From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:27:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.172657.37725@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU) writes:
>>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM
>>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>>the hook?
>>
>>Brian
>    Wrong Brian. The point is you put down OS/2-actually, I feel you really
>    just want to attack IBM (this is you right, but be logical)-, and you do
>    not balance the scales properly. MS has its fair share of screwups, and
>    questionable press. I know its hard to tell with all of the crap being
>    written about NT. The last 4 writeups on magazines on NT had nothing but
>    praise. Two did not even mention OS/2 as a comparabe system.

Why is it my job to point out Microsoft's problems... there seem to be
plenty of people that do that in this group already... why add me?
Also there's a question of who screws up more often.
Microsoft has basically done a rather competent job with Windows and Windows
NT.  I don't see Microsoft running around offering watches for leads on
available shareware.  I don't see them making wild statements about
their rate of sales.  I don't see them lying about NT ship date slippage.
Really the only thing I can say bad is that they are not as public
about bugs in their products (and the availability of fixes) as I would like.

>    I am not saying IBM has not tainted anything. If they have, yes, I want to
>    know about it. But don't be so defensive if people question you about NT.
>    I would love to gather up the data on NT, and post something similat, but
>    the truth is that I have neither the time, nor the resources to do it.

Nor would you find the same sort of behavior.  IBM is clearly getting weird
here.

>    You *always* seem to dig up any dirt on OS/2, but put no effort in
>    clarifying some of the MS crap.

This group not only only digs up crap on MS, but it often makes it up
out of thin air.  Again why is it my job?  For that matter, who says
I don't bring up things about MS?  I think you should go back through
my Tidbits posts.

>    If you are not going ot be fair, expect some harsh criticism.

Show me where I was unfair to IBM in that post.

>    Your post, however, I though to be quite interesting, and I do not doubt
>    that some, if not most might be true...

I'm more curious about the parts you think might false.

>
>                                                    cheers,
>
>                                                    bvl

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy