From: John Poltorak (jpolt_at_bradnet.legend.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 05 2000 - 10:11:32 EDT
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 04:29:06PM -0500, sehh of H.I.C. & D.B.S. wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:14:50 -0400, STeve Andre' wrote:
>
> >I'm impressed that you were able to get a fix out of them for OS/2, but
> >don't expect
> >it to happen often in the future.
>
> i was quite impressed my self!
>
> >I suppose IBM is stuck doing some supporting of OS/2 still, for any government
> >contracts they have that used it. If I'm not mistaken, they'll have to
> >support it for
> >10 years I think, after some point of stopping selling it (or something
> >like that).
>
> Actualy IBM has a commitment for the next 7 years. Then they will either
> review it and continue or drop os/2.
>
> >At this point I wouldn't do anything new with OS/2. There are too many
> >neat and
> >free alternatives (OpenBSD, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, ...) which are ultimately
> >more powerful--and have a greater population of folks who can do things
> >with it.
>
> Now you are wrong :) first, IBM wouldn't just drop OS/2, if they did they would
> have an alternative, like an OS/2 emulator for AIX or something like that. Second
> OS/2 is dead, long live OS/2, yes we've been hearing this for many years but
> OS/2 is still here as always.
>
> OS/2 is not as dead as you think. Maybe IBM doesn't seem to give any real support
> but thats not entirely true. Actualy IBM doesn't give any PR/advertisements about
> OS/2 any more since they don't think OS/2 will sell that way. Suppost exists, we've
> been having new fixpacks every 2-3 months, plus the new OS/2 Warp Server for e-business
> and the upcomming OS/2 Warp 5 client thats on beta testing as we speak.
>
> No, OS/2 is far from dead.
You forgot to mention that the v4.5 Warp Client came out this week :-)
> PS:
> OS/2 is as powerful as any unix system, or more, in my oppinion.
>
> þ H.I.C. & D.B.S. þ OS/2 Warp þ Hellas þ
> þ ServerConfig þ ConfigEdit þ OS/2 UK UG þ
-- John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:57 EST