IBM Threatens To Leave ISO Over OOXML Brouhaha 200
barnackle writes "In addition to threatening to leave certain standards organizations over the OOXML shenanigans, IBM created new guidelines for its own participation in those organizations in an attempt to pressure the ISO and ECMA to be more fair in their approval procedures."
ISO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... didn't they used to be some important international standards body at one point, before they got into the marketing business and went under?
I thought they were already gone...
Why is this news?
Re:ISO? (Score:5, Informative)
For one simple reason. Gov't procurement procedures still require to purchase standard compliant ware. If there is a national (e.g. ANSI, depending on your nationality) standard, then it is must be ANSI standard compliant. If there is no national standard - then ISO standards must be checked.
We all shouldn't forget why M$ got into the standards game at all. I'm sure it was discussed before here too: one US agency said it can not renew office suit licensing deal with M$ because there is not international standard (guess which *grin* *grin*) for document formats and M$Office isn't compatible with it. M$ partner was more than just surprised and reported to Redmond to pull some strings. IIRC scandal actually erupted when they singed deal anyway without even doing proper public tender, later making up excuses that they were not aware that there are other suppliers.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why was this modded "troll"? Would you mod IBM "troll" too?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can assure you, ISO is alive and well, and will be around for a many good years. Many different types of industries use ISO for some type of standards certification. Hell, there's an entire industry for registrars to do pre-auditing for ISO.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can assure you, ISO is alive and well, and will be around for a many good years.
What are standards needed for anyway anymore? The record companies already regularly break the "Red Book Standard" for audio CD's and sell those fake data CD's as real audio CD's.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of companies conform to ISO standards for two reasons:
The first being that it brings in more money. Once you're ISO certified, people take you a little more seriously.
Secondly, it really helps companies that are disorganized with their documentation to be a whole lot more organized, which has a lot of huge benefits.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only on the surface.
In my experience, a company who is not organized attempting to become ISO certification just slathers a lot of lipstick on a pig, and it's also my experience that the ISO auditors fall for it every damned time.
As an engineer who has to pay lip service to a few ISO standards, but is given no resources to actually fulfill the spirit of the processes, it's all a bunch of bullshit.
(CMMI is even worse - that takes a ton more effort and I've yet to see a company really do it correctly. I'm sure some of them have to exist, but most either document every nanosecond of work (and can't use it in any meaningful way) or don't document anything but still try to get through their audit with a level 3 or 4 and then stop doing it again for another 2 years until they need recertified. Christ I need a new job.)
Re:ISO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely correct on the industrial stuff like child safety or structural integrity...
However, ISO has shown its weakness in the software field - and dare I say, also demonstrating their corruptibility.
I would suggest that this is because of the subjective nature of software and that generally it's a "survival of the fittest" thing resulting in more than one suitable result (of which OOXML is not one - it is the terminally ill offspring of very wealthy parents). Imagine what would happen if I where to say
ISO is fundamentally corrupt (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't about specific software, hardware or other standards per se.
This is about a corrupt process, which this debacle happened to reveal. The organisation is fundamentally corrupt, the procedures are fundamentally corruptible, and the appeals process has proven that there is no effective corrective mechanism for dealing with corruption.
This makes every standard they stamp, be it the crappy and unimplementable software standard that proved their level of corruption and incapacity for correcting it, or
Re:ISO? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still wonder if this is exactly what Microsoft wanted all along.
So many IT companies purporting to adhere to ISO standard this and that, against which MS, the king of proprietary, cannot compete. Much better to pull the rug out from under them by discrediting the standards body they are accredited against.
Please help (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
Some countries are already making noises about not automatically adopting ISO standards. The more countries that adopt this "a la carte" approach to ISO, the more it will weaken ISO. The more countries that adopt the a la carte approach "until such time as ISO gets its act together" the more pressure there will be on ISO to get its act together.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw letting it get its act together. One of the smaller standards bodies will become the de facto, and ISO's head can be placed on a pole in the public square as a reminder.
Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.
Well I won't want tha.. Ooh! Fizzy! I'll take three.
Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
A valid point, but once the well has been poisoned, it's folly to keep drinking it. And the analogy breaks down in an important aspect - the Well let itself be poisoned in return for cash. This should be a lesson to other wells everywhere.
But I don't disagree with what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
So it was a wishing well, and MSFT wished for the well to poison itself?
MSFT is just that greedy. Granted so can be IBM. but IBM learned that if they adhere to standards they can not only be more profitable but are able to wiggle business away from others easier, as they aren't locked into a specific platform. It is a two way street, but that is a small price to pay for a greater chance at more business opportunities.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not all as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is you're unable to separate the message from the messenger?
