.org/doku/

QuoteosFree project is an attempt to build an open source OS/2 clone.

osFree is a open source free (non-commercial) software development project. Goals of the projects are to replace all (or most) of OS/2's subsystems with open-source analogues. The base compatibility system is OS/2 Warp 4 (Merlin), but that doesn't mean we won't be supporting features of newer versions of OS/2 like OS/2 WarpServer for e-business and eComStation by Serenity Systems.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Robert Deed on 2008.01.22, 06:59:54
Then it is time to start taking names for the 2008 petition.. =)
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: cyberspittle on 2008.01.22, 07:41:40
"Serenity Now!" ;)
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.01.22, 07:56:09
hehe, Seinfeld. So, what components MUST be open-sourced to us for eCS to keep on progressing?
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: GregoryNZL on 2008.01.22, 09:28:24
If you put a positive spin on this.... I think it's great you finally got a response from IBM. What you now need to do is consider the other options.

Coercing IBM to make OS/2 freely available again would definitely attract more users. I have never used the OS but am interested. Don't let the ball drop now that the issue is fresh in their mind.

Why not consider re-creating the OS somewhat like the Haiku project is doing.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.22, 09:39:06
Agreed positive in that way that we know who to talk to now and I think that when I've had the time to go through the e-mails I've received so far I guess that we will have some kind of interesting feedback that we will be able to use. As mentioned earlier I did during the first petition round receive information from both WPS and kernel developers that had another view on what could be released and not. Even if I agree with that IBM closed the door, once again, it's just matter of finding the correct buttons to press to be able to open it. Here we sure need the skilled people that have a good insight in the OS2 code of what part we would like to peak at and what we would need open sourced. So I really welcome feedback, either in this forum or directly to me via e-mail, from former developers and as well for current developers that have the proper knowledge regarding the code.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: djm63 on 2008.01.22, 13:27:38
what about os/2 PPC? Was there any MS involvement in that? If it was open source it would allow people to port to Intel if required, ,and there are a number of cheap PPC boards (efika for one) that are crying out for a decent OS and apps. (I know linux runs on the efika, but most modern apps are slow - on an OS/2 kernel they would fly!)
Just a thought ;)

Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.22, 15:26:13
Quote from: djm63 on 2008.01.22, 13:27:38what about os/2 PPC? Was there any MS involvement in that? If it was open source it would allow people to port to Intel if required, ,and there are a number of cheap PPC boards (efika for one) that are crying out for a decent OS and apps.

The PowerPC code was mentioned in the 2nd letter (http://www.os2world.com/content/view/15847/1/) sent to IBM in November but that was forgotten and not mentioned by IBM.

Regarding the PowerPC code the release that I've tried (got it in a drawer somewhere) to use worked kind of ok, but was easy to crash if you knew what to do. But, as I recall it this was in-house developed and by that there shouldn't be any code issues with Microsoft. Also, it only works on specific IBM PowerPC, so doubt that you would be able to install it on any of the mobos available today. But, the entire product was killed 2 month before it was supposed to hit the street and the masses. IBM had already started to get nervous about OS2 and instead of launching PowerPC version they killed to avoid being forced to provide support for the product.

As mentioned in the letter IBM says also that they have thought about open source IBM couple of times and the last time I know this was mentioned, even if it's was far from official internal talk, was Jeff Smith (http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/biography/20127.wss), who mentioned that they had almost convinced the IBM management to port the OS2 Workplace Shell to Linux. That never happened and that might be something that IBM regrets today.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: teotwawki on 2008.01.22, 16:21:55
Quote from: aussiebear on 2008.01.22, 06:25:28
My suggestion is that you folks should band together and start an opensource project to reverse engineer (clean room approach) OS/2, and write your own OS/2 variant from scratch. Place it under the General Public License (GPL) version 3, so no one will screw with you.

Now before you say anything, this process is being applied to the ReactOS Project.
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

ReactOS is a Windows NT clone written from scratch, but under various open source licenses. (GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the BSD License). Because of the way they're "reverse engineering" things, (clean room approach), MS can't do anything to them. Its no different to Wine. (A compatibility layer that allows you to run Windows apps in Linux).

The only way for OS/2 to thrive, is to open source it. To open source it, it must be free of potential legal issues. To be free of them, there is no choice but to start from scratch. While painstaking it may sound, it essentially guarantees OS/2 will live on without legal issues standing in the way.

Well, I did some digging, and you don't have to start totally from scratch. :)

osFree
http://www.osfree.org/doku/

I'm new here so apologies if this has already been suggested ...

ReactOS & Wine have both had to work hard at reverse-engineering just to find out what they need to do.
At least with IBM I'd have thought there's a reasonably good chance that they could be persuaded to release the full details of all the API specs.  That wouldn't tread on any partner's patent issues and would make the job of creating an open source version (as above) much easier.

