HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Path: microsoft!uunet!uunet!usc!rpi!clarkson!clarkson
    From: drxmann@ausvmr.VNET.IBM.COM (Dustin Christmann)
    Subject: Gordon Letwin's Raving
    
    In <1992Mar20.112800.9435@wsl.ie> John J. Allen writes:
    >What's Gordon's problem, why does'nt he just go back to the MessySoft
    >groups.
    
    Well, it's nice to hear the other side of the story.  Unfortunately, more of-
    ten than not, it's unmitigated bull.
    
    Thanx,
    Dustin Christmann

this IBM employee accuses me of "raving", and then asserts that
my postings are often "unmitigated bull".    Perhaps the readership
will repost any of my postings in which I directly and personally
slandered IBM employees.

My file of such stuff goes on and on, but this is enough.

To make things perfectly clear, I don't give a hoot about such "ravings"
and "unmittigated bull", myself.  However, two different IBM lawyers sent
me threatening letters trying to force me off of the net.  This was in
response to my posting about the amount of assembly language in the product.

Note that the civilized way, if you're unhappy with someone's posts, is
to complain to them and ask them to moderate their behavior.  You then
fall back on the legal threats if and only if:

	1) your complaint is valid and your threats are real, and
	2) you've exhausted less drastic means

IBM went directly to the serious legal threats, written to folks who
they assumed were my bosses, hoping to get me fired.  More, they had
no basis for the complaints; their arguments were unmitigated bullshit.

So I sent them a little reply about IBM's postings on the net.  The
above examples are excerpted from page after page of stuff that I sent back.
I said that I had been laughing off the personal attacks by IBM, but
since IBM was talking major damage suits as an appropriate response to
postings then it seemed like a good idea to me...

I never heard back from the IBM lawyer, but I have noticed a quieting
of IBM postings.  Perhaps there's a correlation.

By the way; this has nothing to do with Larry Solomon's departure from IBM.

	gordon letwin
	not a spokesperson for microsoft
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Portable?
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.171832.29416@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>> Incidently, do yourself a favor with NT: don't bother incorporating
>> FAT into the MIPS and Alpha incarnations.  What's the point?
>> (Actually, I'm sure someone will come up with an interesting idea as
>> to why FAT should be supported on NT/Alpha, NT/MIPS.  Thoughts?)
>Simple.  A common floppy format across differen workstations would be
>a great idea.  Suns can read DOS-formatted disks right now.  Macs can.
>Amigas can.  etc.  Heck, even Yamaha synthesizers can read
>DOS-formatted disks!

A Microsoft person kindly pointed this out, to which I replied that
the approach that Apple took (a utility) would make more sense.  Write
a "Microsoft File Exchange" program with the express purpose to
read/write FAT diskettes and that's all you need.  Why bother working
on hard drive SuperFAT (or whatever)?

Unless you felt that allowing DOS applications running in the emulator
access to the floppy disk was of critical importance, but that still
wouldn't require anything more than floppy-only support for FAT.

-- 
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp,     | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from      | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | Tsongas > Perot > Clinton.  Yay.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wang@ibma1.cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Reply-To: wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:59:55 GMT

>In article <bcgm#lk.jeffc@netcom.com> jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen) writes:
>>Borland's ObjectVision 2.0 for OS/2 2.0 is now shipping, and it's 32-bits.
>>Lotus will ship 32-bit OS/2 versions of all their products.  I've seen a
>>demo of a beta version of Freelance by a Lotus rep, and I was impressed.
>>32-bit versions of 1-2-3 and AmiPro are also forthcoming.  So is
>>WordPerfect 6.0.  No, they're not in the stores yet, but they are
>>coming.

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     So with the exception of ObjectVision, all of the above are
>vaporware, yes?  And with the logic usually used on this group, none
>of them should effect any decisions made today, correct?

Precisely.  In other words, saying "Don't go out and buy Microsoft Excel
n.0 for Windows right now because Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 1.0 will be out
real soon" would be an eminently vaporous statement, and Lotus or PC Mag
would get flamed if they said it.

>    Sorry, couldn't resist.  This whole double standard thing is
>just too annoying.

I don't see any double standard in this case.  You are perfectly
entitled to say "Many major software vendors are porting their flagship
apps to NT, which demonstrates vendor support for NT", and probably even
the most ardent OS/2 supporters would (however grudgingly) accept this
as fact.  The above statement is equal to this one, s/NT/OS\/2/g.

