| Subject | : | An orphan is an orphan --even an operating system gets no respect. |
| Author | : | El Vato |
| Date | : | 03 May, 2007 on 20:52 |
| "Large incumbents almost never deliver the "next big thing" -- otherwise we'd still be running OS/2 and texting each other on our StarTACs." http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/01/moes-opener_1.html The implicit notion in the article is that OS/2 was never ahead technologically. Consequently, following the author's argument, that OS/2 would never evolve beyond the author's implicit frame of reference in the past. With no organization effectively at the front defending it against attacks by self serving entities, an orphaned operating system is used as a scapegoat for everything. { [[ ! -x (NoT good enough, 95, 98, NoT good enough still, DOS again in2000) ]] && [[ ! -x (The great marketing null notion derived from eXtreme Programming) ]]; } && [[ ! -x (Hasta la Vista, private baby?) ]] El Vato |
| Subject | : | Re:An orphan is an orphan --even an operating system gets no respect. |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 03 May, 2007 on 21:40 |
I left a comment with them about OS/2.
--- BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org |
| Subject | : | Re:An orphan is an orphan --even an operating system gets no respect. |
| Author | : | obiwan |
| Date | : | 05 May, 2007 on 22:45 |
| 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. |
| Subject | : | Re:An orphan is an orphan --even an operating system gets no respect. |
| Author | : | BigWarpGuy |
| Date | : | 06 May, 2007 on 22:39 |
| Speaking of 'narrow minded', I have met people who think BG was just being a businessman and had the right to make money. I don't seeing having or forcing a monopoly has being competittive.
--- BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2-eCS.org Director of Communications - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user http://www.os2ecs.org |