WarpStock 2001 Wrap-Up.
Brad BARCLAY
Well, it's been nearly a week since WarpStock ended, and yet I've heard
nary a word from those who attended. Usually we get a few reports from
attendees posted here as to who they met, what they saw, etc. I'm
hoping this thread will work some of those people out of the woodwork
:).
As Toronto is my hometown, I was certainly there (albeit only on
Sunday. For myself, last weekend wasn't the best time for Warpstock to
be held, with it being both our Canadian Thanksgiving holiday, and my
mothers birthday :).
My participation this year was primarily as a speaker -- for those who
attended, my subject was IBM's ManplatoSync for Java
(http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/manplatosync4java), with one talk
for users, and one for developers. Unfortunately for myself, this left
little time to talk to other people, nevermind being able to attend
other sessions.
Still, the turnout on Sunday while I was there was quite good. I
enjoyed meeting many of the people I've known from these newsgroups for
so very many years -- indeed, when it did became time for me to leave,
it was difficult to do so because of all of the people I hadn't had a
chance to talk to yet, and the number of people who wanted to thank me
for information I've posted here that has helped them in one way or
another. To all of these people: you're welcome :).
I also regret that there were a number of people whom I only had an
opportunity to speak to briefly or not at all. I did get to meet Kim
Cheung briefly; unfortunately the timing was bad (5 minutes before my
second presentation) -- Kim, my appologies that we didn't get to sit
down and talk. We'll have to target that for the next Warpstock I guess
:).
As well, I did actually "see" Bob St. John -- but again, didn't get a
chance to speak with him. My appologies to you too, Bob :).
Overall, the volunteers who put together Warpstock -- in my estimation
-- did an execellent job. They had a wonderful venue, and worked hard
to put everything together. It was fun to, for once, not be the only
person in crowd that runs OS/2 (even if I am still the only run to do so
using a Dvorak keyboard :).
As I did have to miss quite a bit, I'd love to hear what other
attendees thought of the show -- so please post your thoughts here!
Brad BARCLAY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: bbar...@ca.ibm.com Location: C3/023/8200/MKM
bste...@redshift.com
enjoyed all the sessions I attended and wish I could have attended a
few others that were going on at the same time. In fact, I was so
thoroughly occupied with the sessions that I was not able to spend
enough time at the vendors' booths.
I find it very interesting to be able to put faces with the names I
see often online. I am not a great conversationalist, but I did enjoy
the few conversations that I was able to participate in. I picked up a
few useful tips and learned about some things that I was not
previously aware of. Having had purchased eCS but not yet installed
it, I found the eCS sessions among the most interesting. Also
interesting were the various sessions on running 32-bit Windows apps
and even a complete Windows system under OS/2. That could make using
OS/2 very much like eating my cake and having it too. Overall I
consider it time and resources well spent to be with other Warp users
and show my support for the Warp community.
I did manage to completely forget to pick up my Warpstock CD-ROM on
the last day. I hope they post the image on the Warpstock site so I
can download it and burn my own CD.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Stephan bste...@redshift.com or BobSt...@compuserve.com
Happily using OS/2 Warp on the Central California Coast.
Visit me at http://www.redshift.com/~bstephan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hrynyshyn
I bought software from almost ever vendor there.
Titan had really cool task based, cross platform, enterprise network
management software, which requires Domino and db2, a bit more then i
can justify for my 8 client lan, but a definite must see for any of you
big corporate types.
I held off on buying eCS until Warpstock, one reason being i was
hesitant about LVM, sounded cool but seemed like quite a change from
good ol fdisk.
Things i learned about eCS at Warpstock:
1: LVM and JFS are great, just remember deleting logical a volume,
deletes all partitions assigned to it, read up carefully before you
install it.
2: If you use JFS install the newer version on cd three, i haven't done
this yet, i assume you have to update it after you install eCS, i could
use some clarification on this.
3: Follow all instructions during install, the networking install is
almost as scary as it was in warp4, at least eCS has very detailed
installation instructions, and a much nicer interface.
4:A new installer will be out shortly (perhaps around Jan., but don't
quote me) which should get rid of all the legacy Warp4 install bugs.
5. Wise Machine is supposed to be really cool, although i haven't
figured out exactly how to use some of it's more advanced features, and
playing around with it looks kind of scary, more mandatory reading i
think. eCS is rapidly developing Wise Machine, so maybe the advanced
features will become more self explanatory in time.
6.The eCS presentation was an hour long....i could of used an 8 hour
presentation.
7.Was very impressed with the how many improvements to os/2 they have
managed to make in such a short period of time.
8.Love all that bundled software.
Innotek's (i may have spelt that wrong) foreign os hosting software is
really really cool, for those of you who just got to run some win32 or
linux apps it should come in really handy. It number crunches and
should run standard apps really really fast(~85-95% eff i seem to
recall), but should play multimedia really slow(~30% eff), but they are
working on that.
BackAgain2000, what can i say, you got data you need protected, u need
this. The os2 version won't fully back up all windowsNT (i never asked
about win9x or linux) registries if you have win machines on your
network, so you will have to purchase a copy for each os u run. I
wonder if on a dual boot machine if you could back up your windows (or
linux) partition from os2 when windows(or linux) wasn't running? I
meant to ask how it will work with Innotek's software, but never had a
chance to, probably be fine if the guests aren't running, anyone got an
answer for this?
Kim's presentation on Rexx and C programming was VERY interesting, a
definite must read if you write code, just wish i had more time to write
code, it focused on a neat little tool he had developed to pass data
reliably and quickly between Rexx and C, and also how to protect your
Rexx code from prying eyes. Some of the details flew over my head, but
i got the gist of it. If u ask Kim nicely, he will let u use his code
for free, as long as you don't try to bite him in the ass with it.
(i.e.. use it to produce software which directly competes against
software he is marketing)
Liked the Zx mail server so much i bought a copy.
Haven't installed my new ups software yet, but i'm sure it will work, he
may develop a network version, so u share one ups and shut down more
then one machine, or perhaps have disconnect clients if the server is
running out of juice. That would be cool.
I missed both ODIN presentations, anyone got the scoop on those?
"Whither Warpstock" presentation:
1:one board member out of eight thought this should be the last Warpstock
2:board wants to get presentations, scheduled at least 6 months before
conference to give time for attendees from the corporate side to plan
and justify their trip. I'm sure this list would have to be constantly
updated to reflect all the constant and important developments in the os
and apps.
3:better present conference to corporate attendees to make it easier to
justify spending their companies time and money (us warp lovers just go
on blind faith :-) )
4:board almost announced next years host city at conference
5:Warpstock is steadily becoming more technical
6:price must stay low for us home and soho users, but low price makes it
seem like a kegger to the suits
7:name changes and duel marketing and pricing was discussed.
8:attendance dropping, but sept.11 may have kept some people from
traveling this year
9:board would like to get more influential (with IBM) corporate users to
conference, but has no marketing money, would like the names of all
those influential people.
My two cents: it's all good
Well maybe i have one suggestion, perhaps the seminars could be
classified under three headings
1: Improving the efficiency, functionality and cost benefits of running
eCS-os/2 servers and clients. This would include all seminars relating
to improvements to the os itself and any new or updated business type apps
2: Migration, seminars which would hilight the lack of need to migrate
from os/2, and focus on ongoing developments in apps, projects, and the
os, so maybe some suits will come thinking we will tell them how to
migrate to Windows, maybe some could be convinced not to
3: Tech head stuff - all the good stuff, programming, etc.
X: no heading for us general users and enthusiasts, but we know why we
go to Warpstock, we don't need to be patronized with no stinking list
I forgot the name of that nice chap how gave the eCS presentation, i
want to check out his news server, anyone got his web site name?
I also forgot the name of that slightly younger nice chap, who's doing a
lot of the work on the eCS install program. My only question for him is
how does one get to know so much about os/2 install program? :-)
dlistw...@home.com
>Was my first Warpstock, and i was great.!
>I bought software from almost ever vendor there.
>Titan had really cool task based, cross platform, enterprise network
>management software, which requires Domino and db2, a bit more then i
>can justify for my 8 client lan, but a definite must see for any of you
>big corporate types.
>I held off on buying eCS until Warpstock, one reason being i was
>hesitant about LVM, sounded cool but seemed like quite a change from
>good ol fdisk.
>Things i learned about eCS at Warpstock:
>1: LVM and JFS are great, just remember deleting logical a volume,
>deletes all partitions assigned to it, read up carefully before you
>install it.
>2: If you use JFS install the newer version on cd three, i haven't done
>this yet, i assume you have to update it after you install eCS, i could
>use some clarification on this.
Paul
The eCS install, installs JFS by default. It adds one line to the
config.sys file. Below is the line with my personal header/explanatory
note.
REM --------------------------------------------------------
REM *** (IFS) INSTALLABLE FILE SYSTEM DRIVER ***
REM *** for The Journaling File System ( JFS ) ***
REM --------------------------------------------------------
IFS=F:\OS2\JFS.IFS /AUTOCHECK:*
When one applies the JFS patch/update, they will not need to do
anything to the config.sys file.
One should apply the patch BEFORE formatting a JFS Volume.
Since I had Remmed out the JFS.IFS line in my config.sys, applying
the patch was just renaming the original JFS files, I just add a .org to
the file names, before copying in the new versions of the files.
Below is a listing of the files being replaced from my
unzipping the JFS0622.zip archive.
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip]bd
6-22-01 7:08:46p 562K OS2
A 6-22-01 9:23:00a 456829 jfs0622.zip
A 10-12-01 8:50:54a 1326 readme.txt
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip]
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2]
6-22-01 7:08:48p 264K DLL < DIR >
6-22-01 7:08:52p 51K SYSTEM < DIR >
A 6-22-01 7:07:24p 35344 clrbblks.exe
A 6-22-01 7:07:26p 5204 clrbblks.sym
A 6-22-01 7:03:46p 189848 jfs.ifs
A 6-22-01 7:03:46p 15732 jfs.sym
A 6-22-01 7:06:38p 6431 jfschk32.exe
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2]
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2\dll]
A 6-22-01 7:06:42p 251205 ujfs.dll
A 6-22-01 7:06:42p 19796 ujfs.sym
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2\dll]
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2\system\trace]
A 6-22-01 7:03:48p 16549 jfs.tdf
A 6-22-01 7:03:48p 36315 trc012f.tff
[M:\download\ibm\testcase\unzip\os2\system\trace]
I had a strange dance with "trc012f.tff." The read me
file said to rename the original. I could never find an
original. However, when I went to copy the new version to
the proper directory, it claimed the original was there.
So I chose to rename the original. Then I could not find
the original under the name I renamed it to either.
HTH
--
Don Woodall shooting electrons at you from Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Computing with IBM's OS/2 Warp, Merlin Convenience Pack Beta, eCS
Communicating with Nick Knight's MR/2 ICE, Version 2.28a S/N 393.
This OS/2 system uptime is 2 days 19:55 hours :^( (en).
-----------------------------------------------------------
dlistw...@home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
life...@xxvol.com
>It adds one line to the config.sys file.
>IFS=F:\OS2\JFS.IFS /AUTOCHECK:*
Adds? It runs both HPFS and JFS?
Jim L
--
Ignorant: You don't know.
Stupid: You wouldn't know if you were told.
Old: You don't remember if you know or not.
Snip XX to Email
Ernie Fisch
> dlistw...@home.com said:
>
> >It adds one line to the config.sys file.
>
> >IFS=F:\OS2\JFS.IFS /AUTOCHECK:*
>
> Adds? It runs both HPFS and JFS?
Yes. To actually run it you must create an LVM volume and format it
JFS. It is all there.
--
ernie fisch
David T. Johnson
spam...@spamzone.com
David T. Johnson
Bob St.John
misinformation ...
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> The same story: The problems with the eCS "improved" installer are all
> IBM's fault,
No .. the problems with the Serenity installer are Serenity's fault and the
probloems with IBM's installer are IBM's fault. Right now, the Serenity
installer does not address Selective install or Network install. When people
report problems with these or LVM, they are talking about IBM code.
You have been told this before ... but you persist in fud.
> in this incarnation of the story it's the "legacy Warp 4 install bugs."
When the shoe fits ...
> The supposedly new-and-improved eCS installer worked so poorly
Not the point ... the issue you are about to raise has nothing to do with how
the installer performs.
> that many people apparently had to resort to using the IBM installer on
> CD2--which, of course, did not install the new eCS-only Serenity desktop
> APIs.
A key issue here is that the two installers use very different "desktop
builds". Those people installing "fresh" .. were advised to use the Serenity
installer. But those who wanted to install over a Warp 4 desktop ... had
exposures because some items had been moved.
So, these users were advised to use CD2. Anyone using CD who wanted to get to
the same level as using the install on CD1 had to run the convert utility.
That's why the readme refers to "existing" MCP desktops.
> So what did the Serenity clowns do? They came out with a CONVERTER to
> gather in those hapless users to the eCS desktop APIs and Wise-whatever.
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
>
> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
> you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
> improved eCS desktop and more.
>
> This will require approximately 60 MB of additional diskspace on your
> boot drive."
>
> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
> have never even gotten a working install.
fud
> The entire Serenity story would be hilarious if so many good people didn't
> swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Those would be the people who don't buy into your fud. Fact is, if your
statements would be accurate, the newsgroups and our Yahoo mailing list would
be flooded with messages supporting these statements.
The fact is the traffic points out some issues we need to fix. Also asks us to
hurry up and replace the rest of the IBM installer .. which is an active work
item.
IMO, Warp 4 never had a really great installation procedure because it was
often installed over the network using CID. Often you would see comments
like, "It's difficult to install .. but once those hurdles are overcome, it's
rock solid .. great." OS/2 users are familiar with such statements ... they
didn't arrive with eCS.
> > 5. Wise Machine is supposed to be really cool, although i haven't
> > figured out exactly how to use some of it's more advanced features, and
> > playing around with it looks kind of scary, more mandatory reading i
> > think. eCS is rapidly developing Wise Machine, so maybe the advanced
> > features will become more self explanatory in time.
> > 6.The eCS presentation was an hour long....i could of used an 8 hour
> > presentation.
> > 7.Was very impressed with the how many improvements to os/2 they have
> > managed to make in such a short period of time.
> > 8.Love all that bundled software.
>
> But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
> actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
> to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
> goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
> posting about it?
Having made this statment, would you post some statistics indicating
percentages .. perhaps the number of messages extolling eCS and the number of
those messages purporting to have headers indicating Windows users.
Interesting to me that you bellow that we are not making inroads to Windows
users ... but if a Window user compliments eCS .. you see a sinister and
darker meaning. You are a hoot.
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
> have never even gotten a working install. The entire Serenity story
> would be hilarious if so many good people didn't swallow it hook, line,
> and sinker.
Your usual FUD, I see. FYI (and more particularly, for the information
of those who truly wish to understand this), CD#2 is included to be
applied to UPGRADE existing Warp 4 systems: CD#1 is intended for FRESH
installations.
Of course, if you'd ever bothered to try this stuff, you would have known
this.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
David T. Johnson
Jason Bowen
David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
>> In article <3BCAF2A2...@isomedia.com>
>> djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
>>
>>
>>> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
>>> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
>>> have never even gotten a working install. The entire Serenity story
>>> would be hilarious if so many good people didn't swallow it hook, line,
>>> and sinker.
>>
>>
>> Your usual FUD, I see. FYI (and more particularly, for the information
>> of those who truly wish to understand this), CD#2 is included to be
>> applied to UPGRADE existing Warp 4 systems: CD#1 is intended for FRESH
>> installations.
>
>Here's what the web page says about the conversion utility:
Here is your own experience with it:
Now you never did answer whether or not you run your business at night
since you are burning precious daytime hours.
David T. Johnson
> Geez ... not understanding the issues doesn't keep you from posting
> misinformation ...
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
>
>> The same story: The problems with the eCS "improved" installer are all
>> IBM's fault,
>
>
> No .. the problems with the Serenity installer are Serenity's fault and the
> probloems with IBM's installer are IBM's fault. Right now, the Serenity
> installer does not address Selective install or Network install. When people
> report problems with these or LVM, they are talking about IBM code.
>
> You have been told this before ... but you persist in fud.
No, you persist in falsely identifying FUD. You have been told this
before but you persist.
>
>
>> in this incarnation of the story it's the "legacy Warp 4 install bugs."
>
>
> When the shoe fits ...
>
>
>> The supposedly new-and-improved eCS installer worked so poorly
>
>
> Not the point ... the issue you are about to raise has nothing to do with how
> the installer performs.
>
>
>> that many people apparently had to resort to using the IBM installer on
>> CD2--which, of course, did not install the new eCS-only Serenity desktop
>> APIs.
>
>
> A key issue here is that the two installers use very different "desktop
> builds". Those people installing "fresh" .. were advised to use the Serenity
> installer. But those who wanted to install over a Warp 4 desktop ... had
> exposures because some items had been moved.
The website states:
"This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
improved eCS desktop and more.
Sounds like the converter is needed for installing over eCS Preview 1,
2, and 3 as well as Warp 4. So why wasn't the converter included on a CD?
>
> So, these users were advised to use CD2. Anyone using CD who wanted to get to
> the same level as using the install on CD1 had to run the convert utility.
> That's why the readme refers to "existing" MCP desktops.
>
>
>> So what did the Serenity clowns do? They came out with a CONVERTER to
>> gather in those hapless users to the eCS desktop APIs and Wise-whatever.
>> Here's the link:
>>
>> http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
>>
>> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
>> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
>> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
>> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
>> you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
>> improved eCS desktop and more.
>>
>> This will require approximately 60 MB of additional diskspace on your
>> boot drive."
>>
>> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
>> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
>> have never even gotten a working install.
>
>
> fud
Sounds factual to me.
1) The IBM installer is on CD2
2) Even you admit that anyone installing over Warp 4, Preview 1, 2,or 3
needed the IBM installer on CD2.
>
>
>> The entire Serenity story would be hilarious if so many good people didn't
>> swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
>
>
> Those would be the people who don't buy into your fud. Fact is, if your
> statements would be accurate, the newsgroups and our Yahoo mailing list would
> be flooded with messages supporting these statements.
I have seem many posted messages from eCS users stating that they were
unable to get the eCS installer on CD1 to finish and ended up using the
IBM installer on CD2. You have even responded to some of these, haven't
you?
>
> The fact is the traffic points out some issues we need to fix. Also asks us to
> hurry up and replace the rest of the IBM installer .. which is an active work
> item.
>
> IMO, Warp 4 never had a really great installation procedure because it was
> often installed over the network using CID. Often you would see comments
> like, "It's difficult to install .. but once those hurdles are overcome, it's
> rock solid .. great." OS/2 users are familiar with such statements ... they
> didn't arrive with eCS.
The simple fact is that the Warp 4.51 installer works well on either a
"fresh" install or an install over the top of Warp 4. It is not fancy
but it works and does the job, your own FUD notwithstanding. Serenity
worked away on their "improved" installer for eight months and yet it
apparently cannot do what the Warp 4.51 installer did on day 1. So why
didn't the "eCS Desktop Converter" make it onto a CD, Bob?
>
>
>>> 5. Wise Machine is supposed to be really cool, although i haven't
>>> figured out exactly how to use some of it's more advanced features, and
>>> playing around with it looks kind of scary, more mandatory reading i
>>> think. eCS is rapidly developing Wise Machine, so maybe the advanced
>>> features will become more self explanatory in time.
>>> 6.The eCS presentation was an hour long....i could of used an 8 hour
>>> presentation.
>>> 7.Was very impressed with the how many improvements to os/2 they have
>>> managed to make in such a short period of time.
>>> 8.Love all that bundled software.
>>
>> But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
>> actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
>> to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
>> goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
>> posting about it?
>
>
> Having made this statment, would you post some statistics indicating
> percentages .. perhaps the number of messages extolling eCS and the number of
> those messages purporting to have headers indicating Windows users.
>
> Interesting to me that you bellow that we are not making inroads to Windows
> users ... but if a Window user compliments eCS .. you see a sinister and
> darker meaning. You are a hoot.
The inference about "sinister and dark meaning" is, interestingly
enough, yours alone. Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
--
Bob St.John
getting the bat off your shoulder.
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
> > Geez ... not understanding the issues doesn't keep you from posting
> > misinformation ...
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The same story: The problems with the eCS "improved" installer are all
> >> IBM's fault,
> >
> >
> > No .. the problems with the Serenity installer are Serenity's fault and the
> > probloems with IBM's installer are IBM's fault. Right now, the Serenity
> > installer does not address Selective install or Network install. When people
> > report problems with these or LVM, they are talking about IBM code.
> >
> > You have been told this before ... but you persist in fud.
>
> No,
Yes.
> you persist in falsely identifying FUD. You have been told this before but you
> persist.
I have observed that fud has become part of your identity here. You put it out there
and folks have no problem identifying it for what it is.
> >> in this incarnation of the story it's the "legacy Warp 4 install bugs."
> >
> >
> > When the shoe fits ...
> >
> >
> >> The supposedly new-and-improved eCS installer worked so poorly
> >
> >
> > Not the point ... the issue you are about to raise has nothing to do with how
> > the installer performs.
> >
> >
> >> that many people apparently had to resort to using the IBM installer on
> >> CD2--which, of course, did not install the new eCS-only Serenity desktop
> >> APIs.
> >
> >
> > A key issue here is that the two installers use very different "desktop
> > builds". Those people installing "fresh" .. were advised to use the Serenity
> > installer. But those who wanted to install over a Warp 4 desktop ... had
> > exposures because some items had been moved.
>
> The website states:
>
> "This utility will convert an existing
Operative word: existing
> Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2 installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop.
> It is only required for people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS
> Preview 1, 2 or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this
> tool you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the improved
> eCS desktop and more.
>
> Sounds like the converter is needed for installing over eCS Preview 1,
> 2, and 3 as well as Warp 4. So why wasn't the converter included on a CD?
The preview software was supposed not intended for production machines. It was
intended as a preview. We directed users that we supported a fresh installation,
not installs over existing Warp 4 or MCP, including eCS previews. But users had
their own opinions ... so we responded.
That has pretty much been a trait that users have observed and responded to very
well. We listen and do what we can to provide what is requested. That attitude has
served us well.
> > So, these users were advised to use CD2. Anyone using CD who wanted to get to
> > the same level as using the install on CD1 had to run the convert utility.
> > That's why the readme refers to "existing" MCP desktops.
>
> >
> >
> >> So what did the Serenity clowns do? They came out with a CONVERTER to
> >> gather in those hapless users to the eCS desktop APIs and Wise-whatever.
> >> Here's the link:
> >>
> >> http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
> >>
> >> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> >> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> >> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> >> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
> >> you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
> >> improved eCS desktop and more.
> >>
> >> This will require approximately 60 MB of additional diskspace on your
> >> boot drive."
> >>
> >> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
> >> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
> >> have never even gotten a working install.
> >
> >
> > fud
>
> Sounds factual to me.
> 1) The IBM installer is on CD2
Fact.
> 2) Even you admit that anyone installing over Warp 4, Preview 1, 2,or 3
> needed the IBM installer on CD2.
No. We offered options. First .. CD1. Next, for users who wanted "classic" and to
forego the changes, use CD2. Users who wanted to install over existing desktops,
using CD2 and the convert utility was the suggested route.
It's all about providing users with options and choices. Nothing close to the narrow
and negative positioning you suggest in your fud.
> >> The entire Serenity story would be hilarious if so many good people didn't
> >> swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
> >
> >
> > Those would be the people who don't buy into your fud. Fact is, if your
> > statements would be accurate, the newsgroups and our Yahoo mailing list would
> > be flooded with messages supporting these statements.
>
> I have seem many posted messages from eCS users stating that they were
> unable to get the eCS installer on CD1 to finish and ended up using the
> IBM installer on CD2. You have even responded to some of these, haven't
> you?
Have I? I notice that you seem to have become a devoted follower of our newsgroup.
Interesting for one who is not a user. Why is that? Orders from Redmond?
Since you have been reading those items, it would also be clear that users have
asked us to continue with the installer and replace the remaining vestiges of the
IBM installer.
> > The fact is the traffic points out some issues we need to fix. Also asks us to
> > hurry up and replace the rest of the IBM installer .. which is an active work
> > item.
> >
> > IMO, Warp 4 never had a really great installation procedure because it was
> > often installed over the network using CID. Often you would see comments
> > like, "It's difficult to install .. but once those hurdles are overcome, it's
> > rock solid .. great." OS/2 users are familiar with such statements ... they
> > didn't arrive with eCS.
>
> The simple fact is that the Warp 4.51 installer works well on either a
> "fresh" install or an install over the top of Warp 4.
That would be because it has less to do. You wind up with "classic" OS/2 4.51 ... no
other option. eCS users have a choice.
> It is not fancy but it works and does the job, your own FUD notwithstanding.
> Serenity worked away on their "improved" installer for eight months and yet it
> apparently cannot do what the Warp 4.51 installer did on day 1.
Actually ... the IBM installer won't give you eCS ... and that is what people are
buying. So .... eCS can provide precisely what the IBM installer can ... using the
IBM installer. But it's a one way street. MCP users have no "convert" utility to go
to eCS ...unless they buy eCS. And a lot of them do.
> So why didn't the "eCS Desktop Converter" make it onto a CD, Bob?
You are being redundant. Asked and answered above. User requests after the GA
generated the convert utility as an example of a vendor responding to users. You are
close to being cut off again ... you are simply putting up fluffy fud. It's not even
woody fud. It's tinny fud.
> >>> 5. Wise Machine is supposed to be really cool, although i haven't
> >>> figured out exactly how to use some of it's more advanced features, and
> >>> playing around with it looks kind of scary, more mandatory reading i
> >>> think. eCS is rapidly developing Wise Machine, so maybe the advanced
> >>> features will become more self explanatory in time.
> >>> 6.The eCS presentation was an hour long....i could of used an 8 hour
> >>> presentation.
> >>> 7.Was very impressed with the how many improvements to os/2 they have
> >>> managed to make in such a short period of time.
> >>> 8.Love all that bundled software.
> >>
> >> But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
> >> actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
> >> to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
> >> goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
> >> posting about it?
> >
> >
> > Having made this statment, would you post some statistics indicating
> > percentages .. perhaps the number of messages extolling eCS and the number of
> > those messages purporting to have headers indicating Windows users.
> >
> > Interesting to me that you bellow that we are not making inroads to Windows
> > users ... but if a Window user compliments eCS .. you see a sinister and
> > darker meaning. You are a hoot.
>
> The inference about "sinister and dark meaning" is, interestingly
> enough, yours alone.
No ... that's you. We can all see that. This is all about a path to ... brrrr ...
Windows XP ... bwaaahh ahhhhaaaaaahhaaaaa. But I haven't heard of any OS/2 users
taking eCS as a migration path to Windows. I have heard new users and former OS/2
users saying that eCS is what brought them back to OS/2.
> Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more impressive to me than
> testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
But .. then you wonder aloud about these people posting using Windows. Can't have it
both ways. Well ... *you* can. But folks who are consistent and truthful can't.
Again ... thanks for the entertainment.
David T. Johnson
> Looking more and more like you are going to called out on strikes without ever
> getting the bat off your shoulder.
Looks like we all agree that eCS CD1 has the Serenity installer, eCS CD2
has the IBM installer, and the eCS Desktop Conversion utility is for
users who use CD2 and the IBM installer to install their eCS. It
appears that a LOT of would-be eCS users used CD2 to install their eCS
since your distributor needed to put up a web page and create a
converter program for them. Here's the link:
http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
Of course, we have your words here that this install procedure is really
not a flaw, it's a feature!
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Geez ... not understanding the issues doesn't keep you from posting
>>> misinformation ...
>>>
>>> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The same story: The problems with the eCS "improved" installer are all
>>>> IBM's fault,
>>>
>>>
>>> No .. the problems with the Serenity installer are Serenity's fault and the
>>> probloems with IBM's installer are IBM's fault. Right now, the Serenity
>>> installer does not address Selective install or Network install. When people
>>> report problems with these or LVM, they are talking about IBM code.
>>>
>>> You have been told this before ... but you persist in fud.
>>
>> No,
>
>
> Yes.
No.
>
>
>> you persist in falsely identifying FUD. You have been told this before but you
>> persist.
>
>
> I have observed that fud has become part of your identity here. You put it out there
> and folks have no problem identifying it for what it is.
You are the one with the FUD. You FUDDED that MCP2 was the last
Convenience Pack from IBM and falsely claimed that the original IBM
announcement was for only TWO Convenience Packs. You have claimed that
the upcoming MCP2 would not have anything significant/new based on your
supposed inside knowledge. You FUDded last week that IBM wanted users
to leave OS/2 based on the moldy old two-sentence excerpt from the IBM
OS/2 strategy about "change the operating system." I stick to the
facts. You use the facts to create FUD.
>
>
>>>> in this incarnation of the story it's the "legacy Warp 4 install bugs."
>>>
>>>
>>> When the shoe fits ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The supposedly new-and-improved eCS installer worked so poorly
>>>
>>>
>>> Not the point ... the issue you are about to raise has nothing to do with how
>>> the installer performs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> that many people apparently had to resort to using the IBM installer on
>>>> CD2--which, of course, did not install the new eCS-only Serenity desktop
>>>> APIs.
>>>
>>>
>>> A key issue here is that the two installers use very different "desktop
>>> builds". Those people installing "fresh" .. were advised to use the Serenity
>>> installer. But those who wanted to install over a Warp 4 desktop ... had
>>> exposures because some items had been moved.
>>
>> The website states:
>>
>> "This utility will convert an existing
>
>
> Operative word: existing
Wouldn't EVERY installed MCP desktop be "existing?" This is your usual
reply of fabricating issues out in inanities to muddy the water.
>
>
>> Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2 installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop.
>> It is only required for people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS
>> Preview 1, 2 or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this
>> tool you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the improved
>> eCS desktop and more.
>>
>> Sounds like the converter is needed for installing over eCS Preview 1,
>> 2, and 3 as well as Warp 4. So why wasn't the converter included on a CD?
>
>
> The preview software was supposed not intended for production machines. It was
> intended as a preview. We directed users that we supported a fresh installation,
> not installs over existing Warp 4 or MCP, including eCS previews. But users had
> their own opinions ... so we responded.
I suspect you were forced to come out with the converter to get the eCS
desktop APIs and Wise Manager installed on the eCS installations of the
people who were unable to get the Serenity installer to complete. This
is likely the same thing that has got you yakking up eCS v1.01 and eCS v1.1.
>
> That has pretty much been a trait that users have observed and responded to very
> well. We listen and do what we can to provide what is requested. That attitude has
> served us well.
It certainly has not happened with you, though.
Except that you didn't actually put the coverter on the CD for the users
to use in following the suggested route. Oversight?
>
> It's all about providing users with options and choices. Nothing close to the narrow
> and negative positioning you suggest in your fud.
Non-FUD.
>
>
>>>> The entire Serenity story would be hilarious if so many good people didn't
>>>> swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those would be the people who don't buy into your fud. Fact is, if your
>>> statements would be accurate, the newsgroups and our Yahoo mailing list would
>>> be flooded with messages supporting these statements.
>>
>> I have seem many posted messages from eCS users stating that they were
>> unable to get the eCS installer on CD1 to finish and ended up using the
>> IBM installer on CD2. You have even responded to some of these, haven't
>> you?
>
>
> Have I? I notice that you seem to have become a devoted follower of our newsgroup.
> Interesting for one who is not a user. Why is that? Orders from Redmond?
I note that you don't deny responding. I am obviously interested in
what Serenity is doing with eCS. Why does it surprise you that I would
read the eCS newsgroup. As for "orders from Redmond." you are
apparently trying to attack me by tying me to Microsoft. That's pretty
low, even for you. For anyone who is interested, no, I have no
association, employment relationship, or any other relationship with
Microsoft or any of their subsidiaries, business partners, or affiliates.
Bob St. John wraps himself with the OS/2 flag at times like this when it
suits him but then FUDs OS/2 and OS/2 components at other times to sell
his eCS product.
>
> Since you have been reading those items, it would also be clear that users have
> asked us to continue with the installer and replace the remaining vestiges of the
> IBM installer.
Frankly, it is not even clear to me that the percentage of eCS
purchasers who are actually using it is even very high.
>
>
>>> The fact is the traffic points out some issues we need to fix. Also asks us to
>>> hurry up and replace the rest of the IBM installer .. which is an active work
>>> item.
>>>
>>> IMO, Warp 4 never had a really great installation procedure because it was
>>> often installed over the network using CID. Often you would see comments
>>> like, "It's difficult to install .. but once those hurdles are overcome, it's
>>> rock solid .. great." OS/2 users are familiar with such statements ... they
>>> didn't arrive with eCS.
>>
>> The simple fact is that the Warp 4.51 installer works well on either a
>> "fresh" install or an install over the top of Warp 4.
>
>
> That would be because it has less to do. You wind up with "classic" OS/2 4.51 ... no
> other option. eCS users have a choice.
Sure, if they use your "converter" program and use up 60 MB of disk space.
>
>
>> It is not fancy but it works and does the job, your own FUD notwithstanding.
>> Serenity worked away on their "improved" installer for eight months and yet it
>> apparently cannot do what the Warp 4.51 installer did on day 1.
>
>
> Actually ... the IBM installer won't give you eCS ... and that is what people are
> buying.
Actually, I think people were buying Warp 4.51 but at a discounted
price. I also think they were buying the bundled software. I don't
think they were buying the desktop APIs and WiseManager. I think that's
what YOU wanted to get onto their computer.
> So .... eCS can provide precisely what the IBM installer can ... using the
> IBM installer. But it's a one way street. MCP users have no "convert" utility to go
> to eCS ...unless they buy eCS. And a lot of them do.
A tribute to your sales skills. Maybe you should try selling snow to
eskimos.
A classic example of your twisting. There is only one question here
that I have asked: 'why are the testimonials of eCS goodness being made
by people posting with Windows?' You have apparently agreed that that
is true but have denied that it was due to "sinister" motives even
though no such accusation was made. You are like the criminal who
denies the crime before the police ask him about it.
>
> Again ... thanks for the entertainment.
>
--
OS2Guy
> Paul Hrynyshyn wrote:
>
> > 8.Love all that bundled [eCS] software.
>
> But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
> actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
> to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
> goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
> posting about it?
> --
> Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.51
> and IBM Web Browser
LOL! One of the *BEST* things about you David is your concise ability to get
to the meat of things, i.e., those few eCS investors and Serenity salesman
rely on WindowsXX to manage their computing lives all the while extolling over
and over the 'goodness' of the folly eCS product. I can't help but laugh out
loud each time you nail these guys!
Round of applause to you!
Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City
OS2Guy
> ahh the sound of static...
Another 'anonymous' Serenity 'sock puppet'. LOL!
OS2Guy
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
> > In article <3BCAF2A2...@isomedia.com>
> > djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
> >
> >> It's a good thing that IBM's supposedly bug-ridden "legacy Warp 4
> >> installer" was available on CD2 or a lot of would-be eCS users might
> >> have never even gotten a working install. The entire Serenity story
> >> would be hilarious if so many good people didn't swallow it hook, line,
> >> and sinker.
> >
> > Your usual FUD, I see. FYI (and more particularly, for the information
> > of those who truly wish to understand this), CD#2 is included to be
> > applied to UPGRADE existing Warp 4 systems: CD#1 is intended for FRESH
> > installations.
>
> Here's what the web page says about the conversion utility:
>
> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0.
LOL! How can *real* OS/2 users not see the stupidity of Serenity Salesman
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}'s ridiculous post? These eCS salesman will say anything
they can to convince themselves their [failed] eCS investment was a positive
step for them. The *only* positive thing about it is that it drove them out of
the OS/2 community and into the arms of two con artists, St. John and Cheung.
Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
OS2Guy
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
> > Looking more and more like you are going to called out on strikes without ever
> > getting the bat off your shoulder.
>
> Looks like we all agree that eCS CD1 has the Serenity installer, eCS CD2
> has the IBM installer, and the eCS Desktop Conversion utility is for
> users who use CD2 and the IBM installer to install their eCS. It
> appears that a LOT of would-be eCS users used CD2 to install their eCS
> since your distributor needed to put up a web page and create a
> converter program for them. Here's the link:
>
> http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
>
> Of course, we have your words here that this install procedure is really
> not a flaw, it's a feature!
Serenity considers this kind of rhetoric as "backup marketing plan b, c and d" found in
their little red Microsoft handbook that says "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance
then baffle 'em with baloney".
St. John's only *brilliance* is his ability to toss the baloney. He does it often and
much too freely in these newsgroups.
Marty
>
> Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
You're investing time in spreading FUD and lies about it. At least your
statement above wasn't univerally false like most of the other
statements you make.
David T. Johnson
Heh. Thanks for the kind comments, Tim. I don't want to nail anyone
but I would like the truth to be clearly presented about issues
important to OS/2. I also think it's important to discuss different
points of view about OS/2 and eCS.
Michael Taylor
At least we know where "you know who" is hanging out :-)
Brad BARCLAY wrote:
> ...snipped
--
Regards,
Mick
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> OS2Guy wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Hrynyshyn wrote:
> > >
> > > > 8.Love all that bundled [eCS] software.
> > >
> > > But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
> > > actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
> > > to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
> > > goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
> > > posting about it?
> > > --
> > > Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.51
> > > and IBM Web Browser
> >
> > LOL! One of the *BEST* things about you David is your concise ability to get
> > to the meat of things, i.e., those few eCS investors and Serenity salesman
> > rely on WindowsXX to manage their computing lives all the while extolling over
> > and over the 'goodness' of the folly eCS product. I can't help but laugh out
> > loud each time you nail these guys!
>
> Heh. Thanks for the kind comments, Tim.
I was wondering how long you would be made to stand alone before someone opened up
the sock drawer. You been twisting in the breeze in tatters for over a month.
> I don't want to nail anyone
You consider pointing to a header as nailing someone? Golly ... you must play slow
pitch softball. You need to make up your mind about some things. You want to see
Serenity making progress among Windows users ... then you shouldn't take umbrage
when people post with Windows in their headers. You want to hear from "non-users",
then you shouldn't take umbrage when someone posts with Windows in their header.
But if you don't want to nail anyone. Let me put your mind at rest. You didn't.
> but I would like the truth to be clearly presented about issues
> important to OS/2. I also think it's important to discuss different
> points of view about OS/2 and eCS.
No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't criticize a header. You would comment on the
message. And now that the tin foil hats are out of the closet ... it becomes clear
that you and TM are less socks then ... support hose.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
> The website states:
>
> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
> you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
> improved eCS desktop and more.
>
> Sounds like the converter is needed for installing over eCS Preview 1,
> 2, and 3 as well as Warp 4. So why wasn't the converter included on a CD?
It is; it's on CD#3 (at least, with the disc set distributed by Mensys
over here in Europe).
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
> Here's what the web page says about the conversion utility:
You don't HAVE to keep on quoting it: we've all read it at least once.
> "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
> you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
> improved eCS desktop and more.
So what part of the word "upgrade" do you find so difficult to
understand, fuckwit?
> You seem to be claiming that the "normal" installation procedure for
> people upgrading from Warp 4 is to first use the IBM MCP Install on CD2
> to install the Warp 4.51 desktop over the top of their Warp 4 install
> and then to use this "conversion" utility to get all of the eCS
> goodness. This does not seem like an improved installation procedure.
That is indeed the recommended way of doing things; I don't know if
anyone has successfully used CD#1 to upgrade an existing system, but
personally I installed without any complications in a FRESH partition.
I've also used CD#2 to upgrade a Prev.2 installation.
> Also, why wasn't the conversion utility included on one of the three CDs
> rather than posted for download? Seems like the converter is pretty
> critical to getting the eCS desktop.
It IS on CD#3 over here in Europe. (Well, strictly speaking, it is and
it isn't. When Mensys burnt the CD set, they accidentally left a couple
of packages off the original CD#3. So they've created a revised issue,
which contains the missing stuff. Oddly enough, this revised issue is
missing convert.exe, although it IS on the original issue of the disc.
They delivered both versions to me, along with two versions of CD#1,
since I've bought the Pro version with SMP support, and this CANNOT be
installed over an existing system.)
Bob St.John
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
> In article <3BCB23AA...@isomedia.com>
> djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
>
> > Here's what the web page says about the conversion utility:
>
> You don't HAVE to keep on quoting it: we've all read it at least once.
Oh .. but he must ... <g>
> > "This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
> > installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
> > people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
> > or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
> > you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
> > improved eCS desktop and more.
>
> So what part of the word "upgrade" do you find so difficult to
> understand,
It isn't the word "upgrade" which eludes him .. it's existing. This is a man who
lives off twisting meanings ... like annual updates for two years means three. Or
you don't need a Warp 4 license to buy SWC ... just to use it.
In this case, he stuggles with the fact that the utility is for people who heard
us say, " we don't want you to install this over your existing Warp 4 or MCP
desktop" .. but who cried out .. "we're going to do that, anyway .. thank you".
So, a utility was created for those stubborn individuals who persisted. It's
called customer service ... another item which has stood us in good stead, but
eludes .. uknowho.
> > You seem to be claiming that the "normal" installation procedure for
> > people upgrading from Warp 4 is to first use the IBM MCP Install on CD2
> > to install the Warp 4.51 desktop over the top of their Warp 4 install
> > and then to use this "conversion" utility to get all of the eCS
> > goodness. This does not seem like an improved installation procedure.
>
> That is indeed the recommended way of doing things; I don't know if
> anyone has successfully used CD#1 to upgrade an existing system, but
> personally I installed without any complications in a FRESH partition.
> I've also used CD#2 to upgrade a Prev.2 installation.
Don't confuse this guy with facts. While acknowledging that I post facts ... he
sees them as fud. Well ... facts should not create "u" and "d" ... and "f" ...
we'll I have my opinion about "f" in this instance.
> > Also, why wasn't the conversion utility included on one of the three CDs
> > rather than posted for download? Seems like the converter is pretty
> > critical to getting the eCS desktop.
>
> It IS on CD#3 over here in Europe. (Well, strictly speaking, it is and
> it isn't. When Mensys burnt the CD set, they accidentally left a couple
> of packages off the original CD#3. So they've created a revised issue,
> which contains the missing stuff. Oddly enough, this revised issue is
> missing convert.exe, although it IS on the original issue of the disc.
> They delivered both versions to me, along with two versions of CD#1,
> since I've bought the Pro version with SMP support, and this CANNOT be
> installed over an existing system.)
Well ... I answered this for him before. The short answer is ... we told people
not to install the eCS GA over existing desktops. So ... we didn't include the
utility. In fact, the utility didn't exist. Only after the GA was release and it
was clear that folks were insisting on installing eCS over the existing desktop
was the procedure of using CD2 and the utility created and provided to users.
But he knew that ... or should have known that .. or should have been able to
figure it out ... who am I kidding. That would have required serious and sincere
interest in information ... and this guy is a only a fuddy duddy.
Andrew Wm. Graham
>
>Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
Mr. Martin:
I would certainly never consider subscribing to your service, based on your
characterization of me as a fool.
At Warpstock I got eComStation 1.0 for a very good price, from Jacaranda
Business Systems. I took it home on the Saturday night, followed the
installation instructions I was given:
- Use Partition Magic or something else to shrink the WinMe partition
- Use LVM to install the Boot Manager right after the WinMe partition
- Create a bootable volume for eCS right after the Boot Manager.
- Create a bootable volume from the winMe partition.
- Install eCS to the volume after the Boot Manager.
Now I have a stable and working eCS, and the ability to boot to windowsMe for
my kids to play Homeworld.
With eComStation, I got Lotus Smartsuite, HOBLink X11 (I love to create
graphics with the GIMP), and a great bunch of software that adds value.
The eCS team at Warpstock were polite and interested in my experience with
their product. They want to sell lots of licences in big environments, so
the small office/home office user like me isn't that important. But they
listened to me, and helped me. And the product works. I'm posting this
message from that same computer.
No one on the eCS team called me a fool. That was left for you to do, I
suppose.
The Rev. Andrew Wm. Graham
Incumbent
St. Columba and All Hallows Anglican Church
2723 St. Clair Avenue East
Toronto (East York), Ontario
CANADA M4B 1M8
OS2Guy
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:40:35 -0700, OS2Guy wrote:
>
> >
> >Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
>
> Mr. Martin:
>
> I would certainly never consider subscribing to your service, based on your
> characterization of me as a fool.
Mr. Graham, I would never consider *inviting* you to subscribe to Warp City.
Warp City is for OS/2-ONLY users and not eCS lusers.
> At Warpstock I got eComStation 1.0 for a very good price, from Jacaranda
> Business Systems. I took it home on the Saturday night, followed the
> installation instructions I was given:
No one here cares. What you've done is snubbed your nose at OS/2, invested in a
folly product and now pretend to be an OS/2 user. You are not. You are an eCS
loser. You have invested in a *dead* product that doesn't work being offered by
two demonstrated con artists who have set out to pick the pockets of naive OS/2
users. They picked yours. You are the fool.
If you wish to extol the stupidity of your purchase then take your posts to the
news.ecomstation newsgroups where you belong.
OS2Guy
> In article <3BCB23AA...@isomedia.com>
> djoh...@isomedia.com "David T. Johnson" writes:
>
> > Here's what the web page says about the conversion utility:
>
> You don't HAVE to keep on quoting it: we've all read it at least once.
It is repeated because you refuse to accept or acknolwedge it. eCS is a con.
Take your eCS zeoltry to the news.ecomstation newsgroups and join the handful of
eCS folly salesman who can't sell their way out of a wet paper bag.
Charles Hunter
>Bob St.John wrote:
>You are the one with the FUD. You FUDDED that MCP2 was the last
>Convenience Pack from IBM and falsely claimed that the original IBM
>announcement was for only TWO Convenience Packs. You have claimed that
>the upcoming MCP2 would not have anything significant/new based on your
>supposed inside knowledge. You FUDded last week that IBM wanted users
>to leave OS/2 based on the moldy old two-sentence excerpt from the IBM
>OS/2 strategy about "change the operating system." I stick to the
>facts. You use the facts to create FUD.
Woah. I haven't been following all the rants going on here in the last
couple months so maybe I missed your evidence that he is wrong. I never
knew anything about either statement before warpstock, but *AT* warpstock
I had an IBMer tell me and everyone else in the room very frankly that
MCP2 was the end of the road and that anything further would be
fixed on a fee base per incident.
I believe his slides on the presentation are on the Warpstock 2001 CD.
Oh but you don't have that cause you didn't go.
Darn.
Charles
--
Charles R. Hunter
Director, Physics Computer Network
Purdue University c...@physics.purdue.edu
Bob St.John
the same presentation made by Steven King at WarpTech in May of 2000, when
eCS was first announced. At that time, Steven was manager of the Rapid
Deployment Team for the OS/2 manufacturing, marketing and sales organization.
That was e-businee Operating Systems Solutions, formerly Network Computing
Systems Division. I believe they are now "Solutions Technology" Group or
Division. Of course, Steven did not have the level of detail associated with
the MPC2 contents. But the content of that presentation was old news to folks
who read the IBM announcements and listen to IBM presentations.
I didn't bother to respond to the particular DTJ rant because there was no
new info ... just the usual DTJ fud. However, I do want to point out that I
don't make claims about OS/2 based on my "supposed inside knowledge".
I've been very clear. Yes, I have an NDA which allows me to obtain
information about the OS/2 product plan. That is the very reason I don't make
claims referring to "inside" information. That would violate my NDA and make
it more difficult for me to do product planning.
Instead, I point to IBM announcements or other IBM communications and tell
folks ... you should pay attention to what IBM says about its product. You
should certainly not depend on DTJ's interpretation of what IBM says.
For clarity ... IBM has not announced an MCP3. I pointed that out when DTJ
told someone here that if they bought SWC today they would get MCP1
immediately. MCP2 rsn. And would still get the MCP coming next year. At that
point I did not say there would not be an MCP3. I said that IBM had not
announced an MCP3.
Could IBM announce an MCP3? Sure. Will there be enhancements to SWC in 2002?
According to Oliver's presentation, yes. But will these enhancements require
an MCP to deliver them to users? Different question.
Another MCP would be an expense item which would require significant testing,
as all IBM products do. And every expense is reviewed to determine how
necessary it is to incur that expense.
Also in the presentation given by Steven a year and a half ago ... and by
Oliver earlier this month, was the chart for enhancements. Better not tell
DTJ what that said, either.
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems
David T. Johnson
spam...@spamzone.com
>spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>
>> ahh the sound of static...
>
> From someone who posts annonymously...
>
I didn't used to. However, I got so dang much spam I decided to be spamfree
if you look hard enough it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I am.
OTOH, why should you care? this is just a newsgroup.
spam...@spamzone.com
Looky here...
DTJ is posting to himself.
wow timmy your mommy let you use the computer again?
and how was your trip to warpstock?
Oh wait, I forgot you send spies to warpstock, as you're not allowed out of the house after
10PM
spam...@spamzone.com
How can that be? I don't own nor do I promote Serenity Products.
Of course I don't lie and make up crap either. Which leaves me out of the
only sock puppet club here.... warpcity.
I posted a question about Software choice recently and DTJ turned the whole
thread into a diatribe about Serenity. Which, since Serenity is delivering a product
is a good thing for OS/2. so why knock serenity?
and yes numbnuts I'm posting from an OS/2 desktop.
spam...@spamzone.com
whew, and I thought you were going to worry about whether
the facts were true.
thanks for clarifying.
David T. Johnson
Doug Bissett
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
> impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
eComStation WORKS.
eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
used as instructed).
eComStation comes with a number of software packages that MCP, WSEB,
and older versions of OS/2, don't have (almost all of them can be
purchased separately, at extra cost, for an OS/2 system).
Now, to paraphrase your own words: Seeing people actually using eCS
would be far more
impressive to me than testimonials about its badness from non-users.
So, if you don't use eCS, how could you possibly have any idea about
whether it is good, or bad??? I use both, and I actually prefer eCS,
because of the extras that are supplied "out of the box". Other than
the extras, and the installer (it DOES work BETTER than the IBM
installer, when you do a clean install, on hardware that is capable of
running it), I don't see a lot of difference.
More power to Serenity. They have done more for the OS/2 community
than IBM ever did, since they first put OS/2 on the market. They don't
have it quite right, yet, but there is hope that they will get it
right, while there is little hope that IBM will improve things very
much (and IBM does need, desperately, to improve their installer
routines).
Just my C$.031 ($.02 US)...
--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
doug.bissett at attglobal.net
The " at " must be changed to "@"
Jason Bowen
Tell us David, how does what you recite rate as fact and what others
recite is lies or FUD? Of course you can't explain it because you are a
liar. Sorry to hear that business is doing so poorly and don't try to
claim that it's not, it certainly isn't keeping you busy.
David T. Johnson
Andrew J. Brehm
> No one here cares. What you've done is snubbed your nose at OS/2,
> invested in a folly product and now pretend to be an OS/2 user. You are
> not. You are an eCS loser. You have invested in a *dead* product that
> doesn't work being offered by two demonstrated con artists who have set
> out to pick the pockets of naive OS/2 users. They picked yours. You are
> the fool.
What will you do when the eCS distribution survives the "other" OS/2?
Would he still have invested in a "dead product"?
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
David T. Johnson
> In <3BCB00B6...@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
>
>> spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ahh the sound of static...
>>
>> From someone who posts annonymously...
>>
>
>
> I didn't used to. However, I got so dang much spam I decided to be spamfree
>
>
> if you look hard enough it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I am.
>
> OTOH, why should you care? this is just a newsgroup.
You could provide your name without including an email address usable by
spammers. Why does it matter? Because there is responsibility and
accountability that accompanys comments that are not made anonymously.
Jason Bowen
David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>
>> In <3BCB00B6...@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
>>
>>> spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ahh the sound of static...
>>>
>>> From someone who posts annonymously...
>>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't used to. However, I got so dang much spam I decided to be spamfree
>>
>>
>> if you look hard enough it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I am.
>>
>> OTOH, why should you care? this is just a newsgroup.
>
>You could provide your name without including an email address usable by
>spammers. Why does it matter? Because there is responsibility and
>accountability that accompanys comments that are not made anonymously.
>
Doesn't stop you from posting lies does it?
SkyBolt
Will it be worth it for me to renew ?
Jay
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> Warp 4.51 CAN be installed over existing desktops.
Sure. And if all you want is Warp 4.51 when you are done ... the CD2 is an option ..
.and stop there. If 4.51 is all the user wants.
I wonder what 4.52 will install over?
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> I will accept any actual information from IBM that is factual but
> speculative FUD from Bob St. John does not fall into that category.
Excuse me. I did not speculate. I pointed to IBM announcements and other
materials. After all, you accused me of dealing in facts.
> If IBM made an announcement about their OS/2 plans, that would be factual
> information. Unfortunately, your second-hand recitation above does not
> fall into the factual category.
Ah .. but the presentation is on the Warpstock CD.
> What was the name of the "IBMer" and was he speaking for IBM officially or
> was he providing his personal opinions? Did he provide any reference to
> official IBM documents or communciations that outlined the fee-based per
> incident program?
His name is Oliver Mark from the IBM World Wide OS/2 Project Office. He works
out of Germany, where most of the OS/2 customer licenses are. The presentation
was "IBM" .. IBM formats and copyrights.
> > I believe his slides on the presentation are on the Warpstock 2001 CD.
> > Oh but you don't have that cause you didn't go.
>
> Somehow, I doubt that IBM would confine their announcements about their
> future OS/2 plans (or lack thereof) to the small subset of people who
> attended Warpstock 2001.
IBM didn't. That is just a recent presentation of the material. A presentation
which IBM has been presenting publicly for a year and a half. I mentioned that
Steven King used essentially the same Freelance presentation at WarpTech in May
2000 ... and it's been presented over and over at different locations and
venues.
It gets tailored for various occasions. At Warpstock, it had been tailored to
highlight the content of MCP2. It's IBM's standard OS/2 overview presentation
and has been around, world wide, for almost two years.
Andrew Wm. Graham
wrote:
>"Andrew Wm. Graham" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:40:35 -0700, OS2Guy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
>>
>> Mr. Martin:
>>
>> I would certainly never consider subscribing to your service, based on your
>> characterization of me as a fool.
>
>Mr. Graham, I would never consider *inviting* you to subscribe to Warp City.
>Warp City is for OS/2-ONLY users and not eCS lusers.
Okay. Here's a post from my Warp 4 fixpak 14 thinkpad using my
registered version of 16 bit Agent under Win-OS2. Now do I get a
hearing from you?