Now, if Lotus managed to somehow get PC Magazine to constantly plug
1-2-3 for DOS, and occasionally interject "Well, we gotta admit that MS
Excel for Windows is superior to 1-2-3 DOS in just about every way --
but it DOESN'T MATTER!! because 32-bit 1-2-3 for OS/2 will be here RSN!!
and it will be better than MS Excel! so you can just ignore MS Excel and
wait for 1-2-3 OS/2", *then* 1-2-3 OS/2 would be vaporware.  The key
phrase here is "wait for".  If X and Y both exist, and the statement
"Y > X" is being used to make people buy Y instead of X, then that's
just good marketing.  But if Y doesn't exist, and the statement "Y > X"
is being used to prevent people from buying X, then Y is the bad kind of
vaporware that attracts long threads of flames.

As far as I know, Lotus hasn't tried to wield its 1-2-3 OS/2 spec sheet
as a marketing tool to cajole users into ignoring MS Excel, they've
merely announced that the upgrade is underway.  Had MS simply announced
that it was working on NT, and then quietly gone and DONE IT, nobody
would be flaming NT as vaporware.  It's the repeated insistence, from
numerous sources, of the superiority of NT's spec sheet to OS/2's actual
capabilities that causes raised hackles (and no small number of
unthinking flames from the pro-OS/2 camp).

In sum, I don't see sufficient parallels between these vendors'
announcements of upgrades to their products and MS/ZD's usage of NT vs
OS/2 to justify your "double standard" remark.  If you made a pro-NT
statement analogous to the one quoted above, I would have no problem
with it.

Eric Wang
wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
From: dliechty@novell.com (Don Liechty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:06:24 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Novell, Inc., Provo, UT, USA

In article <1992Jul27.161801.3357@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
>Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
>Date: 27 Jul 92 16:18:01 GMT

>In article <1992Jul24.010711.1625@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>>
>>As far as I understand, there's not a way in OS/2 to implement fork().

>Correct, although the functionality of fork() exists in the form of
>two separate API calls: DosCreateProcess, and DosCreateThread (I think
>those are the names).  One launches a new program, and the other
>begins a parallel thread of execution.

>The Unix fork() combines thse.  When a process does a fork(), a second
>thread is launched.  The second thread executes the same code as the
 ^^^^^^

 Not quite true.  It is not a thread, it is a seperate process identical
 to the first.

>parent, and from the same instruction.  The only difference is that
>the child gets a 0 as a return value from fork(), and the parent gets
>the process ID of the child.  If the child executes another program
     ^^^^^^^
 
 Correct!

>(via exec(), which replaces the calling process with the program just
>called), then you've just launched a new process.  If the child
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^

 The new process was created at the time of the fork, and then replaced
 by exec().

>branches to a procedure, you've just launched a new thread.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^

 Again, it is not a thread. It is a seperate process identical to
 the first, which could  have a different path of execution based on 
 whether the return code is the process ID of the child (in the case of the
 parent) or 0 (in the case of the child). That is precisely why they call 
 them parent and child (processes).


>Obviously, there are some other differences, but this is why OS/2
>can't fork().  

>-- 
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.

 The concept of a thread historically has not existed in UNIX, but I 
 have heard that later versions (System V 4.2 ??) do support threads.
 Anyone know for sure?

Don Liechty
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:52:08 GMT

In article <157khiINNj04@ftp.UU.NET> ms-isv@ftp.UU.NET ( ISV Archive) writes:
>
>Alistair Banks, Microsoft Systems Division

I note that Alistair is coming on-line. Now that we have alienated
just about every MS employee we ever saw, let's take good care of
alistair.

I have been following his postings on comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,
and he is full of facts and information; he basically seems to be a nice
guy.

Also, he had this great posting recently: "You may take this as an
official MS statement; I don't normally include disclaimers in my
postings." Way to go!

Eirik
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: A happy user!  One more I've seen the light story!
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:12:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.192012.4353@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>: Full-screen WIN-OS2 apps will all run in separate sessions if they are
>: started from the WPS desktop.  If you want to run multiple Windows
>: apps in the same full-screen session, you must start them from the
>: WIN-OS2 session using Program Manager, File Manager (not included -
>: import this from a Windows 3.0 installation), or other application
>: which can launch programs.
>
>This is not TRUE.  You can setup a Win-OS2 program to startup in the same
>session as the first one.  Its a type of session or setting, I don't
>remember which.  Check it out.

