Bart Silverstrim bsilver at
Thu Jun 19 02:06:53 UTC 2008

Brian Beattie wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 16:44 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Wed, June 18, 2008 4:11 pm, Michael Haney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Steve Lamb <grey at> wrote:
>>>>    Yeah!  And they could call it OS/2!  No, wait, OS/3!
>>> Ah, OS/2 Warp.  Now there was an OS.
>>     Oh yeah.  My OS chain on the x86 was DOS -> OS/2 -> Linux (Slack ->
>> Debian -> KUbuntu).  I bought 3 versions of OS/2.  2.0, 2.(cough) and 3
>> Warp.  It's still in use in places today.  With IBM's backing of Linux I
>> wonder why they don't pull a Sun with OS/2 and open source it.
> Because it has MS code in it.  Originally MS and IBM were collaborating
> on OS/2, it was going to be the follow on to Windows, then MS decided it
> wanted complete control and developed WINT.

I'm not sure it's MS code; I think the excuse was the OS/2 has code from 
other sources in it and IBM refused to untangle the various licensed 
code from different sources in order to do it.

After MS/IBM split on the project, you may remember a version of OS/2 
with the ability to run Windows applications if you owned Windows...the 
code was separate. It's all IBM and their other licensor's.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list