From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.224928.12864@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.230138.274@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>I have not been "trashing OS/2", if you mean by "trashing", sluring
>>it with unfounded put downs. I have however been systematically
>>pointing out its flaws, and in general I have meticulously pointed out
>>my sources.  The care I exhibit in this documentation is rarely
>
>I wish you did the same for NT, pointing out it's flaws. Don't tell me
>it doesn't have some.

First of all, NT is just now entering beta, I did not pick on OS/2 when
it was in beta, why should I pick on NT when it is?  That's the purpose
of a beta.  In terms of things not in NT's design, really only the
lack of character mode serial logins and lack of TCP/IP daemons
strike me as "flaws".

Secondly, I have taken the position that I like NT better than OS/2--Why
am I responsible to defend OS/2's case.

>
>>not sure why you call them flames.  I'm simply in the midst of pointing
>>out a number of problems with OS/2.  Why am I wrong to do this?  I am
>>currently of the opinion that OS/2 is not doing well, I express this
>>opinion, and I provide quotes from many sources to back up my opinion.
>
>I begin to believe that in everything you read/get off Usenet, computer
>newspapers etc. you *want* to see that OS/2 is not doing well and simply
>don't recognize signals which tell the opposite (clearly there are news
>of both kind every day).

I take it you're referring to my "Tidbits from the Trade Rags" posts.
I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I go out of my way
to find good things about OS/2, also.  The problem is there is
very little such news being reported there.  While I may have
access (and reason to read) more such trade rags than most, surely
there are tons of people out there with access to at least of the
rags I quote... why aren't they posting the ones I don't "see"?

>
>>no reason, I believe I have plenty of reason to pick on IBM, and
>
>Really? I hope you accept that quite a few more people here have also
>plenty of reasons to pick on MS. :-)

I see no lack of picking on MS in this group.

>
>>My feeling is that the quiet readers in this group, can take my statements,
>>my sources, and those postings from others and make their own decisions.
>
>I turned into a quiet reader recently and *did* my decisions, but not
>the ones you expect me to do.

The purpose of a debate is to attempt to pursuade, persuasion means the
other guy has free will... why would I "expect" you to take my view point.
Obviously I hope you will, but I don't "expect" it.

>
>>Windows 3.1 than OS/2.  I believe that Windows NT is the future.
>>I am more and more convinced that OS/2 is irrelevant... in some
>>since this should cheer you up, soon I won't care enough about OS/2
>>to knock it. :-)
>
>I think quite a few readers here would appreciate it much if you would
>to that immediately and create comp.os.win-nt ASAP. An please don't tell
>me that many others here appreciate any information about NT - nobody
>would prevent them from reading comp.os.win-nt!

Haven't you seen the posting someone made surveying the advocacy groups?
They're either dead, or filled with the advocates for two or more sides
debating.

>
>>I'm insufferable?  IBM sends a ridiculously flawed letter out to
>>developers, I post it verbatim... who gets yelled at? Me!
>
>Brian, that letter (and you post of it) made me laughing about you,
>sorry that I have to say that. 
>
>a) you should carefully read what other companies write
>
>b) I prefer letters which have some mistakes but tell useful information
>   over letters that are written in perfect English but contain 
>   advertizing and self-praise *only*

That letter had over 20 punctuation, spelling, and grammar mistakes.
It was grossly formated, had incomplete sentences, and totally unconnected
paragraphs.  IBM did what they should have, corrected the letter and
apologized.  I have never receieved at letter with that many mistakes
from a major company before.

>
>BTW, I can't understand how someone can complain about lack of support
>from IBM and in turn is too lazy to apply for IBM's DAP to get it.
>
>Do you expect that the IBM Managers call you personally and serve you
>all news, tools etc. on a silver tablet? They don't wait for you, if you
>don't go yourself.

I was not "too lazy" to apply for the DAP, IBM rejected my early attempts,
then when I complained loudly in June, they were going to help us
specifically to get in, but forced us to register the company, not
the research group.  As the company was barely in existence, we
had to scramble around to get telephones installed, etc, and I did
not want to register till that was done (so the contact info would
be correct).  As a matter fact I have an IBM mid-level Manager calling
me this very afternoon to discuss precisely that.  Chalk one up for
IBM, they actually care.

>
>>They say far worse things about Microsoft than I ever say about IBM.
>
>And from my own experiences with MS in the past, all I can say is they
>are right.

Well from my own experiences with MS in the past and the present, all I
can say is they are wrong.  Is it unacceptable to you that we
have had different experiences?  I can honestly also say that most
all of my experiences with IBM have been bad ones... I know from
our private correspondence that this is not the case for you.

>
>>Again... why do you take my postings about IBM and OS/2 personally?
>
>It's annoying how you repeat it over and over again like a broken record
>how good is NT and MS and how bad/dumb are OS/2 and IBM. You have told
>us that enough times. Can't you start talking about something different?
>
>Don't you have work enough (perhaps NT's not working as expected for
>you :-) so you have to post 4.3 messages per day (as you state
>yourself)? 
>
>>If I bother you that much, by all means put me in your kill file.
>>I don't want to "torture" you.  If you don't know, send me e-mail...
>
>Oh, yes, hmm, I too will really consider doing this.

Fine.

>
>BTW, you should use care when posting things like "DOS and Windows are
>good products" etc. - you may loose your reputation. I don't take anyone
>seriously who tells that (instead of that DOS WAS a good product at it's
>time and Windows 3 never was once since it started with only one LDT).
>
>Note: I have yesterday booted DOS/Windows three times on my machine to
>try some little thing under Windows with multimedia extensions (I got a
>new sound card) and DOS/Windows crashed twice within half an hour - only
>doing things with MS-only programs. At work I had to use DOS/Windows for
>about an hour too and crashed it more than once too. This fed me up with
>DOS/Windows for quite some weeks ... if OS/2 would crash that often, I
>would have to reboot it a dozen times per day at least, extrapolating
>the amount of time I spend using it, however, I did not have any system
>crash in OS/2 for weeks. (Windows refers to Windows 3.1 here, not 3.0,
>BTW, the so-called "stable" Windows.)

I'm posting this message while running under Windows 3.1.  My machine
has not been rebooted for a couple of days.  I almost never crash.
My wife on the other hand, does seem to average about a crash a day
when she's working heavily.   It is not clear that here problem
is Windows 3.1, it seems just as likely it's her screen driver or
Word for Windows.  That's the problem with unprotected systems, it's
hard to tell where the problem is.  We both eagerly await the NT beta.

>
>Kai Uwe Rommel
>
>/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */
>
>DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
>handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
>

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy