This never got posted from yesterday for some reason.
Chuck
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> My statement was not well worded. I did not mean to say that Microsoft
> had no part in OS/2 development. If it didn't I wouldn't have spent so
> much time in Redmond or in chasing down MS developers in Boca Raton bars
> to fix bugs in order to keep on schedule. What I was disputing was the
> notion that Microsoft conceived of OS/2 and pushed it as a means of
> protecting a proprietary lock-in based on use of forward or reverse
> slash in path names.
>
> I agree completely with Paul's first paragraph but don't agree that
> early versions of OS/2 were severely crippled. There was plenty of
> subterfuge on Microsoft's part (such as falsifying performance data on
> the HPFS file system) but IBM made many decisions about OS/2 based on
> support commitments to OS/2 customers... both internal and external.
>
> This has gotten way too far OT so I'll close this off here.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Paul Braun wrote:
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>> I don't know what you are talking about here. I've been talking
>>> about OS/2 which was developed by IBM and not by Bill Gates to
>>> protect "his proprietary lock-in".
>>>
>>
>> Actually, OS/2 was co-developed between IBM and Microsoft. IBM wanted
>> to develop something better than Windows, but Microsoft was scared of
>> losing the licensing agreement with IBM. So, Gates and Ballmer agreed
>> to "help" IBM "develop" OS/2. Ballmer referred to it as "Riding the
>> Bear".
>>
>> As a result, early versions of OS/2 were severely crippled --
>> Microsoft's guys saw to it that it wasn't a serious contender to
>> Windows. It didn't really shine until IBM took over development and
>> cut the ties to Microsoft.
>>
>>
>>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|