It doesn't matter a damn if IBM owns and operates Groklaw if the information on it is correct and stands up to scrutiny. To date, it has. So what's the problem?
In my opinion, the case of Groklaw is a great example of the public benefit of anonymous speech. If she had outed herself she might have been sued, pulled into court, lost her job, even physically harrassed. But by keeping her anonymity - and her integrity - she's been able to make a pretty big impact in the case, at least to us nerds who care about such things. She did exactly the right thing.
Names are meaningless. And even if you had it, what good what that do? What are you going to do, drive to that address, demand to see her bank statement to ensure there's no payments from IBM?
Where the information comes from is irrelevant. The quality of the information is the only thing that matters. Groklaw has stood the test of time, in my opinion, so you're doing yourself a disservice by downrating it on that basis.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not question Groklaw as a source at all. I've found it fun to watch SCO twist in the wind and Groklaw point out the progress of the cases they're involved in. PJ has done everyone a service by being so diligent following the legal shennanigans of Darl and Co.
What I'm referring to is IBM. Maybe it's just my natural distrust of large companies, but every word I see from big busin
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Er, I was responding to prockcore's comment, not yours!
Unless of course you have just inadvertently outed yourself as also being behind the sockpuppet prockcore, in which case your posts turn into an ironic "hoist by your own petard" take on the reliability of going by apparent names as the deciding factor of what is trustworthy information online.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not question Groklaw as a source at all.
That's right. You flat out rejected Groklaw as a source due to PJ's anonymity, rather than grant it any benefit of the doubt given PJ's track record. That's far more disingenuous than merely raising unfounded questions about Groklaw's corporate connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Most
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This thread has gotten pretty confused (yeah, I must be new here...) Ignoring who said what, there are two important issues at stake: (1) is Groklaw a good source, and (2) is IBM a good source? There is a third unimportant issue: (3) is Groklaw speaking for IBM?
The answers are: (1) yes, (2) not really, and (3) who cares.
Assume for the sake of argument that Groklaw is part of IBM. IBM ain't stupid, they understand their audience, and they know that we perceive a difference between independent informa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PJ is anon? What's this fluff on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], then?
Great, but does it really matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great, but does it really matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well IBM is big enough to Push their own standards with or without the ISO label. So what that IBM may be able to do is invaladate ISO as a leader in International Standards Organization. If ISO label has no meaning then they become useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great, but does it really matter? (Score:5, Informative)
IBM and other raised serious objections to OOXML but OOXML was pushed forward, in violation of ISO's rules. IBM, with all it's clout, could not stop it.
More importantly the procedure that ISO had in place failed everyone. ISO violated its' own rules!
No discussions, no debates, no desents. People either approved OOXML or were forced to be silent.
ISO has been rendered usless as several countries have stated that are withdrawing from ISO and setting up their own standards body.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ISO has been rendered usless as several countries have stated that are withdrawing from ISO and setting up their own standards body.
Will it have hookers and blackjack ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Last year, Microsoft had $51bn in revenue and IBM had $98bn. So if it's about money, IBM is twice as important as Microsoft.
And who had more profit?
no. (Score:3, Insightful)
and we all know that from the stories of last 2 years on slashdot, even if not our own experiences, though ms fanbois may disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
it tells you ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm is.
I'll send you an invoice for the keyboard/monitor cleaning.
Re:no. (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is more experienced at doing dirty footwork than IBM; they set that industry standard along with hundreds of others. That's what made the SCO thing so damn funny, and look at the outcome there...They didn't just not lose, they annihilated the poor bastards. Now remember who was using their money to prop up SCO? Microsoft. This is an old feud.
No, the reason IBM didn't blow a ton of money on it is because they had nothing to lose. Their desktop suite is a hobby project, whereas Microsoft's is their life blood. Now IBM is throwing their weight around, and may end up getting to eat their cake and have it too, all for a piddly outlay of cash.
Who looks smart now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ha!
IBM invented FUD. I've seen them playing hardball, and they were once so good at it that they used to manipulate the outcome of the World Series of Manipulation. IBM has simply learned that FUD could get you so far and no further, and now there's more to be gained by being honest (or at least more honest than Microsoft.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and they were once so good
I prefer to think they were so good at it, even they were ashamed by themselves and turned it round.
Some court case and anti-trust breakup thing might have had a hand in it too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what they wanted you to think :)
Re: (Score:2)
ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm
+1 funny
Look up the origins of the expression "FUD" to understand why.
Re:Great, but does it really matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the cynic in me agrees with you -- I doubt IBM will follow through, and if they did, I doubt it would make much difference.
However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.
I would like to see some correction to the fact that it's a standard that really only MS can implement. Rubber stamping OOXML basically just legitimizes it for governments to buy it.
Cheers
It COULD Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
If a really major player leaves the organization it is a major "no confidence" vote in the organization itself.
While the official standards are a great idea, a really big player or a consortium of them can easily just create defacto standards that will have a great chance in the real-world marketplace. This is doubly true if they actually make their standards truly open, as IBM seems to advocate.
I'd say that if companies that manufacture about 10% of the market leave ISO, then it is wounded. If it hits a number like 25%, then it's basically useless.
Also, large companies pay an obscene amount in yearly dues to be part of the standards bodies. Losing that cash will sting badly.
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing has been shown. You've bought into IBM FUD.
How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS.
Why just the people with a large financial stake? I'm suspicious of everybody.
Influence (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member. This is particularly true of a 'Big Player' like IBM who will carry a lot of clout.
'Outsiders' can be discounted far more easily as they are simply not part of the process, and could therefore be said to be irrelevant.
IBM should collaborate with other large firms (but presumably not Microsoft) to enforce due diligence in future decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know much about the ISO process other than what I read here on Slashdot. But from what I gathered, big companies don't "carry a lot of clout" with ISO unless they bribe other smaller companies to join and vote with them.
It seems like a case where the most disreputable company with the most money wins. IBM's only choice then is to either play the game the way Microsoft did, or to leave.
Turn that around (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.
And surely ISO will be able to stay more relevant if it can retain IBM as a member. Standards bodies can be discounted for more easily if "Big Players" are simply not part of the process.
If IBM were pulling out simply because they weren't getting what they wanted, then the whole thing would seem childish. But when a standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful, then the appropriate thing for other "big players" to do is drop support for that standards body.
Re: (Score:2)
standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful
Cleaning up the corruption is almost impossible because of the enormous amounts of money that are ultimately at stake in the outcome of standards board decisions. Whenever large amounts of money are concentrated around a decision making process the powers that be will attempt to capture a share of that prize for themselves by whatever means necessary (laws are of no concern to multinational corporations because laws and justice can be bought just like everything else these days). I don't presume to offer a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about de-emphasizing formal standards. Formal standards serve some pretty important purposes, which is exactly why so much money is at stake. I think it's one of those situations where something has to be done, but because it *is* so important, there are lots of people who will want to game the system. Therefore it's important to root out corruption, and keep the system clean and transparent. If you do somehow get to the point where the system is so corrupt that it can't be fixed, and the s
Strike while the iron is hot (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM - and anyone else who cares to (and is in the position to) make a stance against the ISO's actions - must do it immediately and make it clear.
Re:Influence (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.
I don't believe that's true. IBM was a part of this OOXML process and yet it was, along with Sun, barred from the portuguese technical committee [boycottnovell.com]. This level of corruption doesn't leave fond memories of the whole process.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.
Like the influence they were able to exert over OOXML?
IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
you heathen, with the mod point - yes you !! (Score:2, Insightful)
this post is offtopic. not parent.
though since you have modded faultily, this post has somewhat become on-topic.
now work on this paradox you just created and prepare a paper on it until monday, 09.45 sharp. i want pie charts in appendix.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know ever since Google came along, we have a tendency to attribute personalities and other human characteristics to companies. However, this is a very dangerous fallacy. Companies, in fact, are amoral. They are neither good nor evil. The nature of a company is to make money and to survive. Survival requires growth, so it isn't wrong to say that companies exist to make more and more money. So for them, to do right is to bring in revenue, and to do wrong is to lose revenue. That is all, no more, no less.
IBM
well (Score:2)
Settle down now.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have some friends and an ex-wife that work for IBM. While I would go as far to say that, by and large, my dealings with them have been fair an ethical, I would resist any sort of "white knight" metaphors, it is still a publicly traded company and stock holders mean more than standards.
It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards.
That being said, having dealt with double dealing scum of Microsoft many times in the past, I'll take IBM any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to those at IBM who championed this response to ISO!
Re:Settle down now.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards."
Sure, that's why they were investigated by the DOJ for a decade.
The difference between IBM and MS is that IBM knew how to play the game with politicians before the investigation started. MS made the mistake of thinking they didn't need to grease any palms. They know better now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think IBM should simply leave ISO. Its not like they're a trustworthy standards organization anymore. I also agree with the parent post...IBM is a very technically competent and much better any day than MS.
Chalk up another one for the history books : MS has the Midas touch...NOT!
You know you're thinking something similar. (Score:2)
I think it would be best for everyone if IBM put millions of dollars for Blackwater to be their 'independent delegate' in discussing the situation with Microsoft.
Sometimes the only way to get a very level playing field is with a very big, heavy, unaccountable object.
I didn't actually hear this anywhere, I'm just trying to find some comfortable way to justify the complete and total annihilation of our good friends at Redmond. You know, besides the obvious reasons.
Acronym Overload (Score:5, Funny)
"..OOXML...IBM...ISO....ECMA"
Danger! Acronym overload!!!
Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).
Re: (Score:2)
Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).
YHA! (Your Head Asplode)
This can be a good move (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds stupid to me.
First, such an organization would clearly be in the pockets of IBM, Sun, and the Linux vendors you talk of. How would that organization have any credibility? What, anything that helps IBM, Sun and Linux and/or hurts Microsoft and Novell is automatically approved by this organization, and anything that does the opposite is rejected? That's supposed to be credible? Please...
Slashdotters seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of countries approved OOXML, and don't feel there was
Obligitory Groklaw Plug (Score:2, Interesting)
IBM can't "leave ISO" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IBM can't "leave ISO" (Score:5, Insightful)
And another "fascinating" comment by someone who did not RTFA and has no knowledge of the subject.
The /. title changed it to "ISO" instead of "Standards Bodies". That said the TFA did only reference ISO and ECMA, of which IBM is in fact a member.
And ECMA is a member of ISO. So is ANSI, of which you might think IBM is part of? And you'd actually be right.
You said yourself, ISO is comprised of various national standards bodies. Who do you think comprises these bodies? Fairies? ISO is comprised of groups that IBM is a member of. Therefore is it reasonable to state that IBM as a member of several of the bodies that comprise ISO is thus a member of ISO. As such, they can actually leave the ISO by leaving the standards bodies that comprise ISO.
Furthermore nearly every national standards body is in fact incorporated or whatever their country equivalent is. As such, your assertion that "there is no concept of corporate membership" is demonstrably false. ANSI is a not-for-profit U.S. corporation, and is a member of ISO.
QED.
If IBM gets its way... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, you mean Lenovo ? That ain't the IBM
"Hardware Division" by a long shot
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What are you talking about? This is in regards to a software standard. Lenovo is IBM's old "PC Company"... Quite different from either Systems and Technology Group or Software Group.
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Informative)
What are you talking about? This is in regards to a software standard. Lenovo is IBM's old "PC Company"...
Mr Anonymous Coward comment was replying to a question about outsourcing hardware divisions, it wasn't intended to be related to a software standard.
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Informative)
That was only their desktop hardware division, which they sold to Lenovo, presumably as the margins are not very good. Their server and mainframe hardware divisions are alive and well.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't IBM still make IntelliStations? Lenovo is their consumer stuff. Blech. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They appear to be ditching those in favour of their bladecentre stuff, as they're stopping sales of them at the start of next year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not very accurate, and it is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Also, it is rather incendiary.
So the 'troll' mod may be undeserved, but if so only because 'flamebait' might be more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
> not sure why that got modded Troll... it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.
Desktop and laptop computer divisions. IBM has four server lines -- mainframe, Intel, and two based on the Power architecture, plus storage and backup peripherals.
I'm also beginning to suspect astroturfing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.
Maybe their PCs went to Lenovo, but they got rid of their printer division LONG ago....
You might know it better by its current name, Lexmark... [wikipedia.org]
An American company, btw...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)
Boy's Jr. High B-ball coach, I take it?
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
Brought to you by.....IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!
Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company. They make and have always made what's known as "big iron", i.e. mainframes, although they do and have made such diverse stuff as typewriters (their selectric was the king of the office at one time) and calculators.
Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred.
BTW it isn't an IBM app but it runs on their mainframes, my favorite database language is NOMAD.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
"Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred."
Actually, IBM made 5/10 of fastest supercomputers according to top500... including first three positions...
Actually, it is more Software and Services now (Score:4, Informative)
While IBM certainly still does make enough servers to put it at the top of the quarterly lists of server vendors, they make even more selling software and services.
