Linux "bloated and huge" says Linus

[consused]

You appear to be reading far too much into that wikipaedia article. Obviously any development on OS/2 would have eventually followed on with the next version number, but it's never certain until the actual announcement date. The article is vague about what happened during the five years or so of development (NT released 1993). The phrase "still unreleased NT OS/2" is just that - unreleased. You called it "internal" version (whatever that means). Internal stuff is notoriously unreliable as evidence, not open to public scrutiny, and doesn't get tested as evidence should. Separate development after the split would have caused the products to diverge, unless you were privy to the developments at the time, you only have Wikipaedia's somewhat ambiguous statements. That's a dangerous source given that it's well known for what it often it leaves out, which can be misleading.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by consused

You appear to be reading far too much into that wikipaedia article. Obviously any development on OS/2 would have eventually followed on with the next version number, but it's never certain until the actual announcement date. The article is vague about what happened during the five years or so of development (NT released 1993). The phrase "still unreleased NT OS/2" is just that - unreleased. You called it "internal" version (whatever that means). Internal stuff is notoriously unreliable as evidence, not open to public scrutiny, and doesn't get tested as evidence should. Separate development after the split would have caused the products to diverge, unless you were privy to the developments at the time, you only have Wikipaedia's somewhat ambiguous statements. That's a dangerous source given that it's well known for what it often it leaves out, which can be misleading.

Funny you should say that since you in the first place tried to redirect me to wikipedia and also quoted yourself a phrase out of it "was to be known as OS/2 3.0", yet you now dispute that wiki is somehow unreliable and ambiguous and also say that you know that the collaboration is debatable (how? the whole industry knows that MS and IBM collaborated on the OS they liked to release, but this fell apart when MS did some things IBM didn't like), yet don't provide any proof yourself.

Whether the "NT OS/2 3.0" was released or not, it won't take the fact away that it existed internally since development was already ongoing in that time. Whatever it may have been called upon release, it won't take the fact away that MS took that codebase, changed stuff in it and re-branded it as NT and from there it split, where IBM went its own way and MS too.

Also, I don't get my "facts" from wiki only, there are plenty of places you can check yourself that will confirm this.

[microchip8]

PS: expecting yet again the "hero in my own mind" comment...

[consused]

Originally Posted by microchip8

To add to the above since I have a bad habit of clicking too quickly on the reply button

The very first *unreleased, internal* version of NT was called OS/2 3.0, which would have been its official name if it ever came out.

Wikipaedia (and you possibly) is basing it on this one newspaper article here. It's all about the post-split vitriol. No guesses required as to the source of this BS then. The clue is to flip-flop the initials. A blast from the past.

Reflecting their widening split with I.B.M., Microsoft executives said they would no longer call a new operating system they are working on OS/2 3.0. Rather, the new operating system will be named Windows NT, standing for New Technology. And Windows NT will not be able to run programs written for OS/2, as had previously been planned.

It must be true - it was in the newspaper - and the source was err ...

This bit's so SB (or did I mean BS?):

Microsoft officials seemed clearly stung by I.B.M.'s recent attempts to form alliances with Microsoft rivals, like Apple Computer Inc. and Novell. Mr. Ballmer said all these alliances were confusing and presented no clear picture of I.B.M.'s strategy. OS/2 Called 'Dead End'

The last comment is explained further on by:

Mr. Ballmer said I.B.M.'s agreement to work on a new operating system with Apple Computer seemed to suggest that OS/2 was "a dead end."

They really haven't changed much - nowadays the FUD is aimed at linux.

When MS went on to change OS/2 APIs with Windows APIs, it changed the OS/2 3.0 name to only NT (to avoid legal issues I guess) but still that NT carries a lot from the OS/2 3.0 design, with exception of the APIs

That one's microchip. But the source sounds familiar. Still you are entitled to your opinion, but weren't you too young to have been reading about it at the time? Hey, as long as you realize the "whitewash" in the wikipaedia article, why should I worry.

As for your most recent post but one, you could say that about the "lifting" of IBM's OS/2 product, but I couldn't possibly comment, except on your latest point:

PS: expecting yet again the "hero in my own mind" comment...

Misleading again? It was "legend in your own mind". I think that's known as a freudian slip.

[microchip8]

Initial versions of Windows were very bad, but Microsoft kept promising that a better product would come out Real Soon Now, still as part of their joint OS/2 efforts with IBM. Until one day, that is, when suddenly they turned their backs on OS/2. They cried "innovation" and went back to DOS in spite of earlier having admitted it to be obsolete. Then they went and dropped out of the collaboration with IBM entirely, taking with them a lot of IBM technology that had ended up in Windows, which they now suddenly positioned as the operating system of the future. They never even mentioned their earlier promises about OS/2 again.

Microsoft already sold applications for the Apple Macintosh. This gave them a good look under the hood of Apple's operating system software, and enabled them to muscle Apple into granting them a license for portions of the MacUI. (They threatened to withdraw all Mac applications, unless Apple would grant them a license to use MacUI code to port Macintosh apps to the PC.) They then raided MacUI for extra ideas. The remaining few bits (e.g. the font technology they later called TrueType) they bought, occasionally bartering vaporware that later failed to materialize. They also threw in a random collection of small applications, completely unrelated to an operating system (e.g. Paintbrush) which they had bought from various sources to flesh things out a bit. The resulting mixed bag of bits and pieces was massaged into an end product and released as Windows 3.0.

It was not too difficult for Microsoft to adapt the Apple versions of Word and Excel to run on Windows 3. There is some indication that Windows was adapted to Word and Excel as much as Word and Excel were adapted to Windows. By the time Windows 3.0 hit the market, competing application developers had already put their R&D money into OS/2 versions of their products, on the assumption that OS/2 would be delivered as promised by the IBM/Microsoft partnership. And now OS/2 did not materialize. But a blown R&D budget was only half the problem. Even if most of the application manufacturers had been wealthy enough to fund two separate development efforts to upgrade their DOS products, there was not enough time to do the Windows version before Windows' projected release date. The fact that the Windows API had not been published in any permanent form yet didn't help either. Without a good API (Application Program Interface) specification, an application developer is not able to interface with the operating system or with other software products. This essentially prevents application development. And Microsoft was the only application vendor at the time who knew enough about the Windows API to come up with market-ready Windows applications.

So Microsoft shipped both an OS and an application suite for it, several months before anyone else in the applications market had a chance to catch up with Microsoft's last-moment switch to Windows - and that was that. All those who had expected to sail with the IBM/Microsoft alliance missed the boat, when Microsoft suddenly and deliberately decided to cast off earlier and in another direction than they had originally promised. Most of the independent application vendors never recovered.

IBM eventually went on to release their own version of OS/2, and botched it completely. This is partially due to the fact that by the time OS/2 hit the market, that market had already been taken away from them by Microsoft, especially because most application developers had committed themselves to Windows by then. They used Windows development tools, which produced code that was extremely hard to port to another OS. Native OS/2 application software remained scarce, and hardware support was even a bigger problem.

Even so, IBM remains responsible for much of the demise of OS/2. Although it had an infinitely better architecture than Windows, OS/2 was killed off by some of the worst strategic and marketing decisions in the history of the industry. Its brief and unhappy existence was marked by a lack of drivers and hardware support, a lack of development tools, and a lack of applications. In typical IBM fashion the end user was expected to manually edit a lengthy CONFIG.SYS file (four pages or more of text-based and cryptic configuration items) to configure the system. Partnerships with hardware vendors to ship OS/2 with systems that couldn't run it properly made the problem even worse, and disastrously bad marketing drove the final nail into OS/2's coffin.

After this debacle IBM withdrew from the desktop software market which they had never really understood, in spite of having created the original IBM PC.

After the split of MS and IBM, MS hired Cutler (and a small team) to further develop NT and make it competitive with UNIX. After a while, Cutler left DEC and went to work full time for MS developing and extending the NT kernel

Wikipaedia (and you possibly) is basing it on this one newspaper article here. It's all about the post-split vitriol. No guesses required as to the source of this BS then. The clue is to flip-flop the initials. A blast from the past.

Yet you quoted a passage from wiki *first*, which then I went on it and typed "windows nt", read the whole article and saw the exact quote you took from it and slapped it on you, which you based your assumptions on too. Obvious contradiction on your part. You try to prove a previous point with a quote taken from wiki, yet later on you dismiss wiki as being ambigous or whatever

That one's microchip. But the source sounds familiar. Still you are entitled to your opinion, but weren't you too young to have been reading about it at the time? Hey, as long as you realize the "whitewash" in the wikipaedia article, why should I worry.

Yes, everyone is in a conspiracy to mislead the public in what actually happened.. LOL. Yes, I was young so what's your point? I also never witnessed WWII, yet I know enough about it and it doesn't take away the fact it happened. I never witnessed the the Vietnam war either, doesn't take away the fact it happened and I can go on and on.

Misleading again? It was "legend in your own mind". I think that's known as a freudian slip.

And you're in my head to know what's going on? Oh my, the assumptions you love to make. Whether it was legend, hero, master or whatever else, the same point remains. One only swaps the words which doesn't change the point at all in this case. There is nothing misleading in this case since the same point remains, whether one uses legend or hero

[microchip8]

Also, this discussion is pointless and way out of context with the thread, which is about Linux being bloated not about NT or OS/2. So, I'll do just what you used to do in the past... call you a "master of spinning words and contradictions"

[consused]

Originally Posted by microchip8

Also, this discussion is pointless and way out of context with the thread

For a pointless discussion, you sure made a lot of text on the subject. At least you achieved "bloated and huge", in keeping with the thread's subject.

Unlike WW2 etc, the business arrangements between IBM and MicroSoft, when the latter was supposedly working on OS/2, are not well documented. You clearly don't know about that since you continually refer to "collaboration" and "partnership". You talk about it as some sort of joint open-source project between two equal companies, without any consideration of contractual arrangements, or who owned what. It wasn't, but those arrangements (or lack of) between IBM and Mcrosoft are key to what really happened.