Separating OS/2s hardware interface, application interface and user interface from it's kernel would also make it relatively easy to create an OS/2 "personality" on top of a Linux kernel, thus saving even more time & protecting IBM's investment in Linux.

You shouldn't need to source code if all the APIs are well documented and available for all to see.

It would also enable different parts to be developed independently so that the code required to make old OS/2 applications run comes first, inheriting the host Linux GUI until the OS/2 GUI gets written.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: lwriemen on 2008.01.22, 18:07:06
Quote from: teotwawki on 2008.01.22, 16:21:55
I'm new here so apologies if this has already been suggested ...
Quote
Separating OS/2s hardware interface, application interface and user interface from it's kernel would also make it relatively easy to create an OS/2 "personality" on top of a Linux kernel, thus saving even more time & protecting IBM's investment in Linux.

You shouldn't need to source code if all the APIs are well documented and available for all to see.
This is the gist of the Voyager project, although not necessarily on a Linux kernel. Some people around here think it's a good idea. I say it's not OS/2 without the kernel, and if I have to move on, I might as well choose something that is more mainstream.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: lwriemen on 2008.01.22, 18:17:39
Someone posted on Slashdot (i.e., take with a grain of salt), that NCR had an agreement with IBM that OS/2 wouldn't be open-sourced. (Probably for as long as it's still in use in ATMs.) This possibility and other ones presented make IBM's response hard to argue.

What I don't understand is why Serenity Systems or Mensys couldn't get a non-disclosure agreement with IBM to allow further development of OS/2. Their changes can be confined to eComStation releases, so IBM has no commitment for support. (This would probably also mean that IBM wouldn't have to provide support to Serenity Systems, which might not be desirable.)
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: miturbide on 2008.01.22, 20:02:47

The Voyager project (http://voyager.netlabs.org/en/site/index.xml) is currently trying to recreate OS/2.
Some work in progress is on Netlabs SVN (http://svn.netlabs.org/).

I think this are the projects we must support and help mature.

Martin
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.23, 15:21:03
Agree, while we can do what we can to get what ever the Voyger project needs to succeed and as well I think it was really great the the link to Voyager project page was included in the posting at Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/22/0258213) as well.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: El Vato on 2008.01.25, 01:17:16
Quote from: teotwawki on 2008.01.22, 16:21:55
Quote from: aussiebear on 2008.01.22, 06:25:28
[...]
http://www.osfree.org/doku/

I'm new here so apologies if this has already been suggested ...

[...]
At least with IBM I'd have thought there's a reasonably good chance that they could be persuaded to release the full details of all the API specs.  That wouldn't tread on any partner's patent issues and would make the job of creating an open source version (as above) much easier.

Separating OS/2s hardware interface, application interface and user interface from it's kernel would also make it relatively easy to create an OS/2 "personality" on top of a Linux kernel, thus saving even more time & protecting IBM's investment in Linux.

[...]

It would also enable different parts to be developed independently so that the code required to make old OS/2 applications run comes first, inheriting the host Linux GUI until the OS/2 GUI gets written.

Your suggestions are appreciated.  Those roughly might further suggest an OS/2 aim with a virtual instruction set feature (Technology Independent Machine Interface or TIMI ) existing in IBM's System i.  The benefit would be an improved OS/2 with no hardware affinities.

Best.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.25, 01:34:19
Overall there has been made quite a few interesting suggestions regarding how we can present some suggestions to IBM and this will be done. More information will be posted and we'll set up a SIG-board for this as well.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: El Vato on 2008.01.25, 01:41:54
Quote from: aussiebear on 2008.01.22, 06:25:28
First of all, my OS/2 experience was many years ago, with OS/2 Warp, I think it was. (back when Windows 95 was released, a friend let me try it for a few hours).[...]

Is there anything that you remember about your experience ???  Have you played with OS/2 lately ??? 

If you are interested and want to have a feeling for OS/2 in your Linux machine, under Debian (for instance) and if you have hardware with an CPU that supports the hardware virtualization extensions, you can install Innotek's VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org/) and subsequently install a version of OS/2.

My specific suggestion of the above virtualization application is due to Xen not properly supporting the OS/2 and VmWare making it difficult to achieve.

Regards.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.01.25, 01:46:19
Quote from: lwriemen on 2008.01.22, 18:17:39
...What I don't understand is why Serenity Systems or Mensys couldn't get a non-disclosure agreement with IBM to allow further development of OS/2. Their changes can be confined to eComStation releases, so IBM has no commitment for support. (This would probably also mean that IBM wouldn't have to provide support to Serenity Systems, which might not be desirable.)