SirWired
Re:Actually, it is more Software and Services now (Score:4, Informative)
IBM's Software and Services is the legacy of CEO Lou Gerstner, who in the 90's started concentrating less on moving servers out of the warehouse and more on moving money into the bank. I'd say it worked.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
#s 1,2, and 3 as of June of this year according to http://www.top500.org/list/2008/06/100 [top500.org] [top500.org]
Not any longer (Score:3, Informative)
While the "M" in "IBM" stands for machines, the company (of which I'm an employee) has been moving away from hardware as a core product toward high-margin software & services, which now comprise 54% of the company's business. The hardware is important, because the different parts of the business feed each other. For instance, Microelectronics exists to ensure state-of-the-art chip access for server products which allows complete turnkey service solutions for many customers and provides a platform for ne
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. OS/2 was an *excellent* operating system. I admit that the 1.x versions were lacking, but that is common for a new OS. Versions 2.1 and later were certainly not bloated, nor slow. This was a preemtive multitasking operating system with a full graphical shell that ran decently in 8MB of RAM, and ran *very* well in 16MB of RAM. It ran Windows 3.1 applications in a better environment than Windows 3.1 itself (3.1 ran on top of DOS). Yes, the OS was bigger than the Windows/DOS combo. Yes, it did require more resources than Windows/DOS, but that alone does not make it bloated. Windows/DOS was nothing more than a task switching OS. The cooperative multitasking it provided was completely useless. I used OS/2 from 1993 to around 1997 (Warp 4 being the last version). It was an extremely stable OS, and was a pleasure to use. If market share had been decided on technical merits alone, Windows of all flavors would have been many notches below OS/2 on the list. Alas, IBM didn't make a ton of deals with hardware manufacturers to practically give them OS/2 in exchange for not allowing any other OS to be sold on the PCs they sold (for obvious reasons--they were competitors to those manufacturers). Microsoft built its monopoly via those type of agreements with hardware vendors, and that is why we are where we are today.
BTW, there is no need to "educate" me by pointing out that in the old days IBM was just as bad as Microsoft in this regard. I am aware of the anticompetetive practices IBM has done in the past, and would not be surprised to hear about current things they might be doing in that regard. They are a large corporation, after all. And big money provides many people in a business with opportunity to misuse the power it provides. My point was that OS/2 did not "enjoy" the marketshare provided to Windows that was due to this kind of shady bundling deal.
Also, DB2 is no slouch in the database market. It performs quite well in comparison to other RDBMs. All RDBMs are fairly complicated, but I don't think calling DB2 "bloated" is an accurate statement.
I have no experience with Websphere, so I won't comment on that. I also won't argue that IBM never produced any slow or bloated software -- because they have. But to say "OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did" were slow and bloated is just making an ignorant statement.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. OS/2 was an *excellent* operating system. I admit that the 1.x versions were lacking, but that is common for a new OS.
because 1.x was devoloped by, wait for it. wait. microsoft.
Alas, IBM didn't make a ton of deals with hardware manufacturers to practically give them OS/2 in exchange for not allowing any other OS to be sold on the PCs they sold (for obvious reasons--they were competitors to those manufacturers).
I think the real reason is that IBM was a convicted monopoly, and by the time OS/2 2.1 was released this was still fresh on everybody's memory. MS would have cried foul and asked the govt to intervene.
anyway, i miss OS/2 dearly too. if eComstation (consider it as OS/2 warp 5) wasn't so expensive... the company that markets it is about to release version 2. they're current on ECS 2.0RC5, which is available for download. I'll give it a try.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company.
Let's go to the discoteque, they have this hot "DJ" playing Afrika Bambaata hiphop music. Afterwards I'll show you my Modula II books and we can listen to Abba's latest album.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
PDF Warning: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/2007_ibm_annual.pdf [ibm.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IBM is pushing their Symphony office suite, which is ODF compatible.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
Please... IBM's 32-bit OS/2 ran circles around Windows NT in its day (as a fine example, search for YouTube video of David Barnes demonstrating OS/2 versus NT back in the early 1990's), and I'm sure the Warp 4.5x kernel will run runs around XP, Vista, and probably also Linux and *BSD kernels on similar hardware even today. The OS/2 kernel used rings 0, 2, and 3 which was very usual for x86 code, but it also was extremely good at juggling multiple tasks and threads under load and at dynamically adjusting process/thread priorities to make the entire system smooth.
I remember some magazine doing a test of OS/2 Warp Server versus NT server sometime in the 1994/1995 timeframe, and a single-CPU Warp box trashed a 4-CPU NT box running the exact same benchmarks.
Notes is a bloated hog, yes, but OS/2? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so its not reliant on a bloated OS that no-one wants anymore, not even MS as they're busy thinning XP down so it runs on subnotebooks and MIDs.
If Linux gets mnore of a foothold, and Google gets more users for Android/smartphone based apps... its pretty much goodbye Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
i'd like to buy my own personal mainframe, you insensitive clod...
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha ha.
Re: (Score:2)