Microsoft is watching you here. - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Microsoft is watching you here. - Microsoft Windows ; flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote: >> If it where dead flatty. Why the **** are you crossposting ? I know >> you wamt to show off how big a dick you are. Well done. Congrats >> you've definately proved it! > Because one ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103

Thread: Microsoft is watching you here.

  1. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:



    >> If it where dead flatty. Why the **** are you crossposting ? I know
    >> you wamt to show off how big a dick you are. Well done. Congrats
    >> you've definately proved it!


    > Because one of you idiots over in cooa started it and I'm just
    > following up keeping the xposts the same. Go back and look at the
    > thread.


    You forgot to mark this one X-No-Archive flattie

    http://www.angelfire.com/blog/trollarchive/


  2. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > Like I said, you guys have me all wrong when it comes to OS/2, I like and
    > have always liked OS/2.
    > I wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better because had they done so Windows might
    > not be the market leader in terms of usage.
    > But the sad truth is that they didn't and as a result OS/2 is not a good
    > investment right now. While sites running it that are satisfied can laugh
    > at Windows and it's security problems, I would not and cannot rec ommend
    > that anyone move toward OS/2 and in fact I suggest they start planning to
    > migrate off OS/2 in the future to an Operating system that has a future.
    > That's reality and anyone but a zealot will advise the same.
    >
    >
    >>Cheers/2,
    >>Menno.

    >
    >
    > flatfish+++

    Hmmm so you recommend folk use an insecure operating system?
    Now that is zealotry at its finest flatty. Thanks for playing............
    Btw IBM still supports OS/2, for at least the next 5 years..

    --
    Proudly bought to you by the letters O & S and the number 2!


  3. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:40:05 +0100, Daeron wrote:

    >flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>> If it where dead flatty. Why the **** are you crossposting ? I know
    >>> you wamt to show off how big a dick you are. Well done. Congrats
    >>> you've definately proved it!

    >
    >> Because one of you idiots over in cooa started it and I'm just
    >> following up keeping the xposts the same. Go back and look at the
    >> thread.

    >
    >You forgot to mark this one X-No-Archive flattie
    >
    >http://www.angelfire.com/blog/trollarchive/


    Just checking to see if you are on your toes.
    flatfish++++


  4. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 06:59:59 +0100, Mark wrote:

    >flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >
    >> Like I said, you guys have me all wrong when it comes to OS/2, I like and
    >> have always liked OS/2.
    >> I wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better because had they done so Windows might
    >> not be the market leader in terms of usage.
    >> But the sad truth is that they didn't and as a result OS/2 is not a good
    >> investment right now. While sites running it that are satisfied can laugh
    >> at Windows and it's security problems, I would not and cannot rec ommend
    >> that anyone move toward OS/2 and in fact I suggest they start planning to
    >> migrate off OS/2 in the future to an Operating system that has a future.
    >> That's reality and anyone but a zealot will advise the same.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Cheers/2,
    >>>Menno.

    >>
    >>
    >> flatfish+++

    >Hmmm so you recommend folk use an insecure operating system?
    >Now that is zealotry at its finest flatty. Thanks for playing............
    >Btw IBM still supports OS/2, for at least the next 5 years..


    Do you have trouble reading?
    Migrate off OS/2 to an Operating System that has a future.
    Where, exactly, do I say that it has to be an insecure operating system?
    Linux, OS/400, OS/X will all be fine.
    Are you saying those are insecure?

    You need to take off your rose colored glasses so you can read the text
    properly.

    Looks to me like you're the zealot.

    flatfish+++

  5. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    Mark wrote:
    > flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Like I said, you guys have me all wrong when it comes to OS/2, I like and
    >> have always liked OS/2.
    >> I wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better because had they done so Windows
    >> might
    >> not be the market leader in terms of usage.


    The DOJ antitrust trial revealed the truth about the way
    Microsoft _prevented_ IBM from marketing OS/2.

    For example, here is one reference to trial testimony by IBM executive
    Garry Norris:

    "Microsoft was making demands of IBM that "we simply couldn't meet,"
    [IBM's] Norris said. Those demands, which were conditions of the
    contract allowing IBM to sell Windows, included IBM rejecting its own
    competing operating system, OS/2, as the operating system IBM used
    within its own offices. Another condition was that IBM stop advertising
    OS/2 in all forms of media, Norris said."

    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...271030,00.html

    It would be difficult to *market* something if you were not allowed to
    *advertise* it. And then there are the subsequent "Findings of Fact"
    from the DOJ antitrust case that was based on the very compelling
    testimony by IBM's John Soyring and Garry Norris regarding the
    difficulties created by Microsoft that IBM faced in selling OS/2. The
    court found this testimony to be credible. Look at the pertinent
    portions of the "findings of fact" below:

    (Here's the link to the "Findings of Fact.")
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    Read carefully, the section on IBM under 'The Similar Experiences of
    Other Firms in Dealing with Microsoft.' Here's some quotes:

    "Of course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical
    matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2."

    "The message was clear: IBM could resolve the impasse ostensibly
    blocking the issuance of a Windows 95 license -- the royalties audit --
    by de-emphasizing those products of its own that competed with Microsoft
    and instead promoting Microsoft's products."

    "In sum, from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently pressured IBM to
    reduce its support for software products that competed with Microsoft's
    offerings, and it used its monopoly power in the market for
    Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish IBM for its refusal to
    cooperate."

    These are not opinions but are the conclusions of the court that were
    reached after all of the evidence was evaluated. There were also
    findings on the application barrier to entry that prevented a
    non-Windows OS from gaining significant market share. However, just the
    behavior by Microsoft that is described above would have been sufficient
    to prevent IBM from effectively marketing OS/2.




    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.1


  6. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:43:02 UTC, flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > On 16 Sep 2003 05:10:34 -0700, flexor@wanadoo.nl (Menno) wrote:
    >
    > >Hello World,
    > >
    > >flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote in message news:...
    > >> That's not what I said. I said OS/2 is a dead operating system.

    > >
    > >Without clarifying what you mean by that. What's "Dead"?

    >
    > No new versions.


    eCS 1.1 is quite newer than windows 2003.

    > Semi support from the manufacturer.


    Giggle, you proves that you knows nothing about you speaks.

    > Few if any new software being developed for it.
    > Companies moving off OS/2.
    > And so forth.
    > http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=20503


    Another point where you proves that you has absolutely no knowledge
    about. With the same rights anybody would say that linux is a hacker
    system with absolutely no software.
    http://www.microsoft.com
    ist the best reference for that.

    2 of the many references that you are only fudding:
    http://www.innotek.de
    http://www.ecomstation.com

    http://www.hobbes.mnsu.edu

    >
    > >> It works fine for me as well, but that doesn't change my statement and that
    > >> is "OS/2 is a dead Operating System".

    > >
    > >That's a Microsoft mantra, that is. Utterly meaningless. You may as
    > >well say "OS/2 is a ham roll". or "Linux is a purple bottle". Tell us
    > >what you mean by it (if you come back with "nobody's using it" in the
    > >middle of a group of OS/2 users, Sarcasm will be used on you), and
    > >then we can talk.

    >
    > Is IBM planning on releasing any new versions?
    > If not, it has reached EOL and is going to be supported by IBM's Service
    > Extensions, meaning bug fixes only.
    > http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/ser...ssservext.html


    Only halv of the trueth. IBM had OEMed OS/2:
    http://www.ecomstation.com

    So you're again qualified as to be a dumb fudster only
    eComStation is the newes available OS on the PC market. How can a
    system be dead that is quite newer than the newest linux kernel?

    > >> I don't, it's a fact and you better start planning for the future and you
    > >> are trying in vain to shift the focus of the thread from OS/2 being dead to
    > >> why I care.

    > >
    > >And again...
    > >
    > >Geez... We have lots of users (though we can always use more), lots of
    > >software, some nice annual events, a thriving presence on Usenet and
    > >several other communities, recently a new VAR and the best user
    > >interface in the industry!


    http://www.warpstock.org
    The annual meeting of OS/2 in 2003 will be in SF.

    > Look, you've got me all wrong!


    Really, you'd proven yourself in any point as wrong.

    > I LIKE OS/2!!!!!!


    Liar.