It could be because there are so many contributors - both freeware (or really cheap) and otherwise - who have been working on updating eCS. They may feel that Serenity may not be in a position to guarantee confidentiality due to the diverse, worldwide programming group. There also may be issues with releasing certain portions of the code to programmers in certain countries overseas - which with how spread out the eCS development team is, would be an issue if that were the case.

It could also be that IBM simply responded with the "Migrate, provide your own service, call IBM for paid support as long as it isnt new features" line (paraphrased) from here:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/

Followed by echoing the concerns we advised them we were aware of (third party code, etc), all while skipping the fact that we provided them examples of OS/2 technologies that we thought would be exempt from such concerns... which simply may have been their way of saying "We dont want to spend the money digging through the code to make sure all legal encumberances are cleared"

Add to that your point - as referenced on Slashdot, that there still are numerous banks that use OS/2 for ATMs, and have support contracts for it (IBM's bread and butter), and various ATM vendors who have not been able to migrate their customers off OS/2 because there are still many customers who refuse to - and I think that all of the above explains IBM's answer - even if they didnt spell it all out for us.

:(

-Robert
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.01.25, 01:55:27
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.22, 09:39:06
...As mentioned earlier I did during the first petition round receive information from both WPS and kernel developers that had another view on what could be released and not. Even if I agree with that IBM closed the door, once again...

What worries me on that front is that the WPS is STILL the most advanced Desktop Shell around. The only "features" it is lacking are non-rectangular skinning (a-la WindowBlinds in Windows) - but I am sure that would not be impossible with access to the source - enough GUI components already are not rectangular, but work just fine (if even to a limited extent in comparison to WindowBlinds - such as tabs), and with things like Cairo and WPS-Wizard added to the mix, modifying the code to suit such "needs" shouldn't be impossible. But back to the topic at hand... and I hate to say this... but if I were IBM, I would realize the worth of such an intellectual property as the WPS - just based off the fact that no one has managed to duplicate it's functionality and flexibility yet. Sadly, I hope that realization has NOT set in there - otherwise our chances of ever seeing the code are probably none - or less than none. IBM does have a track record on sitting on valuable technologies - often until the end of time - or until someone else duplicates it and has to make a royalty arrangement with them.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2008.01.25, 02:00:55
Luna is a little bit more forgiving of non-rectangular elements (the skin engine built into XP), and I agree, the WPS could use some pretty-ing up. Will Cairo be able to carry the weight of GUI beautification like compviz-fusion? I think we need to address the whole no hardware acceleration issue first :C
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.01.25, 02:13:28
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.01.25, 02:00:55
Luna is a little bit more forgiving of non-rectangular elements (the skin engine built into XP), and I agree, the WPS could use some pretty-ing up. Will Cairo be able to carry the weight of GUI beautification like compviz-fusion? I think we need to address the whole no hardware acceleration issue first :C

When Stardock worked with MS's underlying technologies behind it, I wonder if it was just a kludge on top of the desktop manager, or a replacement for a bunch of components? If it was something more viable, then I wonder if Brad Wardell (or whoever is top boss at Stardock these days) still has a soft spot in their heart for OS/2 and would contribute some ideas on how to update those features in OS/2...
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: Troll on 2008.01.25, 02:44:03
I wonder if the board of IBM is more worried about their shares in Microsoft than IBM, IBM is going down, not because of their products but because the board of IBM.
Future in "data" will be open source. Data safety is not a locked code, but a correct code.
Windos is locked and leaks, because bad code.
I'm somewhat frustrated, OS2 wonderfully coded, blocked because somebody don't see, it's a loss. 
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: lwriemen on 2008.01.25, 15:03:27
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.01.25, 01:46:19
Quote from: lwriemen on 2008.01.22, 18:17:39
...What I don't understand is why Serenity Systems or Mensys couldn't get a non-disclosure agreement with IBM to allow further development of OS/2. Their changes can be confined to eComStation releases, so IBM has no commitment for support. (This would probably also mean that IBM wouldn't have to provide support to Serenity Systems, which might not be desirable.)

It could be because there are so many contributors - both freeware (or really cheap) and otherwise - who have been working on updating eCS. They may feel that Serenity may not be in a position to guarantee confidentiality due to the diverse, worldwide programming group. There also may be issues with releasing certain portions of the code to programmers in certain countries overseas - which with how spread out the eCS development team is, would be an issue if that were the case.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legally binding contract (as I understand it, IANAL) between the owner of the intellectual property and the provider of the contracted service. A knowledge worker employee of a company has an implicit (or maybe it's explicit) NDA with the company. The risks you detail are certainly not any more than what IBM is already assuming due to outsourcing for lower cost knowledge work.

If Serenity Systems establishes a NDA with IBM for OS/2 source, then they are assuming liability (again IANAL) for the security of the intellectual property represented by the source. This may be more risk than SS wants to handle, and like I stated above, it may void some support from IBM.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.25, 15:50:00
Quote from: lwriemen on 2008.01.22, 18:17:39Their changes can be confined to eComStation releases, so IBM has no commitment for support. (This would probably also mean that IBM wouldn't have to provide support to Serenity Systems, which might not be desirable.)

Well, this is the trick with OEM agreement, the price per license is way lower than the norm retail price, but you've agreed that you as an OEM-reseller takes care of all the support from end-user and as well shouldn't expect any support from the vendor unless that you sign a separate support agreement for this. So there is nothing to stop SSI to change or add function to the OEM product that they have and this is what they have done also.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: obiwan on 2008.01.26, 09:55:45
QuoteIBM has recommended that customers on OS/2 consider migration to alternative solution offerings, and has a broad array of software assets and services to help customers migrate. We would like to ask you to encourage any customers who are still planning their migrations or who have other technical requirements to contact their IBM representative to discuss how these assets and services could be leveraged.

My technical requirements include use of the WPS and SOM. Can my IBM representative help me migrate to an alternative solution offering leveraging IBM's software assets and services to meet this need?
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: El Vato on 2008.01.28, 04:31:23
As I read Sun MicroSystem's CEO  blog entry for January 19, 2008 (http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/in_a_vortex), I could not help but be reminded of OS/2 World Foundation petition to IBM.  Elsewhere, in another post which relevancy does not sychronize with the subject (http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,701.0/), I made use of an analogy of OS/2 as being a protected "pretty" girl --whose family (IBM) demands a justifiable reason(s) to set her free.

Analyzing Jonathan Schwartz's blog, particularly his description of the length of time it took for MySQL CEO to decide to be acquired by Sun, provides a glimpse (and a context) in which the current petitioning process to have the OS/2 code open sourced endeavor might be apprehended.

"Tenacity pays, ...," writes an apparently bemused Jonathan --as he flatly states that he did not believe the database open source entity would be attainable (using a nice approach, evidently).

OS/2 is not MySQL, needless to say; and possibly I have engaged in an inappropriate analogy that elsewhere I have accused others of misusing to justify their arguments.

On the other hand, if OS/2's code were open sourced either partially or in its totality, it would serve as a common blueprint/base from where to develop the uniqueness of "personality" that seems to be set in the abstract.  Since, as Leonardo observes, the question of what is the defining essence of OS/2 varies depending on who you ask (why would that be surprising  :) ?

Gleaning from the Netscape experience, once the code was relatively free, open source developers rewrote the browser into what would be a streamlined version  (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-and-SOA/10-Years-of-Mozilla/2/).  Nevertheless, arguably, if the old Netscape browser code had not been necessary as a blueprint/base (of inspiration) possibly Mozilla/FireFox would not have been realized.  Accordingly, if there is to be an viable engagement in the rebirth of another operating system with a particular set of features that appeal to a discerning user base of OS/2ers, access to the old code considerably eases the effort (to put it mildly).

Additionally, implicit in the open source petition is the fact that the remaining OS/2ers need help in the coding process effort. Arguing about the availability of the API is not a sufficient condition if there is no source pool of developers interested and/or capable to take on the task.  The extra hands that might come from the open source camp potentially might be actualized, if and only if, the OS/2 code is available free of intellectual property encumbrances --not merely by "knowing where to look for it."  No developer with scarce financial resources will risk looking at proprietary code because s/he knows that her/his action will subsequently come back and bite viciously in the form of lawsuits.

This is simply my take on the issue at hand, and, absolutely in no way does it imply that all other efforts to develop an OS/2 clone are to be disregarded; Sun Microsystems, during its five(5) year pursuit of MySQL, never stopped supporting PostgreSQL and/or Derby and JavaDB alternatives.  Evidently, Sun used a multiple-pronged approach to achieve its aim.  That paradigm might be of an inspirational, if not pragmatic, use in our case.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
Well, great input and who said it should be easy. Well, if one looks though the various sites, forums, threads, articles about this topic there are a couple that comes up couple of times:

1) Get IBM to release the OS2 API documentation so that we at least can work with what we got?

2) OS2 PowerPC version is internal coded by IBM and by that should be possible to open source?

3) If Microsoft don't care about OS2; well then why not open the kernel code at least and WPS?

4) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not offer free download of the latest release?

5) Why not get OS2 World Foundation to offer free download after setting up an agreement with IBM?

6) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not name the price to give a 3rd party custody over the code?

