Chris Wenham is the Editor In Chief of OS/2 e-Zine! -- a promotion from Senior Editor which means he now takes all the blame.

Related Articles
Death Of A Thousand Promises

Piracy

Lash Back! - Join in the ongoing public discussion with our interactive forum. Be frank, be vicious, you can even be anonymous.

- or -

Blast Back! Send a private message directly to Chris Wenham with your thoughts:

Contact OS/2 e-Zine!

Go to a Printer Friendly version of this page

Mining For The Mother Lode

Summary: Where can we expect new software for OS/2 to come from in the future? What's the most likely source? A look into three possibilities.

It would not be wrong for an OS/2 publication to say once in a while: "Aw heck, what are we going to write about next year?" because the fact is, that's what I've been asking myself recently. By this time next year there will be even less commercially produced new software for OS/2, barring a miracle of course (which could happen and will be the topic of another column). This means less to do, less to try, and less to write about. Where is the excitement going to come from in 1999?

In addition to the status quo, three new possibilities made themselves apparent, three that might yield the mother lode of new software for OS/2. One is a program you can download, the next is a technology, and the last is more like a philosophy and attitude. To appraise you of their chances, I've ranked and listed them in reverse order of likeliness. Going from least likely all the way down to a sure thing. Read on.

Status Quo

Likeliness: Abysmally Low

This is the control group. The "do nothing different" option. We keep looking for new software made by OS/2 vendors trying to make a profit in the OS/2 market. But is the OS/2 market really supporting these kind of companies anymore? By the looks of things, no. Take it from the guy who gets all the press releases; the trickle of new software for OS/2 is going down. Most of what's coming are shareware titles and upgrades to existing programs.

In my September 1st rant I suggested that there may be some companies and products that can survive in an OS/2 market, developed by conventional means, selling by conventional means, profiting by conventional means. Maybe. But as I also pointed out in that column, it's very hard to tell who they are.

I give this an Abysmally Low rating because I'm not seeing any signs of the trend being reversed. Commercial software written specifically for the home and small business OS/2 user is not making money for most companies. What is being made is usually written off as a "customer loyalty" expense or to secure a larger deal. We're riding on the coattails of bigger things, and sooner or later, we're going to get shrugged off even that.

Win32-OS/2

Likeliness: Medium

Wave a magic wand and poof! Your Windows 95 applications are magically converted into native OS/2 programs that need no emulator or space-consuming Windows subsystem. Just a few support libraries. Is this a great thing or what?

But let's look at it this way: The applications you convert weren't written for OS/2, can't take advantage of OS/2's best, come from companies that still don't care about OS/2, and negate the support warrantee at the same time. If it works it'll introduce a flood of software that forces vendors of native OS/2 software to compete against products from companies with larger budgets and who barely even know we're here. Is this a good thing?

That was the core of the debate against putting Windows 95 support in OS/2. Luckily for OS/2 vendors, Win32-OS/2 is not yet capable of converting a serious enough number of applications to be a threat. But what do they do when it can? Will the market for truly native OS/2 applications be decimated, or will vendors simply have to get better and compete? Win32-OS/2 could heal the wound it simultaneously inflicts, because if it seriously makes OS/2 a compelling alternative for Windows users, as Timur likes to suggest, then the increase in users might make the OS/2 market profitable again for OS/2 vendors to stay and duke it out. But if it doesn't, then you and me could be left feeling like second class citizens.

Win32-OS/2 doesn't seem to be developing fast enough to make this future happen, however, and that's why I place its likeliness at Medium. The technical issues are still enormous and the Windows API may shift too quickly to make it a long-term solution, just as WinOS/2 is not much of a solution anymore now.

Java

Likeliness: Good

Buy a faster chip, buy more RAM, and Java performance doesn't matter anymore. Well to a point it's ceasing to matter much today. I wasn't kidding when I said J Street Mailer was an eye-opener, it is. But then I wouldn't attempt to run it alongside the Java versions of AOL Instant Messenger or ICQ, both of which are tiny programs in comparison, but weigh heavy on your system.

I list Java here because it has the whole weight of IBM bearing down on it. This is what they want to win. And when a $60 billion dollar corporation wants something to win, it's at least going to have better odds than most others.

But it also has many of the same problems (for the OS/2 market) that Win32-OS/2 does. Java programs don't take advantage of OS/2 features like Workplace Shell integration, and they compete against products from OS/2 dedicated vendors which do. If Java takes off, will it spell an end to unique OS/2 applications?

But then Java is not making much speed on the desktop right now, so the issue may be moot. Its success has been largely measured in the server market, where Java applications are helping run the scenes behind web sites and factory automation systems. Being ready and available now, I give it a likeliness rating of Medium, as its success is also helped by the much larger and more lucrative "anything outside of OS/2" market. Some killer Java apps for the desktop might be coming soon. If they do, expect more old OS/2 vendors to do what Innoval did, and switch fast.

Free Software

Likeliness: High

Just how profitable is the OS/2 market right now anyway? In the discussion forum for my September 1st rant it was revealed by one shareware author that registrations for his program were miserably small. "So what?" you ask, "I guess his program just wasn't good enough." But then he pointed out how high it was in BMT Micro's top-10 selling shareware for that month. Uh oh. If he's doing so poorly, yet his program was ranked in the Top 10, then that doesn't say much for the rest, does it? This trend is not recent, either. Last year, during one of my last phone conversations with Joel Krautheim of SPG Inc (former developers of ColorWorks for OS/2) he revealed that sales of ColorWorks 2.0 were down to only 40 copies per month, and in his words he had "A year's supply of ColorWorks on my desk". At the June 1997 price, it wasn't enough for the families of a 3-employee company to really make a living on. Yet ColorWorks 2.0 was ranked one of the highest on the list of Top selling apps from Indelible Blue that same month. If Joel was telling the truth, then the vendors of all the other applications on that list shouldn't have been selling much either.

So if there's no more profit in the OS/2 market, does that mean the only software that will continue to be made and updated in the future will be from developers who don't care for a profit? In other words, is free software OS/2's best bet for the future?

Now "Free Software" can mean both freeware and free software (also known as "Open Software"). The distinction being that freeware is usually copyrighted and distributed without source code, but free software is "copylefted" (uses the GNU Public License) and does come with the source code.

Would it work for OS/2? OS/2 itself is a proprietary operating system that you must pay money for and cannot obtain the source code for. Would free software developers pay serious attention to it like they do for truly free platforms such as GNU/Linux and FreeBSD?

There's reason to believe that they will, because the issues most central to the hearts of many free software developers is not so much idealism and information philosophy as its ideal tools and design philosophy. OS/2 is a compelling platform to develop on for its technical merits alone. Plus, with the EMX libraries developed years ago, a staggering amount of software originally developed for Unix is making its way to OS/2. Emacs is one example of an admittedly unsexy but useful application, and an early port of GIMP (a photo processing and painting program, feature-par with PhotoShop) is available now to help fill the hole that the unprofitable ColorWorks left behind.

The most considerable problem with free software under OS/2 right now is the user unfriendliness met when trying to install or set programs up (GIMP requires than you have XFree or some other X Windows server installed, and both require the EMX libraries to be installed).

I give this a High likeliness because it's the one least affected by other companies, market conditions, or a single team of programmers. There is also a flood of software already being made under this philosophy. But in truth it's more like a superset of the above, since a free application could be written in Java or could be quickly ported with Win32-OS/2. Free software comes from developers who either earn their pay some other way (they consult, do custom programming, sell support and so-on) and do not usually write a program unless they have a real personal interest in it. It's also adopted, maintained and improved by other programmers who elect themselves to the task, meaning that the demise of the original creative entity does not affect the future of the program itself.

To end this column I thought about expressing our undying optimism here at the e-Zine!, but thought that'd just wipe off as lip service. Instead I'll say that of all the above, I personally like the idea of Java the best, even if it does mean another hardware upgrade. But emotion wasn't supposed to play a part in this evaluation, only a study of trends.

Have your own ideas for the future of OS/2 software? Join in our discussion forum and talk about it with other readers.