Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Ray]

All this is marginal to the topic at best.  And there are other
problems with straying this far off topic, apart from wasting folks'
time.  I don't know what motivated you to post the original bit from
slashdot, but I would like to remind you that there are newsgroups
for this sort of thing.   

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:30 -0700 (PDT), Steve Lamb wrote:

>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:37:15 -0700
>From: Steve Lamb <morpheus@rpglink.com>
>Subject: Re: Death Knell for OS/2 Client
>
>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.  

Relevance, arguably, pertinence none.  Other people here know that if
they want to discuss OS issues there are a host of newsgroups for it.

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.

Perhaps just as many that despise Stardock for shoddy products and
relentless advertising -- spamming via email and on usenet.  This
decision is in fact very likely peripheral to whatever IBM ultimately
might decide, or not.  In any case, some people responded
enthusiastically to Wardell's tireless self-promotion, but at least
as many greeted it with trepidation and disgust.  

You haven't used OS/2 in how long, but you can argue "conclusions"
like the above?

FWIW.  You may be convinced or not, but this isn't the place to
correct people's impressions about what's going on with media and
corporate acceptance of OSes.  Here's one: comp.os.os2.advocacy. 
There's lots more.


>>         2) Nobody is saying why the negotiations failed, but here are
>> some possibilities:
>
snip
>    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.

It's also just as likely they understood, as many OS/2 users do, that
there are only two or three places to look for new development
efforts in OS/2: Hobbes, primarily (also Leo and Norloff).  Hobbes
gets from five to fiteen uploads daily but who's counting?  FWIW.

>
>>         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.

Maybe, maybe not.  You don't seem to know much about Stardock or its
reputation among OS/2 users but it doesn't prevent you defending
them.

Enough flaming for one morning, can we please keep things about
PMMail, and leave off guns and OSes?  

If you like, I'd be happy to discuss Stardock and IBM privately.

-Ray Tennenbaum