    --
    Tschau/Bye
    Herbert

    eComStation 1.1 Deutsch Beta ist verügbar

  7. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    David T. Johnson wrote:

    > Mark Dodel wrote:
    > > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:47:38 UTC, flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    > >
    > > -> I dispute the figure as much as I dispute IBM's claims of Linux sales
    > > -> without them separating their hardware sales from the Linux part sold
    > > -> with the hardware.
    > > ->
    > >
    > > I've been told that 20 million is a bit high, but that there are at
    > > least 10 million OS/2 licenses still actively under IBM support, and
    > > that doesn't include OEM versions (like Serenity System's
    > > eComStation). Even for IBM that is a large number of users to just
    > > walk away from. IBM has actively tried since 1996 to convince them to
    > > move to windows and now Linux. But the fact is their current solution
    > > works. Many tried windows and it didn't work. If they are stranded
    > > its because there is no place to go that can support mission critical
    > > work. If it were just meaningless they could have moved to windoze
    > > years ago.
    > >

    >
    > As a business operating system, OS/2 is an extremely solid choice.


    So is Windows, Mac OS, GNU/Linux, or Solaris.

    > It is very stable,


    All modern operating systems are very stable. OS/2 had an edge ten years
    ago but not since 1996 or so.

    > productive,


    Productive depends on the user's familiarity, the company's internal
    support, and the availability of application programs.

    OS/2 loses against its competitors in all of these.

    > backward compatible,


    Do you use many old DOS programs that do not run under any of the
    current Windows versions?

    > and hardware friendly.


    Define "hardware friendly".

    > The OS/2 file systems (HPFS and JFS) provide excellent data stability,


    Anything that makes them more reliable than NTFS or HFS+ or UFS or
    ReiserFS?

    > and its TCP/IP stack is very smooth performing, refined, and secure.


    I don't think OS/2 is really a giant in the arena of internet servers.

    --
    Andrew J. Brehm
    Fan of Woody Allen
    PowerPC User
    Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

  8. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:15:33 -0700, "David T. Johnson"
    wrote:


    > The DOJ antitrust trial revealed the truth about the way
    >Microsoft _prevented_ IBM from marketing OS/2.
    >
    >For example, here is one reference to trial testimony by IBM executive
    >Garry Norris:
    >
    >"Microsoft was making demands of IBM that "we simply couldn't meet,"
    >[IBM's] Norris said. Those demands, which were conditions of the
    >contract allowing IBM to sell Windows,


    And exactly who held the gun to IBMs head and forced them to sign the
    contract.

    The certainly had the resources and capital to market and push their
    own OS/2 offering as an alternative, why did they let Microsoft do the
    driving?

    >However, just the
    >behavior by Microsoft that is described above would have been sufficient
    >to prevent IBM from effectively marketing OS/2.


    It wouldn't have been if IBM had not been so completely and totally
    inept at marketing software.

    Luckily Linux is OSS, IBM won't be able to kill it off, through it's
    legendary ability to completely **** up when it comes to marketing
    software.

    --
    Cheers
    T.G. Reaper

  9. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    Andrew J. Brehm wrote:

    > David T. Johnson wrote:
    >

    < snip >

    >> and its TCP/IP stack is very smooth performing, refined, and secure.

    >
    > I don't think OS/2 is really a giant in the arena of internet servers.
    >


    Since when are TCP/IP stacks used only by servers?
    You can argue until you turn blue, but OS/2 has a very fine and fast
    TCP/IP stack, about on a par with the linux stack.
    Windows on the other hand is simply a bad joke in this regard, the
    performance is quite laughable
    --
    Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to sue us,
    would you like me to delete all of your files?"


  10. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    T.G. Reaper wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:15:33 -0700, "David T. Johnson"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> The DOJ antitrust trial revealed the truth about the way
    >>Microsoft _prevented_ IBM from marketing OS/2.
    >>
    >>For example, here is one reference to trial testimony by IBM executive
    >>Garry Norris:
    >>
    >>"Microsoft was making demands of IBM that "we simply couldn't meet,"
    >>[IBM's] Norris said. Those demands, which were conditions of the
    >>contract allowing IBM to sell Windows,

    >
    >
    > And exactly who held the gun to IBMs head and forced them to sign the
    > contract.


    Microsoft. It was established at trial that Microsoft had a monopoly in
    computer operating systems and their actions against IBM and OS/2 were
    one example cited of their illegal use of that Monopoly to prevent
    competition. Read the "Findings of Fact". The link is below.

    >
    > The certainly had the resources and capital to market and push their
    > own OS/2 offering as an alternative, why did they let Microsoft do the
    > driving?


    IBM had no realistic alternative other than compliance with Microsoft's
    demands. Microsoft had a monopoly and they exercised that monopoly
    power to compel compliance with their demands. Read the "findings of
    fact". Here is the link:

    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    >
    >
    >>However, just the
    >>behavior by Microsoft that is described above would have been sufficient
    >>to prevent IBM from effectively marketing OS/2.

    >
    >
    > It wouldn't have been if IBM had not been so completely and totally
    > inept at marketing software.


    IBM's marketing expertise or lack thereof was irrelevant to the success
    or failure of OS/2 (or any other OS) as was shown in the "Findings of
    Fact." Microsoft had a monopoly and they illegally used that monopoly
    to prevent competition from all other OSs.



    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.1


  11. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:15:33 -0700, "David T. Johnson"
    wrote:

    >Mark wrote:
    >> flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Like I said, you guys have me all wrong when it comes to OS/2, I like and
    >>> have always liked OS/2.
    >>> I wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better because had they done so Windows
    >>> might
    >>> not be the market leader in terms of usage.

    >
    > The DOJ antitrust trial revealed the truth about the way
    >Microsoft _prevented_ IBM from marketing OS/2.
    >
    >For example, here is one reference to trial testimony by IBM executive
    >Garry Norris:
    >
    >"Microsoft was making demands of IBM that "we simply couldn't meet,"
    >[IBM's] Norris said. Those demands, which were conditions of the
    >contract allowing IBM to sell Windows, included IBM rejecting its own
    >competing operating system, OS/2, as the operating system IBM used
    >within its own offices. Another condition was that IBM stop advertising
    >OS/2 in all forms of media, Norris said."
    >
    >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...271030,00.html
    >
    >It would be difficult to *market* something if you were not allowed to
    >*advertise* it. And then there are the subsequent "Findings of Fact"
    >from the DOJ antitrust case that was based on the very compelling
    >testimony by IBM's John Soyring and Garry Norris regarding the
    >difficulties created by Microsoft that IBM faced in selling OS/2. The
    >court found this testimony to be credible. Look at the pertinent
    >portions of the "findings of fact" below:
    >
    >(Here's the link to the "Findings of Fact.")
    >http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
    >
    >Read carefully, the section on IBM under 'The Similar Experiences of
    >Other Firms in Dealing with Microsoft.' Here's some quotes:
    >
    >"Of course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical
    >matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2."
    >
    >"The message was clear: IBM could resolve the impasse ostensibly
    >blocking the issuance of a Windows 95 license -- the royalties audit --
    >by de-emphasizing those products of its own that competed with Microsoft
    >and instead promoting Microsoft's products."
    >
    >"In sum, from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently pressured IBM to
    >reduce its support for software products that competed with Microsoft's
    >offerings, and it used its monopoly power in the market for
    >Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish IBM for its refusal to
    >cooperate."
    >
    >These are not opinions but are the conclusions of the court that were
    >reached after all of the evidence was evaluated. There were also
    >findings on the application barrier to entry that prevented a
    >non-Windows OS from gaining significant market share. However, just the
    >behavior by Microsoft that is described above would have been sufficient
    >to prevent IBM from effectively marketing OS/2.



    You're quoting articles, I was on the front line fighting for OS/2 so there
    is very little you can tell me about OS/2 and it's history, back then, that
    I don't already know about.

    FWIW at that time IBM had this less than brilliant concept of making the
    various divisions of the monolith autonomous and responsible for their own
    expense to revenue. They had some stupid buzzword for it at the time but I
    can't remember what it was but I can tell you that as soon as the PC
    division started pre-loading Windows instead of OS/2 it was all over for
    OS/2 as far as a consumer desktop system.

    And as far as what you have written, who was forcing IBM to do anything?
    The only major thing I remember was that they wanted to release a FAT to
    HPFS and HPFS to FAT utility but MS owned part of the code and would not
    allow it at the time.
    It didn't matter because it was leaked out anyway by over zealous people.

    IBM chose to sell Windows because they knew Windows pre-loaded systems
    would sell and OS/2 ones would not.
    Nobody forced them.

    flatfish+++

  12. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:36:08 +0000 (UTC), "The Real OS/2 Guy"
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:43:02 UTC, flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >
    >> On 16 Sep 2003 05:10:34 -0700, flexor@wanadoo.nl (Menno) wrote:
    >>
    >> >Hello World,
    >> >
    >> >flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote in message news:...
    >> >> That's not what I said. I said OS/2 is a dead operating system.
    >> >
    >> >Without clarifying what you mean by that. What's "Dead"?

    >>
    >> No new versions.

