Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Darin McBride]

On Sat, 18 Sep 99 21:47:22, John Drabik wrote:

>
>On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:43:45 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
>Really, is there any need to quote markhb's FUD on this list?
>
>For those who haven't noticed, I offer the following points for your
>approbation:
>	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.

You've been reading too much of Tim Martin's fantasy world.

>	2) Nobody is saying why the negotiations failed, but here are
>some possibilities:
>		A) IBM still makes a ***LOT*** of money off of OS/2. 
>I doubt that a company as small as Stardock could have made it worth
>IBM's while.

If this were true, IBM would offer the client themselves.  They aren't.

>		B) Recent sales figures from IBM show significantly
>better than expected OS/2 sales.

When you're expecting a decline of 10%, and only get a decline of 7.5%,
that's "better than expected".  Watch how you read this stuff.

>		C) Release of the software to Stardock would have
>jeopardized IBM's proprietary property.  They already got their heads
>chopped off by B. Gates.  Why should they allow Stardock to do it
>again.

There were two points IBM got chopped by Gates.  First was DOS - but
there was no IBM code there.  Second was OS/2, but MS wrote about 30%
of it.  Stardock doesn't fit the analogy on either one.

>		D) Corporate customers would have been extremely
>disturbed if OS/2 was released into the consumer market - they want
>industrial-grade software, and OS/2 delivers.  They are our best
>friends for keeping OS/2 alive, but also our worst enemies, for
>screaming every time IBM takes a leap at the home market.

??? This makes no sense.  Corporate customers don't care who else is
using the software they use - as long as it does its job for them. 
Stardock would have handled the SOHO/home user, IBM would continue to
take care of the corporate.

>	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.

Ah yes - it easily dwarfs Linux.

Um?

>	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.

Can I put my hands on a new CD that is Y2K ready and has drivers for my
>4GB (E)IDE drive, and has Java 1.1.x (x>=6) on it?

>	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?).

Minor detail, but OS/2's scheduled end of service is March 2002 ... for
WSeb.  Warp 4 is sometime in 2001.

>	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?

You're just ranting here - this has nothing to do with whether OS/2 is
dead or not, only whether it is needed or not.

>	7) Nobody can answer one simple question for me:  What's in
>it for IBM?

Cheap handling of SOHO/home users - Stardock will handle their
problems.

>	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?

>	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.

Compared to the size of a Linux user's *regional* meeting, I'm not sure
I should be convinced.  It's nice to see, but, come on, let's get a
grip here - is it really that big?

>	10) In effect, CORBA 3 could handle most of the
>SOMObjects-to-OS/2 situation.  Work with the KDE folks for the last
>pieces.  And get read for a lot of work.  As for EA's, the changes
>necessary to the Unix file system would be extensive, and probably
>not necessary.  EA's work for OS/2 because they were designed in from
>Day One - with Linux, there is no such pressure for attaching "things
>of interest" to a file, and it isn't clear that developers would rush
>to support them.  WorkPlace Shell for Linux would be nice - download
>the KDesktop source and have at it.  But remember:
>		A) It's gonna take a lot of work
>		B) It's not clear that many developers will use it
>anyway
>		C) If you think it's tough finding quality OS/2
>developers, just TRY to find a combined "quality OS/2 AND quality
>Linux" programmer - and that's the kind of people you'll need for the
>project.  If you haven't been into the Linux RPMs and source tree,

RPMs/source tree aren't important at all.  Especially not the RPMs. 
You can distribute as a tarball and let the distributors figure out how
to get you into an RPM.

>you have no idea how much work it would take to incorporate these
>OS/2 features into Linux.  Personally, I'd rather see JFS for Linux
>(yeah, I know, it's on the way), because that fschk at boot time is a
>real time waster.
>	11) If (and that's a BIG IF) OS/2 really has "died", then it
>is due to fumbled, bumbled, jumbled Marketing at IBM.  These are
>people who couldn't work their way out of a wet paper bag with a
>bulldozer.  But please, tell me- has anybody seen ANY significant
>Marketing out of Stardock either?  Maybe IBM saw that there was
>little chance for success in this gambit, lots of chance for failure,

Failure?  Stardock was taking all the financial risks, not IBM...

>and a certain, further, downgrading of their status as the "World's
>Worst Run Second Largest Software Company" - or something like that.
>	12) I like Stardock.  And I love OS/2.  And frankly, I just
>don't see how this situation is bad for our community.  But hey, I'm
>crazy, right?

Something like that.

>Given these points, let's move ahead with getting PMMail out the
>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).
>
>John
>
>>markhb writes "I hate to be the one to submit this story, but the end may
>>finally have arrived for the OS/2 client. Stardock Systems announced today
>>that IBM will not allow them to OEM a client package, and that IBM has no
>>plans for, or strategic interest in, a new OS/2 client. Is anyone ready to get
>>the source for SOMObjects and implement EA's and the Workplace Shell in
>>Linux?"