CODE BLUE or PROJECT QUIXOTE
Christopher J. Barr
CODE BLUE
I've spend considerable time in hospitals over the last few years. (My wife
has annual back surgeries, it seems.) Anyone who has tried to get the
attention of a nurse or attendant at the nursing station knows what is wrong
with IBM. A hospital is turned in on itself; it is preoccupied with its
routines. Staff members move about purposefully, interacting with themselves,
fulfilling their institutional duties. The visitor is invisible. Or, at best,
an unwanted irritant rattling among the gears and cogs. The patient, herself,
gets caught up in the process. Becomes an involuntary part of it. How
different a hospital is from a decent restaurant or hotel!
If you are a well behaved visitor to a hospital and push nurse call buttons,
wait quietly in rooms for news on an overdue surgery victim, ask politely for
someone to give your wife more pain medicine... you might have well stayed
home for all the satisfaction you will get. But, if you fuss enough and create
a scene, you might just get some reaction from the automatons moving about the
ward.
So it is with Big Blue. Twice I have totally lost patience with them and
vented here. Once over their refusal to sell me a replacement manual for an
IBM ISDN NT1 Extended, without which it could not be programmed. Once over
their refusal to sell me Software Choice. (Well, actually, not because of the
refusal, but because I actually believed them when they said that only big
customers could buy into that program and that many new products and upgrades
would only be released through it.)
In both cases, the reaction was astonishing. I now have five (5) manuals for
the IBM NT-1 Extended. I got a call from a VP in Networking apologizing for
the policy. A call from the Chairman's office telling me that they had
initiated a top down search for similar Catch 22's. And was copied in on
dozens of email messages between IBM people in various parts of the country
trying to resolve my problem -- and the underlying etiology. In the more
recent case: Someone at IBM is overnighting me TCPIP 4.1 on CDROM. (Actually
it just arrived. They actually burned a CDROM for me! He asks me to stay with
OS/2.It actually arrived before the Software Choice package I successfully
bought from IB.) Someone else is calling me to discuss the rude treatment I
received. Other people have emailed me to say that the fundamental problem has
been addressed. I have been copied in on various internal discussions of the
problem and its solutions.
There is hope for IBM yet. If you shriek "CODE BLUE" loudly enough, you can
actually get its attention.
OS/2's LAME CHAMPION
Many of us see OS/2 as the maiden in distress in one of those old films with
Korngold film scores. Tied to the stake with eager torches all around, she
waits for the gallant knight to appear to champion her cause. But the gallant
knight turns out to be a fussy and timid bureaucrat, corpulent and lame,
forever second guessing himself about choice of weapons, field of combat and
the like.
That is where we are in the interactive adventure game. Will the sinister
Gates d'Microsoft incinerate the virgin princess and assume the throne? Or
will another saviour emerge, vanquish the evil one and sweep her to safety?
Frankly, I think the princess is going to get torched.
But where there is life, there is hope. I think we must accept that we are
stuck with the Vacillating Knight as the champion. No one else is going to
ride onto the field at this late hour. So we, the common folk in the stands
are going to have to rig the contest to give him a chance. Throw some marbles
under the hooves of the opposition, as it were.
PARALLEL TRACKS
In another posting I spelled out what I considered OS/2's great strength: the
design philosophy that merged GUI ease of use with CLI flexibility, cementing
them together with a powerful, extensible and easy to use scripting language.
I also argued that these features made the operating system ideal for the SOHO
market -- with the right distribution/support network.
OS/2 exists today in two different worlds. There is the internal world of IBM.
Ponderous and slow. No focus. No clear goals. No enthusiasm. No imagination.
But IBM owns the system and keeps the life support plugged in. Then there is
the ISV/shareware universe. Much that makes OS/2 useful to me as a SOHO user
comes from there.
DIGRESSION
Let me digress to give an example of the power that can be assembled from the
little pieces one finds on Hobbes, supplemented with elementary REXX
scripting.
I was using a commercial email server. For some reason it refuses to run on my
SMP system. What to do? Well, Sendmail 2.02 works pretty well. I need a mail
delivery process. Qypmail is reliable and easy to configure. And it allows me
to add postprocessing scripts for each delivery mailbox. And POP3 works quite
well as a pop server. And it requires no index file, so I can write various
scripts to create what I call Faux Mail to deliver faxes and voice messages to
the mailboxes directly through REXX copy commands rather than through email.
End result of a bit of tinkering: my wife and I have accounts on my home
brewed email system. If flawlessly processes her 1000 email messages a day
(all about exotic birds) and my business fax and voice files plus all those
apologetic emails from IBM.
A bit of REXX tinkering and Faxworks Pro gave me a multiline answering machine
with paging support, internet delivery, remote delivery over the LAN, etc. It
also gave me a system for routing all outgoing faxes out of my home system
even when I am on the road, using the Internet.
Using the domain name server that came with Warp Server Advanced SMP and a
dynamic address server (dym) I gave my notebook a host name on my own domain
that follows it anywhere in the world. Using Tunnel/2 I will shortly extend my
LAN Server network to the mobile network. And I will be able, using Tunnel/2
and In-Joy, to permanently integrate my remote employee's system into the LAN
and TCPIP domain even though he uses a dial up ISP with dynamic IP addresses.
And his system will be accessible from the Internet 24/7 through two way dial
on demand.
NEW PARADIGM
OS/2's life derives from the unregulated and uncoordinated activity of the
independent supporters and developers who love OS/2. Such activity must take
place outside of IBM where the culture would kill it. But without some
coordination and focus, it will not sustain an operating system in the real
world either.
After my last frustrating interaction with IBM, I searched Yahoo for
alternative environments to escape to. And I noticed how many operating system
projects there are out there that are completely cooperative. Linux is one
such. A group of people is working on a new AmigaOS. There are many other
examples.
THE QUIXOTE PROJECT
Here is what I propose.
We form an ad hoc group to adapt OS/2 to the SOHO market and to sell it and
support it there.
Some of the functions of this group:
To identify gaps in OS/2's application and driver support and channel
independent efforts into filling them. (Or to collectively shake IBM's tree
until it does.)
To bring independent developers together to combine potentially synergistic
projects.
To provide a means of providing Win32 support for small business users who
require it, since IBM cannot see the need.
To share solutions and ideas with others in the group. And to provide a
reservoir of technical support in specialized areas.
To advertise the collective effort. And to do referrals within the group.
To establish and maintain support operations for clients of group members.
(For example, I could easily provide domain name service and two way dial on
demand capability to clients anywhere in the world without having to actually
provide the internet access.)
To lobby IBM publicly for support we need.
All this activity would be focused on empowering independent contractors and
consultants to go out and sell their services and OS/2 based solutions to SOHO
users.
Are there opportunities? I think so. Two years ago, my wife's surgeon at a
major private hospital asked me if I could help him install an OS/2 based LAN.
I am not in the computer business and had no network experience at the time. I
could not help. A realtor friend of ours is on the local board and has been
telling me of their trials and tribulations with a vendor who was tried to
create a proprietary system for an on-line MLS system and Web presence. I told
her that I could assemble a team and, using off the shelf products, put
together a better system that would use internet browsers and local ISP's.
They are now suing to get out of their other deal. She asked if I wanted to
suggest an alternative.
Understand that I am not proposing a business venture. That may follow. I am
proposing a cooperative venture to rescue OS/2. The individuals involved in
writing shareware or selling solutions might make money from their efforts.
Great! We may eventually need to find a way to support the collaborative
mechanisms. And to formalize some of the structures. But I am here proposing
that we try to harness the energy and talent that is keeping OS/2 alive but on
life support and coordinate them through the internet to get it back on its
feet.
I threw out the idea the other day of a PC on a card inside a workstation to
run Win95. Some ridiculed the idea. Others saw it as technically easy to do
and, perhaps, desirable. Why do it? Let's say I run my office on OS/2. I've
got two machines networked together. One is my desktop and doubles as a Fax
server using FaxWorks Pro. The other is running my voicemail (on FaxWorks),
email server, web server, etc. I need to run an insurance rating program from
time to time. It is Win95 based. Which machine do I reboot? Or do I buy
another PC, monitor, etc. and walk across the room to another desk to rate up
a policy? I would much rather pay $700, stick a board in my desktop machine
and run Win95 inside the OS/2 machine. (Are my Amiga roots showing?)
How difficult would it be to do this? Would you create a virtual network at
bus speeds and use remote control methods to pipe stuff in and out of the
Win95 session? Or is there some better way? Would adaptations to existing
boards be necessary? How expensive would they be to prototype?
Here are some other projects that needs doing: REXX support for voice adapters
(dialogic) and modems. REXX interface to OS/2 TWAIN drivers. A CopyShop type
product that works across a LAN. Support for the various internet audio and
video standards. A speakerphone tool kit. A internet telephony toolkit. And a
means of putting the two together.
If there is interest in doing this rescue, I will volunteer some of my time
and resources. Perhaps when my network has been moved down here and is up and
running again, I could devote a server to private newsgroups for coordinating
the projects and sharing leads, etc. If someone writes and maintains the web
page, I'll put it up.
Let's stop whining about IBM (and I include myself in this) and talking about
walking out on their WarpStock presentation. Let's take what is out there,
pretend that OS/2 is another Linux and make it work. At the very least, let's
show IBM how to do it. Or, if that fails, let's do it for them -- and for
ourselves.
Chris Barr
cb...@ibm.net
thethoms
Preach on!
fu...@cuug.ab.ca
In <c1.01.2J2FjF$0...@newshost.fsrl.com>, cb...@fsrl.com (Christopher J. Barr) writes:
>
>We form an ad hoc group to adapt OS/2 to the SOHO market and to sell it and
>support it there.
>
>Some of the functions of this group:
>
>To identify gaps in OS/2's application and driver support and channel
>independent efforts into filling them. (Or to collectively shake IBM's tree
>until it does.)
The SOHO market huge and diversified. I think a more
focused approach may be more likely to succeed. I would
propose to identify the most common requirements first
for apps and drivers and resolve these problems first.
And it is impossible to get a large number of vendors
to supply these vendors and apps. A more selective
approach may be easier.
The most horrible experience a SOHO customer has
is to find things not working together. It's this
'togetherness' we need to fix.
If we can put together product suites - basic cpu, drives, cd-roms,
monitors, video adapters, printers, scanners,
software (OCR, records management, general leger, accounts
receivable, accounts payable, inventory, PIM, cash-registers,
customer records, manual process managers, etc.) that
works TOGETHER for a few (at first, diversify later)
lines of business, and market them together, hence
can put volume purchase discounts together, may get this
going a lot faster and better.
I have observed IBM's effort in selling their 'key' products
(e.g. Notes, NC, etc.) in it's normal in-coherent manner.
These were disasters. IBM just don't know what effort
(and cost, of course) to market to businesses, large and
small. It is a working system people want, not components
that you have to find other companion components, and
hand fit them together.
In a word (or more), it is turn-keys we want ! But
true turn-keys, complete networked systems, with
servers and clients, and printers and scanners and
cash registers, and model chart of accounts, model
process managers, etc.
Or, we can find businesses that has put systems like
that together (for themselves, mostly) and clone
their whole setup, source the components, setup
duplicating proceses, and sell them.
cory hamasaki
>THE QUIXOTE PROJECT
>
>Here is what I propose.
>
>We form an ad hoc group to adapt OS/2 to the SOHO market and to sell it and
>support it there.
>
>Some of the functions of this group:
>
>To identify gaps in OS/2's application and driver support and channel
>independent efforts into filling them. (Or to collectively shake IBM's tree
>until it does.)
>
>To bring independent developers together to combine potentially synergistic
>projects.
>
>To provide a means of providing Win32 support for small business users who
>require it, since IBM cannot see the need.
>
>To share solutions and ideas with others in the group. And to provide a
>reservoir of technical support in specialized areas.
>
>To advertise the collective effort. And to do referrals within the group.
>
>To establish and maintain support operations for clients of group members.
>(For example, I could easily provide domain name service and two way dial on
>demand capability to clients anywhere in the world without having to actually
>provide the internet access.)
>
>To lobby IBM publicly for support we need.
>
>Understand that I am not proposing a business venture. That may follow. I am
>proposing a cooperative venture to rescue OS/2. The individuals involved in
>writing shareware or selling solutions might make money from their efforts.
>Great! We may eventually need to find a way to support the collaborative
>mechanisms. And to formalize some of the structures. But I am here proposing
>that we try to harness the energy and talent that is keeping OS/2 alive but on
>life support and coordinate them through the internet to get it back on its
>feet.
>
>I threw out the idea the other day of a PC on a card inside a workstation to
>run Win95. Some ridiculed the idea. Others saw it as technically easy to do
>and, perhaps, desirable. Why do it? Let's say I run my office on OS/2. I've
>got two machines networked together. One is my desktop and doubles as a Fax
>server using FaxWorks Pro. The other is running my voicemail (on FaxWorks),
>email server, web server, etc. I need to run an insurance rating program from
>time to time. It is Win95 based. Which machine do I reboot? Or do I buy
>another PC, monitor, etc. and walk across the room to another desk to rate up
>a policy? I would much rather pay $700, stick a board in my desktop machine
>and run Win95 inside the OS/2 machine. (Are my Amiga roots showing?)