    >
    >eCS 1.1 is quite newer than windows 2003.
    >
    >> Semi support from the manufacturer.

    >
    >Giggle, you proves that you knows nothing about you speaks.
    >
    >> Few if any new software being developed for it.
    >> Companies moving off OS/2.
    >> And so forth.
    >> http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=20503

    >
    >Another point where you proves that you has absolutely no knowledge
    >about. With the same rights anybody would say that linux is a hacker
    >system with absolutely no software.
    >http://www.microsoft.com
    >ist the best reference for that.
    >
    >2 of the many references that you are only fudding:
    >http://www.innotek.de
    >http://www.ecomstation.com
    >
    >http://www.hobbes.mnsu.edu
    >
    >>
    >> >> It works fine for me as well, but that doesn't change my statement and that
    >> >> is "OS/2 is a dead Operating System".
    >> >
    >> >That's a Microsoft mantra, that is. Utterly meaningless. You may as
    >> >well say "OS/2 is a ham roll". or "Linux is a purple bottle". Tell us
    >> >what you mean by it (if you come back with "nobody's using it" in the
    >> >middle of a group of OS/2 users, Sarcasm will be used on you), and
    >> >then we can talk.

    >>
    >> Is IBM planning on releasing any new versions?
    >> If not, it has reached EOL and is going to be supported by IBM's Service
    >> Extensions, meaning bug fixes only.
    >> http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/ser...ssservext.html

    >
    >Only halv of the trueth. IBM had OEMed OS/2:
    >http://www.ecomstation.com
    >
    >So you're again qualified as to be a dumb fudster only
    >eComStation is the newes available OS on the PC market. How can a
    >system be dead that is quite newer than the newest linux kernel?
    >
    >> >> I don't, it's a fact and you better start planning for the future and you
    >> >> are trying in vain to shift the focus of the thread from OS/2 being dead to
    >> >> why I care.
    >> >
    >> >And again...
    >> >
    >> >Geez... We have lots of users (though we can always use more), lots of
    >> >software, some nice annual events, a thriving presence on Usenet and
    >> >several other communities, recently a new VAR and the best user
    >> >interface in the industry!

    >
    >http://www.warpstock.org
    >The annual meeting of OS/2 in 2003 will be in SF.
    >
    >> Look, you've got me all wrong!

    >
    >Really, you'd proven yourself in any point as wrong.
    >
    >> I LIKE OS/2!!!!!!

    >
    >Liar.
    >

    Hah!

    You can blather on and on all you wish, but the fact is OS/2 is dead. Show
    me any major company moving off another system to OS/2.

    Sorry, but for the poor unfortunates still running OS/2 their days are
    numbered which is why you will see just about all the major players
    dropping support for OS/2.

    Hey if you think it's still alive and if it works for you have fun.
    There are people who are happily running Commodore 64's too.
    Maybe if you're lucky you'll still be running it in the year 2020.

    Liking a product and realizing it has no future are two different things
    and one does not imply the other.
    I liked the original VW Beetle but the last one rolled off the line 2
    months ago.
    It's dead and as the current ones already sold start to fall apart and rust
    it will become deader and deader until the only time they will be seen is
    at classic car shows kept alive by the collectors.

    Just like OS/2.

    flatfish+++

    flatfish+++




  13. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:05:45 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner)
    wrote:

    >Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, flatfish@linuxmail.org spake unto us, saying:
    >
    >>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:46:12 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner)
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, flatfish@linuxmail.org spake unto us, saying:
    >>>
    >>>>You can try and convince whomever you like that OS/2 still has a future,
    >>>>but OS/2 is a dead operating system and that is a fact.
    >>>
    >>>OS/2 is stable, it requires few hardware resources, it's relatively
    >>>easy to use, and it still does an excellent job of providing the types
    >>>of services and applications that I want a desktop OS to provide.

    >>
    >>That's not what I said.
    >>I said OS/2 is a dead operating system.
    >>What you said could be applied to BEOS, Amiga OS and any one of a dozen
    >>other dead operating systems.

    >
    >IBM is still releasing new device drivers for OS/2, and they still
    >provide OS/2 support for those willing to pay for it.
    >
    >Be Inc., in the other hand, is completely gone, and is no longer writing
    >drivers for or supporting their former product in any way.
    >
    >That's quite a difference. How can you equate the two?


    Walk into CompUSA in NYC and stand there for 2 weeks asking people what
    operating system they run and I'll bet you can't find 20 people who run
    either OS/2 or BEOS.

