Author Topic: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter  (Read 26613 times)

kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #30 on: 2008.01.25, 15:50:00 »
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.)

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.

obiwan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #31 on: 2008.01.26, 09:55:45 »
Quote
IBM 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?

El Vato

  • Guest
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #32 on: 2008.01.28, 04:31:23 »
As I read Sun MicroSystem's CEO blog entry for January 19, 2008, 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, 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 .  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.

kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #33 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?

BigWarpGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #34 on: 2008.01.29, 02:14:48 »
Those are good ideas. The tricky part would be to get IBM to do something.

djcaetano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #35 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?"

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.

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.

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.

kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #36 on: 2008.01.29, 15:21:31 »
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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

djcaetano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #37 on: 2008.01.30, 15:51:16 »
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

El Vato

  • Guest
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #38 on: 2008.01.30, 18:07:08 »
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 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.

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."

John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #39 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.

paulzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #40 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

saborion2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Orion Resources International
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #41 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?"!!!

RobertM

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
    • View Profile
    • A.I.BuiltPC - using OS/2 Warp Server & eComStation for Custom Web and Database Solutions
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #42 on: 2008.02.23, 20:19:11 »

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.
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


RobertM

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
    • View Profile
    • A.I.BuiltPC - using OS/2 Warp Server & eComStation for Custom Web and Database Solutions
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #43 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
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: IBM`s response to the 2nd petition letter
« Reply #44 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.