From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:19:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.195033.15343@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.183125.24774@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
>[deletia: IBM supports big, MS supports little develpers]
>
>>adequate room to grow, you get a high yield from the number of seeds
>>planted. Instead if you scatter seeds where ever, you have to
>>disperse a much higher number of seeds to get the same number of
>>mature plants, and the yield is substancially lower. Now, which
>>method makes more sense ?
>
>Them's pretty big seeds IBM is planting.  To my mind, it suggests that
>potential OS/2 biggies were/are wary of actually commiting their own 
>resources to OS/2 and that they were willig to do so only because IBM,
>recognizing the need to get some biggies on board, forked over mucho
>cash (I do wish someone with actual knowledge of IBM's apparent
>financial support for big developers would confirm or deny that IBM
>actually does this; I'm working on things I've read in PC-Week and the
>like and, while I assume it's true, I don't *know* that it's true).
>

Well, I've always contended that PC-Week was the National Enquirer
of Intel based hardware; but they actually do tell the truth on
occasion. As far as IBM financial support, that takes on quite a
few different areas. Basically, everyone who gets their hands on a
"free" copy of OS/2 2.1 beta is being subsidized to some point by
IBM. I personally could care less if they dropped a ton'O bucks on
the likes of Phillipe so he could find ways to hasten his products
onto OS/2. It's not all that hot an issue.

>I'm not arguing against the logic of planting million dollar seeds to
>big development houses.  In the first place, it's IBM's money and as
>long as it's legal, they can do anything they want.  And there is an
>undeniable logic to doing so.  My original point, now lost, was that it
>really isn't so awful of MS to have given Doug Hamilton a workstation
>(or two?) on which to develop for NT, though others seemed to smell a
>rat there.  IOW, it's ok when IBM does it on a large scale, it's
>evil-empire time when MS does it for a small one-man shop.  In my mind,
>we've got a lot of sauce for both geese and ganders here...    
>
>To be honest, I think money is more wisely spent on the small developers
>(I'm not one, so, no, I'm not trying to feather my own nest), but that's
>not important here.
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>

I would like that too. But in all seriousness, IBM has been paying
a much higher degree of attention to the smaller developers and
extending them helping hands from information to discounts on
software/hardware, to loaner systems if the need requires, to
engineering expertise. 

I don't see how much more they could help in
some cases unless they went and bought the company in question and
wrote the software. :)

...Paul

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------