Releasing OS/2

[Robert Greenstreet]

>
>
>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:18:11 +0100
>From: Bert Thomas <bert at brothom.nl>
>Subject: Re: Releasing OS/2
>
>
>Cini, Richard wrote:
>> 
>>             Bill Gates continues, "It's all very ironic, because it's most
>> of the OS/2 code is still our code and we're still selling LAN Manager.
>> Whenever we'd go out and criticize OS/2, that group {within Microsoft}
would
>> say 'we just took more friendly fire.'"
>> 
>>             There's the answer as to why IBM cannot release OS/2. I know we
>> alluded to this fact in the original thread but this is the most positive
>> confirmation I've seen.
>
>I disaggree on the argument. M$ contributed no 32-bit code to OS/2 as 
>far as I can tell. IMO it is the 32-bit code that made OS/2 superior to 
>Windows. BTW, OS/2 has some features that are not available on any other 
>OS, such as the immense flexibility of running DOS programs. One can 
>even write special device drivers that emulate a device in a virtual DOS 
>machine. There are many settings available for VDMs and features like 
>detecting polling loops to prevent waisting time I have never seen before.
>
>Check out "The design of OS/2"
>
>Bert
>
>
Hi Rich and Bert,

Rich, thank you for the reference to the 20-year anniv. issue of PC Mag,
but regarding Gates: Gates is so slippery that I have to take much of what
he says with multiple grains of salt. In several (perhaps many?) respects
he's a classic sociopath. He all-to-often takes credit where none is due.
He doesn't speak or write well, and if so many didn't believe that he was
some sort of "genius," there would be little reason to listen to what he
has to say. I mean, this is the guy who initially dismissed the www for
probably 2 years. What a knucklehead he can be... He may also be the
asshole who started the "Gary went flying" rumor/classic piece of
disinformation (and if it was not him, he was "in on it," and he actively
promoted it).

Regards,
Bob Greenstreet