The opinions expressed in this section are those of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor or publisher of OS/2 CONNECT. NOTE: Letters may be edited for inappropriate or offensive language or clarity.
Think about it: Imagine if a small company (a VERY small company) licensed Novell Netware or Windows95 and tried to build a separate "distribution" or version of the product, in "competition" with the original developers. That would make at least a few headlines. I'm shocked that no product review, no comment, not even a WHISPER about eComStation has been found in any PC industry publication except for the pure OS/2-based sources.
One would almost think there was a "conspiracy of silence." Or is it just a "confederation of dunces?"
The idea that eCS will migrate to or that Serenity will try to get users to migrate to Windows or Linux is total BULLSHIT! The position that I have heard over and over again is: We will attempt to support additional api's on eCS if the demand is there...and that it is possible that eventually parts if not all of the underlying operating system could be replaced if a better solution is available (Myself and others generally see this last statement as a way to assure users that there is a long term future in this product and that if IBM totally withdraws OS/2 and will not sell the product then they might be forced to move to a different underlying kernel).
I'll stop addressing issues, although I could go on, and end by saying that eCS is the best chance our operating system of choice has to make a bright future for itself. Constructive input based on experience with the product is a good way to help the product along...negative articles based on little more than what folks think they heard at a demo should not have been the basis for an article that took a negative stance...just plain stupid on behalf of SCOUG.
As a home/SOHO OS/2 user, I have been following the eCS story almost from the beginning. Migration is not an issue. The ability to use other platforms from eCS is planned. OS/2 is the base platform. Period.
The only potential (repeat, potential) for "migration" would be if someone, somewhere came up with a better, more reliable, more stable, more universal, backwards-compatible OS; then even I, a die-hard OS/2 stalwart, would be upset if Serenity Systems didn't look at changing. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Could we please put the "migration" issue to rest?
Bob does not want to start a war of words with the author of the SCOUG article, feeling that it would be antagonistic and counterproductive. However, I pointed out to him that eCs is still in its infancy and false perceptions regarding the product should be dealt with expeditiously, otherwise the public would assume the erroneous claim is correct. Consequently, he is planning to release a statement clarifying the issues regarding eCs. I, for one, am interested in hearing what he has to say.
Peter also states that the CD is not bootable off a SCSI system. Though depending on a person's actual hardware, the eCs preview has not had any problem booting off a SCSI CDROM as long as booting from a CDROM is supported in the adapters BIOS and there are drivers for the SCSI adapter in eCS. As to eCS migrating people to Windoze, I still can't figure that one out. Even if Microsoft ever got it's junkware to actually work well enough, who in their right mond would pay the rediculous prices Gates is demanding now. Maybe someday Linux will stop being a lot of work to run, and might be suitable for a workstation, but that day is not here yet, so I think the only logical platform for eCS is the technology from IBM known as OS/2 :-)
It seemed to me that a much better comparison could be made with 1990 results. Although in that annual report the then CEO, Mr. Akers, was wafting lyrical about the potential for services growth, services contributed little, if anything, to the 1990 results: 1990, therefore, is probably the last year in which IBM's revenues were entirely product driven. In that year, IBM's gross revenues were £69bn.
In 2000, IBM's revenues amounted to $88bn. Of this, $33bn is attributed to services, leaving $55bn attributable to product. It is apparent that IBM has lost significant market share and suffered severe damage to its core product revenues over the last ten years. To some extent this has been covered by the commendable growth in services revenue. However, at a labour intensive 25% gross margin for services compared with a capital intensive 80% gross margin available on, for example, licensed software, this has been a questionable trade-off. There is a clear opportunity for a product fight back!
And the fight back does appear to be focusing on highly profitable licensed software. However, nowhere is licensed software more pervasive than on the business desktop. If you look at an average desktop, what you will typically see is an IBM-compatible PC running an operating system, an office suite, an E-mail service and an Internet browser, with perhaps a fax client and terminal emulation - a pretty ordinary environment, usually dominated by Microsoft products running under NT client. But you will not have to look too hard to find business executives who are not very complimentary about NT client on grounds of performance and stability, which feed into the bottom line though larger PCs and increased helpdesk/infrastructure staff. Despite the genuine complaints about a lack of wide-ranging applications on OS/2, for the business desktop environment IBM has a perfectly viable alternative in OS/2, SmartSuite, Notes and Netscape.
So why is the desktop not a target, when it represents billions of dollars spend each year and desktops are refreshed every three or four years? If IBM cannot pluck the low-hanging fruit from the NT client desktop, where there is a crying need for viable competition, what is its confidence level in making significant inroads into a higher quality installed base such as Oracle?
At the moment we have the bizarre spectacle of IBM shipping PC hardware on which it is losing money, but populating each box with a profitable Microsoft operating system. The effect is that IBM is paying out money on each PC to boost Microsoft's profits and inhibit the efforts of its own software engineers to play in this marketplace.
It would be fascinating to look into the mind of the marketing executive who dreamt this up.
Some time ago I had a problem getting the latest software support from IBM for my WSEB. Many of you readers sent me suggestions and comments, some of which were helpful, and others that were very supportive. I wish to thank you one and all. I would like to thank every one personally but I didn't want to send a form e-mail, so I suspect this way is best.
My problem is about 98% fixed with the remainder just a matter of waiting. The contacts I received at IBM were able to help me with the problem that for some strange reason the local IBM rep's just could not comprehend. Well IBM has its problems, at least the users can stick together to solve their various OS headaches.
Thanks Again.
eComStation has really had no effect on this client I am supporting. As what they want to see are products for OS/2 being developed and supported by IBM or at least available from other vendors. There is still a major market out there for OS/2 in the US, but soon that will dwindle to the few of us who will persist to be rebellious.
I have grown to hate Windows with a passion but, in order to pay bills, I have to go there, at least until Linux picks up in this area or on this account.
Sad, we can't even get support internally on OS/2 from IBM.
Must have been good that night they slept together.
Keep up the good work.
Your comments are right on the mark - I would dare to venture you had to resist writing a book on this topic.
Good fortunes to you,
At least with "PRIDE", you may not always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. (Apologies to Mick Jagger.)
The ideal candidate for an IT manager will have understanding of both the technical end of the development process as well as the business reasons why such a process should be undertaken. A lot of the time, the development of an application is done on an ad hoc basis. The funny thing is, the planning required to make a good foundation for a business application is not onerous; it just requires clear thinking about the nature of the information that is being queried.
I have found in my (admittedly much shorter than your) experience that a lot of the problem lies in managers who haven't clearly thought through what it is that they need to be able to find out from their IT resources. A lot of managers look at the whole "IT thang" as a "black art" that they do not want to know about. There is a serious problem in that most managers want the plate brought to them with the food already cut up, and aren't willing to take the time to learn the fundamentals of how their IT systems work so they can tell their programmers how they want it cut up. When one abdicates a choice, a choice will be made. IT managers have been abdicating their choices to their programmers for many years now, and the choices that they've necessarily been making often haven't been the right one from a managerial perspective.
To submit a letter to the editor for this section, please complete the following form. NOTE: Some web browsers may not support e-mail protocols. In this event, e-mail or fax your message separately.