Reactions? Suggestions? Something that we can work with?
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: BigWarpGuy on 2008.01.29, 02:14:48
Those are good ideas. The tricky part would be to get IBM to do something.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
1) Get IBM to release the OS2 API documentation so that we at least can work with what we got?

  They could do that, but they'll ask: "what profit will we earn from it?"

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
2) OS2 PowerPC version is internal coded by IBM and by that should be possible to open source?

   As I had already said, many OS/2 for PowerPC documents express clearly that much of OS/2 for PPC internals (base API) were just ported from Intel to PPC kernel. They did this to show "how great was their OS design".
   Even in the kernel, much of the alleged "improvements" can be just OS/2 Intel code added to the kernel.
   Saying OS/2 for PPC is just IBM code will not help because it is not.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
3) If Microsoft don't care about OS2; well then why not open the kernel code at least and WPS?

  Microsoft doesn't care as long as their rights are being preserved.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 00:04:24
4) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not offer free download of the latest release?
5) Why not get OS2 World Foundation to offer free download after setting up an agreement with IBM?
6) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not name the price to give a 3rd party custody over the code?

   Taking into account IBM's behavior towards OS/2, I believe IBM thinks in OS/2 as a shame they want to forget. They wanted OS/2 brand to fade long ago.

   No, I am not just a pessimist. I really believe we must continue to ask IBM (and make some public noise...), give them some reason to put money in the source code release... but we must support osFree and Voyager also. We cannot let these projects die.
   Maybe these projects could be added as a special kind of "bounty"? It's complex, because there will be a lot of people in the process, but something has to be done. Without access to source code, OS/2 (or even eCS for that matter) will not live forever.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52
1) Get IBM to release the OS2 API documentation so that we at least can work with what we got?

They could do that, but they'll ask: "what profit will we earn from it?"

So let's use our heads hear why would actually IBM benefit from releasing the API's? For example I know of customers that still uses OS2 and actually during this last week I got several e-mails from corporates that where asking for help to find information and solutions to problem they've had. The question would rather be asked why would IBM's customers need the API's. As IBM points to their local service representatives; that's a joke. I mean during the last couple of years IBM Sweden have forwarded OS2 requests to Swedish OS2 User Group! Oh, how much money did we get for that from IBM... nada, zero, null. IBM are actually leeching on the community now.

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52
2) OS2 PowerPC version is internal coded by IBM and by that should be possible to open source?

As I had already said, many OS/2 for PowerPC documents express clearly that much of OS/2 for PPC internals (base API) were just ported from Intel to PPC kernel. They did this to show "how great was their OS design".Even in the kernel, much of the alleged "improvements" can be just OS/2 Intel code added to the kernel. Saying OS/2 for PPC is just IBM code will not help because it is not.

Then are there anything in the code that we would like to get; or to turn it around; we've asked and said that we would like to get IBM to open source the kernel, wps, ans som code. With the dialogue with MenSys and Netlabs we've earlier said that we should either point out certain portions or patents that we would like to get information about. This information could either be delivered out to a group of people to handle and my suggestion would be either Netlabs or our self, OS2 World Foundation. So the question again; what specific are we in the need of being able to peak and poke around in? I'm not a developer, so please help me out here!

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52
3) If Microsoft don't care about OS2; well then why not open the kernel code at least and WPS?

Microsoft doesn't care as long as their rights are being preserved.

What specific rights would that be; lots of posting claims the same; but where is the facts? What about trying to figure out what Microsoft would be totally against getting out in the wild. Where are the links, info, etc?

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52
4) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not offer free download of the latest release?
5) Why not get OS2 World Foundation to offer free download after setting up an agreement with IBM?
6) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not name the price to give a 3rd party custody over the code?

Taking into account IBM's behavior towards OS/2, I believe IBM thinks in OS/2 as a shame they want to forget. They wanted OS/2 brand to fade long ago.

True, they want to but they can't since they still have customers depending working systems. Problem is that we don't have any large or customers standing behind this petition; not as corporation but sure as single individuals within an organisations.

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52No, I am not just a pessimist. I really believe we must continue to ask IBM (and make some public noise...), give them some reason to put money in the source code release... but we must support osFree and Voyager also. We cannot let these projects die.

Well, guess that we have tried and manage to get our fair share of hits with the petition. But, what we really need now is the facts regarding code needed.

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.29, 14:45:52Maybe these projects could be added as a special kind of "bounty"? It's complex, because there will be a lot of people in the process, but something has to be done. Without access to source code, OS/2 (or even eCS for that matter) will not live forever.

Sure no problem; there are already quite a lot of bounties where some of them should be joined together into one project.

But, to take a really bad quote from Hollywood; help us to help you...
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: djcaetano on 2008.01.30, 15:51:16
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
So let's use our heads hear why would actually IBM benefit from releasing the API's? For example I know of customers that still uses OS2 and actually during this last week I got several e-mails from corporates that where asking for help to find information and solutions to problem they've had. The question would rather be asked why would IBM's customers need the API's. As IBM points to their local service representatives; that's a joke. I mean during the last couple of years IBM Sweden have forwarded OS2 requests to Swedish OS2 User Group! Oh, how much money did we get for that from IBM... nada, zero, null. IBM are actually leeching on the community now.

   Yes, I am aware of that. IBM's answer like someone inside IBM support knows what is OS/2. At IBM Brazil, IBM's support says "OS/2 is dead" since 1997. Local service representatives do nothing regarding OS/2. But it seems IBM-US thinks they really do something... or they are really cynic guys.
   This is the problem: it looks it's not possible to reason with IBM, because IBM support and answers seems to live in some kind of dreamland, where their support system really works and we are just a bunch of bums asking for free beer. I hate the way they despise us with generic non-sense answers.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
Then are there anything in the code that we would like to get; or to turn it around; we've asked and said that we would like to get IBM to open source the kernel, wps, ans som code. With the dialogue with MenSys and Netlabs we've earlier said that we should either point out certain portions or patents that we would like to get information about. This information could either be delivered out to a group of people to handle and my suggestion would be either Netlabs or our self, OS2 World Foundation. So the question again; what specific are we in the need of being able to peak and poke around in? I'm not a developer, so please help me out here!

  I don't know, I had never developed an entire Operating System. But I had done myself a lot of reverse engineering and I would say the base OS API (and kernel?) docs would help a lot. Also, the release SOM 3.0 (fully CORBA compatible) and WPS classes code would help  A LOT. :)
  The real thing for WPS is SOM engine. And I believe there is not any third-party patents involved in this code, since I never read anywhere something like that. Also, I had already read somewhere that once IBM licensed SOM 3.0 to another company... I believe its name was Tandem or something alike.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
What specific rights would that be; lots of posting claims the same; but where is the facts? What about trying to figure out what Microsoft would be totally against getting out in the wild. Where are the links, info, etc?

  It is hard to say, but although many things changed, some of actual OS/2 kernel and much of base API *is* from 1.x version, which was fully developed by Microsoft.
  "Looking in the right places", one can find the sources for a really old version of OS/2 and see that almost all of it is copyrighted by Microsoft.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
True, they want to but they can't since they still have customers depending working systems. Problem is that we don't have any large or customers standing behind this petition; not as corporation but sure as single individuals within an organisations.

   They want these systems do not work anymore (unless the owner pays a really big amount of money) so these users pays them to develop a migration plan. :(
   It seems the only language they talks now is money language.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
Well, guess that we have tried and manage to get our fair share of hits with the petition. But, what we really need now is the facts regarding code needed.

  Well, I really don't know, but I suppose the base API/kernel docs (since the source cannot be released) and SOM/WPS is a very good start. It'll be a lot of work, but would help *a lot* the guys working on osFree and Voyager.

Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
Sure no problem; there are already quite a lot of bounties where some of them should be joined together into one project.
But, to take a really bad quote from Hollywood; help us to help you...

  Hehehe... My only need is a decent OS to play around. I cannot stand the way Linux/Unix deals with the user. And I cannot stand the bugs, bloats and never-stop upgrading life in Windows. :D
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: El Vato on 2008.01.30, 18:07:08
Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.30, 15:51:16
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
So let's use our heads hear why would actually IBM benefit from releasing the API's? For example I know of customers that still uses OS2 and actually during this last week I got several e-mails from corporates that where asking for help to find information and solutions to problem they've had. The question would rather be asked why would IBM's customers need the API's. As IBM points to their local service representatives; that's a joke. I mean during the last couple of years IBM Sweden have forwarded OS2 requests to Swedish OS2 User Group! Oh, how much money did we get for that from IBM... nada, zero, null. IBM are actually leeching on the community now.

   Yes, I am aware of that. IBM's answer like someone inside IBM support knows what is OS/2. At IBM Brazil, IBM's support says "OS/2 is dead" since 1997. Local service representatives do nothing regarding OS/2. But it seems IBM-US thinks they really do something... or they are really cynic guys.
   This is the problem: it looks it's not possible to reason with IBM, because IBM support and answers seems to live in some kind of dreamland, where their support system really works and we are just a bunch of bums asking for free beer. I hate the way they despise us with generic non-sense answers.

I couple of days ago I posted an entry in my web log  where I attempted to draw a parallel (http://www.metztli-it.com/blog/index.php?blog=4&cat=18) between the influence Brazil's Software Livre movement had in the final decision by Sun Micrysystems to open source Java --as advanced in a recent edition of Dr. Dobb's software development magazine-- and the current petition by the OS/2 World Foundation to IBM to do likewise for OS/2.

