Nader, IBM and OS/2
Ted Blockley
Letter to the Editor, WSJ, July 2, 1998:
Ralph Nader's letter critical of an earlier editorial was
published in today's Wall Street Journal:
"...it is practically impossible to buy a new PC without also
purchasing Windows."
"Even IBM will not sell a personal computer without Windows or
loaded with its own OS2- leading us to conclude that IBM now
stands for Intimidated By Microsoft."
"First, consumers who do not wish to use Windows pay a 'tax' to
Microsoft each time they buy a nationally branded computer, a
matter one might think would concern your editorial page.
Second, the evolution of non-Microsoft operating systems is
stifled, with consumers much less likely to purchase a redundant
operating system after having beenn compelled to buy Windows."
In the same paper, Walter Mossberg blathers on about how he is
sure that MS will eventually "get it right" in hand-held
computers while disparaging Windows CE when compared to the Palm
Pilots.
Ted
--------------------------------------------
Ted Blockley
W. Edward Blockley AIA, Architect
1508 18th Street
Bakersfield CA 93301
--------------------------------------------
E-Mail: web...@kern.com
Voice: 805-322-9373
FAX: 805-322-9375
--------------------------------------------
Mark Dodel
In <1998070220...@gem.kern.com>, on 07/02/98 at 01:29 PM,
Ted Blockley <web...@KERN.COM> said:
Letter to the Editor, WSJ, July 2, 1998:
Ralph Nader's letter critical of an earlier editorial was
published in today's Wall Street Journal:
"...it is practically impossible to buy a new PC without also purchasing
Windows."
"Even IBM will not sell a personal computer without Windows or loaded
with its own OS2- leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
Intimidated By Microsoft."
I like theat "Intimidated by Microsoft" line. I guess Ralph has read some
of the letters OS/2 users have sent him. :-)
"First, consumers who do not wish to use Windows pay a 'tax' to
Microsoft each time they buy a nationally branded computer, a matter one
might think would concern your editorial page.
Second, the evolution of non-Microsoft operating systems is stifled,
with consumers much less likely to purchase a redundant operating system
after having beenn compelled to buy Windows."
In the same paper, Walter Mossberg blathers on about how he is sure that
MS will eventually "get it right" in hand-held
computers while disparaging Windows CE when compared to the Palm Pilots.
Can anyone explain to me this phenomena where anyone else who produces
garbage gets skewered, but when it comes to Microsoft, all the reviews
always end with something to the effect that "It sucks but Microsoft will
eventually get it right so why bother with the better competition"?
They've been trying for over a decade and they have yet to get it right
IMHO.
//---------------------------------------------------------
// From the Desk of: Mark Dodel, RN, BSN, MBA
// Healthcare Computer Consultant
// mad...@ptdprolog.net
// http://home.ptd.net/~madodel
//
// For a choice in the future JOIN VOICE NOW
// check out http://www.os2voice.org/index.html
//
//---------------------------------------------------------
Beinert, William
>Can anyone explain to me this phenomena where anyone else who produces
>garbage gets skewered, but when it comes to Microsoft, all the reviews
>always end with something to the effect that "It sucks but Microsoft
will
>eventually get it right so why bother with the better competition"?
>They've been trying for over a decade and they have yet to get it right
IMHO.
The top techie from a Fortune 500 company used this identical
justification when I was trying to persuade him to adopt OS/2 2.0 over
Win31.
"It doesn't matter that it is lousy. Everyone is going to use
it, so they have to make it better."
How do you argue with logic like that? When you're a lemming,
the only thing that matters is being in the middle of the pack.
Where you're going is irrelevant, since all the other lemmings
are going there, too.
Bill
Dr. Martin R. Hadam
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
>Intimidated By Microsoft."
I'd vote for "acronym of the year" !
other than that, I'm still concerned about the almost non-existing
follow-up in the OS/2 community after IBM responded to Nader's letter.
