Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Heinz Mueller]

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:37:15 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

> Saturday, September 18, 1999, 2:47:22 PM, John wrote:
> > Really, is there any need to quote markhb's FUD on this list?
> 
>     It is of relevance to some people on the list.  Further, he is just
> providing a link to what *has* been said by one of the people who is in the
> know.
> 
> > For those who haven't noticed, I offer the following points for your
> > approbation:
> 
>     For those who didn't look at the link, I'll counter.
> 
> >         1) Stardock, while performing some valuable work for the OS/2
> > community, has wanted a cheaper ride to glory for quite some time
> > (who doesn't?).  The posted result has no impact on this community. 
> > And the advertising isn't surprising.
> 
>     Stardock, the last time I looked, had been pushed into that position by
> the OS/2 community.  There were a large number of people who had always made
> mention that OS/2 would be good under Stardock.

What would have benn a tragedy on itself. I'm not shure if Stardok
would be able to face the quality requierements of the OS/2 Community.

So nothing is new.

If you need a client, take a WSeB and install it without the server
point.

OS/2 is there, where IBM wanted. It's in the large Business, where roi
is the most important thing.
OS/2 is not positioned in a Market, that needs Standard - Applications.

So if you need these Office thingies and these Corel Draw thingies,
take a M$ client.

If not, you can save yourself much time using StarOffice.
It will give power enough for the next 10 years.

The Problem is not the power of the software, but the fear of the
users, using outdated software, so that somebody could tell not to be
uptodate or a looser.

There is nothing, that makes an animated Video Presentation better than
a conventional one, it's only more straining.

> 
> >         2) Nobody is saying why the negotiations failed, but here are
> > some possibilities:
> 
>     Somebody is saying it.  This was part of the link provided.
> 
> ----
> 
> From: "Brad Wardell"
> Subject: Judgement Day results
> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:46:45 -0400
> Lines: 50
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> Message-ID:
> Newsgroups: stardock.os2
> Path: prospero.stardock.com
> Xref: prospero.stardock.com stardock.os2:2342
> NNTP-Posting-Host: brad.stardock.com 209.69.142.81
> 
> In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected
> plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users
> and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with IBM
> to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client available.
> 
> To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened
> negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually
> it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on proceeding.
> 
> For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together in
> hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential names
> down to which minute components would or would not be included. These meetings
> included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives here at
> Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
> 
> With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week
> in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented
> their case to IBM as a whole.
> 
> The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM
> has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
> Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided
> that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license any
> current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
> 
> There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials,
> technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally made
> the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their strategic
> directions.
> 
> Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in
> particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond the
> call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you meet
> folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2, that
> their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a whole
> sets policy.
> 
> Everything that could be done was done.
> 
> Brad
> ---
> Brad Wardell
> Product Manager: Object Desktop & The Corporate Machine
> http://www.stardock.com
> 
> -----
> 
> >         3) Everybody seems to forget that there is still a
> > CONSIDERABLE amount of OS/2 development going on, both inside and
> > outside of IBM.  That includes JFS, Java, and much more.  Come on
> > folks, just look around.
> 
>     When I finally left OS/2 about two years ago there was hardly anything
> going on.  I had OS/2 on my machine for one reason, PMMail.  That was it.  The
> rest of the development was completely uninteresting and was getting nowhere,
> really.
> 
>     I remember when TUCOWS had an OS/2 section.  They were getting maybe 3-5
> submissions a week.  That compared to the sometimes 20-50 submissions a *DAY*
> in other areas, even "weak" ones like Mac and Linux.  TUCOWS, as far as I can
> tell, dropped the OS/2 section because of a complete lack of interest.
> 
> >         4) According to press stories, such as those at
> > Sm@rtReseller, IBM has already effectively released a new client,
> > albeit quietly, with significant feature upgrades.
> 
>     Cites?  I cited my source.  He cited his.  Where are your cites?
> 
> >         5) If OS/2 does die someday (like in 10 years maybe), the
> > OS/2 community is intelligent enough to find good alternatives.  I
> > use Linux a lot (and like it too), but it is not ready for the home
> > market either.  markhb's comments show just a wee bit o'bias in my
> > book (my comments do too, eh?).
> 
>     As stated, markhb was just reporting a post that he had found.  You really
> need to figure out what slashdot is before you go mouthing off about it.
> 
> >         6) The world still needs a strong, proprietary, 32-bit OS
> > (and no, NT aiN'T it).  With NT for the 98-pound computer weaklings
> > out there, Linux for the big boys, and OS/2 in the middle, we get the
> > best of ALL possible scenarios - computing CHOICE!  What the heck is
> > wrong with that?
> 
>     With no support from IBM, there is no choice.
> 
> >         7) Nobody can answer one simple question for me:  What's in
> > it for IBM?
> 
>     What is in *what* for IBM?  What is in a client OS/2?  Nothing.
> 
> >         8) If you think there's no life left, then bail.  Go ahead.
> > It's your computer, and your choice.  But don't FUD the works while
> > leaving, OK?
> 
>     I left ~2 years ago and have not seen any improvement in the community
> since then.  The whole OS/2 community feels like the Amiga community.  Dead,
> just too dumb to know it yet.
> 
> >         9) For those who think OS/2 is dead (again - and again, and
> > again, and again......) get your buns to WarpStock.  See reality in
> > action.
> 
>     Yeah, I read about the last WarpStock.  It was tiny.  So small that it was
> even smaller than some *reagional* Linux meets.  Not much for a worldwide meet
> that was the biggest thing they could muster that year.
> 
> >         11) If (and that's a BIG IF) OS/2 really has "died", then it
> > is due to fumbled, bumbled, jumbled Marketing at IBM.
> 
>     This is about the only clueful thing you have stated in this entire post.
> 
> > But please, tell me- has anybody seen ANY significant Marketing out of
> > Stardock either?
> 
>     Oddly enough, I've seen more out of Stardock for their products, both on
> and off OS/2, than out of IBM for anything other than their Thinkpad series of
> computers which only come installed with Windows.  Considering the comparative
> sizes of the two companies, that says a lot.
> 
> > door, and avoid regurgitating FUD.  On the other hand, PMMail *is*
> > desperately needed for Linux, as there isn't an e-mail client worth
> > its weight in used toilet paper on Linux right now (and that includes
> > the Java packages as well as Netscape and the K package.  Emerald is
> > close, but needs HPFS, and Linux doesn't have HPFS write support
> > out-of-the-box, so it renders Emerald non-portable in everyday use,
> > especially on a boot-managed system).
> 
>     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.
> 
>     I can't think of any Windows client that would be good on Linux because
> all of them take the wrong approach for overall development.  Only 2-3 take a
> good approach to mail, which is what the Unix community lacks.  They take that
> approach in the wrong way and that will only hinder them.
> 
> -- 
>          Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
>          ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
> -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 


yours

Heinz Mueller. webmaster@os2-oss.de
If you search OS/2 topics, have a look at www.os2-oss.de/search.html

Windows 95: More holes than you can count.

PGP Public Key Fingerprint= 7D73 EA2C 3CA4 9BBE 2120  C5F2 B9F7 6C4A 98ED D85C