Stewart Honsberger wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

 JS> They deprived me of getting a trip guide with a CD in it with 
 JS> software that runs under OS/2, rather than WIN95.  They made sure 
 JS> when one goes to Kmart, Babbages, or work, that one will see nothing 
 JS> but WIN95 crap.  

 SH> Microsoft made a product aimed at idiots. Idiots make up
 SH> approximately 90% of the home user industry, and IBM
 SH> realized this. In the longrun, there's no place for a stable
 SH> GUI OS that's powerful, rather than pretty.

No room for a stable GUI OS thats powerful, rather than pretty?  How stupid is 
that statement?  The pretty part is just as bogus as the rest of the
statement, as OS/2 is just as "pretty" as WIN.  

 SH> It sounds to me like you've just got a bad case of sour
 SH> grapes. 

This is true, so?

 JS> That does not explain why IBM pulled the plug on OS/2

 SH> Where do you get this from? This is libel, you realize.

 JS> just days before the release of WIN95.

 SH> If you knew anything about what you're talking about, you'd
 SH> know that IBM was forced into that. 

Let me get this straight...  I should be sued for "libel" yet what I said is
true, although IBM was "forced" into doing what I said they did?  You want to
believe little old MS forced IBM into doing something, go ahead, believe what
you want.

 SH> They were given a choice
 SH> - just hours (NOT days) before the release of Win'95 (not an
 SH> acronym, BTW). If they wanted to be able to bundle it with
 SH> their machines, they had to quit MARKETING OS/2. Not "pull
 SH> the plug" on it, but stop marketing it.

I'm sure that all came out in the DOJ law suit against MS, right?

 SH> Now, are you informed?

I'm informed that:
1) There is no room in the market place for a stable, powerful OS.

2) I should be sued for libel, yet what I said was true

3) MS, while in court for illegal market practices, tells IBM that if they
don't pull the plug on OS/2, then they can't sell MS OS's with their machines?
Sure, IBM just rolled over on that one.

I think you are either mis-informed or stupid.

 JS> when IBM switched tactics from non-support, to overtly telling 
 JS> folks OS/2 was NOT for them, that they should NOT use OS/2.

 SH> ...and this would be slander.

Yeah, right... The truth is not slander, nor libel, far as I know.

 SH> Tell me; when has IBM ever told anybody that OS/2 is not for
 SH> them? 

When they said the battle of the desktop is over, when they said they OS/2 is
not for the home user, they would not support the home user, when they insured 
retail outlets did not have OS/2 to sell, and on and on and on.

 SH> Don't you know about their current new product, WSeB?
 SH> They're aiming for the corporate market, where Microsoft
 SH> doesn't have the large death grip on the market. NT can't
 SH> even handle the load of such Microsoft services as Hotmail
 SH> and the MSN website - so IBM comes in with a product that
 SH> can handle these loads.

Yawn.

 SH> They can also get ~$2000 for each license of WSeB, whereas
 SH> ~$200 for a license for OS/2 Warp for a home user is
 SH> considered expensive. 

Yawn!  MS made how much money selling OS for $50 to the home user?

 JS> You consider this support?  Give me a break.  I'm not talking 
 JS> about providing some updates to OS/2, I'm talking about 
 JS> support in the market place.

 SH> That's called marketing. You don't appear to know the
 SH> difference between the two words.

You sure don't.  Support means to provide for by supplying money and other
necessities.  Marketing was not supported by IBM.  

 JS> You know, things like advertising,

 SH> Why pay to advertise a sinking ship? 

The ship was sinking because IBM did not support it, they didn't WANT the ship 
to float.

 SH> Do you realize how expensive an ad campaign is? With the 
 SH> current trend in home users, there's no chance in hell they'll 
 SH> make it back in Warp revenues.

MS seems to do very well at it.  If there is any legit reason that IBM would
do what they did, it would be to keep them from dominating the OS market,
which could get them back in court as a huge monopoly.  No way does dominating 
the home and business market hurt IBM as far as cash goes.

 JS> making sure retail stores have copies of OS/2 to sell,

 SH> What are they supposed to do, go the way of Microsoft and
 SH> force them to shelve it? I've talked to computer store
 SH> owners/managers, and if they don't say "OS-what?" they tell
 SH> me stories that go something like "I got a case of 100
 SH> copies of Warp, and 6 months later returned 98 copies to
 SH> IBM", "I tried to sell Warp, but people went straight to the
 SH> Microsoft section", "Nobody has shown any interest in OS/2"

Just more proof that IBM did not in any way support OS/2, ever.

 JS>> IBM NEVER supported OS/2, not for one day.

 SH>> I hope you're taken to court for libel.

Hope all you want.  I have a right to my opinion, and to speak it, shout it
from the roof tops if I wish.  You have a better chance of being sued for
libel by calling me either incredibly misinformed or incredibly stupid.  I'm
neither, and could probably prove it in court.

 JS> IBM would not stand a chance, unless they used theirmoney, power and 
 JS> influence to stack the deck.

 SH> What I was trying to tell you is that you're either
 SH> incredibly uninformed, or incredibly stupid.

That's ok, I don't mind you telling me that, just don't threaten me with libel 
or slander problems from big blue.  They have more money than brains, and who
knows what their liable to do...

 SH> Either way, your comment was 100% false. 

No, my comment was 100% true, you said it yourself, except you think MS FORCED 
IBM to do what they did.  

 SH> How can you possibly claim that as fact? 

I've said over and over again that what happened is a fact, why it happened is 
up for speculation.  IMO, what happened was because MS, IBM and INTEL are
corrupt and in cohoots, and supported by the ZIFF-DAVIS propaganda machine,
and the incredibly corrupt DOJ.  I'm entitled to my opinion, just as anyone
else is.  I've read all the BS from finatical OS/2 and IBM people, and little
of what excuses they give make much sense.  Until someone comes up with
something that makes sense, I'll keep my opinion.

 SH> Why would they spend 10's of millions of dollars to develop a 
 SH> product for several years, which they never intended to 
 SH> support? 

Tens of millions is NOTHING to IBM.  They blew THREE BILLION on LOTUS, give me 
a break.

 JS>> IBM's next move, if I read them correctly will be to attempt to 
 JS>> kill LINUX.

 SH>> You know even less about Linux than you do about OS/2. 

 JS> And you know that because..?

 SH> It's explained in this following paragraph;

 SH>> Linux can NOT be "killed" by any corporation. Not even IBM and
 SH>> Microsoft combined. You can't kill a product that's source
 SH>> code is available on millions of sites worldwide.

True, not as easy to kill a product you don't own as it is to kill your own,
however, it is possible to make damn sure the mass market doesn't want the
product.  That is done with propaganda (ZIFF-DAVIS propaganda machine - read
what Dvorack or whatever the asses name had to say about LINUX, it's on the
ZIFF-DAVIS propaganda site)  

 JS> Linux has been freely available for many years now.  It's only 
 JS> recently begun moving slowly forward with the likes of Slackware and 
 JS> RedHat providing the package.

 SH> Where do you get THIS from? Like I said, you know even less
 SH> about Linux that you do about OS/2.

I get it from the fact that IBM and INTEL are buying into RedHat.  Simple
really.

 JS> RedHat appears to be the one most likely to have any effect on the

 SH> You've obviously never heard of SuSE. They've got about 80%
 SH> of the sold-copy Linux market in Europe, and are rapidly
 SH> gaining steam in the Americas.

Nope, never heard of them.  

 SH> Of course, you must know better - because you know
 SH> everything about Linux and OS/2.

I know more than 95% of the people on earth, thats a fact.

 JS> market in general, and the cartel seems to be moving in on them.

 SH> So RedHat gets bought out. If Microsoft WERE to buy them and
 SH> change the distro to be more Microsoft-like, it woudln't be
 SH> Linux anymore. They'd have to take over development of the
 SH> kernel to do that. Sure, the kernel could split off into
 SH> Linux-Kernel and Microsoft-Kernel, but there's no way in
 SH> hell they could ever kill the true Linux.

No, they cannot kill linux, nor any other OS.  OS are not living things.  They 
can stop a company from selling and promoting the thing, simply by buying the
damn company.  Linux needs a name behind them to move big time into the
market, freeware is not yet ready to take over the computer OS market.

 SH> If Microsoft were to destroy RedHat, fine. RedHat's too
 SH> bassackwards anyways.

Hard to say, but, RedHat is sold in about every bookstore in the country. 
This completly circumvented the control of the general market the likes of IBM 
and MS have over computer stores like Babbages, Egghead, Computerland and so
on.  I suspect the solution to that delima is to gain control of RedHat, thats 
my speculation, and thats what the cartel seems to be doing.  The ZIFF-DAVIS
propaganda machine is already busy at work.  LINUX is lightweight, made for
$200 PC's, not anything a normal person would want... thats the story as per
ZIFF-DAVIS, there will be more to come, all propaganda BS.  

                                              Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
140/1