Funnily, even though OS/2 sported newfangled "threads", very few IBM applications used them -- most IBM OS/2 programs were pure windows ports. Ironically, if you ran the windows versions of those programs, you could run them in separate memory spaces so that the programs couldn't interfere with each other when doing processing in the event-handling thread. So Windows programs ran better on OS/2 than they did in windows and better than OS/2 programs ran in OS/2. You could format a disk and run a print job at the same time, as long as you did it from the command line. The GUI versions would tie the system queue up, so you could only do one at a time.
Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.
Business has something in common with war and engineering:
1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.
So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.
So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.
Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.
What was the software running on it? Or did it crash without any non-IBM supplied hardware or software?
I'm trying to think of any Windows software I actually bothered to run. It was on a Novell network, I was sitting at it. I was in IT and we didn't have any fruity groupware or anything (this was before that crap was popular) so I really just ran ordinary applications, and tried to stick with the utilities and accessories that came with the OS. We didn't have budget for a bunch of OS/2 apps, though.
Did Mossad break into your home and steal your shoes, as well?
No. They didn't even steal my Casio terrist watch.
Well, who was the BIOS manufacturer and is it a 486-66 that can be fitted nasally? Even the constraint 8MB 486-66 involves a wide variety of 3rd party elements in the hardware/software stack.
It was an IBM PS/Valuepoint. IBM doesn't get to deliver a PC that OS/2 won't run on while they are shipping OS/2.
Or were simply running it under different constraints than you were.
There is no version of OS/2 (except perhaps those which are too old) which should not run properly on a 486SLC2-66 with 8MB of RAM.
Let me put it this way: if I had to use systemd/Linux or OS/2, I'd choose OS/2. Being able to boot properly is an important trait for any OS. OS/2 has this ability. Systemd/Linux often does not.
As much as I hate systemd, it really has no place in this conversation. You can get Linux without systemd, so you're presenting a false dichotomy in any case.
I've also had OS/2 corrupt itself on an unclean shutdown and fail to boot. I haven't had this with Linux since the early days of xfs.
OS/2 was a very stable and reliable operating system
What? Who told you that? I ran 2.1, 3.0 and 4.0 and they were all unremittingly unreliable pieces of shit. Not just that but I ran them on a fucking PS/Valuepoint 486, so there was absolutely no excuse for incompatibility. Linux makes OS/2 look like Windows 3.1. The system was especially likely to explode when you ran Windows programs, too, and Windows compatibility was absolutely the only reason many people bought it.
I was actually running OS/2 for evaluation at a site that was ALL IBM, every single PC, every single piece of networking equipment, and OS/2 was still a horrible pain in the asshole. People remembering it fondly have memory problems.
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.
Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.
The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.
Seem to recall articles here on
There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.
Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.
If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.
And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?
Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.
Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.
That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.
It's not the words that are being targetted, it's the philosophies.
Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance. It's just being abused.
There have been operating systems which have come and gone which have reasons to exist today, like BeOS. But OS/2 is not among them. Windows 3.1 support? That's not a relevant feature. Please tell me that their actual planned release date is April 1.
(Also, why the hell would I have to know about a company selling some bizarre software merely because the company is large? No matter how large it is, the world is even larger.)
Being unaware of the existence of SAS is like being unaware of the existence of Oracle, or Microsoft.
Help fight continental drift.