Guidelines for Effective OS/2 Advocacy

Richard E. Hodges
Los Angeles, California

This article touches on many ways to advocate OS/2 effectively on the "electronic press," and discusses how to handle the opponents' tactics.

In his original Usenet posting, the author states: "Please copy this article to all electronic media where OS/2 supporters and advocates are found!"

Over the past few years, long-time OS/2ers have become aware that the computer trade press doesn't give us much attention. Letter-writing campaigns to magazines have helped to minimize the blatantly unfair reviews, but OS/2 still doesn't garner much respect in the press.

Fortunately, the "electronic press" is one area where OS/2 has solid support. This is due to the fact that we, the actual customers, are able to voice our opinions directly to one another. Nobody is in direct control of the electronic communications media such as the Internet, and what is "printed" there. This is where the grass-roots OS/2 effort began, and where Team OS/2 was born.

More Positive, Effective Advocacy

In following the discussions on Usenet, I have noticed an increasing trend to negative and fruitless bickering with Windows advocates. While OS/2 users have a fine reputation for being helpful and courteous to "newbies," novices, and even other long-time OS/2ers, the tone of OS/2 advocacy needs to be more positive and effective. I frequently see OS/2 advocates being drawn into arguments that stray from the original point, or degenerate into extended, pointless debates.

At times, so-called debates resemble an old Monty Python skit where, paraphrasing, a man walks into a room labeled "Argumentation" and says, "Ah, this is argumentation, right?" "No it isn't!" "What do you mean? It says so on the door." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does. I just read it." "You must be mistaken." "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" "Am not!" "Are too!" ... You get the idea.

Remember, the number of people who actually contribute to advocacy groups in places like Usenet, Fidonet, CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online, etc. is likely quite small compared to the number of "lurkers" who may be interested in OS/2 and silently tune in to get an impression of what OS/2 is all about. Lurkers probably will not spend a lot of time following the debates. OS/2ers need to be aware of this, and should try to put their best foot forward, as concisely as possible.

Some Do's and Don'ts of OS/2 Advocacy

1. Be courteous and polite. There is nothing to be gained by taking an angry tone, hurling insults, name-calling, etc. Naturally, it's tough to turn the other cheek when people call us nuts and fanatics. Keep a cool head. Readers will see for themselves that you're a reasonable person.

2. Explain OS/2 advantages - use simple examples. Try to state in plain English what you like about OS/2. Keep in mind that readers may not be aware of OS/2 terminology and acronyms. For instance, when you say, "Wow! I just got the GA. WPS looks great! The IAK is awesome. Install found my ATI and SB card and MMPM/2 is really neat. Can't wait for DOOM/2 ..." One gets the idea there is something good here, but what is it?

3. Be honest about OS/2 weaknesses. OS/2 is a great system and we love it. But, like everything, it has its weak points. Admit it! Trying to whitewash some deficiency in OS/2 weakens your credibility, and opens the door for a counterattack that you can't win. Just point out that, on balance, the overall advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

4. Don't argue against a straw man. Some people will argue indefinitely over a moot point, or exaggerate the importance of a cosmetic feature. (Remember Monty Python's argumentation room?) Avoid this trap! It fills the network with noise.

5. Don't back people into a defensive position. This is a standard tactic of negotiation. If you argue too vehemently, the other person becomes entrenched, and cannot change his/her mind about an issue without losing face.

6. Try to keep subject titles positive. Many people just browse subject titles. Make sure that what they see looks interesting and inviting. Avoid pointless follow-ups on negative subjects. Watch out for Windows advocates introducing or changing subject titles to anti-OS/2 themes.

7. Don't respond to obvious flame bait. Recent examples from Usenet:

   "Just like IBM's other high-quality offerings, TopView and AIX."

   "OS/2 users can't do that. They think they can, but they can't, because their position is almost always irrational."

   It is a pointless waste of bandwidth to respond to these insults. Note that the first one is an attempt to divert the subject to the general category "IBM products that do not have mass-market appeal." Non sequitur - it has nothing to do with OS/2. No sense in pursuing it. The second attempts to incite a series of angry responses, which are subsequently used to justify a claim that OS/2 users are fanatics. Ignore this nonsense - it wastes bandwidth. 8. Terminate dead-end threads. It's easy to get bogged down in pointless debates that can't be proven one way or the other - predictions about the future, guesses about installed base, sales of apps, etc. Just say no! Politely disagree, and let it go.

8. Don't spread anti-OS/2 rumors. Occasionally, you see an anti-OS/2 rumor that apparently comes from nowhere and has no apparent basis in reality. For instance, there was a recent one titled "Rumor: Windows 95 for PPC?" Don't follow up on it. Send the article's author some private mail, and ask for proof. Also, don't reprint or follow up to anti-OS/2 news articles. The press is biased enough - try to keep it off the nets.

9. Don't shoot from the hip. Stop and think before you post an angry response on the network. A good rule of thumb is to wait a day and review what you want to send. Sleep on it. Remember, millions of people worldwide may see what you write, and they could potentially include family, friends, your employer, or a prospective employer.

Windows Advocate Tactics to Watch Out For

• Red-herring arguments. Watch out for arguments that are intended to confuse the reader, or divert attention away from the subject.

  A classic example is the so-called "unified command line" in Windows NT. Windows advocates like to use this as an example of how Microsoft's user interface is better. It's a red herring for three reasons. First, it diverts attention away from the fact that NT's GUI is relatively primitive, being based on the Win 2.x and OS/2 1.x style that appeared in the late 1980s. Second, since NT has such small sales, most people have no idea what the discussion is about. Therefore, they are confused and simply hear that there is "something NT users think is better" (I disagree, by the way). Even though the feature is trivial, most people don't know that. Finally, it diverts attention away from the fact that DOS/Windows and Windows 95 don't even have a non-DOS command line.

• The "Windows Family" windmill fight. This is a special class of red-herring arguments brought on by the Windows Family concept. It works like this: You make a valid a point about a deficiency in a specific version of Windows. The Windows advocate answers that you can get that missing feature in another version of Windows. This is a red herring, because the other system also changes the costs, limitations, and other unrelated features. You're fighting a windmill. Don't do it. Politely point out the total tradeoffs that are implied

  An example is responding to criticism of DOS/Windows with information about NT. "Windows doesn't offer true multitasking." "You can get that with NT!" Or, "Windows doesn't have hardware-enforced memory protection. OS/2 does." "NT has it!" Trouble is, of course, NT costs more, and doesn't offer the same downward compatibility

  There are a number of important tradeoffs between Windows 95 and Windows NT. When cost and downward compatibility are the issue, Windows advocates tell you about Windows 95. But when stability is important, you hear about NT.

• The market momentum argument. When Windows can't be defended on its merits, you begin to hear about "market momentum." Installed base and applications available are usually the issues brought up. In effect, the argument goes, "Sure, Windows isn't as good, but we're stuck with it." One needs to point out that we, the customers, have the right to demand quality products. Many people are not satisfied with the reliability of Windows. The OS/2 market is growing rapidly as people discover the difference and turn to OS/2.

• Rationalization and distortion. A favorite tactic is to overemphasize a minor point while totally ignoring a major issue. The most important subject in this class is tedious criticism of minor user interface defects in OS/2, while completely ignoring important design deficiencies and architectural flaws in DOS/Windows 3.1 and/or Windows 95 that lead to performance and reliability problems. Some examples:

  Windows advocate: "OS/2 icons aren't as pretty as Windows icons." The unsaid major issue: OS/2 icons represent a powerful object-oriented user interface. Windows icons are simple pointers to a file.

  Windows advocate: "Separate Win-OS/2 sessions eat memory." The unsaid issue: Windows does not offer separate, concurrent sessions.

  Windows advocate: "OS/2 doesn't support Win32." The unsaid issue: First, of the few Win32 programs available, most use Win32s, which OS/2 Warp supports. Second, Windows 95 will thunk key 32-bit system calls down to 16-bit subsystems. Finally, there is an increasingly large selection of native 32-bit OS/2 software that offers all the advantages of Win32 now.

  Windows advocate: "OS/2 FAT volumes don't see long file names." The unsaid issue: The OS/2 High Performance File System offers true 256-character long file names, and provides an efficient, robust method to store data on large disk partitions. Windows 95 will add an alias name mechanism to the FAT file system, called VFAT. This means there will be two names for every file: the real name and the long (alias) file name. FAT systems tend to become fragmented, waste space on large partitions, and are susceptible to corruption of the FAT tables. Windows 95 does nothing to alleviate these problems.

  Windows advocate: "OS/2's single message queue is a bad design." The unsaid issue: Windows 95 relies upon non-reentrant 16-bit code for key system functions (KERNEL, USER, and GDI). Thus, it is not a true 32-bit preemptive multitasking system. According to the May 1994 issue of Microsoft Systems Journal, "If a 16-bit application actually hangs, the system will gradually come to a halt ..." And 16-bit Windows apps have been known to hang.

• Diversionary tactics. Some clever Windows advocates are masters of changing the subject. This even includes the subject title. Consider this recent example:

  Subject: Win NT for Productivity
  [was: PC Week: OS/2 Wins Shootout]

  Notice that the original positive for OS/2 was replaced by a positive for NT. There are a number of more subtle tactics one needs to watch. Perhaps the most common one comes in discussions of DOS and Windows support. If you say OS/2's downward compatibility is excellent, invariably the topic will be diverted to subjects like adjusting DOS settings to get a game to work, future Win32 support, unicode, C2 security, etc. Stay on track - don't take the bait.

• Endless followups on negative subject. Some Windows advocates stay up until the wee hours of the morning continuously responding to any subject negative to OS/2. If you respond, the thread just continues indefinitely.

• Painting OS/2 users as nuts and fanatics. Very annoying. Very offensive. Hard to ignore. But, it must be ignored.

• Gloom-and-doom predictions for OS/2. These are obvious examples of pure FUD, easily countered by OS/2 advocates.

Richard Hodges will complete his Ph.D. in electrical engineering at The University of California, Los Angeles in Spring 1995. He is writing his dissertation in electromagnetic field theory and computational electromagnetics. His prior work experience over 14 years includes R&D engineer in antenna design for Hughes Aircraft Co., antenna design engineer for MA/Com -MDM Division, and research engineer in electromagnetics for Jet Propulsion Laboratory, all in southern California. Richard has two degrees in electrical engineering, an MS from California State University at Northridge and an BS from The University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached via Internet at hodges@aixgrad.seas.ucla.edu.