You guys rock in terms of sheer market size --unfettered by proprietary encumbrances!  If somehow you were to influence your fellow developers to play with OS/2 to get a feeling for the operating system, you would be doing OS/2 an considerable service.

Quote from: djcaetano on 2008.01.30, 15:51:16
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.01.29, 15:21:31
Then are there anything in the code that we would like to get; or to turn it around; we've asked and said that we would like to get IBM to open source the kernel, wps, ans som code. With the dialogue with MenSys and Netlabs we've earlier said that we should either point out certain portions or patents that we would like to get information about. This information could either be delivered out to a group of people to handle and my suggestion would be either Netlabs or our self, OS2 World Foundation. So the question again; what specific are we in the need of being able to peak and poke around in? I'm not a developer, so please help me out here!


  I don't know, I had never developed an entire Operating System. But I had done myself a lot of reverse engineering and I would say the base OS API (and kernel?) docs would help a lot. Also, the release SOM 3.0 (fully CORBA compatible) and WPS classes code would help  A LOT. :)
  The real thing for WPS is SOM engine. And I believe there is not any third-party patents involved in this code, since I never read anywhere something like that. Also, I had already read somewhere that once IBM licensed SOM 3.0 to another company... I believe its name was Tandem or something alike.
Was it Taligent ???  It was founded in March 1992 by Apple, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard, purportedly as an independent system software company that developed object oriented frameworks for cross-platform use.  Its technology was purportedly open for (developing) extensions "at all levels by software developers, hardware OEMs, ans system vendors."
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: John on 2008.02.03, 00:55:14
Hi,

Well both my old OS/2 boxes died on me due to soo many power cuts and surges here in SA. Prices of hardware have escalated due to exchange rates etc so I managed to get my hands on an old 486DX4/100 with newish NIC - a Zyxel FN312 which utilizes the RealTek 8139 chipset - all for approx US$10. Then went through the procedure of installing Warp4 and getting the NIC working for access to the NET all in order to update my system with OS2MT. A brilliant tool, unfortunately it supports updates that require a Software Choice Subscription. Also would like to note that whatever updates come from IBM as far as fixpacks etc are concerned, they really come through at a Verrry Sssloow rate - I remember getting better throughput with my old C64 with 9600baud modem in all honesty. Even their other Web pages are slow to open.

The point I'd like to make or rather suggestion is : seeing they don't want to open source their code, could they at least allow all their latest updates and fixpacks be freely available to those whom want to use and apply them. Perhaps those updates could be transferred to a faster and more reliable server? We could then use these updates along with other superb software like Update CD to create our very own updated install media.

Cheers,


John.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: paulzy on 2008.02.23, 13:09:52
I don't know why this is a surprise over ten years after IBM conceded the desktop market to MS.  :'(
They gave Serenity Systems the GreenLight for eComStation. We, as a community should just continue to support that  8). OS/2 has too much licensed code in it. Yeah, eCS is not "OS/2 Warp 4.52" (that's the last official Passport Adavantage/Software Choice version that I have anyway  :) ), but it's still OS/2, and it's available and supported.

I think we should stop asking/petitioning that OS/2 being open sourced and instead just support eCS with retail applications and continue support it's development and be happy with it. Likewise continue support those developers that still do make applications for OS/2 Warp 4.52. OS/2, because of it's development history (at least by my understanding), won't ever be open-sourced.

If I eat my words later, fine.

Paul
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.02.23, 20:05:39
How interesting... "kimhav, Global Moderator, Hero Member" wrote the following earlier:

"1) Get IBM to release the OS2 API documentation so that we at least can work with what we got?

2) OS2 PowerPC version is internal coded by IBM and by that should be possible to open source?

3) If Microsoft don't care about OS2; well then why not open the kernel code at least and WPS?

4) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not offer free download of the latest release?

5) Why not get OS2 World Foundation to offer free download after setting up an agreement with IBM?

6) If IBM don't care about OS2; why not name the price to give a 3rd party custody over the code?

Reactions? Suggestions? Something that we can work with?"

Now, here we have the Microsoft Corporation bending towards open sourcing with the release of their APIs. Follow this link to read the article:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022108-microsoft-open-source.html

The logical questions that should be asked at this time are - where do the OS/2 World Foundation and the rest of the OS/2 Communities around the world go from here now that the Microsoft Corporation has announced that it has/will publish the documentation of its API Source-Codes for the Windows Operating System et al.