You say little about the first two versions of OS/2, or about the fact that the first product was released too early, presumably to leverage hardware sales, i.e. a solution looking for a problem. The PC market wasn't ready for multitasking and the applications weren't there to use it.

It's a pity that you feel it necessary to just pour out such a long post, and several on the trot, in the hope that "never mind the quality, just feel the width" will win the debate, for winning at all costs seems to be your main objective. That rewriting of history is a curious mixture of some facts I can agree with, and microchip's opinions. It really isn't worth unravelling. It reminds me of the crapware that PC manufactures load onto new machines.

You could just consider posting the links of your sources next time, without the embellishment, instead of just giving us a load of anecdotal stuff that you read about on the internet etc. BTW, you won't find too many of the real facts being unearthed by the media of the time, mainly because the US press corps were generally too respectful of the business sector then - unlike those in Europe and the UK in particular. The report on that visit to Microsoft was fairly typical - just print what was said - no really tough questioning or investigation.

Yes, everyone is in a conspiracy to mislead the public in what actually happened.

That's just nonsense. What conspiracy? Believe Microsoft if you want, but you don't seem to believe much of what they say today.

[saahne]

A small footnote:

There's a much better article on the development of Windows NT written by Mark Russinovich, who at the time developed a lot of very useful Windows utilities on a site called Sysinternals. Russinovich now works for Microsoft.

Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by consused

For a pointless discussion, you sure made a lot of text on the subject. At least you achieved "bloated and huge", in keeping with the thread's subject.

And so did you. If you didn't jump in (like you always love to do) this text would have never happened in the first place. Not until you started to try and dispute stuff I said, yet contradicted yourself all the way down and spinned words all around, just so your version can "come out as truth" yet you yourself didn't provide any evidence either, yet tried to dis my claims

Unlike WW2 etc, the business arrangements between IBM and MicroSoft, when the latter was supposedly working on OS/2, are not well documented. You clearly don't know about that since you continually refer to "collaboration" and "partnership". You talk about it as some sort of joint open-source project between two equal companies, without any consideration of contractual arrangements, or who owned what. It wasn't, but those arrangements (or lack of) between IBM and Mcrosoft are key to what really happened.

So the whole industry has believed in all those years that the MS and IBM collaboration was a lie or a hoax? Yeah, sure... care to backup your statements? First you acknowledge that there was a collaboration, then you refute it by disputing wiki correctness yet you took sentences from there in the first place to make your previous point, which in the end you couldn't since you contradicted yourself. I'm more likely to believe a whole industry than a random guy who contradicts himself, spins words, tries to slip mockery with "freudian slips" (which, btw, is still uncertain why such things happen and not all agree that Freud was correct on this), etc

You say little about the first two versions of OS/2, or about the fact that the first product was released too early, presumably to leverage hardware sales, i.e. a solution looking for a problem. The PC market wasn't ready for multitasking and the applications weren't there to use it.

Which first two version? OS/2 1.x and 2.x? AFAIK, and don't quote me on that, these version were developed by IBM itself. When it got together with MS to work on a jointly developed OS/2, that was going to be called (initially) NT OS/3.0, but since it never came out, who knows what it was going to be called? You surely don't and neither do I. But it is not incorrect to call it OS/2 3.0 at this moment in time since neither I nor you can know how it was going to be called upon release, which never happened. It might just as well be called BooniesOS

It's a pity that you feel it necessary to just pour out such a long post, and several on the trot, in the hope that "never mind the quality, just feel the width" will win the debate, for winning at all costs seems to be your main objective. That rewriting of history is a curious mixture of some facts I can agree with, and microchip's opinions. It really isn't worth unravelling. It reminds me of the crapware that PC manufactures load onto new machines.

It's not about winning a debate. It's about you refusing to acknowledge that there was a collaboration (as the whole industry knows and it's a historical fact) between MS and IBM, that MS "screwed" IBM and took a lot of tech from this collaboration that went into Win and that this was the core of the issue why IBM for so many years had a "hate" relationship with MS (and I think it still does but to a lesser extent).

You could just consider posting the links of your sources next time, without the embellishment, instead of just giving us a load of anecdotal stuff that you read about on the internet etc. BTW, you won't find too many of the real facts being unearthed by the media of the time, mainly because the US press corps were generally too respectful of the business sector then - unlike those in Europe and the UK in particular. The report on that visit to Microsoft was fairly typical - just print what was said - no really tough questioning or investigation.

Yeah refute everything you read on the Net. Everyone is lying and it didn't happen at all since you or me weren't there. Makes perfect sense

That's just nonsense. What conspiracy? Believe Microsoft if you want, but you don't seem to believe much of what they say today.

oh WOW, yet again you make your own version of what I said... pointless

[oldcpu]

Hey folks, ... this thread is getting a bit too hot.

Please read again our rules, ... in particular note this announcement we made yesterday: openSUSE forums Rules-of-Conduct reminder - openSUSE Forums

To give this a chance to cool down, I'm closing this thread to web based users for a while, and I ask that NNTP users do NOT reply to this thread.

Thank you.