I'm still convinced that IBM will do almost anything if OS/2 is brought
close enough to the MS antitrust case. For several reasons: (i) it is
most unlikely that all those long-awaited OS/2 ports died spontaneously
in late beta without IBM knowing and even consenting. (ii) assuming
that IBM is also an NT source code licensee (like AT&T), I'd like to
know if any of the "deals" involved OS/2; (iii) I'd like to know what
was negotiated between MS and IBM before Gerstner declared the desktop
"lost", and (iv) the role of the PC Company and their preload policy.
If the DOJ subpoenaed them all, they will be in for some interesting
reading (almost for sure). Nader is probably excellent at pushing such
an approach.
Martin R. Hadam
Kinderklinik - Medizinische Hochschule
D-30623 Hannover
Germany
Email: Hadam....@MH-Hannover.de
D. Scott Katzer
Hi Martin, Ted and All,
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:28:46 +0100, Dr. Martin R. Hadam wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>
>>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
>>Intimidated By Microsoft."
>
> I'd vote for "acronym of the year" !
:-) It is pretty good.
> other than that, I'm still concerned about the almost non-existing
>follow-up in the OS/2 community after IBM responded to Nader's letter.
It seems to me that IBM gave Nader the party line that they give
everyone when questioned about OS/2 - it's an important product for them
and they're going to continue to "support and enhance" it. End of story.
So while we humble OS/2 desktop users are concerned by the way IBM is
handling OS/2, according to IBM's external party line, nothing's changed
and OS/2 is still as wonderful as it's always been for their important
customers....
>I'm still convinced that IBM will do almost anything if OS/2 is brought
>close enough to the MS antitrust case.
IBM's very careful in legal matters. I don't think that there are any
"smoking guns" which indicate any complicity between MS and IBM with
respect to the path OS/2 has taken since shortly before the Warp 4 launch
(i.e. the move from Boca to Austin, the consolidation, etc.). But I have
no inside information...
>For several reasons: (i) it is
>most unlikely that all those long-awaited OS/2 ports died spontaneously
>in late beta without IBM knowing and even consenting.
I doubt that the famous ports we know about - Word Perfect 6 for OS/2,
FrameMaker/2, etc., had any significant termination input from IBM.
Recall that Word Perfect was having lots of money and/or stock problems
around this time, they were losing market share in new sales hand over
fist to Word, and I think they were trying to make themselves attractive
to Novell who was the suitor at the time, IIRC. I don't know what
machinations lead to the FrameMaker/2 decisions, but I really doubt that
IBM had any input.
>(ii) assuming
>that IBM is also an NT source code licensee (like AT&T), I'd like to
>know if any of the "deals" involved OS/2;
In Orfali and Harkey's book "Client Server Survival Guide with OS/2"
they mention that IBM had a copy of the source of the beta for Chicago
that was ready when the split up occurred. MS and IBM both have rights to
the code they wrote for 32-bit OS/2 (recall that Citrix used *MS* OS/2 2.0
to build at least one of their products - a multiuser version of OS/2).
According to an interview with the Architect (I think) of OS/2 PPC - Paul
Giangarra - that I read in IBM's DevCon news or Dr Dobb's Journal (but I
can't seem to track down any more), IBM has the rights to use the NT
kernel. They have the right to clone the Win32 API in perpetuity. They
chose not to use the NT kernel - Giangarra said that they knew they could
do better as they had 5+ (?) years of microkernel experience with
Taligent. He also said that Mach 3 wasn't a very good microkernel for an
OO system and that the IBM Microkernel was very good at working with small
objects. Might be PR fluff for all I know.... And remember that IBM did
the port of NT to the PPC for Motorola.
So, IBM undoubtably has intimite knowledge of NT even if they don't
have the same kind of source license that AT&T (thinks it?) has. And they
may very well have a source license as well - I don't know.
>(iii) I'd like to know what
>was negotiated between MS and IBM before Gerstner declared the desktop
>"lost", and
I think Gerstner was right - fighting a desktop war with MS when MS has
a lock on preloads is fighting on MS's terms and IBM couldn't win. IBM
had to fight from its strengths. Too bad they've seemed to have decided
that their strength is NT apps and services now... :-( IBM could and
should have done more to support OS/2. But they couldn't win the desktop
war unless they could break MS's preload lock, IMO. I don't think there
was any quid pro quo between Gates and Gerstner on giving up the desktop
fight.
>(iv) the role of the PC Company and their preload policy.
The PC Company has lost lots of money over the years, has been
reorganized several times, so they're under constant pressure to cut
costs, increase efficiency, and hold or increase market share. If they
can save $5 a machine (or whatever) by getting a better price from MS for
loading WinXX exclusively, there must be tremendous internal pressure to
do so. I don't think there's more to it than that, but I don't know.
> If the DOJ subpoenaed them all, they will be in for some interesting
>reading (almost for sure).
Maybe. :-)
>Nader is probably excellent at pushing such
>an approach.
I'm pretty pessimistic at this point. I don't think Nader is having
much of an impact. While the Court of Appeals reversal of Jackson's
rulings may not mean much in the greater scheme of the larger case,
Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/text.html) made a point (in last
week's article - it's seems to be gone now) that it forces Jackson to look
over his shoulder and will force him to be more cautious and tentative in
his decisions. Not a good thing, IMO, in this case.
I don't think the courts are going to cause many material changes in
MS's licensing and business practices in the near term (2-3 years). My
guess is that Congress is going to have to get involved to rein in MS, and
who knows what will happen then. :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
------
D. Scott Katzer - My account, my computer, my time, my opinions.
"Nothing is easy" - Jethro Tull
im...@cims.nyu.edu
In <1998070221...@nanna.mhrz.mh-hannover.de>, on 07/02/98 at 11:28
PM,
"Dr. Martin R. Hadam" <Hadam....@MH-HANNOVER.DE> said:
>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
>>Intimidated By Microsoft."
"Incapacitated by Microsoft" sounds like a better fit.
==================================================
_ _
| | ____ _ _ _ __ _ (_)_ __ ___ _ __ ___
| |/ / _` | | | |/ _` | | | '_ ` _ \| '__/ _ \
| <|(_| | |_| | (_| | | | | | | | | | | __/
|_|\_\__,_|\__, |\__,_| |_|_| |_| |_|_| \___|
<ki...@ibm.net> | <7642...@compuserve.com>
ICQ=9327629|___/ <im...@cims.nyu.edu>
Home Page: http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/imre/
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
In message <OS2-L%19980703...@NIC.SURFNET.NL>, "D. Scott Katzer" writes:
+-----
| to Novell who was the suitor at the time, IIRC. I don't know what
| machinations lead to the FrameMaker/2 decisions, but I really doubt that
| IBM had any input.
There was a little evidence that Microsoft (not IBM) had put pressure on
Adobe to kill the in-progress FrameMaker/2 port when they bought Frame.
| >(iv) the role of the PC Company and their preload policy.
| The PC Company has lost lots of money over the years, has been
| reorganized several times, so they're under constant pressure to cut
| costs, increase efficiency, and hold or increase market share. If they
+--->8
And IIRC they were trailing badly to Dell, Compaq, etc. in the business
market which is where the real money (what there is of it) is made. (Home
machines are basically subsidized --- they're not merely low margin, they're
no margin or sometimes even *negative* margin due to retailers and
distributors taking their cut out of machines sold to the consumer at the
manufacturer's cost.)
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] all...@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] all...@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering
carnegie mellon university (bsa@kf8nh is still valid.)
James J Mckenzie
Dr. Martin R. Hadam wrote:
So would I. Nader looks like he could turn into a major OS/2 advocate.
> > IBM's very careful in legal matters. I don't think that there are any
> >"smoking guns" which indicate any complicity between MS and IBM with
> >respect to the path OS/2 has taken since shortly before the Warp 4 launch
> >(i.e. the move from Boca to Austin, the consolidation, etc.). But I have
> >no inside information...
>
> The guns are cold, now. But I'd expect to find a few corpses buried
> somewhere in the cellar. And there's a single advantage with ISO
> certification - you can't use the shredder as easily as in the past. (I
> don't know if IBM is already ISO, but I'd assume that they're organized
> as if they were already)
You can destroy certain documents not needed for compliance. Thus a
"hot" memo could be destroyed legally. However, I don't think the
"lower" people know what happened, and the "upper" folks at IBM might be
sworn to an airtight NDA. This could end up creating a major legal
problem for both IBM and the DOJ in the future when those NDA's are
removed because they are ruled illegal or unenforcable.
