don't forget ACS! And I have some stupid Avocent OOB thing that of course requires JAVA.

Network people who are scared of windows and force this java crapfest are so damned 1997 annoying. Then there are the Oracle heads. Just wish this crap would finally die.

another boutique language that won't be here in five years.

if it wasnt for Minecraft, no end user would be left with java.

And in the office world, all the scared of MS tards led us down the java path. Thanks guys!

I was thinking of the Mariana islands as a 'close enough' for me stop-gap. Crap. There must be some other Micronesian territory left that didn't get suckered into independence.

but the company?? Are you kidding me?

Dont act surprised when that re-org happens and you dont have a seat.

Were they actually thinking of making sets? Did they learn nothing? No of course not.

And im sure their utterly lackluster software will go nowhere either.

Nokia only made durable shitty brick phones. But the world went to smart phones, and nobody wants Nokia 'software'. They should have diversified into something else, like solar panels, or wind turbines. Get on the Al Gore kick.

Are you still on VAXen? I thought the Itanium stuff was at least newer than the Dec Alpha...

http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/os...

so cool back in the day, but it didn't really take hold for some reason. too bad.

at least the name superfish isnt missleading, if not ironic.

give us the butterfly! The only cool IBM laptop.

Blue enter key? Are you kidding me?

Also, some OS/2

check out shoebill ( http://emaculation.com/forum/v... ), this guy managed to get A/UX run under emulation. It's pretty cool

SAA is what OS/2's presentation manager was built around. Some pipe dream that the mainframes, as/400's and rs/6000's were going to share a common UI. Well that never happened, and it was a kneejerk thing to push MS out of the UI on OS/2.

Not that it matters, MS-DOS had a lot more device drivers than OS/2, and Windows 3.0's ability to use them made it a winner.

OS/2 was more of a learning tool in how not to push people off of MS-DOS, and instead they moved to Windows, then once machines were fast enough and ME was horrible enough, everyone went to XP Home, and plenty of users are still there.

They kind of did with LanMan server, and things like SQL. The OS/2 Extended Edition bundled lots of stuff together, but it was IBM's way of doing things, and I never saw anyone using EE. However I've setup MS SQL 1.0 on OS/2 and it is a NIGHTMARE. Compared to NT where you install NT, then SQL and away you go. But no, Install OS/2, reboot install the lan driver stuff, reboot, install lan man server, reboot make sure you can now create named pipes, and read them, then install sql server. OS/2 refused to bundle in the important bits, that NT and WfW later would all bring in by default. It didn't take a genius to see the rise of the LAN, however it took some major pushes to get into server space. But nobody enjoyed dealing with netware and their NLM crap, once NT hit v 4.0 everyone was dumping it for NT. But the underpinning network aspects of NT were on OS/2 + LanMan. NT just started from that point and had it all built in.

What is weird is how MS saw the LAN, but missed the internet. Even OS/2 3.0 Warp with that woefully useless IAK, provided no LAN access, or any peer to peer networking capabilities.

Granted the window between 3.0 and 3.1 for workgroups was a crappy period for networking but by the time OS/2 3.0 came out, it was already too late. And it's TCP/IP was that horrible dialup centric POS, nothing multi-homed, or with physical network cards.

in the OS/2 1.x there was a clear leader in the LAN, and it was Netware. But IBM just thought OS/2 should be as crappy as MS-DOS, and let the 3rd parties come along and add in support. Instead they should have at least bundled in LanMan support, but of course that would have killed a part number.

Windows for Workgroups 3.1 did have a network stack, and it was greatly improved in Windows for Workgroups 3.11. NT 3.1 came with TCP/IP, IPX, and support for SNA out of the box in 93. Warp was in '94.

The real 'killer' of course was Win32s+Winsock which gave us Mosaic. And why was IBM not killing themselves to make a Mosaic port to OS/2? Once people saw a graphical Internet, everyone I saw around me was clamouring for it, and it was amazing at the time how many Windows 3.1+Win32s+Mosiac installs talking to various UNIX dialup accounts using SLiRP. Something that was really unstable on OS/2, so more of the OS/2 fans were either going to Linux or to NT 3.5/3.51

It wouldn't matter, as SMP was becoming a thing, and don't forget the coming x86_64 along with the ability to run on RISC. OS/2's kernel was largely untouched from early MS OS/2 2.0 betas, and the device drivers were still 16bit assembly. IBM's L4 port of OS/2 cost such an incredible amount of money, and it produced an OS with no networking, and was dreadfully slow as well. IBM wanted BIG money to run OS/2 in SMP, meanwhile NT workstation supports two processors out of the box. You can guess which I was running on my dual proc P100.

With NT you run basically the same OS on the desk and the server, so for many dev's to make a 'server' version was all too easy. And compared to NT, OS/2 was a horrible server. I'd take NT's registry over the insane config.sys any day. Not to mention one goof in config.sys and you can't boot.

OS/2 could have been made to become more NT like, but IBM clearly wasn't up to the task, instead they were basically maintaining the same codebase from MS OS/2 2.0 circa 1991.