To repeat ""kimhav, Global Moderator, Hero Member's" words - "Reactions? Suggestions? Something that we can work with?"!!!
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.02.23, 20:19:11
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.02.23, 20:05:39

Now, here we have the Microsoft Corporation bending towards open sourcing with the release of their APIs. Follow this link to read the article:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022108-microsoft-open-source.html

The logical questions that should be asked at this time are - where do the OS/2 World Foundation and the rest of the OS/2 Communities around the world go from here now that the Microsoft Corporation has announced that it has/will publish the documentation of its API Source-Codes for the Windows Operating System et al.


MS will not help by doing anything that will jeapordize their desktop or office suite share. What "code" they release will be useless in a service pack or two when something changes. That's assuming the info they release is useful. MS has done this before and always failed to release some vital portion of information - which cost them millions in fines with the EU - and still they are not in compliance with the EU rulings.

In addition, do you really think they are putting a good faith effort into this after you read this statement?
Quote"In the coming months, Microsoft says, it will begin documenting API and communications protocols for SQL Server 2008, Office 2007, Exchange Server 2007 and Office SharePoint Server 2007. "

Please, tell me you believe that products worked on by multiple teams all over the country (if not world) do not already have the APIs documented? Or do the developers just guess what API does what? No... the truth is the APIs are already documented, and MS is trying to filter out (a) the ones they want publicly available, and (b) how to RE-document them to make the docs as useless as possible for their competition.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.02.23, 21:23:33
Here's a followup on GrokLaw that explains some of the issues with MS's latest "promise" in more detail:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080221184924826

The article both points out MS's previous track record on such (broken or useless) promises (and lists the last ten times they made and broke similar promises, starting in 2003), as well as points out the lack of any real impact even if MS finally delivers this time (the whole non-commercial aspect of using the API docs).

Sorry to say, either way (previous track record, or the fact that a company cannot use the information) MS's announcement means nothing to either the Open Source or OS/2 community.

We need to stop hitching our wagon on anything to do with MS and their (usually broken) promises.

-Robert
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: kim on 2008.02.24, 01:38:37
I can only agree with Robert that I don't think that MS release of documents will have any bigger effect on the open source community and also why do MS suddenly choose release the documents. The earlier material released due to the EU court haven't had any impact at all and I can't say that I've haven't read any at all that might benefit of this information.

Where do we go from this now with the petition; there has been posted suggestion and ideas on different forums and I hope that we can gather as many of the suggestions and go through them and see what we can use to follow up on the reply we got from IBM. Does the release of material from Microsoft benefit our petition case, well not really, it's not code that they've released. But, it could be an argument to IBM to point at both Sun and Microsoft regarding making information available.

"The move, by Microsoft's own admission, is not purely altruistic. Ballmer acknowledged the major driver was antitrust legal issues with the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission. But he added that the action was taken in part because the company recognizes new opportunities and risk in a world that is now more connected and less focused on desktop computing."

Also, due to that IBM has open up code earlier and Sun has bought several open source projects and products such as MySql this might as well be another driving issue for Microsoft to show good faith. Question, is as earlier - what kind of info quality are the documents that they've released or plan to release? Has anyone a link or something where to download or request the documents?

So all input are welcome and as well; if there are people interested of helping out with this kind of reply; well - please do contact me by sending an e-mail to kimh at os2world dot com.
Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: RobertM on 2008.02.24, 05:24:01
I believe somewhere on an EU site there was a link which was asking for help in reviewing the documents. If I can dig up the link, I will post it. I dont know what the requirements were to be given access to the documents, or if access to them is still open (as this was before the EU determined that the docs were incomplete and in various ways useless).

Sadly, even if the new set of documents they claim to plan on releasing were complete and accurate, and not obfuscated; the next issue is their requirement that the users of the docs cannot use them for commercial purposes.

Unfortunately, virtually every Open Source initiative out there is commercial in nature... one does not have to charge money for a venture to be commercial.

Title: Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
Post by: El Vato on 2008.02.24, 16:48:17
Quote from: saborion2 on 2008.02.23, 20:05:39
How interesting... "kimhav, Global Moderator, Hero Member" wrote the following earlier:
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.02.24, 05:24:01
[...]
We need to stop hitching our wagon on anything to do with MS and their (usually broken) promises
Quote from: kimhav on 2008.02.24, 01:38:37
I can only agree with Robert that I don't think that MS release of documents will have any bigger effect on the open source community and [...]
Unfortunately, virtually every Open Source initiative out there is commercial in nature... one does not have to charge money for a venture to be commercial.

Agreed, by keeping its thumb pressed on this issue, MS babbling amount to an attempt to appease the regulators:

"However, companies that want to commercially distribute implementations of the protocols still must obtain a patent license from Microsoft, it said." (http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/022108-microsoft-makes-boldest-move-yet.html?page=3)

...seems to me that we are humoring another one from the MS pond  --and it may go for a long time due to the severity of the brainwashing previously exhibited by those.