This is for Windows-windowed (seamless) sessions.  If you pick a
full-screen session, the check box is grayed, and you must launch a
separate session.  I know.  Since I installed a hi-res driver (and
lost seamless windows), the "run in separate session" box has been
grayed, and isn't selectable.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 22 Jul 1992 13:09 EST  

In article <1992Jul21.231022.5094@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com 
(Gordon Letwin) writes...

[previous stuff deleted]

>You're wrong.  He states that he's comparing DOS 4 to DOS 3.3.  DOS 4.00
>was entirely an IBM product.  (MS produced 4.01, a bug fix release, but
>didn't substantially change anything).

Are you saying that DOS 4.00 was developed and produced entirely by IBM and 
that MS fixed some of the bugs and released the IBM 4.00 + MS fixes as 4.01?
I thought that PC DOS 4.00 was beta Microsoft Code that IBM jumped the gun 
and released.

>I worked on DOS 5 and in the process studied DOS 4 very closely; that
>ridiculous code plus a lot of other sh*t was indeed put in there by
>the brilliant boys in boca.  As you may recall, DOS 4 ballooned in size
>vs. DOS 3.3 yet added little functionality.  It didn't sell well for that
>reason, as well as the bugs that IBM installed.  MS wrote DOS 5 which is
>much smaller and faster (even without HMA).  I remember seeing a project
>planning memo re: DOS 5 which started out, essentially, 
> 
>	"First we rip out all that IBM code"

I get the impression that just the opposite was done by IBM to MS code to 
develop OS/2 2.0.

By the way, since you're intimate with DOS 5, could you tell my why it 
trashes my File Allocation Tables on my ESDI hard drives in a Micronics 386/
25 DX based system?  The MS tech. folks a year ago told me that they knew 
what the problem was (and it was with DOS 5), but wouldn't tell me.

JD
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: nt preview in s.f.
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:42:51 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Stacy John Behrens writes:

SJB>                             I do think that among the F-500, IBM does have
SJB>leg up due to their experience in dealing with other large companies.  MS
SJB>seems to dominate the mass markets with their marketing, but what are they
SJB>going to do with large corporations.  This is really their first crack at a
SJB>serious OS and selling it to the business crowd may cause them fits.  Any
SJB>ideas?  Anyone?  Anyone?

I'd have to agree  with you there. When  I worked with small  systems, I
was amazed at MS's understanding of the marketplace (advertising, sales,
phone support,  etc) compared  to IBM's  total lack  of commitment. What
little commitment IBM had was bogged down in their lunatic  self-imposed
restrictions.

Looking at it now from the corporate level, almost the exact opposite is
true.  IBM  is  in  there,  plugging  away with OS/2, while Microsoft is
delegated to the sidelines, trying to get their act together.

I expect that the next few years should be really interesting.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Have you seen my mind? It wandered again. <sigh>
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3280 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1580
From: sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu (Robert L. Sillett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:38:12 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Epidemiology Data Center, University of Pittsburgh
Originator: sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu


I attended the Win32 Developers Conference earlier this month and
heard Microsoft state over and over how NTFS was so superior to HPFS
and had many, many new features.  We were told repeatedly that NTFS
had to be created, as HPFS just didn't cut it.

So I returned from the conference with my copy of Windows NT and
proceed to install NT on a machine with two hard drives: the boot
drive FAT and the other NTFS.

After playing with Windows NT and Win32 for a couple of weeks, I
decided to replace Windows NT with OS/2 2.0.  Naturally I installed
OS/2 on the primary disk; however, I left the NTFS disk alone for the
moment, with the intention of re-formatting the NTFS drive to HPFS
under OS/2.  Before I re-formatted, I tried to access the NTFS drive,
expecting some sort of error.  Much to my amazement, OS/2 2.0 not only
accepted the NTFS drive (it thought it was an HPFS drive) but also was
able to use the NTFS drive.

Now if NTFS is so different than and superior to HPFS, how could OS/2
2.0 access the drive?  Or is NTFS really a second, more robust,
version of HPFS?  (Obviously Microsoft still sees a use for HPFS as it
is included in Windows NT.)

Please note that I did not make extensive tests on the NTFS drive;
however, I plan to do just that on Monday.  It's quite possible that
OS/2 2.0 can't fully access an NTFS drive; however, I am convinced
that Microsoft is feeding many gleeful users a lot of FUD about how
"new" Windows NT is compared to OS/2.  The more and more I use OS/2
2.0 and Windows NT the more alike they seem.