>
>Here are some other projects that needs doing: REXX support for voice adapters
>(dialogic) and modems. REXX interface to OS/2 TWAIN drivers. A CopyShop type
>product that works across a LAN. Support for the various internet audio and
>video standards. A speakerphone tool kit. A internet telephony toolkit. And a
>means of putting the two together.
>
>If there is interest in doing this rescue, I will volunteer some of my time
>and resources. Perhaps when my network has been moved down here and is up and
>running again, I could devote a server to private newsgroups for coordinating
>the projects and sharing leads, etc. If someone writes and maintains the web
>page, I'll put it up.
>
>Let's stop whining about IBM (and I include myself in this) and talking about
>walking out on their WarpStock presentation. Let's take what is out there,
>pretend that OS/2 is another Linux and make it work. At the very least, let's
>show IBM how to do it. Or, if that fails, let's do it for them -- and for
>ourselves.
>
>Chris Barr
>cb...@ibm.net
Interesting ideas, Chris. Very interesting and very persceptive.
There are lots of things that could be done.
I have carved out my own project; 2.5 programmers (including me)
have been working on REDWOOD, a Y2K remediation tool. Written
using CSet++ 2.1 on Warp Connect, we're going after the enterprise
systems market.
I have two S/370s in my living room. One runs Personal CMS; it's
an old XT/370. The other runs MVS, JES2, VTAM, TSO, VSAM, etc.
As we count down the days to Y2K, an OS/2 based remediation tool
will make OS/2 more and more important.
The connection between MVS and OS/2 are very strong. Rexx, ISPF
and the OS/2 ISPF client, EPM can edit files on TSO directly.
In my case, SOHO computing means OS/2, MVS, and CMS.
Cory Hamasaki Kiyo Design, Inc http://www.kiyoinc.com
HHResearch Co. 11 Annapolis St. OS/2 Webstore & Newsletter
REDWOOD Annapolis, Md, 21401 (410) 280-1942
ask...@ibm.net
>
>I threw out the idea the other day of a PC on a card inside a workstation to
>run Win95. Some ridiculed the idea. Others saw it as technically easy to do
>and, perhaps, desirable. Why do it? Let's say I run my office on OS/2. I've
>got two machines networked together. One is my desktop and doubles as a Fax
>server using FaxWorks Pro. The other is running my voicemail (on FaxWorks),
>email server, web server, etc. I need to run an insurance rating program from
>time to time. It is Win95 based. Which machine do I reboot? Or do I buy
>another PC, monitor, etc. and walk across the room to another desk to rate up
>a policy? I would much rather pay $700, stick a board in my desktop machine
>and run Win95 inside the OS/2 machine. (Are my Amiga roots showing?)
I have been doing this do this for a while with the following gear:
1) AXIOM SBC - (about 1/2 sized ISA, but 2 slots wide because of RAM and
CPU fan height)
- it supports up to 300 MHZ CPU - Intel, Cyrix, or AMD and 64 MB RAM,
2 IDE devices, 1 FDD, 1 LPT, 2 Serial, PS/2 kbd. PS/2 mouse, 2/4MB
ram on CT 65550 SVGA video, 2 USB and PC-104 expansion - all on board.
2) Re-cycled WD IDE HDD (I use SCSI only for OS/2). A FDD and a CDR
were used to install WIN-95, then disconnected.
3) Control sharing box to switch CRT, mouse, and keyboard.
- At present the card is NOT on an ISA bus, just stuck off in a corner.
- for future, I plan a 2-slot bus with a PCMCIA socket and 10-Base-T
- also plan to replace the full-size HDD with a re-cycled notebook-size.
>
>How difficult would it be to do this? Would you create a virtual network at
>bus speeds and use remote control methods to pipe stuff in and out of the
>Win95 session? Or is there some better way? Would adaptations to existing
>boards be necessary? How expensive would they be to prototype?
It was not at all difficult. Everything is already on the single-board card,
and cables are included.
Switching the keyboard/mouse/CRT is faster and less intrusive than using
RSM or HyperAcess. Will probably do both in future (for easier remoting).
10-BaseT (there are no usable ISA or PC-104 100 MB NICs) can be connected
to a WARP SERVER ADVANCED in the same case for common disk storage.
If enough folks are interested, my firm would be willing to "package" this
gadget to fit a 1/2 height 5 1/4" drive bay (standard CDR size and cables).
These boards are for industrial control applications and DO cost more than
high-volume "regular" motherboards.
BUT - you do not have to have a second PS, case, CRT, keyboard, mouse,
large HDD,........ or the space for any of that.
Sure makes WIN-95 a bit less painful........
*SNIP More good stuff cut.....*
Regards,
Bill "hardware" Hacker - ask...@ibm.net
Dan Casey
In article <c1.01.2J2FjF$0...@newshost.fsrl.com>,
cb...@fsrl.com (Christopher J. Barr) wrote:
>CODE BLUE
<Article snipped to save considerable bandwidth>
This is one of the most well written, informative and constructive
articles I've seen posted here in a LONG time.
Chris (and anyone else who feels the same way) should know that they
are not alone in this. Ideas such as this have been discussed in the
bi-monthly VOICE meetings on IRC.
For anyone intersted, meetings are held on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday
of each month, at 8:00PM EST on WEBnet IRC #VOICE (start at
irc.suntrix.com or warpedworld.dyndns.com and join #VOICE). More info
on VOICE (Virtual OS/2 Internationl Consumer Education) can be found
at http://www.os2voice.org and you don't have to be a member to join
the meetings.
--
****************************************************
* Dan Casey Doesn't "Microsoft" *
* Team OS/2 Mean "Small & Limp"? *
* Abraxas on IRC *
* To Reply by E-Mail.....ROT13 my Address *
****************************************************
* PGP Public Key Available on my Web Page *
* Or E-Mail me with a subject of PGP Key *
****************************************************
* Visit my Web Site at: *
* http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/3031 *
****************************************************
Christopher J. Barr
In message <62t64c$j...@hp.cuug.ab.ca> - fu...@cuug.ab.ca writes:
:>
Oddly, I agree with most of your declarative statements and disagree with
almost all your conclusions.
:>
:>The SOHO market huge and diversified. I think a more
:>focused approach may be more likely to succeed.
I think these two sentences are in conflict.
:> I would
:>propose to identify the most common requirements first
:>for apps and drivers and resolve these problems first.
Exactly my goal!
:>
:>And it is impossible to get a large number of vendors
:>to supply these vendors and apps. A more selective
:>approach may be easier.
Not sure what you mean. The more people selling the better. My approach
is to midwife the creation of solutions in the aforementioned gaps. And
to empower others to go out and tailor make solutions.
:>
:>The most horrible experience a SOHO customer has
:>is to find things not working together. It's this
:>'togetherness' we need to fix.
Agreed. Which is why OS/2 will not work out of the box for many
small businesses. They need someone who knows the shareware/commerical
market to fit pieces together for them.
:>
:>If we can put together product suites - basic cpu, drives, cd-roms,
:>monitors, video adapters, printers, scanners,
:>software (OCR, records management, general leger, accounts
:>receivable, accounts payable, inventory, PIM, cash-registers,
:>customer records, manual process managers, etc.) that
:>works TOGETHER for a few (at first, diversify later)
:>lines of business, and market them together, hence
:>can put volume purchase discounts together, may get this
Sure. And we will not have much control oer the few at start. But
each will be different, no matter how similar they appear.
:>going a lot faster and better.
:>
:>I have observed IBM's effort in selling their 'key' products
:>(e.g. Notes, NC, etc.) in it's normal in-coherent manner.
:>These were disasters. IBM just don't know what effort
:>(and cost, of course) to market to businesses, large and
:>small. It is a working system people want, not components
:>that you have to find other companion components, and
:>hand fit them together.
:>
:>In a word (or more), it is turn-keys we want ! But
:>true turn-keys, complete networked systems, with
:>servers and clients, and printers and scanners and
:>cash registers, and model chart of accounts, model
:>process managers, etc.
:>
:>Or, we can find businesses that has put systems like
:>that together (for themselves, mostly) and clone
:>their whole setup, source the components, setup
:>duplicating proceses, and sell them.
:>
I have no problem with either approach. But believe that
the consultant who can select the proper configuration
and adapt it is still the key.
Chris Barr
boo...@ibm.net
on 10/26/97at 05, the Great and Grand Wazir cb...@fsrl.com (Christopher
J. Barr) said:
I have no problem with either approach. But believe that
the consultant who can select the proper configuration
and adapt it is still the key.
