Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Steve Lamb]

Sunday, September 19, 1999, 9:10:57 AM, Ray wrote:
> 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.

    What motivated me was news for a section of OS/2's users who might not
otherwise see that particular report.  Might I direct you my email address and
the address of the list before telling me what is and is not appropriate on
this list.  I'd like to think that the 3+ years I've been on it and the 4+
months I have been hosting it will have taught me a little about what is and
is not appropriate.  Trust me, I've been in a lot of conversations which
haven't been entirely "on topic" but this isn't one of them.

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

    They can discuss them there.  I felt it was relevant, provided the story
and the link for people to follow at their discretion.

> Perhaps just as many that despise Stardock for shoddy products

    Stardock's products shoddy as compared to what, exactly?

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

    Having not used does not bean I haven't followed its downward spiral.  If
nothing else it means I might very well have a perspective many people who
only use it lack.

> 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. 

    cooa is hardly the place as it is nothing more than one big flame war
between people who use OS/2 and people who use Windows.

> There's lots more.

    Then kindly return to them considering it is you who is trying to "correct
people's impressions".

> 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.

    Yes, I am well aware of Hobbes, thank you.  I'm also aware of wuarchive
for DOS/Win, sunsite for Linux and a slew of others.

    None of that does not refute the fact that one of the premiere download
sites of the internet dropped OS/2 support because a lack of interest.  A site
which currently hosts files for Win9x, Linux, WinNT, PDAs, Win3x, Mac, BeOS,
and more.

    BeOS is even getting more attention, development and support than OS/2.
BeOS, a brand spanking new OS that started on Mac hardware.


> 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.

    I also know quite a bit about Stardock.

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

    Again, I find it funny that people call such things as this as "flames".
Nono, flames, sir, is when there are multiple references to the possible
illegitimate birth of the opponent to a member of the canine species as well
as other lovely slurs.

    Keep things about PMMail.  Considering PMMail's base OS is/was OS/2, a
large portion of the users are still using OS/2, and that this is information
pertaining to the inside of IBM's further failures to support its OS, I'm not
quite sure how much more relevant you want it to be!

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

    Then I question why you didn't make your message private.

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