It's funny how people have come to look at the technology and its history through the extremely narrow prism of Windows. I see two more implications in this reference.1. OS/2 being a product of a certain time necessarily means that that is a reflection of the severe limitations and inferiority of the dominant products of that time (i.e. Windows family of products).
2. If OS/2 had succeeded in its mission set forth by IBM of competing effectively against Windows, today it would necessarily have a monopolistic stranglehold on the operating system market, so it would ship installed on all our new computers.
These are both, of course, obviously incorrect, but furthermore show the narrow-mindedness of too many. Consider for a moment the scenario where Microsoft had been overthrown in time from its monopoly status by OS/2, and fast-fowarding to today you envision a scenario where consumers have many competing - and therefore more advanced, beautiful, and innovative options. Yes, including OS/2 Warp 10.
The fact that this is not the case has nothing to do with IBM being a "large incumbent," but you can't expect brilliant industry analysts like Infoworld senior contributing editor David L. Margulius to make the distinction. Like you say, taking sides against the orphan makes one right by default. So only a fool would argue.