Indeed. And IBM do, in fact, still make other OSes, contrary to the subhead of the story: zVM/CMS, zOS (MVS), AIX, and whatever they're calling AS/400 these days.
> When there was an architecture change for the PowerPC, many installations only required a regeneration of the installed software.
Unfortunately it wasn't quite that clean in practice. Regen required TIMI to have access to the compilation templates for each program. These were intermediate compilation stages ( bytecode, I suppose ) that it could then translate to the new machine architecture.
However, these templates were often missing, deleted or out-of-sync. So we did an awful lot of recompiling from source, when we could find it...
The thing I find interesting about OS/400 (or whatever it's name is this month) is the single-level store. When your program needs access to the contents of a file, it's just a memory offset. The OS relies on the swapping mechanism to bring those pages into available memory. Which, when you have flat 64 (one could argue 65) bit addressing … why not?
> Or the OS/360 which uses virtualization for all OSs, like Hyper V does on Windows
No, the hypervisor was called VM. According to WP it most frequently ran CMS guests, which was a light weight single-app OS. But could also run OS/360 guests (which predated VM).
Originally it stated "IBM don't make operating systems for a reason". It's hard to have full confidence in the rest of the article when that's what it leads with.
Ars Technica isn't exactly big on fact checking. These days most of their short articles are rewritten press releases, and most of their long articles are personal opinion/recollection written as if it was reportage.
The AREXX error was my mistake. I just read the technology transfer part backwards when I was researching. I've already fixed it in the article and updated it.
The original tagline was "IBM doesn't make operating systems anymore for a reason" which could have been debunked by knowing anything about IBM's product line or about 5 seconds of Googling.
Disclaimer: I'm an Ars subscriber and <3 Ars but when my bullshit detector is already off the charts before the article begins ... it makes me wonder how good the article is.
They probably misread the Wikipedia on OS/2, which says:
> In addition, IBM once made a deal with Commodore to license Amiga technology for OS/2 2.0 and above in exchange for the REXX scripting language.
In other words, IBM licensed REXX to Amiga in return for something else (we don't know what).
But who knows if this is true. Apparently IBM and Commodore already had an IP cross-licensing agreement at the time, and had access to their patents. And AREXX apparently did not contain any IBM code.
I find this hard to believe, given that Rexx was developed by IBM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexx