From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:49:06 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct07.195900.2585@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Ske
lly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.143724.25749@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wro
te:
>> In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gor
don
>>  Letwin) writes:
>
>>
>> >3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
>> >       for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
>> >       superior successor products.  You'll see them over the next year
>> >       or so.  IBM likes to take credit for our work on OS/2 (I've an
>> >       IBM promotional video tape in which some IBM suit takes credit
>> >       for designing HPFS, something that I did single-handedly.)
>> >       It will be interesting to see the schedule and content of future
>> >       OS/2 releases; the first which really *are* written by IBM.
>> >       I'll be the first to give them credit for *those* find products.
>> >       Their track record for both design and implimentation is terrible,
>> >       so don't make any bets....
>>
>> You haven't taken a real close look at OS/2 have you?
>Saying that about gordonl, ha ha, that's funny.
>
That was a joke.  (sorry it wasn't labeled as such)
>
>
>  First, the WPS is a
>> much more powerfu shell than that sorry excuse for a shell MS has stapled on
>> Windows.  Second, the 1.x versions that BOTH companies worked on, had such
>> wonderful features as their awe inspiring DOS support, the inability to run o
n
>> even a significant percentage of the day's systems, etc.. etc.. etc..
>> MicroSoft screwed this one up every bit as badly as IBM.  The difference is
>> that MicroSoft (this means you Gordon) don't want to own up to it.  Instead
>> you are distancing yourselves as far away from it as possible.  OS/2 2.0 was
>> written by IBM.  With the exception of the features they kept from 1.x it is
a
>> fairly thorough re-write.  You of all people should know this.
>
>Please kindly read the post you were responding to.  Not the use of the
>word "design".  In most dictionaries I've seen, the words "design" and
>"write or code" do not have the same meaning.
>
You know what I intended to say, which is obvious by your response.  OK parts
of it were a fairly thorough redesign.  Happy?

>Also, note that GordonL, in addition to being his own individual, is
>a subset of MS, therefore MicroSoft does not mean GordonL.
>
Sorry, but to an extent I have a very hard time accepting that.  You as well
as Gordon are a part of MS and thus MS is partly you as well.  All companies
get their character (for lack of a better word) from their employees.
Obviously Gordon has had a *lot* of influence in MS's past, current, and
likely future paths.  This means that something from him almost qualifies as
official MS policy.  It doesn't and you and I are both well aware of this, but
it is about the next best thing to being out of Bill Gates mouth.  People as
influential ans well know as Gordon need to be careful about what they say.>
>
>PeteSk@microsoft.com
>Just Picking Nits....
>
No kidding.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------