From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Letter from IBM.
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:40:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct11.072139.2438@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.234626.49230@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.235117.27484@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(B
>>rian Sturgill) writes:
>>>

(lots of stuff irrelevant to what is below deleted)

>>>Brian
>>>
>>>(Oh... shouldn't they have put in a bunch of TM's and (R)'s?  Especially
>>>for CompuServe... it's not their own.)
>>
>>Honestly, sometimes I wonder about you Brian and what you did to make IBM mad
>>at you.  I'm not anything resembling an official developer, and I get good
>>information in a timely manner from IBM.  I have recieved everything from a
>
>I and every other registered OS/2 user received that coupon book.  It
>was overblown...  and you should see the prices they want to charge
>developers to be in it!  (Though I guess in fairness it probably costs
>a lot to send that to all users... still... isn't that an argument
>to not send out such overblown glossies?)

Are you claiming that it wasn't of any use?  I certanly thought so.  That
aside however, That was an *example*  I can give many more if you like.  It
was an example and nothing more.  Please to not take such trivial things so
seriously.
>
>>coupon book, to a very well written invitation to the developer's conference
>>and I got it about a month ago.  The service I have recieved has been by and
>
>Yes, don't you consider getting the notice for a developers conference
>very skimpy?  Normally you get such notices many months in advance, as
>many developers have to budget for such things well in advance.
>And all developers don't just run off to a conference, one has to plan
>the time into the development schedule.  Fortunately I found out
>several months ago about the conference via a USENET posting, if I had
>only found out from IBM mailings, I probably would not be going.
>
I have known about the developers conference for several months as well.  It
has only been touted up and down by every OS/2 and NT advocate with an agenda
for months.  As for me getting one, I an not a developer.  I didn't expect
one.  The fact that I even got one meant that IBM at least went a little out
of their way.  And this is a bad thing?  Granted maybe they should have been a
little more prompt about such things, but they are getting them done and done
well for the most part.

>>large acceptable and I am basically happy with the product.  I am not happy
>>with MS's competing products or their business tactics and I get no
>>information from them about anything.  Despite this I am not on some holy
>
>Send an e-mail message to devnetwk@microsoft.com, they'll be quite happy
>to put you on their list.

Thanks, I might just do that.
>
>>crusade against MS, nor do I claim that all their products are shoddy, or that
>>they have rotten tech support, or that no one should develop for their
>
>Geez!  where did I ever say that no one should develop for OS/2?
>_I_ develop for OS/2.  I'm only unhappy that my efforts will not meet
>a large user base, as IBM has not seen fit to recruit ISV support for OS/2.
>At this point, as IBM has grossly mishandled OS/2, I think I'd rather it
>just be a niche Big Blue shop product. IBM had a good chance, but they've
>largely blown it.  Perhaps they can convince me at the developer conference
>they're still in the game... we shall see soon.  At the moment I feel
>OS/2 is likely only to confuse the market for a bit.  The real battle
>will be between NT, UnixWare, Solaris and maybe NextStep.
>OS/2 is missing too many features for a good high-end OS, and IBM has done
>nothing to show it's capable of catching up.

Specifically you have been claiming that there is little reason to develop for
OS/2 because it runs windows stuff.  That isn't really what I meant to say
however.  (I apologize for that)  You have been ranking on OS/2 sometimes
rightfully, more often not, and trying to make IBM look basically like the
antichrist.  It is getting oon my nerves more than a little.  MS has made more
than their share of mistakes with NT, but I have yet to hear you say peep
about it.  Maybe you have and I missed it, but it probably was because it was
drown out in your anti-IBM tirades.
As for NT competing against Solaris, NextStep and Co.  I generally agree. That
is where its really tough competition lies.  OS/2 won't be a push over in its
intended market however.

>
>>platforms.  Why do you see a need to post things that at times go way beyond
>>mere FUD to the point of being lies?  I would expect more from someone who
>
>Where have I lied?  Do you doubt I received the note... really you're getting
>quite rude... the bulk of your last 50 responses to my postings have
>been full of name calling.  I remember one that called me a liar 3 times,
>needless to say I didn't reply to it.  I'm sorry if you don't like what I
>post, but that is no reason to call me a liar.
>As I've said before, just because it generates fear, uncertainty and doubt,
>doesn't mean it's false.  There are good reasons for OS/2 advocates to
>feel those emotions.

You said "OS/2 has *no* ISV support".  I will go back and get the message if
you like.  Claiming that OS/2 has *no* ISV support is a lie.  Claiming that
OS/2 doesn't have nearly the support of Windows3.1 is true, but OS/2 does have
ISV support and it is non-trivial.  FUD twists the truth, but you stated
something that was completely false.  FUD doesn't have to be false, that is
true, but more often than not it is not the whole truth or in some cases not
true at all.  If you will have noticed, for an OS/2 advocate I am quite
moderate on NT.  I have a few serious criticisms, but I really am impressed
with it overall.  If you find this rude, then I think you are a bit over
sensitive.  The only posts of yours that I have responded to were ones which I
felt either left something out or twisted the truth beyond recognition.  This
has been happening more and more frequently IMO.  If I seemed rude, I
apologize for I did not mean to be particularly mean.  If you do post
something that I find to be lacking in some important way, I'm going to call
you on it.  >

>>obviously should know better.  (and don't claim that you haven't, all this
>>stuff about "no developers" is nothing more that a lie)  IBM has produced a
>
>I don't think I've ever said "no developers", but I certainly have said,
>and mean, that OS/2 has poor ISV support.  I am far from alone in this
>view, in fact outside this group, I would say the view is largely universal.
>In fact this reminds me... several times you've said you can come
>up with a list of OS/2 ISV's.  Ok... do so!  Let's see a list of
>ISV's, the products they are producing, and an approximate time frame.
>
You most certainly did and that is a quote.  (From about one week back)  As
for the list.  OK it will be in my next post.  (Sorry I couldn't put it here
but it would be overly difficult.

>>good product.  Not one without its flaws, but certainly it has a lot of
>>strengths too.  MS has produced good products and they too have their flaws
>>and strengths.  It would do you well to admit this fact now and again and at
>>least put on some semblance of objectivity.
>
>All I did was post the _verbatim_ listing of the letter IBM sent with
>the confirmation of my registration... how is this unwarranted FUD or a lie?
>The letter said all those things like all the license for the code expires
>12/92.  I hope it doesn't apply to everything, but the letter really didn't
>say.

The support for the beta code expires in december.  This is true and common
knowledge.  Nor is it FUD or a lie.  The actual release will occur before then
and then there is little reason to support the beta code, no?  In any case are
you really intending to throw it away?  I doubt it.  There is too much good
stuff there to do so.  Heck I want a copy myself.  (though I need a CD-ROM
drive first.  Guess it will have to wait)
>
>>Stacy John Behrens
>
>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! :-))
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy