Leaked memo (was Re: HTML Rendering in PMMail/2)

[Thomas Bradford]

Hi There,

I don't know where it came from, who wrote it, and have never seen this
message.   Please let me see the header of said message, including IP
address and originating SMTP server - and be sure to post it to
pmmail@rpglink.com.   ;-)))

Thomas






On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:26:26 +0100 (BST), Simon Bowring wrote:

>An allegedly leaked memo, possibly from a BSW programmer has recently 
>appeared, this is my take on it - I am copying the message to TB!
>
>Wow! Assuming this is genuine (and I've no reason to think it's not)...
>
>>It now appears that the small but vociferous band of such users would 
>>indeed pay for such upgrades but that the enhancements they are 
>>demanding would be uneconomic even if they were each prepared to pay 
>>$500 for the upgrade. 
>Sadly, this could easily be true (I believe it)!
>
>>It was further suggested that a if we maintained the goodwill of the OS/2 
>>users when they eventually converted to Windows they would all purchase 
>>PMMail 2000. From reading the mailing list it is abundantly clear that the 
>>Pope is more likely to convert to Mormonism than most of the members of 
>>the mailing list are to convert to Windows. 
>
>Can't argue too much with that - some OS/2 users will of course 
>ultimately convert to windows (as many have done) and some to Linux
>(ditto), some will convert to BeOS, and possibly some will even convert 
>to operating systems TBD!
>
>>Let me now turn to the Windows version of a PMMail. You have been 
>>unable to cite a single instance of a purchaser of this version who was not 
>>a previous user of the OS/2 version. 
>
>There are 2 here - we have 3 PMMail users in our company, me (OS/2 only) and 
>two PMMail/2000 for Windows users who *never* had the OS/2 version - only 
>one of them has even run OS/2 before!  
>
>If BSW had converters to import Outlook's emails and addresses, I would
>have recommended that all our (30-ish) Windows users migrated to 
>PMMail/2000 (since I am in charge of virus countremeasures, Outlook 
>consititutes our biggest risk-exposure to viruses, and no AV tools 
>are up to the job of detecting new Outlook email worms before its 
>"too late".
>
>>The supply of these "heretics" now seem to be exhausted and I simply 
>>do not see how it will be possible to persuade any significant number 
>>of Windows users to pay any significant sum of money for a mail client 
>>when there are several perfectly satisfactory mailers available free. 
>
>If BSW marketted the software(!), especially as a means of protecting
>users against Outlook targetting viruses (the most common and dangerous), 
>I think they could sell on that alone, add PGP to that and you have another 
>reason to use it.  I wonder if they've tried approaching AV companies like 
>NAI and Sophos etc?
>
>>While I take your point that when OS/2 users are finally driven to the 
>>conclusion that the operating system is dead they could probably be 
>>persuaded to change to an other operating system as long as it didn't have 
>>any connection with Microsoft do we really want to get involved with 
>>Linux? 
>
>If you're serious about being in the software business and you ignore 
>Linux, then...you are not serious about being in the software business!
>Any sensible port to Linux would effectively mean you can support almost 
>any flavour of Unix at the drop of a hat, and there is a shortage of 
>good GUI email clients on Unix!
>
>>It appears that the main attraction of this operating system is that it 
>>is non commercial and appeals to those that like to tinker; 
>Also it appeals to technical people (not at all the same as "tinkerers") and
>people with a serious Computer Science background who understand what an 
>operating system should deliver - agreed Linux in its current form does 
>not appeal to "ordinary" non-technical computer users (i.e. most Windows 
>users). This may change, or it may not, either way Unix has been, is and 
>will continue to be the choice of OS for a great many serious/professional
>computer users.
>
>>those that have tried to make money out of it have almost universally failed.
>Its early days yet, but of course if they don't port to Linux, they certainly
>won't attract Linux users!  To attract the linux community, they need only 
>release a free version - they could charge for an enhanced or more capable 
>version.  They may even be able to sell to the Linux suppliers like Red Hat,
>Caldera, SUSE etc.
> 
>>The biggest danger of of this strategy is that Microsoft, on the off-chance 
>>that they might be able to make some money out of it, could embrace 
>>Linux. 
>Or MS could switch to making hamburgers - only slightly less likey than
>embracing Linux, which would deprive them of their main strategy - 
>generating "lock-in" to their products via "embrace and extend".
>This is also a non-agrument:  MS can, have and will continue to turn 
>their attention to all/any parts of the software industry that they think
>may be profitable. When MS do embrace a new application or market area, 
>they do put other (especially small) companies out of business "overnight" 
>any company that sells any applications is exposed to the same "danger".
>
>If this message is genuine, and if it originates from
>a programmer, it makes me think that:
>
>a) The programmer(s) are "Windows Programmers" (and not "Programmers")
>b) The sources are in a mess
>c) The progammer(s) really don't like the s/w they are maintaining - this 
>   is a serious concern and a recipe for disaster - it may be because the
>   sources are genuinely in a bad mess, or it could be that the programmers 
>   are crap or some combination of both.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Simon Bowring
>
>