On Dec 8, 4:00 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Should IBM's OS/2 Be Open-Sourced?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A group of die-hard OS/2 users are petitioning IBM--again--to release the
> | operating system's source code as open-source. The question may not be
> | whether IBM wants to do so... but if it can. Not, I expect, that IBM will
> | actually say this out loud.
> `----
>
> http://advice.cio.com/esther_schindler/should_ibms_os_2_be_open_sourced
Remember, OS/2 was originally developed jointly by IBM and Microsoft.
When IBM did an audit of the Microsoft billing and code, they
discovered that Microsoft had embezzled a substantial amount of
resources, as well as a substantial amount of code from OS/2 into
Windows, including Windows 3.1 and Windows NT. It was eventually
discovered that Bill Gates personally authorized the embezzlement.
Microsoft eventually settled. They gave IBM all of the source code to
OS/2, along with a huge wad of cash, and the right to include Windows
3.1 functionality into OS/2. Microsoft also promised to deliver the
32 bit code version of OS/2. Microsoft delivered an abomination of
massively defective code in late 1991. It took IBM nearly 6 months to
get it functional enough to release, and even then, a TRAP 0E or TRAP
0D (illegal instruction) would corrupt the system so badly that the
entire system had to be reloaded.
It turned out that there was a race condition in the disk driver code
that was exposed very significantly when RAM CACHE was enabled.
Unless you had about 8 Meg of RAM (typical PCs had about 4 Meg in
those days), your performance was pretty dismal.
The problem is that IBM may still have nondisclosure agreements with
Microsoft that are still preventing them from publishing the source
code to OS/2. Besides, IBM has pretty much dropped OS/2 in 1996 due
to the pressure from Microsoft to stop shipping OS/2. Since then,
IBM's support has pretty much been limited to support for previous
customers. OS/2 was very popular in the banking industry, especially
for teller workstations, and for brokerage systems. Eventually, most
of these customers were transitioned to Linux or Windows, and the OS/2
functionality was either relegated to a server, or replaced with
MQSeries on Windows or Linux.
In 1997, IBM formally endorsed Linux, investing roughly $1 billion on
Linux R&D and promotional efforts. Even though this was actually a
very small percentage of IBM's total budget, it paid off handsomely,
eventually returning nearly 3 dollars in profit for each dollar
invested within less than 1 year. Over the next two years, Linux
continued to provide huge returns. By 2003, IBM was turning a pretty
nice $3 billion/year profit on Linux related investments. Nearly all
of IBM's products were ported to work with Linux. The IBM Global
Services division had their consultants trained in Linux, and more and
more projects were implemented using Linux and/or AIX and/or Solaris.
Microsoft brokered financing for SCO to mount a huge smear campaign
targeted specifically against IBM and Linux. They brokered a $60
million bankroll from a private venture capital fund (Bay Star
Capital) with undisclosed investors, promising to "make good" if Bay
Star bankrolled the SCO lawsuit. Even though the deal fell through,
most of SCO's claims were nullified in a summary judgement, and SCO's
claims of UNIX ownership were destroyed, Microsoft's control of SCO
has forced them to persist in their lawsuit even as they face total
bankruptcy.
> Related:
>
> 1989 Bill Gates Talk on Microsoft
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Bill Gates discusses the software and computer industry, and how Microsoft
> | has contributed. Gates also discusses his views on the future of
> | the computing industry. The talk was recorded in 1989 but was only
> | recently digitized.
> `----
>
> http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/media/1989%20Bill%20Gates%20Talk%20on%...
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Some years back, Microsoft practiced a lot of dirty tricks using
> | online mavens to go into forums and create Web sites extolling the virtues
> | of Windows over OS/2. They were dubbed the Microsoft Munchkins, and it
> | was obvious who they were and what they were up to. But their numbers
> | and energy (and they way they joined forces with nonaligned dummies who
> | liked to pile on) proved too much for IBM marketers, and Windows won
> | the operating-system war through fifth-column tactics"
> `----
>
> http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/gizmos/2005/11/2_grassroots_an.html
Sounds a bit like their Linux tactics. Could Funkenbush, DFS, billwg,
flatfish, and be the Linux version of the Microsoft Munchkins? What a
silly question. Of course they are! If it worked well once, perhaps
it would work again!!
The big difference is that Linux advocacy takes place in so many
different levels, and Usenet newsgroups provide not only an uncensored
forum, but also provide an archived forum which can be referenced over
the years. It's amazing how many predictions, assertions, and
allegations made by Linux advocates in COLA were eventually
substantiated by federal courts. In some cases, the COLA links and
discussions are the only remaining record of the federal court
transcripts. Most of these transcripts and exhibits were later sealed,
and purged from public web sites. About the only other record was
paper copies of news articles in weekly trade journals. With so many
kids depending on the web, most have no clue how to find such articles
in public libraries.
> OS/2 is 20 years old today: dead but still walking
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | With the Windows 95 release back in late August of that year,
> | Microsoft embarked on a PR blitz such as never before seen, which
> | included "convincing" hardware OEMs not to preload "that other OS".
> | Even IBM's own PC Division reluctantly agreed to preload OS/2 Warp
> | on a line of its Aptiva desktops, but guess what? It was offered in
> | a "dual boot" setup, alongside Windows, so buyers had to choose at
> | the initial power-up whether to run one or the other.
> | Would the
> | Apple of today pre-load OS-X only alongside Vista, instead of
> | promoting its own OS? Clearly, IBM's other divisions were
> | sabotaging the software division's strategy, all for the
> | short-term interest, in other words, Microsoft's advertising dollars.
Actually, there was an even bigger problem. Retailers were required
to be "Authorized Microsoft Resellers" in order to market PCs that
featured Microsoft Operating Systems pre-installed. Microsoft
threatened to revoke this coveted status if a retailer attempted to
sell PCs that offered other Operating Systems such as OS/2, UnixWare,
Linux, or pretty much anything else. Even Macs were "forbidden" if
you wanted to keep that special Microsoft Reseller status.
Microsoft even filed piracy lawsuits against small companies who
attempted to sell Windows machines without the coveted status.
Usually the defendent stores were owned by poor chinese families who
spoke very little english, and often were first generation
immegrants. They certainly couldn't afford a rigorous legal defense,
and even though they settled cheaply, the headlines in the papers were
a warning to all would-be defectors to OS/2.
Microsoft fought dirty, and IBM knew this. They knew what Microsoft
was doing, but they couldn't promise immunity from Microsoft's
harassment. A few major chains like J&R Electronics in New York City,
and Frye's in California defied Microsoft Openly, but most retailers
were unwilling to risk losing their entire PC revenue, by offering OS/
2. J&R had a huge market of OS/2 users in Wall Street. Most of the
other big names like CompUSA, Computer City, and Best Buy risked
losing their status as PC retailers unless they stopped selling OS/2
completely. IBM realized what kind of pressure was being applied and
realized that they could not stop Microsoft.
For IBM, this was adding insult to Injury. Microsoft had stolen
nearly $3 Billion worth of OS/2 technology and billable time from IBM,
and paid for it with a bug ridden version of OS/2 which took IBM
nearly 3 years to debug and clean up. When IBM introduced Warp 4.0,
they had eliminated the deadlocks and race conditions, they had
enhanced the recovery process, and they offered the ability to run
Windows 3.1 applications that didn't run under Windows NT 3.x (many of
which didn't even run under Windows 95). They had outstanding
internet support, a really easy to use GUI based configuration that
was easier to manage than Windows. It was a truly outstanding
operating system.
Unfortunately, by then, Dell, Gateway, HP, and Compaq were already
committed to contracts that precluded them from even offering OS/2 as
one of their preinstalled options. IBM was willing to offer generous
terms, but at this point, Microsoft had already "locked out" OS/2
through exclusionary contracts for Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.
When Microsoft finally released Windows 95, Microsoft finally resorted
to all-out sabotage to destroy the last vestages of OS/2. The Windows
95 installation scripts destroyed all partitions, wiped out the boot
track, and repartitioned the entire hard drive into a single partition
devoted entirely to Windows 95. Windows 95B introduced FAT-32 as a
way prevent owners of PCs with larger hard drives from being able to
create multiple partitions on a single drive.
Ironically, OS/2 had better security, but by the time Windows 95 users
realized that ANYONE could read ANY file on their hard drive, it was
too late. Microsoft signed IBM's final offer just 15 minutes prior to
the unveiling of Windows 95. Perhaps they signed because IBM had
notified the Federal Trade Commision that Microsoft was about to
falsely advertise IBM's support for Windows 95 even though there was
no such contract with IBM. Microsoft might have wanted better terms,
but Microsoft was up against the wall. Eventually, Microsoft got what
it really wanted, IBM stopped selling OS/2 entirely, offering it only
to existing OS/2 customers who needed to expand or upgrade their
existing OS/2 workstation installations.
Perhaps one of the other little problems was that IBM was not bound by
the strict nondisclosure agreements that so many of the other OEMs had
signed. IBM could tell their story to federal investigators looking
at the contempt of court cases as well as the Antittrust trials in the
United States, Europe, and Asia. IBM has played a key role in several
of these antitrust cases.
IBM also retaliated openly by offering Linux and investing $1 billion
in Linux in 1997, and bumping that up to over $3 billion per year by
2003. Today, IBM makes more off of Linux than it makes from Windows.
IBM also decided to dump it's money losing PC business, selling it's
Thinkpad and Aptiva lines to Lenovo, and offering Linux on ALL
Intellistation workstations.
> `----
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38666
>
> Secret deals MS uses to control PC companies
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | MDAs are not discounts from royalty rates, Norris adamantly maintained,
> | but "a vehicle that Microsoft used in order for us to perform
> | activities that benefited them in many ways. It was a vehicle
> | that also gave royalty reductions that imposed costs on the
> | PC manufacturer, in order to attain the royalty reductions.
> `----
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/10/secret_deals_ms_uses/
I love these "Smoking Gun" memos. Of course all of these were
exhibits in the DOJ Antittrust case, as well as several of the states'
antitrust cases, but were not given much coverage compared to the 25
witnesses called to testify before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
Unfortunately, when the Bush Administration took restructuring off the
table, Judge Kollar-Kotelly could only leave the door open to related
lawsuits by limiting her remedies to the anticompetitive practices
mentioned in direct testimony. I think it was her hope that Microsoft
would be deluged with secondary lawsuits, including enforcement of
laws involving fraud, extortion, blackmail, and sabotage, as well as
federal laws against collusion, such as the Clayton Act.
Microsoft has had to pay nearly $2 billion/year in lawsuits and
settlements, and has become a wide open target for prosecutors all
over the world, but Microsoft still gets $20 in revenue for every
dollar paid in legal fees and settlements, proving that crime DOES
pay. Bill Gates has followed the strategy of Meyer Lansky, the
gambling kingpin who found that it was almost always more profitable
to pay off everybody than to fight, either in gangland wars with guys
like Al Capone, or even communist dictators like Fidel Castro.
[snip]
|
|