> > I doubt that the famous ports we know about - Word Perfect 6 for OS/2,
> >FrameMaker/2, etc., had any significant termination input from IBM.
>
> I didn't mean that IBM actively killed those. But I'd expect they
> *knew* all the details and they also laid down why they didn't act
> against it. That should be interesting reading.
Would be interesting reading. I think that WP6/2 was killed by WP
Corporate due to slow sales of WP/2 5.2 which was seriously broken. I
don't know the story behind FrameMaker/2.
> >IBM has the rights to use the NT
> >kernel. They have the right to clone the Win32 API in perpetuity.
>
> Also for any version after the split? I doubt it.
They have the rights to all code for use with Windows up to version 4.0
(ever wonder why Windows95 is version 4.xxx.xxx?) This means that they
have access to Windows32 up to version 1.3. All it takes is a simple
change by Microsoft and Windows32S compatibility goes away. But IBM
should include such capabilities into Warp 4.0 rather than letting users
figure out how to get it to work. One of our local users managed to get
several Win32s 1.3 programs to work under Warp 4.0 (I have to get the
files from him some day.)
> >I think Gerstner was right - fighting a desktop war with MS when MS has
> >a lock on preloads is fighting on MS's terms and IBM couldn't win. IBM
> >had to fight from its strengths.
>
> Being themselves still bound by the consent decree at the time and
> knowing about all of MS's practices they could have easily made an MS
> antitrust case out of it - and IMHO they have to come up with a
> sensible explanation why they didn't.
Actually, I think the consent decree also prohibited IBM from releasing
this information (MS did not own the desktop at the time) and IBM
thought that they could at least draw even in the battle.
> >The PC Company has lost lots of money over the years, has been
> >reorganized several times, so they're under constant pressure to cut
> >costs, increase efficiency, and hold or increase market share. If they
> >can save $5 a machine (or whatever) by getting a better price from MS for
> >loading WinXX exclusively, there must be tremendous internal pressure to
> >do so. I don't think there's more to it than that, but I don't know.
>
> That's exactly why the DOJ should carefully investigate the PC Company
> (like Dell, Compaq, etc).
And I think they shall, but looking at the contracts between IBM and
Microsoft to see if they were prohibited from installing OS/2 instead of
Windows95 without a financial penality.
> >I'm pretty pessimistic at this point. I don't think Nader is having
> >much of an impact.
>
> Don't know. While the current case is about Windows 95/98 only, there
> is another investigation about NT going on, apparently. All the DOJ
> needs is more evidence, the more the better. And all I'm saying is that
> IBM is probably a rich source (and they'd hate to get involved in any
> imaginable way...)
They might be prohibited by legal agreements from participating, no
matter how much they want to. Hopefully, IBM will figure out a way to
break the silence and get OS/2 back onto systems going out to SOHO and
home users.
James
Dr. Martin R. Hadam
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:34:55 -0400, D. Scott Katzer wrote:
> It seems to me that IBM gave Nader the party line that they give
>everyone when questioned about OS/2 - it's an important product for them
>and they're going to continue to "support and enhance" it. End of story.
>So while we humble OS/2 desktop users are concerned by the way IBM is
>handling OS/2, according to IBM's external party line, nothing's changed
>and OS/2 is still as wonderful as it's always been for their important
>customers....
I don't care about IBM's response, I'd like Nader to pursue this line.
> IBM's very careful in legal matters. I don't think that there are any
>"smoking guns" which indicate any complicity between MS and IBM with
>respect to the path OS/2 has taken since shortly before the Warp 4 launch
>(i.e. the move from Boca to Austin, the consolidation, etc.). But I have
>no inside information...
The guns are cold, now. But I'd expect to find a few corpses buried
somewhere in the cellar. And there's a single advantage with ISO
certification - you can't use the shredder as easily as in the past. (I
don't know if IBM is already ISO, but I'd assume that they're organized
as if they were already)
> I doubt that the famous ports we know about - Word Perfect 6 for OS/2,
>FrameMaker/2, etc., had any significant termination input from IBM.
I didn't mean that IBM actively killed those. But I'd expect they
*knew* all the details and they also laid down why they didn't act
against it. That should be interesting reading.
>IBM has the rights to use the NT
>kernel. They have the right to clone the Win32 API in perpetuity.
Also for any version after the split? I doubt it.
>I think Gerstner was right - fighting a desktop war with MS when MS has
>a lock on preloads is fighting on MS's terms and IBM couldn't win. IBM
>had to fight from its strengths.
Being themselves still bound by the consent decree at the time and
knowing about all of MS's practices they could have easily made an MS
antitrust case out of it - and IMHO they have to come up with a
sensible explanation why they didn't.
>The PC Company has lost lots of money over the years, has been
>reorganized several times, so they're under constant pressure to cut
>costs, increase efficiency, and hold or increase market share. If they
>can save $5 a machine (or whatever) by getting a better price from MS for
>loading WinXX exclusively, there must be tremendous internal pressure to
>do so. I don't think there's more to it than that, but I don't know.
That's exactly why the DOJ should carefully investigate the PC Company
(like Dell, Compaq, etc).
>I'm pretty pessimistic at this point. I don't think Nader is having
>much of an impact.
Don't know. While the current case is about Windows 95/98 only, there
is another investigation about NT going on, apparently. All the DOJ
needs is more evidence, the more the better. And all I'm saying is that
IBM is probably a rich source (and they'd hate to get involved in any
imaginable way...)
Martin R. Hadam
Julien Pierre
In <1998070222...@is2.nyu.edu>, on 07/02/98
at 06:32 PM, im...@CIMS.NYU.EDU said:
>In <1998070221...@nanna.mhrz.mh-hannover.de>, on 07/02/98 at
>11:28 PM,
> "Dr. Martin R. Hadam" <Hadam....@MH-HANNOVER.DE> said:
>>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>>>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
>>>Intimidated By Microsoft."
>"Incapacitated by Microsoft" sounds like a better fit.
IMHO, the good old "I blame the management" is still the best explanation
for the letters IBM...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com
Theta Band Software LLC http://www.thetaband.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:59:00 -0400, Beinert, William wrote:
> The top techie from a Fortune 500 company used this identical
>justification when I was trying to persuade him to adopt OS/2 2.0 over
>Win31.
> "It doesn't matter that it is lousy. Everyone is going to use
>it, so they have to make it better."
> How do you argue with logic like that? When you're a lemming,
>the only thing that matters is being in the middle of the pack.
> Where you're going is irrelevant, since all the other lemmings
>are going there, too.
Well put. It pretty much tells you the caliber of what's going
for "top techie" now days doesn't it. I can't help but wonder what
came first, the dumbing down of the user or the influx of idiots
claiming to be "industry experts". These people love the current
climate, they can pretend to know what they're doing without having to
actually learn a damn thing about it.
...Cheers,
...Norm
***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject *
***********************************************
Craig Miller
// On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:35:15 -0500,
// the Council Elders overheard Norm <norm...@CLARK.NET>
// mumble incoherently about "Re: Nader, IBM and OS/2" . . .
> > The top techie from a Fortune 500 company used this identical
> >justification when I was trying to persuade him to adopt OS/2 2.0 over
> >Win31.
> > "It doesn't matter that it is lousy. Everyone is going to use
> >it, so they have to make it better."
>
> Well put. It pretty much tells you the caliber of what's going
> for "top techie" now days doesn't it. I can't help but wonder what
> came first, the dumbing down of the user or the influx of idiots
> claiming to be "industry experts". These people love the current
> climate, they can pretend to know what they're doing without having to
> actually learn a damn thing about it.
I know, I know! The influx of idiots came first! I recall back when
I was just starting to learn C, there was a big push for
business-degree-and-no-computer-experience type folks to learn computer
programming via 4gl's and "visual" languages. That's where it all
started, IMHO. :)
Note that I have no grudge against
business-degree-who-have-taken-the-time-to-learn-computers
type folks, you're actually doing pretty well for yourself..heh
C
--
Craig Miller <cra...@craigerware.avalon.net>
http://www.craigerware.avalon.net/
FidoNet - 1:2613/404.25
Finger cra...@craigerware.avalon.net for more info and my PGP public key.
Craiger's computer says:
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
John Chase
>
> In <1998070222...@is2.nyu.edu>, on 07/02/98
> at 06:32 PM, im...@CIMS.NYU.EDU said:
>
> >In <1998070221...@nanna.mhrz.mh-hannover.de>, on 07/02/98 at
> >11:28 PM,
> > "Dr. Martin R. Hadam" <Hadam....@MH-HANNOVER.DE> said:
>
> >>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>
> >>>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
> >>>Intimidated By Microsoft."
>
> >"Incapacitated by Microsoft" sounds like a better fit.
>
> IMHO, the good old "I blame the management" is still the best explanation
> for the letters IBM...
"Inadvertent Bowel Movement".
-jc-
Joseph Svitak Jr
: "Inadvertent Bowel Movement".
: -jc-
I've Been Masturbating
--
Joe Svitak, Jr.
Computer Science Department
Queens College, CUNY
Murray M. Cooper
-0700
> In <1998070222...@is2.nyu.edu>, on 07/02/98
> at 06:32 PM, im...@CIMS.NYU.EDU said:
>
> >In <1998070221...@nanna.mhrz.mh-hannover.de>, on 07/02/98 at
> >11:28 PM,
> > "Dr. Martin R. Hadam" <Hadam....@MH-HANNOVER.DE> said:
>
> >>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700, Ted Blockley wrote:
>
> >>>leading us to conclude that IBM now stands for
> >>>Intimidated By Microsoft."
>
> >"Incapacitated by Microsoft" sounds like a better fit.
>
> IMHO, the good old "I blame the management" is still the best explanation
> for the letters IBM...
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com
> Theta Band Software LLC http://www.thetaband.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Long ago and far away I learned that IBM stands for ida bada misha. I sure I'm
not
spelling them right and even the phonetics is probably not good. Ida bada misha
are
supposed to be three arabic words that mean later, tomorrow, never. Maybe one of
our
arabic speaking colleques can correct me.
Doc Coop
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
mmc...@NET-LINK.NET "Murray M. Cooper" writes:
> Long ago and far away I learned that IBM stands for ida bada misha. I sure I'm
> not
> spelling them right and even the phonetics is probably not good. Ida bada misha
> are
> supposed to be three arabic words that mean later, tomorrow, never. Maybe one of> our
> arabic speaking colleques can correct me.
Well, there's a possibility that the "misha" has that sort of meaning.
There's an old arabic saying "bookhra fil mish-mish" meaning "Tomorrow,
when the apricots ripen". However, the "tomorrow" here is somewhat like
the Spanish "manana", but without the same sense of urgency :-)
(I think, BICBW, that the mish-mish of the saying are the apricots.)
In fact, thinking more about your "derivation" of IBM, it may be that
your words are merely a different dialect of Arabic from the one I quote,
which, IIRC, is Tripolitanian (or possibly Cyrenician).
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"You're one of the very rare few who can argue ad hominem, ad absurdum
and ad nauseam simultaneously...worse still it looks like you want to
carry on ad infinitum..." WPSM on alt.config 1998/06/27
Julian Thomas
at 08:46 PM, "Murray M. Cooper" <mmc...@NET-LINK.NET> typed:
>Long ago and far away I learned that IBM stands for ida bada misha. I
>sure I'm not spelling them right and even the phonetics is probably not
>good. Ida bada misha are supposed to be three arabic words that mean
>later, tomorrow, never. Maybe one of our arabic speaking colleques can
>correct me.
Don't speak arabic, but got this inside IBM:
Insallah, Bukrah Malesh
"By the will of Allah, maybe tomorrow" (or tomorrow maybe).
--
Julian & Mary Jane Thomas
j...@epix.net http://www.epix.net/~jt
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
--------------------------------------------------
You said Windows was a Power Tool???
James J Mckenzie
>
> Don't speak arabic, but got this inside IBM:
>
> Insallah, Bukrah Malesh
>
> "By the will of Allah, maybe tomorrow" (or tomorrow maybe).
You have it correct (the first time.) Usually said when a merchant does
not have what you want.
James