The purpose of this section is to provide a forum for our readers to voice their opinions and thoughts on issues related to OS/2. If you have an observation, concern, gripe or compliment regarding something, please feel free to send them to the OS/2 CONNECT editor for inclusion in this section, at: Title & Publisher or complete the form at the bottom of this page.
The opinions expressed in this section are those of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor or publisher of OS/2 CONNECT. NOTE: Letters may be edited for inappropriate or offensive language or clarity.
I agree with you that it would be a great thing, but you make all-too-common mistake in thinking that IBM simply doesn't want to release the source and that's the only reason they haven't. Your editorial basically propogates one of the biggest pieces of OS/2 FUD today: that IBM is fully capable of releasing the source code but they won't because they don't want to promote OS/2 or because they have too strong of Windows focus.
The truth is, whether or not IBM wants to release the source code is irrelevant - the truth is that they CAN'T, for legal reasons. I used to work for IBM on OS/2 itself, and almost every file of source code of the OS/2 kernel is copyrighted by IBM and Microsoft. That's right - the OS/2 kernel is partially copyrighted by Microsoft.
And I'm sure there are other similar legal reasons keeping IBM from releasing the source code, but I don't know them all. I've had other IBM'ers also tell me, without revealing the specifics, that there are legal restrictions preventing the release of the source code.
So please, stop suggesting that an open-source version of OS/2 is a possibility. It is not.
One alternative to an open-source OS/2 that I've mentioned to some other OS/2 users is to modify Linux so that it can run OS/2 applications. It would not be easy, but there are only three steps:
1. Update the Linux kernel to support some of the advanced features of OS/2, like kernel-level threads.
2. Write a new loader for Linux so that Linux can load OS/2 EXE and DLL files into memory (much like Project Odin can load Win32 EXE's).
3. Port the OS/2 kernel/driver interfaces to OS/2, so that low-level DLL's like DOSCALL1.DLL can run.
Once you do these three things, Linux can run any OS/2 app, including the WPS. And if you package it correctly, you can create a new version of the OS/2 client that looks just like Warp 4 but uses the Linux kernel instead of the OS/2 kernel. And it will also use Linux device drivers instead of OS/2 drivers, which is a very big plus.
But I would encourage you to go to the enclosed URL, select "Feedback" and give your comments to someone that may be able to make the product better....
This is not a slap in the face, so please don't take it as that. I so often see people complaining, and they have no place for their voice to be heard.
And while your there, take the survey.
What could it hurt???
http://www.software.ibm.com/os/warp/netscape/
I have committed FixPak 11 to two instances of OS/2 here at home, but by the same token, I wouldn't use any version of Communicator. I tried both releases of Communicator 4.04 and they were buggy. I haven't tried 4.61, but from reading the newsgroups, it isn't ready yet. After all, it is still in the beta stage.
I like stability. I like OS/2. I like Navigator 2.02.
I just finished reading your August 1999 editorial and it, like all others, is to the point.
I have committed FixPak 11 to two instances of OS/2 here at home, but by the same token, I wouldn't use any version of Communicator. I tried both releases of Communicator 4.04 and they were buggy. I haven't tried 4.61, but from reading the newsgroups, it isn't ready yet. After all, it is still in the beta stage.
I like stability. I like OS/2. I like Navigator 2.02.
To submit a letter to the editor for this section, please complete the following form. NOTE: Some web browsers may not support e-mail protocols. In this event, e-mail or fax your message separately.