>
>> At Warpstock I got eComStation 1.0 for a very good price, from Jacaranda
>> Business Systems. I took it home on the Saturday night, followed the
>> installation instructions I was given:
>
>No one here cares. What you've done is snubbed your nose at OS/2, invested in a
>folly product and now pretend to be an OS/2 user. You are not. You are an eCS
>loser. You have invested in a *dead* product that doesn't work being offered by
>two demonstrated con artists who have set out to pick the pockets of naive OS/2
>users. They picked yours. You are the fool.
Again, you call me a fool. Thank you for clarifying your position and
may I introduce you to my friend Mr. Filter? I wonder what percentage
of readers of this newsgroup have introduced you to Mr. Filter?
>If you wish to extol the stupidity of your purchase then take your posts to the
>news.ecomstation newsgroups where you belong.
Proverbs in the 26th chapter.
The Rev. Andrew Wm. Graham
Incumbent
St. Columba and All Hallows Anglican Church
2723 St. Clair Avenue East
Toronto (East York), Ontario
CANADA M4B 1M8
/*
Andrew Graham
Toronto, Ontario
Warp 4.5 (IBM with fixpak 14)
please remove your stuff before emailing me. thanks
*/
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> When you top-post like this, you make it difficult for your readers to
> determine what you are speaking to.
No, it doesn't.
> Apparently, you are referring to this comment by Charles Hunter's:
Apparently, since I "top posted" his message.
> [begin Hunter comment excerpt]
> "...but *AT* warpstock I had an IBMer tell me and everyone else in the
> room very frankly that MCP2 was the end of the road and that anything
> further would be fixed on a fee base per incident."
> [end Hunter comment excerpt]
Yep ... go to the Warpstock event topics and you'll see that IBM made a
presentation on the MCP2 product.
> Here's what you said in a recent post (28 September 2001):
> [begin BSJ excerpt]
> "I don't think SWC is ending with CP2 in 8 weeks. In fact, I said that I
> would expect IBM to make statements about the content of SWC in 2002 ...
> but I don't expect those statements to include anything about a third CP.
Uh huh.
> "And now, the NDA (non-disclosure agreement) kicks in and I suggest
> people wait for IBM to make announcements. I'll make announcements about
> eCS .. they can make announcements about SWC."
> [end BSJ excerpt]
And ... so what? My point was that you apparently equated SWC with the delivery of
MCPs. That would be incorrect. You are often incorrect.
> > I've been very clear. Yes, I have an NDA which allows me to obtain
> > information about the OS/2 product plan. That is the very reason I don't make
> > claims referring to "inside" information. That would violate my NDA and make
> > it more difficult for me to do product planning.
> >
> > Instead, I point to IBM announcements or other IBM communications and tell
> > folks ... you should pay attention to what IBM says about its product. You
> > should certainly not depend on DTJ's interpretation of what IBM says.
> >
> > For clarity ... IBM has not announced an MCP3. I pointed that out when DTJ
> > told someone here that if they bought SWC today they would get MCP1
> > immediately. MCP2 rsn. And would still get the MCP coming next year.
>
> Incorrect. I have never told or implied to anyone that a 2-year SWC
> subscription included THREE Convenience Packs.
Sure you did. You told some guy that he would get MCP when he ordered SWC. Then he
would get MCP2 in it became available ... and his subscription would still be in
effect when the next MCP became available at the end of 2003. That was your
message. And I thought I ought to step as you were misleading the poster.
> Obtaining a third (or fourth) CP would require renewing the subscription for an
> additional 2 years. You have claimed that the original IBM announcement for
> Convenience Packs was for only TWO convenience packs while I have
> claimed that it was open-ended and didn't describe CP2 as being the last
> convenience pack.
No .. IBM said annual updates for two years ... two MCPs. You decided to count
inclusively ... one in 2000, then annual updates for two years. That was your
message. It is unsupported by any IBM announcements, though.
> > At that
> > point I did not say there would not be an MCP3. I said that IBM had not
> > announced an MCP3.
>
> My, how your story has changed in only three weeks. Here's what you
> said on September 28:
No, it hasn't. I can't say what IBM will or will not do in 12 months. I can say
what IBM has announced as their product plan. That's the message you quote below.
>
> [begin BSJ excerpt]
> "I know that IBM announced two CPs. Planned for two CPs. Funded two CPs.
> These things I know, first hand. I have seen nothing from IBM up to this
> time which indicates a third CP."
> [end BSJ excerpt]
Correct. Two MCPs planned and funded. Could IBM announce a third? I have
consistently said that IBM could do that. However, I also said that IBM has not
done that and it would be wise to take IBM at it's word. Not your inference of what
the announcements *really* mean.
> > Could IBM announce an MCP3? Sure. Will there be enhancements to SWC in 2002?
> > According to Oliver's presentation, yes.
>
> What is interesting is that Charles Hunter was in the same room with you
> and claims the "IBMer" said: "...MCP2 was the end of the road and that
> anything further would be fixed on a fee base per incident."
I can't speak for what Charles Hunter meant when he said that. I can speak to what
Oliver Mark had in his presentation and what the IBM announcements are. Oliver did
have some enhancements listed for deliver in SWC in 2002. The MCP1 and MPC2
products are "in service" and fully supported products through the end of 2002.
The presentation graphics are a matter of record since they are in distrubtion now.
I didn't see anything which indicated that all defect support ends with MCP2. But
getting something fixed is not restricted to defect support.
Specifically, there is a chart called the "OS/2 Support Plan". According to it, IBM
will provide "ebusiness Enabling Enhancements" through the end of 2002. In 2001,
that was the browser. It also indicates Hardware and Device Driver Enhancements and
Defect Support ending at the end of 2004.
Perhaps this will indicate why I included drivers and fixes in eCS as part of the
base product.
> --
Bob St.John
SkyBolt wrote:
> So my MCP subscription expires the first of next year.
>
> Will it be worth it for me to renew ?
That's your call. But I expect IBM will do what it did last year, post a
message of what to expect in SWC for 2002. You can wait for that info
before making the decision.
Charles Hunter
>"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>>
>> This directly contradicts your 'yes, IBM could announce an MCP3' line.
>> Either you think Charles is wrong or you didn't believe the "IBMer?"
>> Which is it?
Hey don't make it out like I'm a fountain of secret information.
Like I said, I was just an attendee... Your confusion
likely stems from me being too general in my statement.
I didn't have the Warpstock CD sitting in front of me so I didn't
get the date information exactly right.
They had a plan spec'd out through 2004 I believe.
All product enhancements IIRC were listed until 2002 but no MCP was listed.
Then after that point, device drivers would still be actively developed until
some time at which it would become fee based services for specific business
cases only.
There is nothing stopping IBM from making an MCP3 if they want to.
They aren't under any obligation to do so, however.
I defer to Bob St. John on this. He deals with this information every day.
I heard it once by ear in a presentation. Naturally, Bob has more accurate
information on this topic than I do.
spam...@spamzone.com
>spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>
>> In <3BCB00B6...@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
>>
>>> spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ahh the sound of static...
>>>
>>> From someone who posts annonymously...
>>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't used to. However, I got so dang much spam I decided to be spamfree
>>
>>
>> if you look hard enough it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I am.
>>
>> OTOH, why should you care? this is just a newsgroup.
>
>You could provide your name without including an email address usable by
>spammers. Why does it matter? Because there is responsibility and
>accountability that accompanys comments that are not made anonymously.
That's laughable at the least and pathetic at best. since i'm the only person
that bothers to post here using this address, you could still hold me accountable.
for example, what if your name was really tim martin? if we hold your alias as
DTJ accountable, what difference does your real name make? So by using an
alias I just make it so I don't get spammed.
the problem you have is that you can't pick apart the things I've posted,
no matter what name I use.
Marty
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
>
> LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
>
> eComStation WORKS.
Amazing how blind Johnson is, yet somehow he can still read (albiet with
extremely poor comprehension).
> eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
> used as instructed).
I got it on my first attempt here.
> eComStation comes with a number of software packages that MCP, WSEB,
> and older versions of OS/2, don't have (almost all of them can be
> purchased separately, at extra cost, for an OS/2 system).
Just started playing with Zampa last night. Never realized how useful a
firewall could be. I stripped off those ads from AOL Instant messenger
by denying any data coming from the ad server. I also eliminated the
Nimda propagation attempts on my web server by blocking out the network
at fault. Now my web logs are clean and my instant messenger is no
longer annoying. Great stuff, not present in MCP.
> Now, to paraphrase your own words: Seeing people actually using eCS
> would be far more impressive to me than testimonials about its
> badness from non-users.
That's what is truely remarkable. I can't say I've heard from an eCS
user who purchased the product and is having enough difficulty with it
that they go around bad-mouthing it. None of the eCS detractors have
even had contact with the product. Quite telling.
Contrast this with pro-eCS people who are actually eCS users,
developers, and proprietors -- all of whom have used eCS, and many of
whom have used MCP.
Of course, Johnson knows all of this all too well.
Marty
>
> Again, you call me a fool. Thank you for clarifying your position and
> may I introduce you to my friend Mr. Filter? I wonder what percentage
> of readers of this newsgroup have introduced you to Mr. Filter?
The only folks who haven't done so are newbies who haven't learned any
better, those who enjoy laughing at Tim's stupidity, or those who tweak
his nose and poke him with sticks.
It doesn't take long at all for Tim to discredit himself to any newbie.
Wayne
:>What should I have known? That you were using a CONVERTER utility to
:>get your customers eCS desktops installed? I would have never imagined
:>that the Serenity clowns would have ever resorted to such a kludge.
:>Remember, you were the guys talking about how good your installer was
:>going to be because you were taking extra time to "get it right." You
:>were the guys doing the demo at SCOUG in May about how smoothly it all
:>worked. You were the guys who savaged the SCOUG writer Peter Skye about
:>his observations about the demo of the eCS installer. Why would I have
:>ever thought that you would have gone ahead and released an installer
:>that needed a CONVERTER to get your eCS crapware desktop installed?
Johnson, you are a complete idiot and if you had half a brain you'd be
twice as stupid as that other idiot "TM" I installed the GA on two systems;
On my desktop as a test before commiting it to my laptop and then on my
laptop when I was satisfied that the Serenity installer worked. I had no
problems with both installs and I've been using eCS on this machine ever
since. You know not what you are talking about and now join "TM" in my
killfile. You two deserve each other.
Wayne
--
Wayne Bickell
Tokyo, Japan
wa...@tkk.att.ne.jp
http://www.ej-net.com
******************************************************
Posted with PMINews 2 for OS/2
Running on eComStation 1.0
******************************************************
Marty
>
> Charles Hunter wrote:
>
> > "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Bob St.John wrote:
> >
> >> You are the one with the FUD. You FUDDED that MCP2 was the last
> >> Convenience Pack from IBM and falsely claimed that the original IBM
> >> announcement was for only TWO Convenience Packs. You have claimed that
> >> the upcoming MCP2 would not have anything significant/new based on your
> >> supposed inside knowledge. You FUDded last week that IBM wanted users
> >> to leave OS/2 based on the moldy old two-sentence excerpt from the IBM
> >> OS/2 strategy about "change the operating system." I stick to the
> >> facts. You use the facts to create FUD.
> >
> > Woah. I haven't been following all the rants going on here in the last
> > couple months so maybe I missed your evidence that he is wrong. I never
> > knew anything about either statement before warpstock, but *AT* warpstock
> > I had an IBMer tell me and everyone else in the room very frankly that
> > MCP2 was the end of the road and that anything further would be
> > fixed on a fee base per incident.
>
> I will accept any actual information from IBM that is factual
No you won't. You've proven that in the past. Refer to your mornic
statements on the subject of the need for a Warp 4 license to purchase a
SWC subscription. IBM says you need to be a licensed Warp 4 user. The
official URL was brought to your attention many times with the relevant
excerpt highlighted. You refused to acknowledge it because you wanted
to pretend that a SWC subscription was a cheaper way to get OS/2 than
buying eCS as a new OS/2 user.
You're not interested in factual information, regardless of the source,
because the facts don't support your position. You know it; Tim knows
it; Bob knows it; I know it. Anyone who has read your postings for a
reasonable period of time knows it (especially those who have witnessed
your recent abusive tantrums directed at Bob and Serenity).
Marty
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > I will accept any actual information from IBM that is factual but
> > speculative FUD from Bob St. John does not fall into that category.
>
> Excuse me. I did not speculate. I pointed to IBM announcements and other
> materials. After all, you accused me of dealing in facts.
Shame Johnson can't learn from your example.
> > If IBM made an announcement about their OS/2 plans, that would be factual
> > information. Unfortunately, your second-hand recitation above does not
> > fall into the factual category.
>
> Ah .. but the presentation is on the Warpstock CD.
>
> > What was the name of the "IBMer" and was he speaking for IBM officially or
> > was he providing his personal opinions? Did he provide any reference to
> > official IBM documents or communciations that outlined the fee-based per
> > incident program?
>
> His name is Oliver Mark from the IBM World Wide OS/2 Project Office. He works
> out of Germany, where most of the OS/2 customer licenses are. The presentation
> was "IBM" .. IBM formats and copyrights.
You've done it now, Bob. There are far too many facts in this posting
undermining Johnson's position. Guess he'll just ignore it and pretend
it never made it to his news server or some other lame cop-out like
that.
David T. Johnson
>
[snip]
>>
>> Incorrect. I have never told or implied to anyone that a 2-year SWC
>> subscription included THREE Convenience Packs.
>
>
> Sure you did. You told some guy that he would get MCP when he ordered SWC. Then he
> would get MCP2 in it became available ... and his subscription would still be in
> effect when the next MCP became available at the end of 2003. That was your
> message. And I thought I ought to step as you were misleading the poster.
Incorrect. Please produce the words by me that support this (now
embellished by you with additional detail) claim or discontinue it.
>
>
>> Obtaining a third (or fourth) CP would require renewing the subscription for an
>> additional 2 years. You have claimed that the original IBM announcement for
>> Convenience Packs was for only TWO convenience packs while I have
>> claimed that it was open-ended and didn't describe CP2 as being the last
>> convenience pack.
>
>
> No .. IBM said annual updates for two years ... two MCPs.
No, IBM did not say "two" MCPs. The did say "annual refreshes." They
did say "Over the next two years, the Convenience Packages will be
provided annually." They did say the "first Convenience Pack is planned
for November 30, 2000." They failed to say "the final Convenience Pack
will be provided on November 30, 2001, only 19 months after we are
announcing this program on April 11, 2000." That would be your
interpretation.
> You decided to count
> inclusively ... one in 2000, then annual updates for two years. That was your
> message. It is unsupported by any IBM announcements, though.
>
>
>>> At that
>>> point I did not say there would not be an MCP3. I said that IBM had not
>>> announced an MCP3.
>>
>> My, how your story has changed in only three weeks. Here's what you
>> said on September 28:
>
>
> No, it hasn't. I can't say what IBM will or will not do in 12 months. I can say
> what IBM has announced as their product plan. That's the message you quote below.
>
>
>> [begin BSJ excerpt]
>> "I know that IBM announced two CPs. Planned for two CPs. Funded two CPs.
>> These things I know, first hand. I have seen nothing from IBM up to this
>> time which indicates a third CP."
>> [end BSJ excerpt]
>
>
> Correct. Two MCPs planned and funded. Could IBM announce a third? I have
> consistently said that IBM could do that. However, I also said that IBM has not
> done that and it would be wise to take IBM at it's word. Not your inference of what
> the announcements *really* mean.
I accurately quoted you. You can spin it any way that you want...
>
>
>>> Could IBM announce an MCP3? Sure. Will there be enhancements to SWC in 2002?
>>> According to Oliver's presentation, yes.
>>
>> What is interesting is that Charles Hunter was in the same room with you
>> and claims the "IBMer" said: "...MCP2 was the end of the road and that
>> anything further would be fixed on a fee base per incident."
>
>
> I can't speak for what Charles Hunter meant when he said that. I can speak to what
> Oliver Mark had in his presentation and what the IBM announcements are. Oliver did
> have some enhancements listed for deliver in SWC in 2002. The MCP1 and MPC2
> products are "in service" and fully supported products through the end of 2002.
That is not new. The original Convenience Pack Announcement Letter
200-082 from IBM stated "Support will be provided for each annual
Convenience Package effective with the initial availability through
December 31 of the following year. For CP2, that would correspond to
December 31, 2001.
>
> The presentation graphics are a matter of record since they are in distrubtion now.
> I didn't see anything which indicated that all defect support ends with MCP2. But
> getting something fixed is not restricted to defect support.
>
> Specifically, there is a chart called the "OS/2 Support Plan". According to it, IBM
> will provide "ebusiness Enabling Enhancements" through the end of 2002.
If IBM plans to continue to offer 'enhancements' in 2002, that would
seem to mandate either a MCP3 or some sort of Software Choice downloads
of features, depending on what the enhancements turn out to be.
> In 2001,
> that was the browser. It also indicates Hardware and Device Driver Enhancements and
> Defect Support ending at the end of 2004.
Defect support ending at the end of 2004 suggests an MCP4 which, if it
were released in November, 2003, would be supported to December 31, 2004
according to the 200-082 IBM annoucement. Defect support for MCP2 will
end on December 31, 2002 and defect support for a MCP3 would end on
December 31, 2003 unless IBM chose to extend the defect support period
for MCP2 (or MCP3) which is not something they have announced. Based on
your claim of MCP2 being the "final" Convenience Pack, IBM would have no
defect support obligations past December 31, 2002 based on the existing
announcements they have made.
>
> Perhaps this will indicate why I included drivers and fixes in eCS as part of the
> base product.
>
>
>
>>
>> This directly contradicts your 'yes, IBM could announce an MCP3' line.
>> Either you think Charles is wrong or you didn't believe the "IBMer?"
>> Which is it?
Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer" stated that MCP2 was the
end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
>>
>>
>>> But will these enhancements require
>>> an MCP to deliver them to users? Different question.
>>>
>>> Another MCP would be an expense item which would require significant testing,
>>> as all IBM products do. And every expense is reviewed to determine how
>>> necessary it is to incur that expense.
>>>
>>> Also in the presentation given by Steven a year and a half ago ... and by
>>> Oliver earlier this month, was the chart for enhancements. Better not tell
>>> DTJ what that said, either.
>>
>> Why be coy if you have real information? You talk a lot when you don't
>> know anything. Why clam up if you actually have a nugget of real news
>>
>>
David T. Johnson
David T. Johnson
Jason Bowen
OS2Guy
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:20:14 -0700, OS2Guy <OS2...@WarpCity.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew Wm. Graham" wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:40:35 -0700, OS2Guy wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
> >>
> >> Mr. Martin:
> >>
> >> I would certainly never consider subscribing to your service, based on your
> >> characterization of me as a fool.
> >
> >Mr. Graham, I would never consider *inviting* you to subscribe to Warp City.
> >Warp City is for OS/2-ONLY users and not eCS lusers.
>
> Okay. Here's a post from my Warp 4 fixpak 14 thinkpad using my
> registered version of 16 bit Agent under Win-OS2. Now do I get a
> hearing from you?
Why do you want a hearing? Subscribers aren't required to seek a hearing, they
simply apply when the opportunity is extended. The opportunity is not extended to
you.
> >> At Warpstock I got eComStation 1.0 for a very good price, from Jacaranda
> >> Business Systems. I took it home on the Saturday night, followed the
> >> installation instructions I was given:
> >
> >No one here cares. What you've done is snubbed your nose at OS/2, invested in a
> >folly product and now pretend to be an OS/2 user. You are not. You are an eCS
> >loser. You have invested in a *dead* product that doesn't work being offered by
> >two demonstrated con artists who have set out to pick the pockets of naive OS/2
> >users. They picked yours. You are the fool.
>
> Again, you call me a fool. Thank you for clarifying your position and
> may I introduce you to my friend Mr. Filter? I wonder what percentage
> of readers of this newsgroup have introduced you to Mr. Filter?
Ask me if I care. (Answer if you are too dumb to figure it out: "No.")
If you and others want to bury your head in the sand, pretend the truth isn't
available to you, then so be it. You are the fool.
> >If you wish to extol the stupidity of your purchase then take your posts to the
> >news.ecomstation newsgroups where you belong.
>
> Proverbs in the 26th chapter.
>
> The Rev. Andrew Wm. Graham
> Incumbent
> St. Columba and All Hallows Anglican Church
> 2723 St. Clair Avenue East
> Toronto (East York), Ontario
> CANADA M4B 1M8
> /*
> Andrew Graham
> Toronto, Ontario
> Warp 4.5 (IBM with fixpak 14)
> please remove your stuff before emailing me. thanks
> */
Andrew, blew your proverbs out your (fill in the appropriate word). Your
self-proclaimed egotistical title is irrelevant here. I hold a doctorate degree yet
I don't feel it necessary to ram my title of "Dr." down anyone's throat or parade it
with every post. Sad that you must fall back on your religion to promote yourself.
OS2Guy
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
>
> LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
But you are a SALESMAN with a 'vested' interest and no matter WHAT you say
no one will believe your eCS claims.
Wayne
:>> The use of a killfile filter seems silly in newsgroups like this and
:>>reminds me of an ostrich with its head stuck in a hole. The world will
:>>go on without you regardless of what hole you find to bury your head in.
:>> People who make a point of posting here about using their 'killfile'
:>>seem childish. Grow up.
:>>
:>
:>How grown up does one have to be to keep making comments on a product
:>they've never had any actual experience with? How grown up does one have
:>to be to make claims that others recitations are false while their own
:>are true? You're a hollow joke of a person David.
I come to these newsgroups to read news, information, help when I need
it or when I can give it. Johnson's posts do not fall into any of these
categories therefore killfilling him does serve a purpose, at least for me.
Cheers
Wayne
I've killfiled his posts now to do the same for replies to his posts.
Marty
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:59:45 -0500, David T. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > :>What should I have known? That you were using a CONVERTER utility to
> > :>get your customers eCS desktops installed? I would have never imagined
> > :>that the Serenity clowns would have ever resorted to such a kludge.
> > :>Remember, you were the guys talking about how good your installer was
> > :>going to be because you were taking extra time to "get it right." You
> > :>were the guys doing the demo at SCOUG in May about how smoothly it all
> > :>worked. You were the guys who savaged the SCOUG writer Peter Skye about
> > :>his observations about the demo of the eCS installer. Why would I have
> > :>ever thought that you would have gone ahead and released an installer
> > :>that needed a CONVERTER to get your eCS crapware desktop installed?
> >
> > Johnson, you are a complete idiot and if you had half a brain you'd be
> > twice as stupid as that other idiot "TM"
>
> Gratuitous insult. Get to the point.
Hypocrite. No point.
> > I installed the GA on two systems;
> > On my desktop as a test before commiting it to my laptop and then on my
> > laptop when I was satisfied that the Serenity installer worked. I had no
> > problems with both installs and I've been using eCS on this machine ever
> > since.
>
> While you may not have needed to use the Serenity converter, others
> obviously did or it would not exist. It would be a mistake to
> extrapolate your experience (with anything) as being typical for the
> entire group of users.
Just as it is a mistake for you to extrapolate your lack of experience
(read: imagination) as being typical for the entire group of users.
> > You know not what you are talking about and now join "TM" in my
> > killfile. You two deserve each other.
>
> These are small newsgroups with only a relative few posts made each day.
> The use of a killfile filter seems silly in newsgroups like this and
> reminds me of an ostrich with its head stuck in a hole. The world will
> go on without you regardless of what hole you find to bury your head in.
> People who make a point of posting here about using their 'killfile'
> seem childish. Grow up.
Whine all you want, but the only folks left listening to you are newbies
who don't know better, those who taunt you, and those who tear your
arguments to shreds. Sucks to be you.
David T. Johnson
spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>
> In <3BCC4D73...@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
> >spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
> >
> >> In <3BCB00B6...@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ahh the sound of static...
> >>>
> >>> From someone who posts annonymously...
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I didn't used to. However, I got so dang much spam I decided to be spamfree
> >>
> >>
> >> if you look hard enough it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I am.
> >>
> >> OTOH, why should you care? this is just a newsgroup.
> >
> >You could provide your name without including an email address usable by
> >spammers. Why does it matter? Because there is responsibility and
> >accountability that accompanys comments that are not made anonymously.
>
> That's laughable at the least and pathetic at best. since i'm the only person
> that bothers to post here using this address, you could still hold me accountable.
> for example, what if your name was really tim martin? if we hold your alias as
> DTJ accountable, what difference does your real name make? So by using an
> alias I just make it so I don't get spammed.
You could avoid spam by merely omitting your email address or modifying
it slightly. Many people do this who post here and, by doing this, you
would avoid the spam that you claim prevents you from revealing your
identity. Spam avoidance does not, therefore, appear to be the reason
that you conceal your identity. I suspect that you conceal your
identity behind an alias so that you do not have to be accountable for
the comments you make. People do and say contemptible things in these
newsgroups anonymously that they would not do in a different social
setting because they are confident that their friends, family,
neighbors, relatives, and coworkers will not see behavior that shows
them in an unflattering light.
>
> the problem you have is that you can't pick apart the things I've posted,
> no matter what name I use.
I cannot recall ever seeing anything here that anyone using your alias
has ever posted that was worth the effort "picking apart." Did you have
a particular comment in mind?
Roderick Klein
OS2Guy wrote:
Its just so funny. "No one will believe your eCS clains"..... (You typed)
You are talking about more persons.... Alright maybe you could run a few
people. But you always make it sound as if you represent the entire OS/2
community....
Which is not the case....
Do I represent it, no.... There is no Mr OS/2... There are all users
that use this platform.
Roderick
Roderick Klein
OS2Guy wrote:
> "Andrew Wm. Graham" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:40:35 -0700, OS2Guy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
> >
> > Mr. Martin:
> >
> > I would certainly never consider subscribing to your service, based on your
> > characterization of me as a fool.
>
> Mr. Graham, I would never consider *inviting* you to subscribe to Warp City.
> Warp City is for OS/2-ONLY users and not eCS lusers.
Now look you can deside that (who joins). Not that eCS is not OS/2 (heck I still
wonder which OS loader
it uses, which kernel, which device drivers it supports etc.).
> > At Warpstock I got eComStation 1.0 for a very good price, from Jacaranda
> > Business Systems. I took it home on the Saturday night, followed the
> > installation instructions I was given:
>
> No one here cares. What you've done is snubbed your nose at OS/2, invested in a
> folly product and now pretend to be an OS/2 user. You are not. You are an eCS
> loser. You have invested in a *dead* product that doesn't work being offered by
> two demonstrated con artists who have set out to pick the pockets of naive OS/2
> users. They picked yours. You are the fool.
Again you always speak of more persons. For how many people do you
speak in this case ? "No one here cares." No you should type ->I<- don't care
> If you wish to extol the stupidity of your purchase then take your posts to the
> news.ecomstation newsgroups where you belong.
How many other people (maybe one or two would join you Tim) wish to point
to point people to news.ecomstatation.nl
Roderick Klein
Roderick Klein
OS2Guy wrote:
> LOL! How can *real* OS/2 users not see the stupidity of Serenity Salesman
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly}'s ridiculous post? These eCS salesman will say anything
> they can to convince themselves their [failed] eCS investment was a positive
> step for them. The *only* positive thing about it is that it drove them out of
> the OS/2 community and into the arms of two con artists, St. John and Cheung.
Aaah the FUD engines are running at full speed again! Keep them going Tim thats
right
more garbage!
Yep you are saying that people are now out of the OS/2 community because they
bought eCS....
You decide that ? Cool! Everybody I suggest we all great the FUD King...
Hip hip hoera!
> Anyone investing in eCS is a fool, plain and simple.
People who invest 10 dollars in the Warpcity fund...
What happens to that money ? Tax is paid is over it ?
Last number you mentioned here is that you have 4000 members (stil ?).
Well 40.000 dollar....
Say I asked you once what kind of legal form Warpcity has, is it a company or a non
profit project ?
If you collect 40.000 dollar a year.....
I asked you what kind of legal form Warpcity was because of the voice discussion
some time back.
Roderick
David T. Johnson
spam...@spamzone.com wrote:
>
> Looky here...
>
> DTJ is posting to himself.
Incorrect.
>
> wow timmy your mommy let you use the computer again?
>
> and how was your trip to warpstock?
>
> Oh wait, I forgot you send spies to warpstock, as you're not allowed out of the house after
> 10PM
>
> In <3BCBAAA3...@WarpCity.com>, OS2Guy <OS2...@WarpCity.com> writes:
> >"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Hrynyshyn wrote:
> >>
> >> > 8.Love all that bundled [eCS] software.
> >>
> >> But apparently you don't love all that bundled software enough to
> >> actually use it (or eCS) since you posted here with Windows 98 according
> >> to your header. Why is it that most of the people who extoll the
> >> goodness of eCS in the newsgroups don't actually USE it when they are
> >> posting about it?
> >> --
> >> Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.51
> >> and IBM Web Browser
> >
> >LOL! One of the *BEST* things about you David is your concise ability to get
> >to the meat of things, i.e., those few eCS investors and Serenity salesman
> >rely on WindowsXX to manage their computing lives all the while extolling over
> >and over the 'goodness' of the folly eCS product. I can't help but laugh out
> >loud each time you nail these guys!
> >
> >Round of applause to you!
> >
> >Tim Martin
> >The OS/2 Guy
> >Warp City
> >
> >
David T. Johnson
Doug Bissett wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
>
> LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
>
> eComStation WORKS.
>
> eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
> used as instructed).
According to this review, the instructions seem to be quite complex and
need to be printed out on paper prior to doing the install so that they
can be referred to.
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3689/2/
>
> eComStation comes with a number of software packages that MCP, WSEB,
> and older versions of OS/2, don't have (almost all of them can be
> purchased separately, at extra cost, for an OS/2 system).
>
> Now, to paraphrase your own words: Seeing people actually using eCS
> would be far more
> impressive to me than testimonials about its badness from non-users.
Fair enough.
>
> So, if you don't use eCS, how could you possibly have any idea about
> whether it is good, or bad??? I use both, and I actually prefer eCS,
> because of the extras that are supplied "out of the box". Other than
> the extras, and the installer (it DOES work BETTER than the IBM
> installer, when you do a clean install, on hardware that is capable of
> running it), I don't see a lot of difference.
Okay. I think you are being honest.
>
> More power to Serenity. They have done more for the OS/2 community
> than IBM ever did, since they first put OS/2 on the market.
It is this kind of statement that I find objectionable. I simply have
not seen anything positive contributed to the OS/2 community by
Serenity. They are dividing the already tiny OS/2 user base with their
ridiculous "eCS-only" software scheme. What's positive about that?
They don't seem to be making OS/2 easier to install. They don't seem to
be increasing the OS/2 user base. Maybe their distribution of Lotus
Smartsuite to eCS users is a positive thing because it gets more OS/2
users using it but I would not consider that to be an earth-shatteringly
positive contribution.
> They don't
> have it quite right, yet, but there is hope that they will get it
> right, while there is little hope that IBM will improve things very
> much (and IBM does need, desperately, to improve their installer
> routines).
I have used the Warp 4.51 installer for both fresh installs and installs
over an existing Warp 4 system and it works very well. It is not fancy
but it works. And it doesn't need a converter program. I disagree that
IBM desperately needs to improve their installer routines. I would much
prefer that IBM continue to put their OS/2 resources into e-business
enhancements such as Java, TCP/IP security and function, and browser
improvements. These are things that I use everyday. The installer is
not.
I also disagree that there is little hope that IBM will improve things.
IBM has been VERY consistent in supplying frequent updates and
improvements in the areas that I listed above.
>
> Just my C$.031 ($.02 US)...
> --
> From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
> doug.bissett at attglobal.net
> The " at " must be changed to "@"
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> Incorrect. Please produce the words by me that support this (now
> embellished by you with additional detail) claim or discontinue it.
It was the beginning of the entire thread where you insisted that annual updates for two
years means three updates. You wrote it. You can look it up and refresh your own memory.
I am in no way obliged to discontinue pointing to your fud and misinformation. It's great
sport.
> > No .. IBM said annual updates for two years ... two MCPs.
>
> No, IBM did not say "two" MCPs. The did say "annual refreshes." They
> did say "Over the next two years,
Two.
> the Convenience Packages will be provided annually." They did say the "first
> Convenience Pack is planned for November 30, 2000." They failed to say "the final
> Convenience Pack will be provided on November 30, 2001, only 19 months after we are
> announcing this program on April 11, 2000." That would be your interpretation.
No. That would be IBM's announcement.
> I accurately quoted you. You can spin it any way that you want...
I'm not spinning ... I'm fine with the quote. You still don't get it. IBM announced two.
They are delivering two. If they choose to do a third .. they haven't said that publicly.
In fact, the IBMer at Warpstock presenting on this topic said that no third CP was
planned.
Fact is ... there is no justification for a third. Look at what is being delivered in
MCP2. Is there any reason that could not have been accomplished with the standard CD
distribution? Why incur the additional expense of an MCP? Why don't you ever answer
questions like these?
If IBM wanted to discontinue sending out SWC CDs and replace that distribution with
annual MCPs ... and ACPs .. that might make a bit of sense. But that has not happened yet
and if it did ... it would just be a branding issue. It would mean nothing wrt delivery
of new features ... which is the point you never seem to touch.
> If IBM plans to continue to offer 'enhancements' in 2002, that would
> seem to mandate either a MCP3 or some sort of Software Choice downloads
> of features, depending on what the enhancements turn out to be.
Downloads, certainly. And there are periodic CDs on SWC, for now, anyway. So .. what's
the point of an MCP3? Why do you get so hung up on these things. While you dicker about
annual updates and MCPs ... a larger message is looming. You should be paying more
attention to what IBM says.
> > In 2001,
> > that was the browser. It also indicates Hardware and Device Driver Enhancements and
> > Defect Support ending at the end of 2004.
>
> Defect support ending at the end of 2004 suggests an MCP4
To you, perhaps. But that is not what the graphic says. IBM presentation graphic says,
"Hardware and Device Driver Enhancements and Defect Support" ending at the end of 2004.
The defect support mention is specifically tied to hardware and device drivers. This was
on a separate line (bar on a bar graph, actually) than the "e-business enabling
enhancements" bar, which ended at the 2002 hash mark.
So... no. It does not suggest an MCP4. If you want to "brand" defect support for device
drivers as MCP4 ... feel free. Seems like overkill to me. Not to mention that it is
unsupported by any announcement by IBM.
> which, if it were released in November, 2003, would be supported to December 31, 2004
> according to the 200-082 IBM annoucement. Defect support for MCP2 will end on December
> 31, 2002 and defect support for a MCP3 would end on December 31, 2003 unless IBM chose
> to extend the defect support period for MCP2 (or MCP3) which is not something they have
> announced.
Amazing ... you are like a kitten with a ball of yarn. You just get really busy and can't
seem to stop yourself. You are announcing a slew of IBM products. And I caution you
again, let IBM handle their own announcements. IBM appears to be carefully setting an
expectation level which is much lower than your rantings. Why do you think that is?
As I've asked before, do you plan to cover the expense of someone who orders SWC based on
your word that additional MCPs are coming? BTW ... what is the content of these MCPs you
are announcing? I mean, that's the real point, isn't it? If these are device drivers, why
not just download them? Do I need to re-install my system with a new MCP because of a
device driver that I may not be using? As I said, your announcements are overkill.
> Based on your claim of MCP2 being the "final" Convenience Pack,
Ehmmm, that would be my comment that IBM has only announced two MCPs. The use of the word
"final" is yours. Not that I disagree with your claim. Nor, apparently, does IBM.
> IBM would have no defect support obligations past December 31, 2002 based on the
> existing announcements they have made.
Sure they would. Since IBM said it will deliver drivers in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, they
would be obliged to provide defect support on those items. That's exactly what the IBM
presentation said.
> Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer"
Why quotes around IBMer. His name is Oliver Mark. He works at the IBM World Wide OS/2
Project Office. You think if you put quotation marks around IBMer, he becomes a phantom?
Less of an IBM employee. It won't effect his pay check. I expect to see Oliver Mark and
Oliver Stein, the other IBM presenter at Toronto, at the event in Brussels. I'll pass
along your regards. As a user and advocate, I'll tell him you appreciate all the fine
work he is doing.
> stated that MCP2 was the end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
You are precious "DTJ". I think Charles Hunter may have been paraphrasing. I can't say
that was a quote from the speaker, though I believe some people in the audience said
that. But the message was there, MCP goes out of service at the end of 2002. No feature
enhancements were projected beyond 2002. No free support after that.
> Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
Did Oliver Mark of the IBM World Wide OS/2 Project Office say that? If those were not his
words, that was his message. It's not a new message. Those graphics have been making the
rounds in an IBM presentation for about two years. Folks are just paying more attention
to it now.
Marty
>
> It is this kind of statement that I find objectionable. I simply have
> not seen anything positive contributed to the OS/2 community by
> Serenity.
Guess he "missed" the announcement of VPC for OS/2.
> They are dividing the already tiny OS/2 user base with their
> ridiculous "eCS-only" software scheme.
He can't name one piece of software that runs in eCS only.
> They don't seem to be making OS/2 easier to install.
Johnson has no experience with the installer and no frame of reference
to compare it to the installation experience with MCP.
> They don't seem to be increasing the OS/2 user base.
Johnson has no data to back up this assertion.
e...@catherders.com
>There is no Mr OS/2
Hmmm... No Ms. OS/2 either.
<reverting to woodwork>
Evelyne Stalzer
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Irv Spalten
wishfull thinking on your part...
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
====================
> That is not new. The original Convenience Pack Announcement Letter
> 200-082 from IBM stated "Support will be provided for each annual
> Convenience Package effective with the initial availability through
> December 31 of the following year. For CP2, that would correspond to
> December 31, 2001.
====================
CP 2 ends support NEXT year, 2002, not the end of this year. In addition, this has been
ammended, both CP 1 and CP 2 end on Dec. 31, 2002 (support that is, and I mean ENTITLED
Support that comes with the product). After that time period ends, you must secure
additional cost support for either one.
====================
> If IBM plans to continue to offer 'enhancements' in 2002, that would
> seem to mandate either a MCP3 or some sort of Software Choice downloads
> of features, depending on what the enhancements turn out to be.
=========================
Enhancement will come from S/W Choice. Some will also come from DD-Pak On-Line, but
require a SWC subscription. At this time, there is NO CP 3 in plan nor scheduled. Before
TM jumps up and down and intervenes and confuses anyone, I do know, and I sure Bob St.
John does as well, as do the attendees of WarpStock. FixPak will be the intended delivery
mechanism now for all future fixes and extensions/enhancements for OS/2 in the future.
Due to the nature of time required to create a FP, the enhancements/upgrades might appear
on SWC or DD-Pak On-Line first though. Throw all the fog and FUD you want, but in the
near future this SAME information will be posted on S/W Choice. I'd estimate on 11/30 or
possibly sooner when we announce shipment of CP 2.
===================
> Defect support ending at the end of 2004 suggests an MCP4 which, if it
> were released in November, 2003, would be supported to December 31, 2004
> according to the 200-082 IBM annoucement. Defect support for MCP2 will
> end on December 31, 2002 and defect support for a MCP3 would end on
> December 31, 2003 unless IBM chose to extend the defect support period
> for MCP2 (or MCP3) which is not something they have announced. Based on
> your claim of MCP2 being the "final" Convenience Pack, IBM would have no
> defect support obligations past December 31, 2002 based on the existing
> announcements they have made.
=====================
You can NOT tie DEFECT SUPPORT to any delivery. IBM can end defect support when it
announce it has or will, with no corresponding product shipment. It can extend it as long
as it wishes as well, or use SERVICE CONTRACTS to extend support (think Warp 4). All
'Defect Support' means is that you CAN REPORT problems, in other words, IBM will not
reject your report and state the product is out of SERVICE. IBM has presented data
indicating that OS/2 (doesn't state WHICH version) will STILL be in SERVICE (we will
accept defects) in 2004.
==================
> Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer" stated that MCP2 was the
> end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
==================
I'll say it (and yes TM, I do KNOW) as at this time I'd say that this is 99% a sure
thing. CP 2 is the LAST Convenience Package IBM will ship. The emphasis now shifts from a
new deliverable (i.e. CP's) to FixPaks that will be only available, like XR_C001, on S/W
Choice, and device driver updates from DD-Pak On-Line that require S/W Choice
subscriptions to acquire. Serenity will handle delivery of these items as well. I'd say
at this time, older versions of Warp other than the the Convenience Packages are probably
at the end of life for free upgrades (other than those still in currency for support) and
the way to go will be CP's and S/W Choice or eCS for OS/2 users.
Irv
P.S., yes I'm using Win2K at work now. Internal mail requirement, so I now have 2
machines running, one for e-mail, and using Netscape on it to respond here, and one for
WORK which is purely OS/2. If it REALY bothers you, I can post indentical messages
seconds apart to show you... From now on I may respond from either machine, but I expect
to use the Win2K strictly for Internet and internal e-mail only. Get used to it.
spam...@spamzone.com
>Bob St.John wrote:
>
>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> Incorrect. I have never told or implied to anyone that a 2-year SWC
>>> subscription included THREE Convenience Packs.
>>
>>
>> Sure you did. You told some guy that he would get MCP when he ordered SWC. Then he
>> would get MCP2 in it became available ... and his subscription would still be in
>> effect when the next MCP became available at the end of 2003. That was your
>> message. And I thought I ought to step as you were misleading the poster.
>
>Incorrect. Please produce the words by me that support this (now
>embellished by you with additional detail) claim or discontinue it.
>
holy smokes.... now DTJ sounds like tholen.
spam...@spamzone.com
spam...@spamzone.com
ah the sound of bumbler thrashing around in the dark.
I avoid spam this way. and like I pointed out before it would still be possible to
hold me accountable. The fact that the ability to do so escapes you, really is just
par for the course. I don't make statements that would embarass me or my family.
and the fact that you don't recall picking any apart, simply points to the fact that
you couldn't. As my posts are sound, much like this one. you seem to think that by
using a "name" somehow makes you different, or special in a newsgroup. That's
laughable too. what if I changed my name legally to spamfree? Well, then where
would you be? Still complaining about some nonsensical issue you barely understand.
Much like you are doing now. So, see? nothing really is altered by my alias based
posting. whereas, you're acting the same. You still jump when told to.
I feel like a cat playing with a mouse in this discourse. You're hopelessly overmatched.
but that's ok, I know how you are... you need to have attention, no matter
what the reason. In that respect you and Timmy are two of a kind. any day
now you'll make some goofy post attacking brad wardell and he'll be back in here
again too.
WHAP... and the mouse goes tumbling...
spam...@spamzone.com
>
>
>Doug Bissett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
>> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
>> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
>>
>> LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
>>
>> eComStation WORKS.
>>
>> eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
>> used as instructed).
>
>According to this review, the instructions seem to be quite complex and
>need to be printed out on paper prior to doing the install so that they
>can be referred to.
>
>
>http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3689/2/
>
well golly jeepers... we all know that those linux guys are just rock and rollers
when it comes to OS/2. and of course nobody in the history of linux has
ever printed out a MAN page. Talk about a nonissue.
whap... the mouse goes tumbling again.
HTRAVIS
at 08:33 AM, Irv Spalten <ispa...@austin.rr.com> said:
<snip>
>Irv
>P.S., yes I'm using Win2K at work now. Internal mail requirement, so
>I now have 2 machines running, one for e-mail, and using Netscape on
>it to respond here, and one for WORK which is purely OS/2. If it
>REALY bothers you, I can post indentical messages seconds apart to
>show you... From now on I may respond from either machine, but I
>expect to use the Win2K strictly for Internet and internal e-mail
>only. Get used to it.
omigod. Check Irv's stock trading. He may just have secured a cushy
retirement nestegg with a well-timed investment in that SW company
located in the heart of the new US ally, Russia. You know-- the
company with the AV product for OS/2. We're gonna need it.
Or is he just setting them AND us up by turning around, selling the
stock short, and promising to communicate with OS/2 and eCS users only
with his OS/2 box?
Just when I thought electronic mail had become safer than the stuff
that comes thru the wooden door slot.....
These ARE risky times. Get used to it, indeed.
HPT
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
htr...@attglobal.net (HTRAVIS)
DemostiX
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bowen
David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
>
>Doug Bissett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
>> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
>> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
>>
>> LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
>>
>> eComStation WORKS.
>>
>> eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
>> used as instructed).
>
>According to this review, the instructions seem to be quite complex and
>need to be printed out on paper prior to doing the install so that they
>can be referred to.
>
>
>http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3689/2/
>
So tell us, where is you real experience? None? Oh so you aren't
qualifed to make an honest assesment of it are you.
rest of your irrelevant banter snipped....
Oliver Rick
> You are the one with the FUD. You FUDDED that MCP2 was the last
> Convenience Pack from IBM ...
Please post the link to the announcement for next year's Software Choice
offers.
> ... and falsely claimed that the original IBM announcement was for only
> TWO Convenience Packs.
Bob is right: http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/usalets&parms=H_200-082
> You have claimed that the upcoming MCP2 would not have anything
> significant/new based on your supposed inside knowledge.
I remember an article by Irv Spalten that MCP2 would be equivalent to
MCP1 with FixPak XR*C002 applied. (Maybe plus XR_D003 and IBM Webbrowser
too). Now we have an Ex-IBMer and current IBM business partner and an
IBMer against ... you.
> You FUDded last week that IBM wanted users to leave OS/2 based on the
> moldy old two-sentence excerpt from the IBM OS/2 strategy about "change
> the operating system." I stick to the facts.
Really? Then please post the links to your facts.
> You use the facts to create FUD.
Talking to yourself?
> I suspect you were forced to come out with the converter to get the eCS
> desktop APIs and Wise Manager installed on the eCS installations of the
> people who were unable to get the Serenity installer to complete.
Please elaborate on these "desktop APIs". Post the filenames, so I can look
up the exports with exehdr.exe, and post them afterwards.
> I note that you don't deny responding. I am obviously interested in
> what Serenity is doing with eCS.
Then rather listen than talk.
> Why does it surprise you that I would read the eCS newsgroup. As for
> "orders from Redmond." you are apparently trying to attack me by tying
> me to Microsoft. That's pretty low, even for you. For anyone who is
> interested, no, I have no association, employment relationship, or any
> other relationship with Microsoft or any of their subsidiaries, business
> partners, or affiliates.
You're currently using code by Microsoft and its business partner IBM.
We all do.
> A tribute to your sales skills. Maybe you should try selling snow to
> eskimos.
That would be an easy task for Bob:
eCS aka eskimoColdSnow would be bundled with a nice fridge, eCSMan app,
SnowSuit, and IceMachine of course. While OldSnow/2 users would still
be limited to icecubes, eCS users could easily make iceballs, icepyramids,
and the like by simple freeze'n'drop deployment via IceMachine! There
would be an agreement with another company to port VirtualIGLOO to eCS, so
that any eskimoColdSnow user would feel at home everywhere in the world.
Oh, and ice picks instead of steak knives of course.
That would be really ... cool.
/Olli/
--
WarpUpdates International/Deutschland
http://www.warpupdates.mynetcologne.de/
David T. Johnson
> David, you are really reading stuff that isn't there, either to confuse others, or
> wishfull thinking on your part...
I would make the same comment to you. Please confine your comments to
specific comments rather than these vague generalities about my
motivations or thinking.
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> ====================
>
>
>> That is not new. The original Convenience Pack Announcement Letter
>> 200-082 from IBM stated "Support will be provided for each annual
>> Convenience Package effective with the initial availability through
>> December 31 of the following year. For CP2, that would correspond to
>> December 31, 2001.
>
>
> ====================
>
> CP 2 ends support NEXT year, 2002, not the end of this year. In addition, this has been
> ammended, both CP 1 and CP 2 end on Dec. 31, 2002 (support that is, and I mean ENTITLED
> Support that comes with the product). After that time period ends, you must secure
> additional cost support for either one.
Yes, 2001 was a typo and should have been 2002. I did use the correct
2002 date further down in the message.
>
> ====================
>
>
>> If IBM plans to continue to offer 'enhancements' in 2002, that would
>> seem to mandate either a MCP3 or some sort of Software Choice downloads
>> of features, depending on what the enhancements turn out to be.
>
>
> =========================
>
> Enhancement will come from S/W Choice. Some will also come from DD-Pak On-Line, but
> require a SWC subscription. At this time, there is NO CP 3 in plan nor scheduled. Before
> TM jumps up and down and intervenes and confuses anyone, I do know, and I sure Bob St.
> John does as well, as do the attendees of WarpStock. FixPak will be the intended delivery
> mechanism now for all future fixes and extensions/enhancements for OS/2 in the future.
> Due to the nature of time required to create a FP, the enhancements/upgrades might appear
> on SWC or DD-Pak On-Line first though. Throw all the fog and FUD you want, but in the
> near future this SAME information will be posted on S/W Choice. I'd estimate on 11/30 or
> possibly sooner when we announce shipment of CP 2.
I am sorry but I simply do not accept your comments as official
announcements from IBM. You are not even posting this from an IBM
computer. You may be right or you may be wrong but at this point, your
comments are just speculation. If information is posted on S/W Choice,
I would consider that to be official.
>
> ===================
>
>
>> Defect support ending at the end of 2004 suggests an MCP4 which, if it
>> were released in November, 2003, would be supported to December 31, 2004
>> according to the 200-082 IBM annoucement. Defect support for MCP2 will
>> end on December 31, 2002 and defect support for a MCP3 would end on
>> December 31, 2003 unless IBM chose to extend the defect support period
>> for MCP2 (or MCP3) which is not something they have announced. Based on
>> your claim of MCP2 being the "final" Convenience Pack, IBM would have no
>> defect support obligations past December 31, 2002 based on the existing
>> announcements they have made.
>
>
> =====================
>
> You can NOT tie DEFECT SUPPORT to any delivery. IBM can end defect support when it
> announce it has or will, with no corresponding product shipment. It can extend it as long
> as it wishes as well, or use SERVICE CONTRACTS to extend support (think Warp 4). All
> 'Defect Support' means is that you CAN REPORT problems, in other words, IBM will not
> reject your report and state the product is out of SERVICE. IBM has presented data
> indicating that OS/2 (doesn't state WHICH version) will STILL be in SERVICE (we will
> accept defects) in 2004.
Incorrect. The IBM Announcement Letter 200-082 states:
"Support will be provided for each annual Convenience Package effective
with the initial availability through December 31 of the following
year." Further down in the announcement, it states: "You may report a
suspected code defect via e-mail at SS...@us.ibm.com. The response to
known code-related problem inquiries may be a code correction, bypass or
restriction."
Support is directly tied to each Convenience Pack delivery date. IBM
cannot end defect support arbitrarily early as you suggest. IBM has
committed to RESPONDING to defect reports with code corrections or
workarounds unlike your suggestion above that IBM has only to take a
"report" of the problem.
>
> ==================
>
>
>> Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer" stated that MCP2 was the
>> end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
>
>
> ==================
>
> I'll say it (and yes TM, I do KNOW) as at this time I'd say that this is 99% a sure
> thing. CP 2 is the LAST Convenience Package IBM will ship.
I see no basis for taking comments by you as an official announcement by
IBM, especially so given your errors above.
> The emphasis now shifts from a
> new deliverable (i.e. CP's) to FixPaks that will be only available, like XR_C001, on S/W
> Choice, and device driver updates from DD-Pak On-Line that require S/W Choice
> subscriptions to acquire. Serenity will handle delivery of these items as well.
AFAIK, Serenity has yet to make the Warp 4.51 fixpack 1 available to
their customers that SWC customers received in July. Serenity shipped
eCS GA based on Warp 4.51 EIGHT MONTHS after IBM shipped Warp 4.51. All
in all, I would say that Serenity is a little slow in delivering "items."
> I'd say
> at this time, older versions of Warp other than the the Convenience Packages are probably
> at the end of life for free upgrades (other than those still in currency for support) and
> the way to go will be CP's and S/W Choice or eCS for OS/2 users.
Again, I think we should rely on official IBM announcements for
end-of-support dates. For your information, IBM ended support for Warp
4 on January 31, 2001. Warp 3 support ended sometime prior to that (I
don't recall the date.) So there is no need for your "I'd say..." and
"probably" comments because we have offical IBM announcements.
Irv Spalten
is used for posting. Trying to cut it off (probably isn't possible) and
forewarn those that are prone to doing that, that I'll be using this way
from now on out of CONVENIENCE to me.
I'd still be using OS/2 all the time if it were practical from my internal
e-mail perspective if it I could.Gave up and walked to the dark side for
that, and also my Internet access point. Everything else stays on OS/2.
Irv
David T. Johnson
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> You have failed to produce the words by me to support your (now
> embellished) false claim:
>
> [begin false BSJ claim]
> Sure you did. You told some guy that he would get MCP when he ordered
> SWC. Then he would get MCP2 in it became available ... and his
> subscription would still be in effect when the next MCP became available
> at the end of 2003. That was your message. And I thought I ought to step
> as you were misleading the poster.
> [end false BSJ claim]
>
> No surprise there. You have been caught stuffing words in mouths...again.
Giv it a rest. You are still claiming that there will MCPs being delivered in 2002, 2003, and
2004. The only false claims I've seen in this thread are the ones you post regarding the future
of OS/2. You really should let IBM handle those announcements.
> Strange...those words are not found it. Maybe there was an official
> Serenity FUD supplement to the IBM announcement.
You don't listen to IBM's messages. That is not my problem. That is your problem and the
problem of anyone who may believe you. Frankly, I don't think anyone believes you ... so no
real harm gets done. Just a bit of cyber noise pollution.
> There does not seem to be a reason for IBM to provide defect support for
> device drivers in 2004 for operating system software that they ended
> support for on December 31, 2002. For that matter, why would IBM even
> provide any further device drivers if they end support on December 31,
> 2002? Seems very un-IBM and un-businesslike.
These statements demonstrate how little you comprehend the IBM and the OS/2 environment. There
are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of licenses installed in organizations where OS/2 is
running line of business applications.
It will take those accounts years to transition those applications. So, IBM can announce that
it will stop enhancements ... but continue hardware and device support because those accounts
will continue to acquire new hardware and devices.
And the door remains open for a support agreement which would go a bit like this, "Everything
is working very well ... I don't feel like moving my users off OS/2. I know it's going out of
service, but I'll pay you a service contract for continued support. That would cost me less
than porting an app and migrating the entire environment." So, IBM opens up a service
agreement with that account. Happens all the time ... and some new features or device support
could be part of such agreements.
AFAIK, as of last year, Sears was still using Warp3 for POS applications ... that is not
supported. But you can be Sears had those licenses under a support agreement.
It's sound unbusinesslike and unIBM to you, perhaps ... because you continue to demonstrate not
a bit of understanding regarding the industry and industry practices.
> > Sure they would. Since IBM said it will deliver drivers in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, they
> > would be obliged to provide defect support on those items. That's exactly what the IBM
> > presentation said.
>
> Please provide a link to the IBM announcement which states that IBM is
> committing to providing device drivers in 2004 for an OS/2 product that
> will be out of support on December 31, 2002.
I didn't say it was in announcement. I said it was in an IBM presentation. A copy of that
presentation and that particular graphic appears on the Warpstock CD.
>MCP2, which you claim is the final MCP,
To be precise .. and you are not precise, I said IBM has not announced a third. IBM announce
annual updates for two years ...making MCP2 the last MCP which has been announced. Now .. if
there is another announcement .. that would be different. But given the information as IBM has
announce its intent, MCP2 would be the last. That is IBM's announcement .. not me, not Serenity
Systems. If you want to await further announcements ... that's your choice.
>will be delivered in November, 2001. Feature enhancements in 2002 >obviously cannot be
delivered in MCP2.
No .. but they would be running on MCP2, or MCP1 .. at least, those would be the supported
platform. Future enhancements could be downloadable from SWC and/or provided in the periodic CD
distribution. Nothing that requires an MCP. Of course .. you could call the period CD an MCP
if you wanted to... or you could call it Fred or David.
> >> Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
> >
> >
> > Did Oliver Mark of the IBM World Wide OS/2 Project Office say that? If those were not his
> > words, that was his message. It's not a new message. Those graphics have been making the
> > rounds in an IBM presentation for about two years. Folks are just paying more attention
> > to it now.
>
> Okay, if that was the IBMer's message, that MCP2 was the final
> convenience pack, then how could you say only yesterday (10/16/2001):
>
> [begin BSJ excerpt]
> "Could IBM announce an MCP3? Sure.
Yes. It's IBM's plan .. IBM can change it. But IBM is communicating pretty specifically about
this and people should listen.
> Will there be enhancements to SWC in 2002? According to Oliver's presentation, yes. But will
> these enhancements require an MCP to deliver them to users? Different question. Another MCP
> would be an expense item which would require significant testing, as all IBM products do. And
> every expense is reviewed to determine how necessary it is to incur that expense."
> [end BSJ excerpt]
>
> If IBM said that MCP2 was the last convenience pack, then there could
> obviously be no MCP3 and your statement yesterday was a blatant and
> misleading lie.
I don't see any lie, misleading, blatant or otherwise. IBM has not announced any MCP beyond the
MCP2 to be delivered rsn. Could there be an MCP3? Yes .. in the realm of possibilities .. it
is possible. However, it is not planned.
You really seem to be struggling with this.
David T. Johnson
Bob St.John
"If ya don't believe me .... you could lookit up!" - Casey Stengel
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
Oliver Rick wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> You are the one with the FUD. You FUDDED that MCP2 was the last
>> Convenience Pack from IBM ...
>
>
> Please post the link to the announcement for next year's Software Choice
> offers.
This was discussed earlier in COOA. Please refer to the "Software
Choice - Best Pricing" thread in that newsgroup two weeks ago if you
truly interested in the various arguments.
>
>
>> ... and falsely claimed that the original IBM announcement was for only
>> TWO Convenience Packs.
>
>
> Bob is right: http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/usalets&parms=H_200-082
The IBM announcement letter does not refer to "two" convenience packs
anywhere within it. See above.
>
>
>> You have claimed that the upcoming MCP2 would not have anything
>> significant/new based on your supposed inside knowledge.
>
>
> I remember an article by Irv Spalten that MCP2 would be equivalent
> MCP1 with FixPak XR*C002 applied. (Maybe plus XR_D003 and IBM Webbrowser
> too). Now we have an Ex-IBMer and current IBM business partner and
> IBMer against ... you.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Irv Spalten is authorized or
qualified to make announcements about the content of MCP2. Nor is BSJ.
>
>
>> You FUDded last week that IBM wanted users to leave OS/2 based on
>> moldy old two-sentence excerpt from the IBM OS/2 strategy about "change
>> the operating system." I stick to the facts.
>
>
> Really? Then please post the links to your facts.
I have done this where it was required. I will post an excerpt from
BSJ's post if needed.
>
>
>> You use the facts to create FUD.
>
>
> Talking to yourself?
>
>
>> I suspect you were forced to come out with the converter to get the eCS
>> desktop APIs and Wise Manager installed on the eCS installations of the
>> people who were unable to get the Serenity installer to complete.
>
>
> Please elaborate on these "desktop APIs". Post the filenames, so I can look
> up the exports with exehdr.exe, and post them afterwards.
They are included in the desktop enhancements for eCS.
>
>
>> I note that you don't deny responding. I am obviously interested
--
David T. Johnson
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
>
>> You have failed to produce the words by me to support your (now
>> embellished) false claim:
>>
>> [begin false BSJ claim]
>> Sure you did. You told some guy that he would get MCP when he ordered
>> SWC. Then he would get MCP2 in it became available ... and his
>> subscription would still be in effect when the next MCP became available
>> at the end of 2003. That was your message. And I thought I ought to step
>> as you were misleading the poster.
>> [end false BSJ claim]
>>
>> No surprise there. You have been caught stuffing words in mouths...again.
>
>
> Giv it a rest.
You have stuffed false words into my mouth. Why would I give that a rest?
> You are still claiming that there will MCPs being delivered in 2002, 2003, and
> 2004. The only false claims I've seen in this thread are the ones you post regarding the future
> of OS/2. You really should let IBM handle those announcements.
>
>
>> Strange...those words are not found it. Maybe there was an official
>> Serenity FUD supplement to the IBM announcement.
>
>
> You don't listen to IBM's messages. That is not my problem. That is your problem and the
> problem of anyone who may believe you. Frankly, I don't think anyone believes you ... so no
> real harm gets done. Just a bit of cyber noise pollution.
>
>
>> There does not seem to be a reason for IBM to provide defect support for
>> device drivers in 2004 for operating system software that they ended
>> support for on December 31, 2002. For that matter, why would IBM even
>> provide any further device drivers if they end support on December 31,
>> 2002? Seems very un-IBM and un-businesslike.
>
>
> These statements demonstrate how little you comprehend the IBM and the OS/2 environment. There
> are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of licenses installed in organizations where OS/2 is
> running line of business applications.
>
> It will take those accounts years to transition those applications. So, IBM can announce that
> it will stop enhancements ... but continue hardware and device support because those accounts
> will continue to acquire new hardware and devices.
IBM has previously offered fee-based support for enterprise customers
using older products for which support has ended. Installations using
these legacy systems would continue to get this support as they have
obviously been doing in the past. This has nothing to do with MCP3 or
the supposed new OS/2 enhancements in 2002 that you have alluded to or
the device drivers in 2003 and 2004.
>
> And the door remains open for a support agreement which would go a bit like this, "Everything
> is working very well ... I don't feel like moving my users off OS/2. I know it's going out of
> service, but I'll pay you a service contract for continued support. That would cost me less
> than porting an app and migrating the entire environment." So, IBM opens up a service
> agreement with that account. Happens all the time ... and some new features or device support
> could be part of such agreements.
>
> AFAIK, as of last year, Sears was still using Warp3 for POS applications ... that is not
> supported. But you can be Sears had those licenses under a support agreement.
No doubt. But that has nothing to do with IBM offering OS/2
enhancements to me in 2002 or device drivers to me (with defect support
included) in 2003 or 2004.
>
> It's sound unbusinesslike and unIBM to you, perhaps ... because you continue to demonstrate not
> a bit of understanding regarding the industry and industry practices.
>
>
>>> Sure they would. Since IBM said it will deliver drivers in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, they
>>> would be obliged to provide defect support on those items. That's exactly what the IBM
>>> presentation said.
>>
>> Please provide a link to the IBM announcement which states that IBM is
>> committing to providing device drivers in 2004 for an OS/2 product that
>> will be out of support on December 31, 2002.
>
>
> I didn't say it was in announcement. I said it was in an IBM presentation. A copy of that
> presentation and that particular graphic appears on the Warpstock CD.
>
>
>> MCP2, which you claim is the final MCP,
>
>
> To be precise .. and you are not precise, I said IBM has not announced a third.
No, you also confirmed that the "IBMer" at Warpstock delivered the
message that MCP2 was the "end of the road." See your excerpted comment
below.
If IBM announced that MCP2 was the final MCP, that would preclude any
MCP3 from ever being shipped.
>
>
> You really seem to be struggling with this.
It is certainly a struggle to figure out what you are saying when you
talk out of both sides of your mouth. From one side of your mouth, you
say that IBM announced at Warpstock 2001 that MCP2 was the final MCP.
From the other side of your mouth, you say that IBM could announce an
MCP3.
>
--
Irv Spalten
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> Irv Spalten wrote:
>
> > David, you are really reading stuff that isn't there, either to confuse others, or
> > wishfull thinking on your part...
>
> I would make the same comment to you. Please confine your comments to
> specific comments rather than these vague generalities about my
> motivations or thinking.
>
That was a specific comment on what it appears you are trying to do here, I just am giving you
the benefit of doubt for your motives.
No, it isn't 'official', but I am in a position to know. Don't want to accept it, fine, but at
least let it plant a seed of doubt in you.
Yes, I am posting from an official IBM computer, my desktop system.
From the header...
Path:
ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail
From:
Irv Spalten <ispa...@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups:
comp.os.os2.advocacy, comp.os.os2.misc
Subject:
Re: WarpStock 2001 Wrap-Up.
Date:
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:41:35 -0500
Organization:
IGS Internet News Server (AUSTIN)
Lines:
49
Message-ID:
<3BCDB4BF...@austin.rr.com>
References:
<3BC7588F...@ca.ibm.com> <3BC94D5A...@htech.ca>
<3BCAF2A2...@isomedia.com> <3BCB3557...@Augustmail.com>
<3BCB27DE...@isomedia.com> <3BCB5D2C...@Augustmail.com>
<3BCB533C...@isomedia.com> <9qhh5a$g5p$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
<3BCC5607...@Augustmail.com> <3BCC4B71...@isomedia.com>
<3BCC8712...@Augustmail.com> <3BCCBA20...@isomedia.com>
<3BCD88B3...@austin.rr.com>
<3bcd953c$2$ugenivf$mr2...@news3.attglobal.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
irvsp.austin.ibm.com
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Trace:
ausnews.austin.ibm.com 1003336596 11042 9.53.120.215 (17 Oct 2001
16:36:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
ab...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com
NNTP-Posting-Date:
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:36:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language:
en
Xref:
ausnews.austin.ibm.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6457 comp.os.os2.misc:7293
The " NNTP-Posting-Host:" is the clue here. One machine is "irvsp.austin.ibm.com" (the Win2K
box) and the other is " irvs.austin.ibm.com" (OS/2 box). My home machine will not have these
names but have an "austin.rr.com" with a random first part.
If you are in doubt, call me at IBM... there is an 800 number to call, or send me e-mail
direct.
Generally speaking, a product (any IBM product) comes with a 2 year support period from date of
release. IBM can remove a product from support at any time by discontinueing it. In addition,
it can lenghten the support timeframe. Even so, one the general support has ended (product is
no longer in currency) you can still get support under a variety of support programs... many
are doing so today for Warp 3 (all versions) for instance.
The main point I was trying to put across and you missed was that even if IBM announces support
of OS/2 till the end of time, that doesn't imply a release of new or updated product or media.
>
>
> >
> > ==================
> >
> >
> >> Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer" stated that MCP2 was the
> >> end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
> >
> >
> > ==================
> >
> > I'll say it (and yes TM, I do KNOW) as at this time I'd say that this is 99% a sure
> > thing. CP 2 is the LAST Convenience Package IBM will ship.
>
> I see no basis for taking comments by you as an official announcement by
> IBM, especially so given your errors above.
My errors or your error in terms of acceptance of what I said?
> > The emphasis now shifts from a
> > new deliverable (i.e. CP's) to FixPaks that will be only available, like XR_C001, on S/W
> > Choice, and device driver updates from DD-Pak On-Line that require S/W Choice
> > subscriptions to acquire. Serenity will handle delivery of these items as well.
>
> AFAIK, Serenity has yet to make the Warp 4.51 fixpack 1 available to
> their customers that SWC customers received in July. Serenity shipped
> eCS GA based on Warp 4.51 EIGHT MONTHS after IBM shipped Warp 4.51. All
> in all, I would say that Serenity is a little slow in delivering "items."
So what does that have to do with anything about IBM putting out a CP 3? Nothing. All I was
alluding to was that the vehicle for new/udated/fixed features will be FixPaks and Serenity
will handle the eCS side. No need to degrade them here...
> > I'd say
> > at this time, older versions of Warp other than the the Convenience Packages are probably
> > at the end of life for free upgrades (other than those still in currency for support) and
> > the way to go will be CP's and S/W Choice or eCS for OS/2 users.
>
> Again, I think we should rely on official IBM announcements for
> end-of-support dates. For your information, IBM ended support for Warp
> 4 on January 31, 2001. Warp 3 support ended sometime prior to that (I
> don't recall the date.) So there is no need for your "I'd say..." and
> "probably" comments because we have offical IBM announcements.
>
'I'd say' is because things can/may change. Is there any announcement on Warp 4? There is that
it is out of currency. We are working on XR_M016, but I'm sure you know that. If something is
out of currency, why are we doing that?
I just wonder how you'll turn when the announcement comes out on CP's? You seem to be digging
in real deep and hardfast now a days.
Irv
Doug Bissett
wrote:
> How many other people (maybe one or two would join you Tim) wish to point
> to point people to news.ecomstatation.nl
>
> Roderick Klein
Actually, Tim finally got one thing right. That is the "proper" news
server for eComStation support. However, they do invite OS/2 users
(except Tim), to make use of the knowledge that is available, although
the eCS specific stuff won't be of much interest to anyone who is not
using eCS.
However, posting OS/2 specific stuff here (eCS is just OS/2, with a
LOT of extras), should not offend anyone, except the three amigidiots.
Doug Bissett
wrote:
Sorry Roderick, but the dim bulb who wrote this line is filtered, and
I just had to comment...
> > But you are a SALESMAN with a 'vested' interest and no matter WHAT you say
> > no one will believe your eCS claims.
Funny. These guys ask, no DEMAND, that someone who actually uses eCS
should comment on it, then, they post absolute drivel, like this, when
someone actually calls their bluff.
To Tim (and the others)...
I am NOT a salesman, with, or without, a 'vested' interest. I am just
a VERY satisfied customer, who thinks that Serenity has done a
wonderful job (not perfect, but really good, for a first try), at
supporting, and advancing, OS/2, even if they did change the name. So,
go away, hide your head, in shame, admit that you are a liar, and/or
VERY stupid, and quit bothering people in the news groups.
Doug Bissett
> >While you may not have needed to use the Serenity converter, others
> >obviously did or it would not exist. It would be a mistake to
> >extrapolate your experience (with anything) as being typical for the
> >entire group of users.
> >
>
> but you act like there's nobody buying eCS... so just how big IS the entire group of users
DTJ, and friends, just don't seem to want to believe that eCS is MCP
plus a lot more. Yes, some people did use the CD2 install method, and
the converter, because of specific requirements. In fact, I suspect
that MOST of those who did make that choice (is thare any choice with
MCP???), did so for no good reason, except they didn't feel
comfortable with the new installer. True, some couldn't use the new
installer (a system with less than 64 meg required using a swap file,
on a real disk, which may not have been possible, in all cases, forced
users to use the CD2 install method), but many just didn't want to
take the time to figure out how to use it, or, they wanted to try
installing over a previous setup. True, it just didn't work, in some
cases, but for most of us, who took the time to understand the new
installer, it worked well, even on a 24 meg system. Serenity had not
foreseen that requirement, and did step up to the plate, very quickly,
to make the converter available, for those who wished to use it.
So, IMO, DTJ, and friends, just don't have the faintest idea about
what they are talking about, and they absolutely refuse to believe
anything that they don't want to believe, even with rock solid
evidence. Unfortunately, anyone who happens to stumble across their
drivel, might just believe what they are saying. Too bad, because eCS
is the best option for many users, and saying "NO", is just not
helpful to anybody, especially themselves.
Doug Bissett
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>Doug Bissett wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:58, "David T. Johnson"
> > <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Seeing people actually using eCS would be far more
> > impressive to me than testimonials about its goodness from non-users.
> >
> > LOOK, LOOK very closely, at the tag at the end of this post.
> >
> > eComStation WORKS.
> >
> > eComStation installs quite nicely, with the Serenity installer (when
> > used as instructed).
>
> According to this review, the instructions seem to be quite complex and
> need to be printed out on paper prior to doing the install so that they
> can be referred to.
>
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3689/2/
I don't know. How complex is "Set your BIOS to boot from a CD, then
follow the instructions on the screen"?? Of course, with the reading
comprehension that you display in these news groups, I can understand
why you might think it is quite complex. MOST people don't have too
much trouble with it.
If you need to read that (there are some explainations of the terms,
settings, etc., along with a discusion of LVM, which you also need to
review for MCP, or WSEB), it is a good idea to print it. I didn't
bother, but I have enough computer experience to understand what it
means to tell the installer to use a hard disk for the swap file, if
needed. (Almost all modern systems, with compatible hardware, will
install using the defaults). After that, it is mostly "sit back, and
wait". Of course, since I wanted a PEER network, I did have to suffer
through the IBM installer, for that part, since Serenity hasn't, yet,
redone that (and the IBM installer still doesn't work properly).
> > eComStation comes with a number of software packages that MCP, WSEB,
> > and older versions of OS/2, don't have (almost all of them can be
> > purchased separately, at extra cost, for an OS/2 system).
> >
> > Now, to paraphrase your own words: Seeing people actually using eCS
> > would be far more
> > impressive to me than testimonials about its badness from non-users.
>
> Fair enough.
So, why are YOU commenting? It is very obvious, that you have NEVER
even seen eCS, never mind tried to use it.
> > So, if you don't use eCS, how could you possibly have any idea about
> > whether it is good, or bad??? I use both, and I actually prefer eCS,
> > because of the extras that are supplied "out of the box". Other than
> > the extras, and the installer (it DOES work BETTER than the IBM
> > installer, when you do a clean install, on hardware that is capable of
> > running it), I don't see a lot of difference.
>
> Okay. I think you are being honest.
Am I beginning to get through to you???
> > More power to Serenity. They have done more for the OS/2 community
> > than IBM ever did, since they first put OS/2 on the market.
>
> It is this kind of statement that I find objectionable. I simply have
> not seen anything positive contributed to the OS/2 community by
> Serenity. They are dividing the already tiny OS/2 user base with their
> ridiculous "eCS-only" software scheme. What's positive about that?
> They don't seem to be making OS/2 easier to install. They don't seem to
> be increasing the OS/2 user base. Maybe their distribution of Lotus
> Smartsuite to eCS users is a positive thing because it gets more OS/2
> users using it but I would not consider that to be an earth-shatteringly
> positive contribution.
No, YOU, and your friends, are dividing the OS/2 community. eCS is
just another option for the OS/2, or Windows, or Linux, or whatever,
user. It is MCP, with some extras. As for the "eCS-only" software
scheme, that is simply a method for Serenity to prevent unscrupulous
OS/2 users, from stealing software that is supplied as a part of eCS
(of course, REAL OS/2 users don't STEAL software, now do they???).
AFAIK, ALL of that software is available, on a pay per view basis, for
OS/2 users, under different names.
For example:
SIOeCS, is available as SIO2K
eStyler Lite, is available as Styler/2
There are more.
Saying, as you, and your friends, say, that eCS is something
completely different, is about the same as saying that WSEB is
completely different from MCP. True, it is different, but the
relationship is that of a brother, or sister, not even as far apart as
warp3 and warp4 IMO. I don't think that even you, or Tim, would say
that WSEB is splitting the MCP community, never mind the OS/2
community, so why would you even think, that eCS is splitting the OS/2
community? That is just plain STUPID.
> > They don't
> > have it quite right, yet, but there is hope that they will get it
> > right, while there is little hope that IBM will improve things very
> > much (and IBM does need, desperately, to improve their installer
> > routines).
>
> I have used the Warp 4.51 installer for both fresh installs and installs
> over an existing Warp 4 system and it works very well. It is not fancy
> but it works. And it doesn't need a converter program.
Obviously, you have no idea about what the converter program actually
does (it just converts the desktop to the eCS setup, and adds a couple
of modifications to reflect the eCS name, instead of the OS/2 name).
Yes, the MCP installer works just fine, for most users (and, doesn't
work at all, for some), but IMO, the eCS installer is MUCH better,
even with the few problems that managed to sneak past the developers.
With eCS, you have the option to use whatever you like, or need to
use.
> I disagree that
> IBM desperately needs to improve their installer routines. I would much
> prefer that IBM continue to put their OS/2 resources into e-business
> enhancements such as Java, TCP/IP security and function, and browser
> improvements. These are things that I use everyday. The installer is
> not.
I agree that IBM should improve all of those items. On the other
hand, eCS supplies the ZAMPA firewall program, to plug part of the
hole, while MCP does not. That doesn't mean that the installer
shouldn't be made MUCH more user friendly, which is exactly what the
eCS installer is trying to do.
> I also disagree that there is little hope that IBM will improve things.
> IBM has been VERY consistent in supplying frequent updates and
> improvements in the areas that I listed above.
Okay, explain to me why my AMD USB (OHCI) adapter isn't supported by
the latest (SWC) USB driver. I know the answer: IBM has, as usual, got
their heads firmly stuck up their backsides (as do you, IMO), and they
don't think that it is important to support more than one kind of OHCI
USB adapter (the same thing happened with the UHCI adapter, until some
big outfit smartened them up). If I were an MCP user, who would I
complain to, and what hope do I have of influencing IBM to fix the
problem? Not much hope, unless General Motors decides they want what I
want. There is, at least, a hope that Serenity will be able to twist
IBM's collective arm, and get it fixed, or even contract with someone
else, to create the required driver.
As for the browser updates, I have been using the OPERA beta, and it
works as well as anything that IBM has produced, recently (except for
a few noted "problems", that have not been addressed yet). The new
Mozilla thing is just unacceptable (although it is getting better),
and the "free" version is ahead of the SWC version. Seems to me, that
IBM is just doing the absolute minimum, that a BIG customer demands,
and they leave the rest of us out in the cold. Serenity, on the other
hand, is at least willing to listen to the SOHO user, and there is a
possibility, that they can get some of this BS fixed, since they are
likely one of the largest customers for MCP. If IBM won't, or can't,
supply what is required, Serenity is free to get someone else to do
the job (if demand is high enough, and they may need to charge extra
for something special).
So, lets look at the overall picture. eCS adds a number of good
enhancements (including Lotus SmartSuite), and gives me, at least, the
hope that OS/2 can be improved, over what MCP gives me. The cost is
comparable, and the basic operating system is the same.
Why do you have a problem with that????
David T. Johnson
>>
>> I am sorry but I simply do not accept your comments as official
>> announcements from IBM. You are not even posting this from an IBM
>> computer. You may be right or you may be wrong but at this point, your
>> comments are just speculation. If information is posted on S/W Choice,
>> I would consider that to be official.
>>
>
>
> No, it isn't 'official', but I am in a position to know. Don't want to accept it, fine, but at
> least let it plant a seed of doubt in you.
>
Interesting comment. Why are you spending so much effort to plant an
"unofficial" seed of doubt in me? Why not wait for the "official"
announcement?
The main point I was trying to put across is that you were mistaken when
you stated the following in your earlier post:
mistaken Spalten statement 1) "You can NOT tie DEFECT SUPPORT to any
delivery."
mistaken Spalten statement 2) "IBM can end defect support when it
announce it has or will, with no corresponding product shipment."
mistaken Spalten statement 3) "All 'Defect Support' means is that you
CAN REPORT problems, in other words, IBM will not reject your report and
state the product is out of SERVICE."
>
>
>>
>>> ==================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, which is it? Charles says the "IBMer" stated that MCP2 was the
>>>> end of the road. Did the "IBMer" say that or didn't he?
>>>
>>>
>>> ==================
>>>
>>> I'll say it (and yes TM, I do KNOW) as at this time I'd say that this is 99% a sure
>>> thing. CP 2 is the LAST Convenience Package IBM will ship.
>>
>> I see no basis for taking comments by you as an official announcement by
>> IBM, especially so given your errors above.
>
>
> My errors or your error in terms of acceptance of what I said?
The "mistaken" statements you made above.
>
>
>>> The emphasis now shifts from a
>>> new deliverable (i.e. CP's) to FixPaks that will be only available, like XR_C001, on S/W
>>> Choice, and device driver updates from DD-Pak On-Line that require S/W Choice
>>> subscriptions to acquire. Serenity will handle delivery of these items as well.
>>
>> AFAIK, Serenity has yet to make the Warp 4.51 fixpack 1 available to
>> their customers that SWC customers received in July. Serenity shipped
>> eCS GA based on Warp 4.51 EIGHT MONTHS after IBM shipped Warp 4.51. All
>> in all, I would say that Serenity is a little slow in delivering "items."
>
>
> So what does that have to do with anything about IBM putting out a CP 3? Nothing. All I was
> alluding to was that the vehicle for new/udated/fixed features will be FixPaks and Serenity
> will handle the eCS side. No need to degrade them here...
>
>
>>> I'd say
>>> at this time, older versions of Warp other than the the Convenience Packages are probably
>>> at the end of life for free upgrades (other than those still in currency for support) and
>>> the way to go will be CP's and S/W Choice or eCS for OS/2 users.
>>
>> Again, I think we should rely on official IBM announcements for
>> end-of-support dates. For your information, IBM ended support for Warp
>> 4 on January 31, 2001. Warp 3 support ended sometime prior to that (I
>> don't recall the date.) So there is no need for your "I'd say..." and
>> "probably" comments because we have offical IBM announcements.
>>
>
>
> 'I'd say' is because things can/may change. Is there any announcement on Warp 4? There is that
> it is out of currency. We are working on XR_M016, but I'm sure you know that. If something is
> out of currency, why are we doing that?
Presumably, your customers are paying you to obtain XR_M016. It does
not seem to be avaialble for free download or SWC download.
>
> I just wonder how you'll turn when the announcement comes out on CP's? You seem to be digging
> in real deep and hardfast now a days.
I'll wallow in stunned shock for days, no doubt. Cripes, what a silly
comment from a supposed professional!
David T. Johnson
David T. Johnson
>>
>> According to this review, the instructions seem to be quite complex and
>> need to be printed out on paper prior to doing the install so that they
>> can be referred to.
>>
>> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3689/2/
>
>
> I don't know. How complex is "Set your BIOS to boot from a CD, then
> follow the instructions on the screen"?? Of course, with the reading
> comprehension that you display in these news groups, I can understand
> why you might think it is quite complex. MOST people don't have too
> much trouble with it.
I didn't offer an opinion about the complexity. The review that I
referenced states:
[begin review excerpt]
One of the problems that always plagued OS/2 was a fairly difficult
installation routine. It got easier with subsequent releases, but it was
never really easy. eComStation has managed to take this a giant leap
backwards, producing possibly the most maddeningly complicated, for no
good reason, installation I've ever encountered. This is not especially
helped by the documentation, which comprises two pages with printing on
both sides and which makes frequent reference to documentation
(including some in .pdf format) on one or another of the three CDs. Of
course, if one is installing on a clean machine, as I was doing
(K6-2-550, 256 megs of memory, 10-gig hard drive), there's really no way
to get to those files. Nice.
[end review excerpt]
>
> If you need to read that (there are some explainations of the terms,
> settings, etc., along with a discusion of LVM, which you also need to
> review for MCP, or WSEB), it is a good idea to print it. I didn't
> bother, but I have enough computer experience to understand what it
> means to tell the installer to use a hard disk for the swap file, if
> needed. (Almost all modern systems, with compatible hardware, will
> install using the defaults). After that, it is mostly "sit back, and
> wait". Of course, since I wanted a PEER network, I did have to suffer
> through the IBM installer, for that part, since Serenity hasn't, yet,
> redone that (and the IBM installer still doesn't work properly).
>
[snip]
>>
>> I have used the Warp 4.51 installer for both fresh installs and installs
>> over an existing Warp 4 system and it works very well. It is not fancy
>> but it works. And it doesn't need a converter program.
>
>
> Obviously, you have no idea about what the converter program actually
> does (it just converts the desktop to the eCS setup, and adds a couple
> of modifications to reflect the eCS name, instead of the OS/2 name).
Hmmm. 60 MB seems like a lot of space to change "OS/2" to "eCS." The
"convert the desktop to the eCS setup" must take about 59.95 MB.
http://www.prismdataworks.com/ecs/mcpconvert.cfm
"This utility will convert an existing Merlin Convenience Pak based OS/2
installation to an eComStation GA 1.0 desktop. It is only required for
people who used CD #2 of eComStation to upgrade their eCS Preview 1, 2
or 3 or OS/2 Warp 4 to eComStation code base version 1.0. With this tool
you will be able to install the eCS BonusPak applications, get the
improved eCS desktop and more.
This will require approximately 60 MB of additional diskspace on your
boot drive."
> Yes, the MCP installer works just fine, for most users (and, doesn't
> work at all, for some), but IMO, the eCS installer is MUCH better,
> even with the few problems that managed to sneak past the developers.
> With eCS, you have the option to use whatever you like, or need to
> use.
The MCP installer does not need to run a converter utility.
[snip]
>
>
> Okay, explain to me why my AMD USB (OHCI) adapter isn't supported by
> the latest (SWC) USB driver. I know the answer: IBM has, as usual, got
> their heads firmly stuck up their backsides (as do you, IMO),
You need to make up your mind about whether you want to discuss these
areas or whether you just want to gratuitously insult anyone you
disagree with. I have tried to be patient with you and I have not
insulted you.
As to your question, the AMD southbridge (which implements the USB
function) has not been used for any motherboard that I know of so
perhaps IBM did not think there was any need to add support for the AMD
OHCI USB. Many new AMD motherboards which use the AMD Northbridge
combine it with the Via 686B southbridge which is well supported by the
UHCI drivers. I have this combination and it works fine.
> and they
> don't think that it is important to support more than one kind of OHCI
> USB adapter (the same thing happened with the UHCI adapter, until some
> big outfit smartened them up). If I were an MCP user, who would I
> complain to, and what hope do I have of influencing IBM to fix the
> problem? Not much hope, unless General Motors decides they want what I
> want. There is, at least, a hope that Serenity will be able to twist
> IBM's collective arm, and get it fixed, or even contract with someone
> else, to create the required driver.
>
> As for the browser updates, I have been using the OPERA beta, and it
> works as well as anything that IBM has produced, recently (except for
> a few noted "problems", that have not been addressed yet). The new
> Mozilla thing is just unacceptable (although it is getting better),
> and the "free" version is ahead of the SWC version.
I have the Opera browser and it offers promise but is not really stable
enough to use routinely IMO. I am posting this with the IBM Web Browser
news client. The IBM Web Browser works fairly well and far better than
Opera. I have tried the "free" version and it is just not very stable
compared with IWB. Netscape v4.61 has fewer bugs than the IBM Web
Browser but doesn't render many web pages as well as IWB.
> Seems to me, that
> IBM is just doing the absolute minimum, that a BIG customer demands,
> and they leave the rest of us out in the cold.
I don't feel left out in the cold, yet, although IBM's redoubtable Irv
Spalten has assured me that I'll "turn" when the new announcement comes
out about CPs.
> Serenity, on the other
> hand, is at least willing to listen to the SOHO user, and there is a
> possibility, that they can get some of this BS fixed, since they are
> likely one of the largest customers for MCP. If IBM won't, or can't,
> supply what is required, Serenity is free to get someone else to do
> the job (if demand is high enough, and they may need to charge extra
> for something special).
I disagree that Serenity will have any effect on OS/2. In my opinion,
Serenity is nothing but an overly-hyped vehicle for exchanging money
between endusers and IBM while keeping a cut for themselves.
>
> So, lets look at the overall picture. eCS adds a number of good
> enhancements (including Lotus SmartSuite), and gives me, at least, the
> hope that OS/2 can be improved, over what MCP gives me. The cost is
> comparable, and the basic operating system is the same.
I disagree that Serenity adds a number of good enhancements. I don't
like their desktop enhancements which seem entirely superficial, I have
seen nothing about their installer which impresses me, and I don't like
the idea of the proprietary WiseManager installer (Warpin is preferred
IMO). Software Choice has provided access to more support and software
and much faster than what Serenity has provided.
>
> Why do you have a problem with that????
See above.
--
Bob St.John
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> You have stuffed false words into my mouth. Why would I give that a rest?
Oh, geez .. are we about to get the "and for that you will have to answer" thingie? I have not put
any false words in your mouth. You have been spewing fabrications right along. Some of these were no
doubt out of ignorance. Others were contrivance. But regardless of the rationale or motivation, the
false, misleading, and inaccuracy of your comments has been consistent and long standing.
> IBM has previously offered fee-based support for enterprise customers
> using older products for which support has ended. Installations using
> these legacy systems would continue to get this support as they have
> obviously been doing in the past. This has nothing to do with MCP3
See ... there you go again. What MCP3?
> or the supposed new OS/2 enhancements in 2002 that you have alluded to or
> the device drivers in 2003 and 2004.
You don't seem to have any point here at all. You said that it made no sense to provide drivers and
defect support for a product which was out of active service. I explained why a vendor would do that.
That's all ... the words you posted here have no meaning at all.
There is no MCP3 announced ... so support for it, fee or free, is without meaning.
> No, you also confirmed that the "IBMer"
Again ... why the affectation of quotation marks. Are you disputing that he is an IBMer? Why? Irv
tells you things, you refuse to accept Irv as an authority on such matters. Here's the scoop: the
person who is not an authority on such matters is ... you.
> If IBM announced that MCP2 was the final MCP, that would preclude any
> MCP3 from ever being shipped.
My comment was that it is IBM's plan. IBM's announcement. Can IBM change a plan? Yes. But people
should not count on plans changing. IBM is going through some effort and expense to communicate. You
seem to have your hands over your ears. That's not a problem for me.
And you continue to ignore the real point. What would be in MCP3 or MCP4 or MCPn? That would be the
point. So ... remove the wad and address what is really the issue.
> > You really seem to be struggling with this.
>
> It is certainly a struggle to figure out what you are saying when you
> talk out of both sides of your mouth.
I have been consistent, honest, and accurate.
> From one side of your mouth, you say that IBM announced at Warpstock 2001 that MCP2 was the final
> MCP.
I never said that. I said that at Warpstock, Oliver Mark presented the same material which was
presented for about the past two years. I noticed that people are listening more, hearing the words
more clearly. But people who attended Warptech saw essentially the same presentation and graphics
from another IBM presenter .. I believe Oliver Mark was actually reporting to Steven King in that
time frame.
So .. I'm not saying IBM announced anything at Warpstock. I'm saying that IBM has been consistently
presenting a message. It was presented again at Warpstock.
> From the other side of your mouth, you say that IBM could announce an
> MCP3.
Meaning that it's IBM's plan and IBM can change the plan. But don't count on it. About a year ago we
had the discussion about what is coming on SWC in 2001. IBM said, the browser. I said .. pay
attention .. IBM said that the only new feature for the client would be the browser. You said IBM
could deliver a lot of new enhancements. I said, yes ... IBM could. But .. that is not what they
said. Pay attention to what IBM said it would do ... it would be unwise and fanciful to kid yourself
into believing something else.
And ... IBM delivered .. the browser. I expect, as Irv mentioned, that IBM will post a similar
document before the end of the year wrt 2002. And I'm following the same advice I give to you,
freely. I don't speak for IBM. I don't make announcements for IBM. Neither should you. That is a
message I have given consistently.
I think it's time for you to take another break. You are contributing nothing new ... just the same
redundant and inaccurate information.
David T. Johnson
Jason Bowen
>distortion, and obfuscation. It's so blatant that it's funny and I
>can't stop laughing...
Good to see that your having some fun since your business isn't even close
to keeping you busy. Of course, you may just run it at night. Feel
stupid for making comments like that David? Of course you do since you
can't even respond to your own illogic being used against you.