Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Steve Lamb]

Sunday, September 19, 1999, 10:50:36 AM, Ralph wrote:
> I have no problem with you posting the story but I would suspect that
> your motivation had as much to do with raising a controversy as it did
> with presenting a public service.

    Considering my first post was just the story and the cite how can my
motivation be anything but informational?

> Besides, maybe if Southsoft were convinced that OS/2 was dead they'd develop
> for Linux or BeOs instead. (They are your current favorites, right?)<g>

    I really don't like BeOS.  I'm also no longer using PMMail.  Quite
frankly, I've given more thought into programming my own than waiting for
someone else to do it.  Furthermore the last recommendations I made to Bob in
private was to not do Linux.  In fact, only yesterday in a response to John
did I say the following:

-----

    While I agree with you that there isn't anything worth a damn on Linux
right now, I'm not sure if PMMail is it.  While it is strong in many areas, it
is weak in others.  PMMail development in general, needs to get back on track.
The recent move by B/I will do that.  It will be time, however, before they
should even think about breaking into the Linux market.

-----

    Not exactly words from someone you'd think is wanting development on a
client for Linux right this instant, is it?

> As compared to WPS enhancers which don't cause a myriad of problems
> with other sofware...  As compared to companies which provide ongoing
> bug fixes instead of unfulfilled promises... etc...

    The last time I checked Stardock was providing plenty of bug fixes.  Of
the products I bought from them I got bug fixes well beyond what other
commercial vendors normally do, into the years instead of just months.

> Ahh, the old 'Ignorance is Bliss' argument.  What could be more
> valuable than the opinion of an OS from someone who hasn't used it for
> years. <g>

    It doesn't take someone who uses the OS actively to be able to see the
signs of its decline.  I've kept tabs on my old haunt of OS/2.  Check deja.com
to see just how much I evangelized OS/2 when I used it.  I would love to
install it again but there is just no reason.  Support has declined, companies
have continually broken promises, IBM hasn't done anything to really help the
situation at all.  In fact, they continually kill any effort in reviving it at
all.

> Absolutely meaningless.  What difference does it make whether there are
> 2 or 200 sites for downloading OS/2 software.  How many sites are
> needed, anyway?

    A few as people have different tastes.  Considering, however, that TUCOWS
is one of the major sites on the net it is a good indicator of what OSs are
"alive" and which are not.

> I tried Tucows for a while and found their selection extremely limited and
> out of date so what do I care if they abandoned their substandard efforts. I
> have tens of thousands of OS/2 files available to me for download from
> several readily accessible sites.

    I do believe I cited a "lack of interest" as the reason TUCOWS shut down
the OS/2 section.  TUCOWS only puts up what is submitted.  If the OS/2
community didn't submit then that would be, by definition, a lack of
interest, would it not?

> Another meaningless argument.  BeOs only has a fraction of the quality
> software available to it that OS/2 already has.

    Funny, that is the battle cry of the Windows crowd.  I never thought that
OS/2 pundants would use it so readily.

> But if you're in to meaningless statistics, consider the fact that one major
> search engine lists approx 78,000 entries for BeOS while listing 483,000 for
> OS/2.

    Watch it change each time you check, BTW.

> (BTW, BeOS is hardly "brand spanking new" having been around for about 10
> years or so.)

    10 years ago is 1989.  In 1989 I moved to Sacramento.  The first few
months were spent in an apartment.  Then we moved to a house on Bradford Dr.
During my time on Bradford I started a BBS, got my first PC and installed OS/2
2.0 1 day after it was released.  That was *MAYBE* 90 or 91.  OS/2 has been
around about 10 years or so.  Well, the v2.0 or greater series, anyway.  Who's
counting 1.x since it bears little resemblance to OS/2 of today?

    BeOS, on the other hand, didn't pop up on my radar until R2 I'd say, ohhh,
maybe 2 years ago, tops.  Oddly enough, here is a snippet from Be's webpage.

-----

"On July 14th 1997 Be shipped the first public, commercial release of BeOS for
PowerPC, BeOS Preview Release. Preview Release 2 shipped later that year, in
October 1997."

-----

    October 1997, PR2 was shipped.  First public release earlier in 1997.
That makes BeOS a whopping 2 years old.  Maybe you were thinking of Linux
which turned 8 years on Friday.  Well, v0.01 was 8 years old.  It wasn't until
the late .90 series that it really started to pick up steam and move into
something resembling what it is today.

    Now, given the past few paragraphs, might you want to rethink that jab
about the ol' "Ignorance is Bliss" argument and the "What could be more
valuable than the opinion of an IS from someone who hasn't used it for years."

    You're forgetting, I did use the OS for years and considering your thought
BeOS was 10 years old, which is the approx. age of both OS/2 and Linux, I'd
say that my position on the comparative merits of different OSs is a little
better informed than yours, if not as personal and specific.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------