alt.hn

3/12/2026 at 1:27:19 PM

ArcaOS 5.1.2 (based on OS/2 Warp 4.52) now available

 https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos-5-1-2-now-available/

by speckx

3/12/2026 at 2:16:38 PM

It's been super amazing to see how much they could continue to support newer hardware and keep it going considering that I don't believe they have the kernel source.

It wasn't too long ago I saw OS/2 on some ATM machine that was crashed.

I used to love OS/2 back when developing DOS applications (since I could crash the app and not the machine). OS/2 got me interested in "real OS's" and then SunOS in college, etc.

by rcleveng

3/12/2026 at 5:31:16 PM

Up til 20 years ago there were a surprising number of ATMs still running OS/2; NCR and Diebold supported old machines for a long time. Especially small market/small regional banks wanted to get the absolute most out of their capex investment. Over the years, I've worked with a couple of those dead-enders on different GRC projects, mostly because I'd actually seen OS/2 before. AFAIK, those vendors stopped supporting OS/2 in the 2000s; I'd be very, very surprised if there were any left now.

I you're interested in how a very "not Unix" operating system is architected, I really recommend Deitels' "Design of OS/2". Very interesting.

by kjs3

3/12/2026 at 2:25:23 PM

I have heard that many times. Is it know why, if true?

Seems to ve very weird that IBM will give them a license to keep OS/2 updated but no access to the kernel.

by kwanbix

3/12/2026 at 2:39:37 PM

It's definitely true that they do not have access to the original OS/2 source - this has been confirmed by people from Arca Noae in various interviews/presentations I've seen. I've never heard a definitive explanation for why, but two reasons are usually speculated:

1) Due to the amount of third party code in OS/2 (most notably, the DOS and Win 3.x layer) that IBM is unable to license out the code, or unwilling to go to the trouble to figure out the legal implications.

2) IBM has lost some or all of the source code.

by ch_123

3/12/2026 at 3:33:02 PM

You couldn't convince me that IBM lost it..

The licensing would be my guess, Microsoft owned some of the code, there may have been other third party code in there too.

by TheCondor

3/12/2026 at 4:42:25 PM

Did eComStation also lack access to the source? Weird.

by projektfu

3/12/2026 at 5:14:58 PM

As far as I know, yes. There were no changes made to eCS which required source - everything was implemented as drivers, or layers on top of the base OS.

by ch_123

3/16/2026 at 11:01:16 AM

> this has been confirmed by people from Arca Noae in various interviews/presentations I've seen.

Has it? Do you have any links, please?

I interviewed Lewis Rosenthal of Arca Noae.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/19/retro_tech_week_arca_...

I reviewed ArcaOS.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/04/arcaos_51/

I have not heard or seen any direct confirmation of this anywhere. If you have, I would really like to know. I am looking at a follow-on review and this would be great background info.

> most notably, the DOS and Win 3.x layer

I think what you put in parentheses here is the real reason.

IBM probably still has the source. It seems to be methodical, unlike say Symantec which lost the QEMM and DESQview source.

But IBM and MS co-developed OS/2. MS has joint ownership of this code.

MS has a 50+ year history of being a deeply dishonest and unreliable company. It hates FOSS and only releases what it has to. MS-DOS 4 only got out became someone found it and made it public.

Satnav Nutella has no more understanding of this than the Queen of England. He will do and say whatever is needed to make Number Go Up.

MS releases tiny token gestures to make the incomprehending loud FOSS advocates believe them. Notepad, Calc, ancient DOS releases... nothing that matters.

It won't release Windows 3 because some of that code is still in Windows today.

MS does not love Linux. WSL2 is an embrace-and-extend tactic. If MS had a real clue left then WSL1 would never have been a product: it would have just extended the NT kernel POSIX personality to run Linux binaries.

Remember the core of Windows is the NT kernel and it can natively run OS/2 binaries and Unix binaries.

It doesn't because MS turned it off. NT is a version of VMS with native Unix and OS/2 binary support and a GUI built on Windows 3 code and MS won't let that code out. If it did the ReactOS people could make a ReactOS that was Good Enough. The WINE people could make a seamless one that make .EXEs a 1st class Linux citizen.

MS is terrified of that because it doesn't have the skills to do the equivalent any more, and WSL2 is the existence proof of that. It couldn't even get systemd working in WSL2 until it hired Poettering to do it. Then he stayed there just long enough to get the money and he's off out again.

The reason IBM won't release the OS/2 source, even to Arca Noae, is Microsoft.

by lproven

3/12/2026 at 1:51:08 PM

Who is the target audience for this? I can't imagine that many modern applications support OS/2 the way that they support e.g. MorphOS, and $139 is a steep price for a borderline useless OS that doesn't have a community like the Amiga-derived OSes do.

by koutakun

3/12/2026 at 2:05:40 PM

I couldn’t argue with you, but here’s their answer. The arguments appeal explicitly to people “who remember when”:

> Need more convincing? How about a commercial operating system which doesn’t spy on you, does not report your online activity to anyone, and gives you complete freedom to choose the applications you want to use, however you want to use them? How about an operating system which isn’t tied to any specific hardware manufacturer, allowing you to choose the platform which is right for you, and fits perfectly well in systems with less than 4GB of memory or even virtual machines?

by nothinggoesaway

3/12/2026 at 5:11:31 PM

The doesn't spy on me is indeed a strong argument, considering we can't even properly trust linux distributions nowadays.

by nunobrito

3/12/2026 at 2:09:10 PM

There are roughly three categories:

1) There's a bunch of commercial software which only runs on OS/2. A lot of it was vertically integrated software either developed for a specific customer by IBM, or developed in an "IBM shop". The ticket machines for the New York subway were powered by OS/2 until relatively recently. There are also supposedly a bunch of banks which have OS/2 dependencies.

2) There are still hardcore OS/2 fans who use OS/2 as their main OS. As you correctly assume, getting something like a modern web browser to run on OS/2 is a challenge, but some people grin and bear with it anyway.

3) Strange people like me who run things like OS/2 on spare computers or VMs for the novelty value.

by ch_123

3/12/2026 at 2:30:25 PM

I used to work for IBM and run some servers and my ThinkPad was running OS/2.

Really nice OS. Which it was a more reasonable $50 for personal use.

by kwanbix

3/12/2026 at 5:01:27 PM

Wish not Which

by kwanbix

3/12/2026 at 3:42:42 PM

ArcaOS is great in its own ways, it doesn't phone home, doesn't spy on your files, it's very stable, works on modern hardware, has a working browser, okay, it's not cutting edge, but it's fun and brings some of the joys of old-school computing back.

by natas

3/12/2026 at 4:33:20 PM

How does it do on 4k-screens? Does it even support the (i)GPUs which can power them?

by LargoLasskhyfv

3/13/2026 at 6:30:34 PM

They shall learn from the masters (Microsoft): a pirated version shall be easily available, else people will use alternatives.

by hulitu

3/16/2026 at 11:16:00 AM

> They shall learn from the masters (Microsoft): a pirated version shall be easily available

I think you mean "should" not "shall".

Shall: this is a prediction of the future; this will happen.

Should: this is a recommendation; this is a desirable alternative; this ought to happen.

What you wrote is literally incorrect at present. But if I am right, you meant:

"They should learn from the masters (Microsoft): a pirated version should be easily available."

In which case, you're probably right.

IBM OS/2 is easily available, right up to Warp Server for eBusiness 4.52, the final IBM version.

Also, the first attempt to revive OS/2 is readily available -- eComStation 2.1 is on the Internet Archive. I installed it on a Thinkpad X61 tablet. It worked. I used all 32-bit releases of OS/2 and paid for the first couple (2.0 and 2.1) with my own cash, which I have never done with any other proprietary OS before or since.

I knew OS/2 pretty damned well. I am not skilled enough to get Firefox 45 to install on eComStation. I spent days on it.

Arca Noae really knows its stuff.

Footnote

I am a TEFL/TESOL teacher but not a linguist. I think that the way you use "shall" might have been a valid meaning up until roughly 100 years ago. I am not an expert on historical English usage. However, if you learned from very dated materials, this mistake would make more sense.

by lproven

3/12/2026 at 3:20:16 PM

They could have rebuilt it on top of osFree and have 64bit support.

by fithisux

3/12/2026 at 5:03:33 PM

That would kill half the point.

OS/2 is amazing as a 32bit pmode OS that can still run DOS and Win16 software while being far more stable than Windows (of the time).

by BirAdam

3/12/2026 at 3:22:04 PM

And have an unstable base for the supposed commercial applications they sell to?

by koutakun