    That's dead.

    flatfish+++

  14. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    > Walk into CompUSA in NYC and stand there for 2 weeks asking people what
    > operating system they run and I'll bet you can't find 20 people who run
    > either OS/2 or BEOS.
    >
    > That's dead.


    Weak. You won't find any running AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, etc., etc.
    You'll have to do a bit better than that.


  15. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 06:59:59 +0100, Mark wrote:
    >
    >
    >>flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Like I said, you guys have me all wrong when it comes to OS/2, I like and
    >>>have always liked OS/2.
    >>>I wish IBM had marketed OS/2 better because had they done so Windows might
    >>>not be the market leader in terms of usage.
    >>>But the sad truth is that they didn't and as a result OS/2 is not a good
    >>>investment right now. While sites running it that are satisfied can laugh
    >>>at Windows and it's security problems, I would not and cannot rec ommend
    >>>that anyone move toward OS/2 and in fact I suggest they start planning to
    >>>migrate off OS/2 in the future to an Operating system that has a future.
    >>>That's reality and anyone but a zealot will advise the same.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Cheers/2,
    >>>>Menno.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>flatfish+++

    >>
    >>Hmmm so you recommend folk use an insecure operating system?
    >>Now that is zealotry at its finest flatty. Thanks for playing............
    >>Btw IBM still supports OS/2, for at least the next 5 years..

    >
    >
    > Do you have trouble reading?
    > Migrate off OS/2 to an Operating System that has a future.
    > Where, exactly, do I say that it has to be an insecure operating system?
    > Linux, OS/400, OS/X will all be fine.
    > Are you saying those are insecure?
    >
    > You need to take off your rose colored glasses so you can read the text
    > properly.
    >
    > Looks to me like you're the zealot.
    >
    > flatfish+++

    So NT based Windows won't be fine because it's insecure Flatty.
    Game, set, match.
    Thanks for playing...............



    --
    On my Ein 98 box.
    Why? because I like bug catching.
    Or maybe because NT based MS Windows are sooooooooo insecure when
    conected to the internet!!!!!


  16. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    T.G. Reaper wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:15:33 -0700, "David T. Johnson"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> The DOJ antitrust trial revealed the truth about the way
    >>Microsoft _prevented_ IBM from marketing OS/2.
    >>
    >>For example, here is one reference to trial testimony by IBM executive
    >>Garry Norris:
    >>
    >>"Microsoft was making demands of IBM that "we simply couldn't meet,"
    >>[IBM's] Norris said. Those demands, which were conditions of the
    >>contract allowing IBM to sell Windows,

    >
    >
    > And exactly who held the gun to IBMs head and forced them to sign the
    > contract.
    >
    > The certainly had the resources and capital to market and push their
    > own OS/2 offering as an alternative, why did they let Microsoft do the
    > driving?
    >
    >
    >>However, just the
    >>behavior by Microsoft that is described above would have been sufficient
    >>to prevent IBM from effectively marketing OS/2.

    >
    >
    > It wouldn't have been if IBM had not been so completely and totally
    > inept at marketing software.
    >
    > Luckily Linux is OSS, IBM won't be able to kill it off, through it's
    > legendary ability to completely **** up when it comes to marketing
    > software.
    >

    OSS is good for OS/2 and MS Windows too idiot!
    In case you haven't realised OSS is not a sole Linux domain.


    --
    On my Win 98 box.
    Why? because I like bug catching.
    Or maybe because NT based MS Windows are sooooooooo insecure when
    conected to the internet!!!!!


  17. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:19:10 +0100, Mark wrote:
    >
    >
    >>w.d.hines@nospam.ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:53:41 GMT, flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>You can try and convince whomever you like that OS/2 still has a future,
    >>>>but OS/2 is a dead operating system and that is a fact.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Apparently you're not convinced linux has a future...or is Microsoft
    >>>paying you to spread FUD?
    >>>
    >>>gwh
    >>>

    >>
    >>Flatty is well known in the Linux community for posting under different
    >>names.
    >>OS/2-eCS must be making some impact if he's posting at COOA.
    >>
    >>Mark
    >>New Zealand

    >
    >
    > You guys are crazy.
    > I have always supported OS/2 but even I know when it is a dead end.
    > If it works and the users are happy so be it and leave it alone, but I
    > wouldn't invest a dime in OS/2 right now and I would be looking to migrate
    > to something else before IBM pulls the plug for good.
    >
    > Linux however has started out as a dead end and still seems to remain one,
    > at least on the desktop.
    >
    > Tell me how Apple in such a short time can release a professional level
    > desktop operating system such as OS/X and Linux is still languishing trying
    > to top 1 percent of the desktop market.
    >
    > Professional programmers that's how.
    > Not kiddies hacking out code fragments in their parents basements.
    > Professional, on the payroll programmers paid to produce quality software.
    >
    > It must be pretty embarrassing to the Linux community that OS/X has become
    > quite a hit while Linux is still dying on the desktop.
    >


    hmmm obviously haven't done much history about Apple and NeXt have you
    fratty?

    > And one last thing, for the record, OS/2 is/was a great system.
    > So don't try and recruit allies from the OS/2 groups to war against me
    > because I have no problems with OS/2.
    > Never had and never will.
    > Like I said I was a TeamOS/2'er from way back when Janet was running the
    > show.
    >


    Us OS/2users love OSS Linux loves OSS even MS Windows users like me like
    OSS. There is common ground to dispose of bloated over priced commercial
    software.

    > What's the matter Linux users, running out of zealots?


    You are more zealotous then most flatty...............
    >
    >



    --
    On my Win 98 box.
    Why? Because I like bug catching.
    Or maybe because NT based MS Windows are sooooooooo insecure when
    conected to the internet!!!!!


  18. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    T.G. Reaper wrote:


    > Luckily Linux is OSS, IBM won't be able to kill it off, through it's
    > legendary ability to completely **** up when it comes to marketing
    > software.


    No amount of marketing would be enough to outperform restrictive
    preload agreements in the past times.

    Cheers,
    Martin

  19. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    Richard Steiner wrote:
    > Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, flatfish@linuxmail.org spake unto us, saying:
    >
    >
    >>IBM chose to sell Windows because they knew Windows pre-loaded systems
    >>would sell and OS/2 ones would not.

    >
    >
    > You seem to be saying that IBM had little choice but to sell Windows
    > pre-loaded systems, at least if they wanted to make a profit.
    >
    > Right?


    The situation was more like this: in that time frame, the IBM PC Company
    was largely concerned with brick and mortar PC dealers and chains. That
    channel wanted Windows.

    OS/2 was not successful in generating demand at the retail store level
    as a preload. It was ordered by large accounts and had some success as
    shrink wrap. In fact, great success as a shrink wrap for a very brief
    period of time. But that had no meaning for the PC Company because ...
    they sold PCs.

    PC dealers were really impressed with the Win95 launch. Really
    impressed. They were telling the PC Company .. if your machine doesn't
    have Win95 on it, I'm not interested.

    The PC Company took that very, very seriously.

    Regards,
    Bob St.John
    Serenity Systems


  20. Re: Microsoft is watching you here.

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:33:52 UTC, flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:05:45 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, flatfish@linuxmail.org spake unto us, saying:
    > >
    > >>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:46:12 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner)
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, flatfish@linuxmail.org spake unto us, saying:
    > >>>
    > >>>>You can try and convince whomever you like that OS/2 still has a future,
    > >>>>but OS/2 is a dead operating system and that is a fact.
    > >>>
    > >>>OS/2 is stable, it requires few hardware resources, it's relatively
    > >>>easy to use, and it still does an excellent job of providing the types
    > >>>of services and applications that I want a desktop OS to provide.
    > >>
    > >>That's not what I said.
    > >>I said OS/2 is a dead operating system.
    > >>What you said could be applied to BEOS, Amiga OS and any one of a dozen
    > >>other dead operating systems.

    > >
    > >IBM is still releasing new device drivers for OS/2, and they still
    > >provide OS/2 support for those willing to pay for it.
    > >
    > >Be Inc., in the other hand, is completely gone, and is no longer writing
    > >drivers for or supporting their former product in any way.
    > >
    > >That's quite a difference. How can you equate the two?

    >
    > Walk into CompUSA in NYC and stand there for 2 weeks asking people what
    > operating system they run and I'll bet you can't find 20 people who run
    > either OS/2 or BEOS.
    >
    > That's dead.


    I'd stund for 2 days here on the market place and had asked about
    1,000 peoples what LINUX is - not one of them was able to give an
    answer - so linux must be dead.

    --
    Tschau/Bye
    Herbert

    eComStation 1.1 Deutsch Beta ist verügbar

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast