Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!killer!tness7!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!gamma!mibte!uisc1!adf
From: adf@uisc1.UUCP (Andre Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Anyone?
Summary: OS/2 fanatics & the real world
Message-ID: <78@uisc1.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 88 16:02:08 GMT
References: <1866@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <216100037@trsvax> <1084@usfvax2.EDU> <693@omen.UUCP>
Organization: Unicorn Information Systems Corp, Detroit, MI, USA
Lines: 41

In article <693@omen.UUCP>, caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
> In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes:
> :OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA).  Besides, the big compiler vendors
> :in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix.  
> :Turbo C on Unix, I think not!  Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label.
> 
> The SCO Xenix C compiler *is* the Microsoft C compiler, minus
> a few of the bugs that infest the DOS flavors.
> 
> As for hackers and free software, it's hard to say, but
> consider: One really wants a 386 box with a good sized disk to
> run OS/2, and such a box runs 386 *nix just fine, thank you.
> There's a cornucopia of PD Unix software to entice the hacker
> (X windows, GNU, Netnews, Nethack, comp.sources.*) and one can
> put *nix on one's disk for less $$$ than OS/2 and an "equivalent"
> set of "quality" tools.

It became obvious very quickly, to me anyway, that Mr. John S. Whitley II
is more than likely an IBM employee whose paycheck depends on his success
at convincing the public that OS/2 is not the flop and failure which it is
rapidly showing itself to be. Let's face it, IBM (or at least it's end-user
oriented side) stopped being state of the art when the second computer
company entered the market. Releasing its 286-based PS/2 system after
competitors had already released working 386 systems showed once again that
IBM is nothing but a giant on its way to the graveyard. PS/2 doesn't even
come close to UNIX, either in terms of ability (everything it brags about has
been available under *NIX for years), cost (*NIX is way cheaper to install
and maintain), support (because you are not tied to one supplier whose sole
interest is the buck you have many suppliers to select from, which increases
competitiveness and quality), or software selection, free and otherwise.

IBM will, however, be here a while longer, mostly for the same reason why
we still have people grinding out code in Cobol. There are so many people
who are somehow tied to IBM's old boy network, that no matter how poor
their quality, how overpriced their equipment and support, and how inferior
they they may, there will always be fools who will buy because of the label
rather than because of true substance.

C'est la vie, I suppose.

"If stupidity hurt,
 the vast majority of the human race would do nothing all day but scream!"