Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2064 comp.windows.ms:12560 comp.os.os2.misc:1347
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!bywater!arnor!yktvmv!larrys
From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Message-ID: <1991May10.175331.11245@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 10 May 91 17:42:13 GMT
References: <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com>
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 53
News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail
Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman

In <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com>, rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes:
>>Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop
>>strictly for OS/2."  My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any
>>indication, watch out Bill Gates...
>
>If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing
>of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night-
>mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might
>become available to the users.  If you're not, I still don't think that
>internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much
>of an indicator.

DisplayWrite is a gross application, I'll agree.  But it is NOT
indicative of other OS/2 applications.

Internally, OS/2 is not gospel, even though it appears that way.  More
people use AIX and DOS than OS/2.  So, my point is still valid.  There
ARE applications/toolkit/etc. being developed internally, showing that
people are starting to recognize it as a good environment for development
work.

>On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta
>version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers
>messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised
>way back in 86/87 (?).  If it's decent, the applications will start appearing,
>inexorably.  I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any
>usable parallel for the real world.

Legal issues are a pain, aren't they?  I don't like it any more than you
do, and I have talked to many other IBM'ers who don't like it either.  We
are pushing and pushing to get it back on the BBS, but until those issues
are addressed, there's nothing we can do.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools             larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         larrys@eng.clemson.edu
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------- Note headers follow --------------------------
From larrys@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com  Fri May 10 13:53:31 1991
Received: from sequoia.watson.ibm.com by ibmman.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.2.1/)
          id AB0028; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:31 -0700
Received: by SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.1.4/)
          id AA0039; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:23 -0700
Message-Id: <9105102053.AA0039@SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com>