Hacker News Reader

Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

Well, Microsoft put OS/2 and BeOS out of business, and nearly did the same for Apple. While this was happening, FreeBSD and Linux emerged as excellent Unix variants, so when Apple and Google went to look for their own OSs to deploy, they leveraged what was already available.

If you're looking for alternatives, there is stuff being developed. Google's Fuscia is intriguing, and there are other non-Unix kernels from other organizations in the pipeline. IMHO, the difference this time around is that the web is the new compatibility target. If you design a new OS today and manage to get a full working web browser with javascript and Web Assembly, you'll be in good shape.

View on HN

Lets not forget that Google bought Android, it didn't start as a in-house project. Rubin and crew had picked Linux as their base, and Java as their main dev environment, before being bought by Google.

Two classic mistakes with 20:20 hindsight. Linux makes updates more complicated because of it's monokernel and Java well.....Oracle....

There wouldn't be any problem with Oracle if they didn't try to scam Sun.

There are lots of companies selling JVMs, many of them with extensions, and none of them got sued.

Why? Because they play by the rules, instead of trying to be different.

And at least on those platforms I can make use of proper Java 7 and 8 features, not the cherry picked ones on Android.

Apache Foundation tried to scam Sun?

Nice game of words.

Google was pretty much aware that GPL with Classpath exception was only for Java SE, not targeted at embedded deployments, but paying the license required for embedded deployments was too expensive apparently.

According to Gosling, Sun would have sued Google if they still had any money left on the bank, instead Jonathan decided to make the public support announcement, angering quite a few folks internally.

His blog posts are no longer live, but old references are quite easy to find.

> Microsoft put OS/2

Actually regarding OS/2, IBM had lots of blame as well.

They didn't managed the whole situation properly and trying to use OS/2 to get back into the game of selling their own PS2 architecture didn't help win the hearts of the buyers.

I would have had to pay almost 500 € extra, on today's money to get a PC capable of running OS/2 properly, instead of the one I got with Windows 3.1.

I had read that OS/2 Warp was considered a pretty good OS technically, though I don't remember the details now, as to what made it an improvement over Windows. I remember that PC Quest, an Indian PC magazine, gave out OS/2 Warp on a CD [1] in one issue.

[1] They often bundled a CD with lots of free software with their magazine issues, e.g. different distros of Linux, server software, utilities, etc. All free or trial software, usually. I remember they bundled the QNX OS once, and I installed it and tried it on my PC. It was very light and fast, had a GUI too - Photon, IIRC. They might even have bundled BeOS once. I think I tried installing that too, but it did not work on my PC.

OS/2 existed for quite a while before Warp came about. Warp was IBM trying to salvage a sinking ship more than anything else.

http://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/

OS/2 was to go along with the PS/2. A update on the PC platform that was much more bespoke IBM compared to the largely assembled from off the shelf parts that was the PC/AT.

>OS/2 existed for quite a while before Warp came about.

>OS/2 was to go along with the PS/2. A update on the PC platform that was much more bespoke IBM compared to the largely assembled from off the shelf parts that was the PC/AT.

Yes, I was aware of those points, that Warp was a late or last version of OS/2 and that IBM tried to make the PC architecture closed with the PS/2 line - after it being originally open with the PC (which was what led to its success as a platform, due to the adoption and all the clones and extension cards and software for it). Had read about it. That doesn't change the fact that Warp had good reviews. Didn't try it out personally though.

OS/2 2.1 was a contemporary of Windows 3.0. Unlike Windows 3.x, it had preemptive multitasking and process memory isolation. It also had a nice-for-the-time GUI called Workplace Shell which was much nicer than Windows 3.x's Program Manager. It was very good at running DOS software, letting you make all of those config.sys/autoexec.bat tweaks on a per-program basis.

OS/2 3.0 (Warp) came out a couple of months before Windows 95. Compared to Windows 95, it was much more stable, but lacked compatibility for Win32 programs.

OS/2 2.x and OS/2 Warp worked perfectly in clonic PC's

OS/2 Warp did work on standard PCs.

However, OS/2 2.0 was only available to those with enough deep pockets to buy a IBM PS/2 Model 35 SLC, back on the city I was living.

There weren't any shops selling OS/2 2.0 boxes without an IBM PC to come along.

I ran OS/2 from versions 2.1 to 4, all on generic beige hardware. You are probably right about 2.0, but 2.1 certainly worked on clones.

Xe isn't right about 2.0, or even 1.1 or 1.0. None of them required PS/2 hardware. That is, as has been said elsewhere on this very page, a myth.

But Apple and IBM (and some others) spent years and millions of dollars coming up with an alternative. And they ended up with FreeBSD and Linux. You could say the software development was badly managed in many cases, or the business case wasn't there because of the app-OS dependency. But I think the fact that everybody failed implies a failure to come up with something better. And therefore a lack of progress,.

The fun thing is that OS/2 could have put DR-DOS out of business if MS didn't turn OS/2 2.0 into an entire fiasco.

The way I remember it, I would need to buy an expensive IBM with PS2 architecture to be able to use OS/2 properly, instead of the 386 I got with Windows, so lets not forget that IBM didn't managed the whole situation properly.

That was always a myth, of course.

What was a myth?

Me saving around 500€ on today's money, because I got to use my savings on a no name OEM PC running DR-DOS/Windows 3.1, instead buying an IBM PC with OS/2 2.0?

OS/2 never required a PS/2.

Well it required on the tiny city I was living in the early 90's, where getting OS/2 2.0 meant buying an actual IBM PC instead of a PC compatible.

OS/2 was offered as option instead of IBM PC DOS + Windows.

Actually you just made me search for the model I had as option, the IBM PS/2 Model 35 SLC.

Hopefully you noticed that this PS/2 model did not have Microchannel.

So what?

It was a PS/2 model, even if without MCA and the only way to legally get OS/2 2.0, where I was living.

Getting a PC compatible and a OS/2 2.0 box just to try out if something works wasn't an option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com