--- Bob

-- 
| Robert Sillett                  Internet:    sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu  |
| Systems Analyst                 US Mail:     127 Parran Hall               |
| Department of Epidemiology                   130 DeSoto St.                |
| University of Pittsburgh                     Pittsburgh, PA  15261         |
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3438 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1696
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

Normally, one can port fork() into OS/2 API if the purpose is to start up a 
new program (exec() after fork()) or a small procedure (can use DosCreateThread
?). But There are two problems can't be solved easily. 1. Initialised the
main data area and then fork a number of child (The child runs the main
routine). 2. Initialised, print out message, command line checking etc and
then fork a child, terminate the parant, i.e. running in background.

any suggestion?


Yuk

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai)
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:28:23 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>I've been HPFS-only for over three months with no problems.....what can be
>more robust than that?

  I'd like HPFS to fix itself without booting from floppies.  A speedier
chkdsk wouldn't be bad either, but compare to Sun's I'm not
complaining.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:24:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.094508.29104@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>MS, Frame, etc.  If OS/2 looks like it'll sell well, then MS may write 
>apps for it.  However, the general though is that it makes more sense
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to write for Win32 at this point in time.  This is true for a lot of
              ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>App developers.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pete, I really don't know what's your ground on which you can base 
such a **seemingly** self-contradictory statement.  Self-contradictory,
because NT is not available now (the beta is not out yet, I believe).
And you claim that a lot more apps developers are developing for NT
than for OS/2.  Is there a way you can back up such a statement?  Whose
general thought is it anyway?

>
>Oh, yeah, if you really want MS apps for OS/2, get your friends together
>and complain to MS.  However, I think you should want the apps for wanting
>the apps, not to make OS/2 a success.  Seems kind of sleazy to me if you
>request MS apps just to make OS/2 more popular, and then buy other apps.

Well, actually, I don't believe MS do not have guts to develop for os/2 even
if it will make a lot of money for them, simply because MS
developing for os/2 seems to confirm the notion that os/2 is a viable
operating system.  This would be the last thing MS would do.  Then the
huge success of os/2 that is becoming more and more obvious nowadays seems
to signal the fate of MS in os/2 market

Min


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:56:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <bcgm#lk.jeffc@netcom.com> jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen) writes:
>In article <1682C6AE3.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>> 
>>Which is almost laughable when compared to W4W or AmiPro (IMO).  I'll
>>turn this question around and ask which OS/2 apps *aren't* last years
>>apps other than DeScribe.
>
>Borland's ObjectVision 2.0 for OS/2 2.0 is now shipping, and it's 32-bits.
>Lotus will ship 32-bit OS/2 versions of all their products.  I've seen a
>demo of a beta version of Freelance by a Lotus rep, and I was impressed.
>32-bit versions of 1-2-3 and AmiPro are also forthcoming.  So is
>WordPerfect 6.0.  No, they're not in the stores yet, but they are
>coming.

     So with the exception of ObjectVision, all of the above are
vaporware, yes?  And with the logic usually used on this group, none
of them should effect any decisions made today, correct?

    Sorry, couldn't resist.  This whole double standard thing is
just too annoying.

					-Phil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aliasses for CMD.EXE? Please?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:39:48 GMT
Organization: Lule} H|gskolas datorf|rening ( Ludd )

In <1992Jul30.164916.12156@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Unfortunately, OS/2's CMD.EXE doesn't allow aliasses.  heck, the
>DOSKEY program (that comes with DOS 5.0, and the OS/2 DOS emulator)
>will allow aliasses, why can't CMD?

It's a pity indeed. Use .cmd files instead, or (prefereably, I think) use
JP-Software's 4os2, where you have quite powerful alias capabilities.

   _
/Bjorn,

who isn't connected to JP-software in any other way than that I received
my registered 4os2 today. :)
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Impressions of the July NT Release
Keywords: NT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:24:51 GMT

In article <GTR-Vx=@engin.umich.edu> kcurtis@inthehat.engin.umich.edu (Keith Curtis) writes:
>
>I recently installed the July NT release:
>
>
>All of the code, though is either not tuned or just very slow because
>of NT's overhead.  NT takes my 486-50 with 16 megs and turns it into
>an 8086.  It is not at all usable in a work environment, if you are
>planning on using any DOS or Win-16 apps.

I just read a post in an earlier thread that stated NT was "snappier"
than OS/2, one reason NT will succeed.

The Internet is getting no better than reading the gossip columns in
our *favorite* mags!



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
"I support youth all over the world."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy