From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Letter from IBM.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 07:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.234626.49230@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.235117.27484@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
>rian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>(Lots of stuff about the new OS/2 CD-ROM beta and disparaging comments by
>Brian deleted.)
>>
>>Supposedly attendees of the Developer's Conference will get a CD containing
>>among other things, Borland's Object Vision, but I see no mention of it.
>>Supposedly this was contained in the fee of the conference... but apparently
>>I'll need to buy it.
>
>No.  Right here I have a flyer for the OS/2 Developer conference.  They *are*
>giving the OS/2 beta CD-ROM and ObjectVision to all those who pay the
>conference attendance fee.
>>
>>Apparently after December 15, 1992 I cannot use the 26 productivity
>>tools written by IBM employees.
>
>Good grief Brian.  Do you honestly think that those won't be included in the
>release version?  Dispense with the FUD please.
>>
>>Hopefully someone at IBM will see fit to pass this note on to "Soyring" --
>>I'm betting he'll be "real pleased".  I'll be glad to FAX him a copy.
>
>So do so.
An IBM employee passed my note on to him, and he sent me e-mail apologizing
for the bad note, saying it has since been fixed.


>>
>>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?)

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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! :-))