Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: New Win 98 Questions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
About MS and IBM - I tend to agree with you. I just threw out my slant on
IBM from what I read. It was not meant to skew the conversation one way or
another - just information.

The one thing that is different about this list is size. Even though only a
small percentage of actual subscribers participate in the posts, there are
private responses to Shafat related to the nature of the posts. The most
compelling reason to limit topics is for the consideration of networked
groups such as the Department of the Navy, who might distribute our list
messages to hundreds of individuals on their network. Shafat can explain
this much better than I.
Mid and large companies also distribute our list to their office employees
in order to pass along professional topics of interest and education. They
tend to get annoyed when receiving a hundred messages that are unrelated or
are offensive - if only from the loss of work time to discuss the issue
among employees.
I am the last person to propose censurship but sometimes the topics are
considered offensive to the majority who ask for something to be done and
the individual who perpetuates the problem fails to heed the warnings of the
I don't think that Constitutional, first amendment rights are valid on a
globally "closed" system. If anything, we are paving the way by establishing
a "sort-of" micro-community that is establishing it's own rules based upon
democratic principle (if this is an accurate description). The majority
rules regardless of how the American constitution is written. Kind of like
scrapping the loopholes in our laws that are abused to allow the few whose
intention it is to offend or who are driven by anger.
With 9-12,000 subscribers, we need to establish a minimum code of compliance
to protect the majority from the few instances of abuse and attack that
occurs wherever you have a large group.
I think in time, we will make enough mistakes to correct the things we do
wrong and improve on the things that we do right but are not right enough.
Only time will tell on this one.


-----Original Message-----
From: Barry H. Welliver [mailto:wellive(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 6:27 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: New Win 98 Questions

Perhaps the point was not to make one feel sorry for IBM per se, but to note
apparent growing trend of MS to isolate it's operating system. The money
is certainly a player in lots of business decisions. We can comment and
out opinion about what should have been, but things are as they are and our
interests should be to look back and possibly correct our future direction

On another note... I've been wondering why a newsgroup such as this walks so
gingerly over the subject of "appropriate" topic areas. The internet is made
of thousands, (maybe tens of thousands by now) of groups with all kinds of
topical emphasis. The common rules of newsgroup structure are to stick to
subject matter and go visit some other site if you have comments about
not implied or covered by your label. The difficulties I see are that I
always want to pop into another group and throw out opinions with people I
particularly know or have a history with. A better model for a forum such as
this may be to emulate a typical SEA function such as the convention. We
such functions with the idea that there is some basis for congregating
technical issues. (Furthermore, we expect to partake in the Presidents Cup
matter how humiliating)

I just happen to value the opinions of many of those on this list, and would
encourage, not discourage, threads about whatever. If anything, I think I'd
prefer to "chew the fat" once in a while. I guess I know this will go
against some feathers, but hey,, what the heck.

Barry H. Welliver

Dennis S. Wish PE wrote:

> Barry,
> I heard the otherside of this story. IBM bailed on Microsoft because it
> resented paying royalties and license to an outside company. IBM likes to
> absorb companies and have total ownership which they had once OS/2 was
> finished.
> Although this might be biased, Gates reported in his book that he earned
> very little from IBM, essentially using IBM to establish his foothold.
> therefore, when IBM decided to end their relationship with MS, it was not
> great loss of income to MS.
> Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry H. Welliver [mailto:wellive(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 2:37 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Re: New Win 98 Questions
> Funnier still is the fact that MS decided early on to bail on IBM in the
> development of OS/2. Gee I guess they wanted to get everyone on their
> upgrade path by making it difficult for others to keep supporting legacy
> software.
> Barry H. Welliver
> Bill Polhemus wrote:
> > Gee, this is SUCH a familiar spiel!  Where have I heard it before?
> >
> > Oh, yes, this was the VERY SAME FEATURE touted by OS/2 when I began
> it in 1993!
> >
> > Yet, I'll bet many of you thought this was an "exclusive feature" of
> Windows NT.  Goes to illustrate: MS is HARDLY the innovator of technology
> that people claim.  Most of the time, they simply borrow ideas from
> then market them harder than anyone else.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:   Szuchuan Chang [SMTP:szchang(--nospam--at)]
> > Sent:   Friday, October 16, 1998 11:34 PM
> > To:     seaint(--nospam--at)
> > Subject:        Re: New Win 98 Questions
> >
> > Please also consider Windows NT 4.0.   It is much more stable than any
> > the Windows 9Xs.  And if one thread dies, your computer still works
> without
> > corruping the other datas in operation.  You can run many DOSs under NT
> > 4.0.  You can have 80 rows of output in command mode (with vertical
> > bar!)
> >