Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Software Operating Systems The Almighty Buck IT

OS/2 Community Tries Bounty System 293

Grayskull writes "The OS/2 and eComStation community are trying to get open source software ported to that platform by opening bounties and allowing people to chip in with prize money. Currently the most important open bounties are Java 6 port, Icon routines in OS/2, VirtualBox port, Extend multimedia and OpenWengo ports."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OS/2 Community Tries Bounty System

Comments Filter:
  • Bounties? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:38PM (#24912287)

    Not even Boba Fett would do /that/ job for /that/ bounty.

  • Open source the OS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by armanox ( 826486 ) <> on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:39PM (#24912297) Homepage Journal
    And more people will port Open Source software to it.
    • by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:46PM (#24912357) Homepage Journal
      It can't be done. The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors. Sun had quite a time releasing Solaris as open-source, and they owned almost all of it.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:11PM (#24912539)

        What IBM could do:

        1) Open-source the code it owns

        2) Binary-blob all non-royalty-bearing code it doesn't own.

        3) Sell the complete package including royalty-bearing code for the cost of royalties plus a small markup to cover business expenses.

        4) Repeat for older versions

        They've already all but open-sourced JFS. If memory serves, the version of JFS in the final version of Warp Server had much the same code as the version that found its way into Linux.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          1) Open-source the code it owns

          It already has. Large portions of it, in fact. Where do you think Linux implementation of JFS came from? It was in OS/2 before it was even in AIX or Linux. The SMP and some of the NUMA stuff it bought from Sequent I think was also in OS/2 at one point or another. That stuff is also open sourced and part of Linux.

          So, yeah, large parts of OS/2 code are alive and well and already open sourced -- in Linux

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by chez69 ( 135760 )

            Just a couple of things dude,
            - JFS was in AIX way before it was in OS/2.
            - The NUMA stuff from sequent never had anything to do with OS/2, they ran their own unix OS.

            I liked OS/2 back in the day. However you must realize that there are NO 'large parts' of OS/2 that have been open sourced.

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Unluckily IBM doesn't have any interest in open sourcing OS/2. Our JFS is a closed source fork. When IBM open sourced Object Rexx all the OS/2 parts were removed and so on.

        • by afidel ( 530433 )
          IBM can't do anything with it since they sold the rights to another party years ago (hence why it's called ecommstation not OS/2 today.
      • ReactOS, Wine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:13PM (#24912565)

        To make matters worse, it is pretty much succeeded by Windows NT, which means any re-developed open source OS/2 clone will be irrelevant, as it will be like ReactOS, but years behind. And let's not forget Wine, of course. I generally love how people can get enthusiastic about vintage operating systems, to the point where they develop clones of them, it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

        • Re:ReactOS, Wine (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slashdot@ g m> on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:25PM (#24912651) Homepage Journal

          it's really heart-warming generally, but the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

          Fanboys, perhaps?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Ilgaz ( 86384 )

            The interesting thing about OS/2 community is, it is very hard to find any clueless fanatics. Even in 1995, unless you claimed a completely stupid thing like "MS-DOS is better than OS/2" or "Windows 95 is 32bit", they (especially team os/2) would listen.

            I am on OS X now and I can't find quality ezines, communities like OS/2. I find myself sometimes posting as AC to Apple related stories since I am sick of fanatic community.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ucklak ( 755284 )

          I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s


            At a previous company I worked for, our voice mail system was ran by an OS/2 machine. Microsoft's OS/2. When you typed "ver" that's what it said. "Microsoft OS/2" (and some version and copyright info I don't remember anymore). And in classic Microsoft fashion, it wasn't y2k compliant. After the turn of the millennium, I would have to dig through a calendar to find a year that matched up with 2000, 2001, 2002, etc.

            When I le

          • by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @09:49PM (#24915435) Homepage Journal

            I'm just chiming from my observations but wasn't OS/2 great for digital phone systems in the 90s and early 2000s before Linux products took the crown? This is of course well before VOIP.

            Of course. Heck, OS/2 is still in use in a lot of ATMs, voice mail systems, and so on today, although it's being phased out due to lack of support. But there are ATM's in my area that I know are running OS/2. Our Nortel Norstar voice mail unit at work runs OS/2. In the 1980s and 1990s, OS/2 was very commonly used when you wanted to embed a general-purpose computer system into an "appliance" scenario. That's because it was, to a large extent, the only acceptable option.

            Consider, it's 1990, and you want to build some kind of computerized "appliance". Maybe it's a voice mail system, or a bank ATM, or an electronic message board, or whatever. You want to use a general-purpose computer, because that lowers costs and enables third-party "layered product" options. GP hardware is cheaper, software development on a GP platform is easier (since the test target can be the same as the development environment), and there's a bigger third-party community to tap.

            So what are your choices? Linux doesn't exist yet. Commercial Unix platforms (SGI/Irix, SunOS, HP-UX, DEC/Ultrix, etc.) are very expensive. BSD is tied up in legal wranglings, and support for commodity micros (IBM-PC, Mac) is limited at the time. DOS barely provides disk services and is useless for everything else, so you'd practically have to write your own OS. MS Windows runs on top of DOS and is basically just a GUI -- inappropriate for most embedded applications -- and has stability issues. Win NT doesn't exist yet. Xenix is a joke. SCO Unix is painfully clunky and hideously expensive.

            And then there is OS/2. It's a preemptive multitasking, protected memory OS. It runs on IBM-PC-compatible computers, the platform with the biggest market presence and the most third-party support -- and also the cheapest hardware. It's from IBM, the single biggest name in computing. IBM and Microsoft both say it's the wave of the future. It's relatively inexpensive when purchased in bulk. Seems like a no brainer, right?

            Obviously, looking back with 20/20 hindsight today, OS/2 seems like a strange choice, but at the time, it made perfect sense.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by fm6 ( 162816 )

          the OS/2 community I somehow never really understood.

          They're not that different from fans of BeOS, Amiga OS, or a dozen other platforms that never reached critical mass, despite their many virtues. For that matter, your see the same stubborn refusal to see economic sense from Mac and Linux fans when they complain about publishers not supporting their platforms.

          Brad Wardell has this really insightful take on what it's like to be an OS/2 fanatic, and how his fellow fanatics turned on him when he started hedging his bets.


          • Re:ReactOS, Wine (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Tekoneiric ( 590239 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @07:33PM (#24914625) Journal
            Actually the Amiga OS is a bit different from BeOS and OS/2. It did reach a critical mass back in the late '80s and early '90s. Amiga PCs were everywhere and heavily used in the graphics and video industries. It only subsided because the execs at Commodore would rather take trips to the Bahamas than invest in marketing. When Commodore went bankrupt; the video industry was scrambling to locate Amiga 4000s; driving prices up to higher than retail on them. It was years before low priced alternatives were available to them. The Amiga was also at the core of the game industry for years back then for players and developers. Had Commodore Execs been smarter, the computer industry would have been a much different place these days.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          If you're under the impression that Windows NT somehow succeeds the 32-bit OS/2 clients released by IBM, then no wonder you don't understand the OS/2 community that survives -- you think we still use the old 16-bit POS that was created in the IBM+Microsoft days. Methinks not. :-)

          OS/2 still has advantages in process prioritization and multithreading that neither Windows now Linux can touch, and you can feel the difference on old enough hardware. OS/2 responds quickly where WinNT 4, Win2K, and various Linux

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The OS in encumbered by crap from Microsoft and COUNTLESS other contributors

        It can be done, but you would need to take a BSD approach to it. That is, people who have (legal) access to the source would need to rewrite/replace all those components for which they can't obtain permission to release.

        So it would take a legally limited pool of developers a lot of time and effort, all to open source an operating system that hasn't been updated since 2001. All-in-all, possible, but unlikely to be worth it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by monsul ( 1342167 )

      And more people will port Open Source software to it.

      Not really. There are loads of open source OSes out there, and only the big and famous ones get a substantial amount of developers, and developers tend to contribute where their code will have more probabilities of being used (that is, big, established OSes). It's kind of a chicken and egg problem

      • by CSMatt ( 1175471 )

        That's true for all operating systems, not just the free ones. It's one of the reasons Mac OS X adoption had been so slow until the Intel switch. One pretty much had to go cold turkey when buying a Mac.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:40PM (#24912305)

    Openwengo is dead, it's now called Qutecom []. Also I'm wondering whether Ekiga is not much mature, especially now version 3.00 is around the corner.

  • Team OS/2! (Score:5, Funny)

    by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <slashdot&davidgerard,co,uk> on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:42PM (#24912317) Homepage

    OS/2! Named after the number of users remaining!

    • Re:Team OS/2! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by motherjoe ( 716821 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:59PM (#24912449)

      Ahh show some respect. :)

      Long before there was talk of Linux supplanting Windows, it was OS/2.

      I was one of them, from version 2 through Warp 4. Let the Star Trek puns rain down on me for that one! :)

      Take care all.

      Just my .02 worth :)

      • I know it was cruel. But fair. Or "fair but cruel."

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cbreaker ( 561297 )

        I'm with you on that. I really loved working with OS/2 way back when. My first NAT gateway ran on OS/2 before most people never even heard of it.

        Not to mention, OS/2 was a pretty darned good DOS multitasker, and a good number of DOS games ran well under OS/2 as well.

        It was a pretty good Operating System, low footprint, and it took quite a few years before Linux distributions got as good as OS/2.

        • by doti ( 966971 )

          Me too.

          I was amazed when I first installed it, I discovered a menu option on the installation program to open a terminal window with a shell. From that, I could run the programs that was just finished being installed, while the installation of the system continued in the background. I played some games during the rest of the installation, and it ran smoothly. Impressive, considering it was early 90's, on a 386 with 16MB RAM.

          Ahh.. the memories.

      • Long before there was talk of Linux supplanting Windows, it was OS/2. I was one of them, from version 2 through Warp 4. Let the Star Trek puns rain down on me for that one! :)

        I was too! I was even developing software for OS/2. I don't remember what happened, after writing three small utilities (I can't even recall what they are at the moment) I stopped writing software. Seemed to me at the time I was the only one in 100 miles that used it as a desktop...

        I actually didn't even have a CDROM for OS/2 War

    • OS/2 is and has been for many years now a very useful and stable product (once you install the proper fixpacks) and find some software to run on it. I recommend StarOffice 5.1 and Opera.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:50PM (#24912389)

    Seriously, this is like getting grandma a boobjob so maybe she can score a young IT guy with money.

    Donate it to the community or give it up!

  • What! (Score:4, Funny)

    by k33l0r ( 808028 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @02:57PM (#24912441) Homepage Journal

    Someone is still using OS/2? Perhaps there should also be bounties for porting software to Win 95 & NT 4.0 and Linux kernel v1.0...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:04PM (#24912493)

    I used OS/2 Warp a long time ago. It was good, in its day. But why do people still use it late 2008?

    Is it love?

    Are there any technical advantages?

    If it is because of a key legacy application instead of getting stuff ported to OS/2 maybe that application should get ported to the other OSs?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Atomic Frog ( 28268 )

      Simple. It works well for what most users do.
      - The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.
      - No virus, no spyware.
      - Full command-line power with easy to use GUI. Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search no

      • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:44PM (#24912833)

        > Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.

        Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by knarf ( 34928 )
          Hard links can not cross filesystem borders. This makes hard links unusable for common linking tasks on the desktop. Soft links can cross filesystem borders but they suffer the same fate as Windows 'shortcuts' when the target file is moved: the link goes dead. This does not happen with OS/2's shadow [] copies. One of the biggest problem with these is that they only work within the Workplace Shell (from which they derive): try to use them from the command line and you'll find they simply do not exist.
      • I like your bullet points. Ill comment on them.

        - The UI in WinXP is very inconsistent and horrible once you're used to a more consistent UI. There's not much debate here, WinXP is hardly the epitomy of fine UI design except maybe for the most rabid Microsofties.

        The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".

        - No virus, no spyware.

        Just like

        • by k33l0r ( 808028 )

          The basic UI for Windows IS consistent, for themselves. Anybody programming it will have their idea on the UI and will tinker with it. The third party programs are the ones responsible for "perverting a consistent UI".

          Really? Now compare Windows Media Player, Office 2003, Office 2007, Internet Explorer, Notepad, Visual Studio, and Windows Update. None of these, you might notice, are third-party applications, yet you might notice that they have some rather fundamental differences.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.

          Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by squiddog ( 1218058 )
        I remember dragging and dropping the entire desktop (the folder that represented my desktop) from the install/boot drive to my second SCSI drive. I figured I'd break it all and have to reinstall, but it was worth the experiment. OS/2 didn't break. Not only did my system still work right then during the move, but it worked fine after a reboot as well. Remember folks, this was before Windows 95, NT and all the spawn thereafter. Really nicely thought out system, without a marketing monster behind it to shove
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MrNaz ( 730548 )

        - No virus, no spyware.

        A few bounties can fix that right up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        No virus, no spyware.

        That's entirely due to lack of interest on the part of virus makers and spyware makers, as OS/2 is not very secure. For example, important libraries used by all processes are mapped to shared, writable memory. It's trivial for a malicious process to take over any other process and run arbitrary code in that other process.

        From a security point of view, OS/2 is in the same ballpark as Windows 95, far below Linux, OS X, and any Windows decended from NT (such as NT, 2K, XP, Vista).

  • by rickkas7 ( 983760 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:08PM (#24912517)
    How hard up for money do you need to be to port GTK+ 2.x to OS/2 for $ 30?
    • I think the idea is a bunch of people offer bounties for something worthwhile. So, if someone else wanted GTK, maybe they would offer $50, and then someone else $100, someone else $10, and so on, so the bounty grows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mollymoo ( 202721 )
      Don't be so dismissive, I'll be investing my $40 from recovering data from a zeroed disk into a new keyboard to work on this port.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:13PM (#24912557) Journal
    Looking at the list of bounties, I was struck by their paltriness(and, in certain cases, their complete implausibility, "Oh, sure, I'm sure I've got the Skype sourcecode sitting around here somewhere, definitely worth 130 bucks."). I find it difficult to believe that they'll get too many people to work on a closed and rather necrotic OS for that kind of money.

    Bounties make a certain amount of sense as a means to reward the efforts of people who work on projects of community interest, and they might even direct the attention of people who are likely to be working on something in any case in the direction you want it to go. They aren't a way of hiring programmers(not at this size anyway), they are only an added motivation for the already interested.

    Does an OS used primarily by a dwindling number of corporate legacy customers, often in semiembedded applications, really have a large enough pool of already interested contributors? The fact that OS/2 is closed isn't an automatic kiss of death for community involvement with a legacy system(just look at Amiga and BeOS); but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

    Perhaps this will work for them, if so, great; but I have to wonder.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ...but OS/2 doesn't have anything like the charisma or fanbase, and it is too young and modern to appeal heavily on nostalgic grounds(unlike, say, C64).

      Ah, you should have seen the 90s! There were OS/2 fanboys that made the Apple guys look like sissy boys. They were rabid. Just say, "OS/2 is what, DOS 5.0?"
      Ooooo Weeee! It would have been better to call their mother a whore!

  • It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.
    OS/2 was a technology leader for a long time, it was the first OS to take the desktop metaphor seriously. Its programming model (SOM) and template system is still marvelous after all these years. It was the first OS with proper multi-threading support, with voice support etc. etc. Lots of innovations happenend on this platform.

    It just had one problem: It was managed by IBM!

    When OS/2 version 3 came out, it kicked ass compared to Win 3.11 and Win 95. Just imagine what wo

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )

      It's not fair to make fun of OS/2.

      We're not making fun of OS/2. We're making fun of the losers who wont admit to themselves that the ship has sailed.

    • It's a shame we are stuck in the 90s wrt human computer interaction.

      Only those of you still using Windows. Those of us using Linux have moved on; why don't you?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Really d-bag? How has Linux gone past cli and gui concepts that are implented in Windows, Mac OS X, other Unices? He was just disparaging Windows in case you have reading comprehension problems.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:22PM (#24912629)

    I was a very fanatical OS/2 user. Not fanatical in a zealotish way but fanatical in that I liked doing all I needed on my PC using OS/2. Some minor issues which couldn't be done were usually easily solved when opening up OS/2 Windows. Another issue is that I actually paid for my sofware. And OS/2 knew some great software packages! If you like GQView these days; I was using something very similiar long before we even heard from Gnome and KDE.

    But it became awfully tricky when IBM dropped support for OS/2 and eventually I made the jump fully to Linux. Right now I'm very happy with Ubuntu using a KDE desktop. And the fact that it doesn't have to cost me much is naturally a very welcome benefit as well.

    Now, this was years ago. I sometimes try to install my Warp and Merlin CD's in some kind of virtual machine but mostly to no avail (I did got Warp running though). However, I have tried a few of the ComStation live cd's to see what it was all about. And quite frankly; it doesn't manage to impress me one bit. Sure; its a nice revival of the old OS/2 but its main problem (IMO ofcourse) is that it didn't go along with recent developments but instead got stuck somewhere in the last century.

    Now; bear with me. I can understand that the developers can only do so much with it. But it would have been a lot better if they would have tried to utilize other people's researches and developments as well. OS/2 had some very powerfull desktop enhancers. Some of those even managed to build an entire business out of their single product because.. it actually sold (I bought several copies myself as well). But.. None of that on eComstation. The interface is basically the same as what we were used to, but which most of us have most likely outgrown.

    So instead of wasting money on projects like these I'd think that money would be better put into OS development. But even that might not be enough to get back much of the marketshare. Lets face it; Linux has ate up a lot of marketshare. I sure wouldn't even consider going back anymore. So my stance on this? "Too little, too late", even though I admire the effort.

  • by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:33PM (#24912715)

    I used to be a OS/2 user, but I stopped about 4 years ago. I sympathize with the OS/2 community, because it was my geek "home" for a while, but they're going about it all wrong. I tried to convince them a long time ago, but they never listened.

    The OS/2 kernel is seriously outdated. Hardware support is minimal, and the kernel itself is just dated. It's mostly 16-bit. So there's no reason to keep it. A few people insist that the OS/2 kernel is "nicer" or "better" than the Linux kernel is some way, but these people don't know anything about kernels. It's a stupid argument.

    The OS/2 community should port the OS/2 API to Linux. This will allow them to run the WPS (the illustrious GUI that OS/2 users rave about) and every other OS/2 application. This would be a one-time effort, because the API is stable. It hasn't been updated in almost 10 years. Not only that, but it's very well documented

    Instead, these guys keep trying to port Linux applications to OS/2. If every OS/2 developer dropped what he was doing and worked on porting the OS/2 API, they'd be done in about a year. They would never have to ask for any more help ever again. The user base would actually grow, even. They'd be able to use all of their applications forever, even on newer hardware. Device support would never be a problem. Even businesses that are based on OS/2 would start moving to Linux. It would be win-win for everyone.

    In fact, the WPS might even become quite popular. Someone might try to make an open source version of it, and it might even become a replacement GUI for Linux, competing with Gnome and KDE.

  • Some bounty! (Score:2, Interesting)

    For the Tuniac port - Tuniac/2

    Below it, it says: Current Bounty: $0

    I used to be an OS/2 developer. For me to get a compiler, the OS, a machine to install all that stuff on, and the time to do it, I would want a lot of money to do it. Let's put it this way, enough to buy a new car.

  • Who would want to? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:41PM (#24912799) Homepage
    Seriously. Who really wants to write for OS/2 that already isn't doing it? I remember, about ten years ago, a club I belong to was auctioning off a copy to raise money. A good friend of mine outbid everybody, even though he made it clear he was going to take it outside after the meeting and throw it in a random trash can on his way home. He'd just finished a project that required porting something to OS/2 and he hated the OS so much that he was willing to pay good money for the privilege of trashing a copy.
  • by digitalderbs ( 718388 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:42PM (#24912807)
    Although I appreciate that I'm likely missing the point, isn't the fact that OS/2 already well supported [] on VirtualBox good enough? Isn't it sufficient for your application needs to run it as a guest on a Linux or Windows host?

    What's the motivation?
  • Barrier to entry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Sunday September 07, 2008 @03:49PM (#24912875) Homepage

    As i understand it, OS/2 still costs money to obtain...
    So there's very little incentive for a hobbyist programmer to obtain a copy just to play with... The only people using it, will be those who are stuck with it for legacy reasons, it won't gather any new users.
    There are several niche open source OS's out there, and there's no barrier to stop people downloading them to try (i regularly download new builds of AROS, Reactos, Syllable etc)

  • NEWs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nog_lorp ( 896553 ) * on Sunday September 07, 2008 @04:09PM (#24913079)

    Some of these bounties were created in 2005.

  • by cryfreedomlove ( 929828 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @04:13PM (#24913121)
    I surveyed the OS/2 user community. 95% of them drive vintage Ford Pintos. The other 5% still drive their Mom's station wagon.
  • I think we should post bounties as well... to move people AWAY from OS/2. If you convince one of those hippies to switch to Linux, you win a prize!

    Just let the goddamned bastard OS die with some dignity! It was interesting in, oh, 1994 ? :P Then NT4 came along and made OS/2 pretty much obsolete. Don't get me wrong, OS/2 had quite a few brilliant elements, but it doesn't hold a candle to modern OS' stability and user-friendliness.

  • I'll accept a few of these bounties as soon as I have the chance. However, right now I'm too busy porting OpenMUMPS to the Atari ST. I'll get back to you in a year or so.
  • Car analog (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I am willing to pay $150 for alloy wheels for my Ford Model T, anybody interested?

  • Instead of this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SnarfQuest ( 469614 ) on Sunday September 07, 2008 @06:42PM (#24914287)

    Instead of this, why not offer rewards to port the interesting bits of OS/2 over to Linux. Pick whichever X server is closest to OS/2, create a fork, and start reworking it.

    OS/2 is basically dead at this point. IBM no longer tries to sell it to consumers, and there isn't enough hardware support for current systems.

    Instead of being stuck of a dead-end OS, drag it into the modern era. If you port it to run on top of Linux, then you automatically get newer device drivers, the possibility to run on non-Intel hardware, free development code (gcc, gdb, etc), and a huge quantity of existing software.

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.