From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 18:46:09 EST
At 02:46 PM 12/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > OS/2 has already been dead (more-or-less) for at least 3 to 5
> > years. All this announcement did was make it official.
>OS/2 is only dead to the ignorant.
Let's not confuse "irrelevant" with "ignorant".
>I can't understand the glee people have with this subject.
Again, let's not confuse terms. If you thought I had anything to
say with "glee", that's more a reflection of your own insecure feelings on
the subject of OS/2. All I did was state the obvious in very plain,
matter-of-fact terms. Any emotion tied to that was yours, not mine.
The story of OS/2 is all about "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" and I
have no argument with any of that as there is simply no way to argue
against OS/2 technical prowess and how ahead of its time it was.
But the only relevant term about OS/2 now is simply "Ain't". Even
the most fervent OS/2-evangelist IBM'ers & former-IBM'ers have accepted
that by now. The only hangers-on are those with particular
mission-critical OS/2-based applications that they *must* run (the absolute
minority), and the nutball hobbyists that also probably have an Amiga and
an Atari running in the back room too--and maybe even a Commodore PET (for
the truly ancient among us).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:59:46 EST