Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Ralph Cohen]

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:12:28 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>
>    What motivated me was news for a section of OS/2's users who might not
>otherwise see that particular report.  

I have no problem with you posting the story but I would suspect that
your motivation had as much to do with raising a controversy as it did
with presenting a public service.  Besides, maybe if Southsoft were
convinced that OS/2 was dead they'd develop for Linux or BeOs instead.
(They are your current favorites, right?)<g>

>
>> Perhaps just as many that despise Stardock for shoddy products
>
>    Stardock's products shoddy as compared to what, exactly?
>

As compared to WPS enhancers which don't cause a myriad of problems
with other sofware...  As compared to companies which provide ongoing
bug fixes instead of unfulfilled promises... etc...

>
>> 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.
>

Ahh, the old 'Ignorance is Bliss' argument.  What could be more
valuable than the opinion of an OS from someone who hasn't used it for
years. <g>


>> 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.
>

Absolutely meaningless.  What difference does it make whether there are
2 or 200 sites for downloading OS/2 software.  How many sites are
needed, anyway?  I tried Tucows for a while and found their selection
extremely limited and out of date so what do I care if they abandoned
their substandard efforts.  I have tens of thousands of OS/2 files
available to me for download from several readily accessible sites. 
What is the advantage of having 50 sites providing the same thing?


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

Another meaningless argument.  BeOs only has a fraction of the quality
software available to it that OS/2 already has.  But if you're in to
meaningless statistics, consider the fact that one major search engine
lists approx 78,000 entries for BeOS while listing 483,000 for OS/2. 
(BTW, BeOS is hardly "brand spanking new" having been around for about
10 years or so.)


Ralph
rpcohen@neurotron.com