Death Knell for OS/2 Client

[Darin McBride]

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:00:40 -0700, Jay Gibberman wrote:

>>>	2) Nobody is saying why the negotiations failed, but here are
>>>some possibilities:
>
>According to Stephen King at Warp Expo West speaking in front of 
>approximately 100 people, Brad Wardell is wrong. No meeting took
>place. It was canceled. He says he should know he is on the committee.

Now *this* is reassuring.

>>>		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.
>
>According to Steven King nearly 100 million.

Is that all?  Is that direct sales, or total?  I have a hard time
believing it is this small since DB2 for OS/2 pulls in nearly this much
by itself (or so I've got the impression - I don't have actual
numbers).

>>If this were true, IBM would offer the client themselves.  They aren't.
>
>According to Mr. King there is an internal policy at IBM that they are
>trying to have resended. The policy is that all client products must be

Rescinded? [not intended as a spelling flame.]

>available in from 28-32 languages. This policy is not in place for server
>products. The reason they may be attracted to using an OEM from which

Yes, this is quite true.  There are a few policies here:

1. Clients must be available in at least as many languages as servers.
2. No regressing of languages without IBM in that country agreeing.

DB2, for example, is server in 13 languages, client in over 20.

>they can buy back, is to get around this restriction. They have also asked
>for a dispensation IBM and Stardock is not the only company being considered.

I'm not (that) choosy about *which* company it is.  :-)

>>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.
>
>Read this, all sales of Warp products and services are up over 120% from
>last year. He could not discuss this quarter's numbers specifically as they
>have not been released but did give the figure above...and your source
>would be?

I never intended to present 10 vs 7.5 as fact, but merely as numbers to
show a point - propaganda in any PR is rampant now as ever, and a
critical (or cynical) mind may prevent you from being sucked into
incorrect assumptions.  "Better than expected" depends on what
expectations are, and is thus a meaningless statement in and of itself.

>>>	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.
>
>About 12 million dollars last year. My source is Steven King. Your source is?

Let's take a look at what $12m is.  Generally, one person for one year
is about $100k.  So what we see is 120 people, for one year, is what
we're paying for.  We have two of those people in DB2 (one being worth
considerably more than $100k, the other considerably less).  There have
to be at least 10 working on Java, ...

>>>	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.
>
>At the moment an Aurora code base client is available to corporations
>through the special services division and can be custom made. This is
>of course not the same as a GA release but it does tend to point to the
>language issue raised earlier as the main release issue. This was one
>of the topics of the session. The service group was charged with moving
>100 major customers to OS/2 based solutions by the end of the year. At
>this point in time they have moved 102 and expect to continue to exceed
>the goal.
>
>>Minor detail, but OS/2's scheduled end of service is March 2002 ... for
>>WSeb.  Warp 4 is sometime in 2001.
>
>At the moment Aurora has announced support until December 2004.
>Warp 5 if there is one, would be the Aurora code base. Steven King
>says they have already made corporate commitments until 2005.

Sorta like how even after v5 of DB2 was released, we had one
contractual commitment for v1 ...

>>>	7) Nobody can answer one simple question for me:  What's in
>>>it for IBM?
>
>The language issue restriction is the reason given by Mr. King.
>
>>>	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?
>
>I would contend that Linux takes a lot more hand holding for the average
>user than does OS/2. But heck what do I know. I only was involved on the
>original port of Xenix which was the first Unix variant to run on a micro computer.
>Then again I would frankly rather run BSDI and am content with a command
>line. I find people's love of Linux amusing. It's OK....I give it two shrugs. I also
>find the need of people to advocate a particular operating system entertaining.
>Use what you like for what you need.

I like Linux because it is more likely, in the long term, to keep me
off Windows.