Author Topic: Workplace Shell for Windows source code  (Read 8488 times)

alex

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« on: 2008.02.12, 00:44:32 »
Instead of giving us the real stuff, IBM 'allowed' the creator of Workplace Shell for Windows to release the source code.
See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=180049

Is this IBM abandonware of any use to the OS/2 and eCS community ?

kimhav

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
    • My Blog!
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #1 on: 2008.02.12, 01:04:42 »
Hmm interesting it's posted October 23, 2007 04:04:38 PM and one would guess that it would be harder for IBM to make the source code available for Workplace Shell for Windows than for similar OS2 code. So how much 3rd party code can we find within this source code then? So the arguments that it's not possible to open source parts of the OS2 code kind of weaken.

miturbide

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
    • View Profile
    • OS2World
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #2 on: 2008.02.12, 04:08:18 »
Very interesting. Please if anybody has hobbes upload access please upload it there also. Possible it was easier to release the source code since it was an Employee Written Software, and seems it was never part of a commercial product.

Uhm... the "Workplace Shell For Windows" Public License - v 1.0 looks familiar. It seems very similar to the Common Public License. I don't know if somebody with a sharper eye can found any difference with the CPL.

« Last Edit: 2008.02.12, 04:17:23 by miturbide »
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

cyberspittle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #3 on: 2008.02.12, 08:10:11 »
It's 16-bit. It's a shell (wrapping paper). Don't confuse it with the WPS. I think it is on Hobbes already. I remember using it 10 years ago to see how it worked. I removed it.


El Vato

  • Guest
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #4 on: 2008.02.12, 10:18:21 »
As of this date, Hobbes has the *binary* release of the Win16 WPS wrapper --but not the source code.

On the other hand, it appears that as far back as 1999, there were people playing with the WPS Win16 wrapper source code.  What is different now is that IBM gave the formal nod to the source code release of the wrapper.

From all these developments, it seems that the OS/2 Work Place Shell (or the SOM technology, for that matter) has began to bubble up as the first potentially immediate candidate OS/2 source code component that might be set free.

REASON:
I liked the article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, who argues in favour of the technical benefits (read alignment with IBM OSS strategy) of SOM on the Linux experience and integration with current IBM technologies --if the framework/libraries were to be open sourced, of course.  Possibly Mr. Vaughan-Nichols even browsed the manual, Programming with DirectToSOM(TM)C++  a priori to writing his Analysis --for he even expounded on the CORBA relationship.

PRO: Mr. Vaughan-Nichols is well respected in the free and open source software (FOSS & OSS) community and his Analysis likely will bring a sharper focus to the OS/2 World Foundation petition efforts to IBM --and to the rediscovery and potential interest in the OS/2 by the (F)OSS camp.

CON: He does not believe that other OS/2 components can be open sourced.

...well, at least Mr. Vaughan-Nichols did his research and contributed to the momentum of the petition effect towards open sourcing OS/2; that stands in sharp contrast to the contemptible "article" by the fellow who was "... Glad That IBM Declined to Release the OS/2 Source."

Lumo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #5 on: 2008.05.20, 09:30:30 »
Very interesting. Please if anybody has hobbes upload access please upload it there also. Possible it was easier to release the source code since it was an Employee Written Software, and seems it was never part of a commercial product.

Uhm... the "Workplace Shell For Windows" Public License - v 1.0 looks familiar. It seems very similar to the Common Public License. I don't know if somebody with a sharper eye can found any difference with the CPL.

I helped translate it into swedish way back when. It's just a GUI wrapper for Windows, I think nothing of value today is in that source code. It certainly isn't SOM and/or CORBA in any way, shape or form.

DavidG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #6 on: 2008.05.20, 21:17:08 »
If anyone is interested, I just uploaded the source code to Hobbes Incoming.

http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/incoming/wpsfwin-build-source.zip

It will eventually be moved to

/pub/os2/dev/wps

David
« Last Edit: 2008.05.20, 21:19:56 by David Graser »

obiwan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Workplace Shell for Windows source code
« Reply #7 on: 2008.05.21, 20:10:31 »
WPS for Windows was the first use (to my knowledge) of the Windows Registry for purposes other than program associations with file extensions, and proved what a bad idea it was, as it would occasionally crash and destroy the Registry, rendering Windows 3.1 unstartable. (Sound at all familiar?)

Having the source code public is useful for this reason, it is now possible to fix this problem that makes the program impractical for anything other than a quick demo of what the WPS looks like.

On the other hand, is there a living soul in 2008 interested in this enhancement to their Windows 3.1 desktop? Not even worth the trouble of trying to compile it, in my book, since my only use of Win3.1 apps is on eComStation anyway.

Maybe in 1995 when some of us still had Windows 3.1 desktops in addition to Warp, and would have welcomed a more usable replacement for Program Manager, this code would have been fun to have had.

Maybe IBM is just trying to make the point of how pointless open-sourcing 10-year-old code related to OS/2 is.