Chris Barr
We have several centers for this, already. Warpstock should help sort
those issues out and firm up the runways for takeoff. Indelible Blue, BMT
Micro, the User groups, and others are all anxious to get this bird into
the air. Lets listen to them and use their leadership.
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
Jens Glathe
fu...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>
> In <c1.01.2J2FjF$0...@newshost.fsrl.com>, cb...@fsrl.com (Christopher J. Barr) writes:
> >
> >We form an ad hoc group to adapt OS/2 to the SOHO market and to sell it and
> >support it there.
> >
> >Some of the functions of this group:
> >
> >To identify gaps in OS/2's application and driver support and channel
> >independent efforts into filling them. (Or to collectively shake IBM's tree
> >until it does.)
>
> propose to identify the most common requirements first
> for apps and drivers and resolve these problems first.
>
> to supply these vendors and apps. A more selective
> approach may be easier.
>
> is to find things not working together. It's this
> 'togetherness' we need to fix.
>
> monitors, video adapters, printers, scanners,
> software (OCR, records management, general leger, accounts
> receivable, accounts payable, inventory, PIM, cash-registers,
> customer records, manual process managers, etc.) that
> works TOGETHER for a few (at first, diversify later)
> lines of business, and market them together, hence
> can put volume purchase discounts together, may get this
>
>
> In a word (or more), it is turn-keys we want ! But
> true turn-keys, complete networked systems, with
> servers and clients, and printers and scanners and
> cash registers, and model chart of accounts, model
> process managers, etc.
>
> Or, we can find businesses that has put systems like
> that together (for themselves, mostly) and clone
> their whole setup, source the components, setup
> duplicating proceses, and sell them.
Thats sounds a lot like a task for a company, not for a private user
group. The idea to bundle the activities already there to support OS/2
is fine. But this will be a full-time job for some people. However, I
like the idea.
Greetings,
Jens Glathe <jens...@w271zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de>
Martin Alfredsson
On Sun, 26 Oct 97 21:54:27 -0500, boo...@ibm.net wrote:
>on 10/26/97at 05, the Great and Grand Wazir cb...@fsrl.com (Christopher
>J. Barr) said:
>
>We have several centers for this, already. Warpstock should help sort
>those issues out and firm up the runways for takeoff. Indelible Blue, BMT
>Micro, the User groups, and others are all anxious to get this bird into
>the air. Lets listen to them and use their leadership.
>
One thing that I feel would be of great benefit to all would be a way for
extending the OS GUI. Currently we have a lot of different products that
sometimes dont work so well together.
Object Desktop, XiT, NPSWPS and E.EXE, the font palett and so on.
Kris Kwivlias did a good job putting together a list of what he though needed
to be fixed for Warp4.
What I purpose is a:
"plugin" method for replacing things in the OS. A standard way of replacing
bad
GUI, replacing bad things (Alt-Tab in Warp 4) and adding new features to the
OS (more settings in the OS/2 System -> System Setup) for example.
There should also be a unified model for this (GUI looks and so on)
Many developers do things in excess, the replacement for the E editor for
example
goes way out of what people need. The E.EXE need printing, position indicator
and
"save the setting when I want". While you can add buttonbars and several file
formats this is an overkill for most users.
Since I'm NOT the person to host such an initiative lets hope this leads to
something.
I'd love to do some programming in support of the project though...
Bruce A. Mallett
Wow, nice article! You mention other OS projects which are well organized
..
I see a major stumbling block here: IBM. Linux works because the developers
and users control the system, but with OS/2 IBM controls it. And I don't
think of IBM as having a good reputation for being cooperative. Plus they
easily out number us: an important consideration when figuring out how many
whites of the eyes to count when facing the administrative forces spread out
before you (or perhaps hiding in the bushes is a better analogy) !
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:57:05 GMT, Christopher J. Barr wrote:
:>CODE BLUE
Samuel Figueroa
Christopher J. Barr writes
> I threw out the idea the other day of a PC on a card inside a
> from time to time. It is Win95 based. Which machine do I reboot? Or do I
> buy another PC, monitor, etc. and walk across the room to another desk
> to rate up a policy? I would much rather pay $700, stick a board in my
> desktop machine and run Win95 inside the OS/2 machine.
As for having a second CPU just to run Windows 95 programs, Apple already
makes such a card. It includes the equivalent of a sound card and video.
Although it's for their Macintoshes, it's a PCI card, so it could probably
be made to work on a regular PC with appropriate software.
- Sam Figueroa (SamuelF...@nospam.bigfoot.com)