I'm with you. In the meetings with DOJ last week and the week before, I'm sure something along the lines of "Split yourselves up, or we'll do it for you." was said. MS, being the back-stabbing-savvy company that it is, has done it "Their Way". I'm sure we'll hear later that when forced to divide, they'll try it along these lines that are drawn.
>OS/2 1.x was an example of too much "unity" over at IBM -- Is that the last time you looked at OS/2? Wow, where have you been hiding? >it ran well only on IBM MCA hardware, You didn't look very deeply, did you! >and included green screen emulators and other things that non-IBM shops did not want. Excuse me, but "green-screens" are what run every large business that you deal with. Do you not own a bank account?
>I'm not sure if IBM really "unity", because they are just too damn big to sell an integrated solution like Microsoft does. Too BIG to sell an integrated solution? An oxymoron! Try scaling things up a bit. Your desktop hardware, software, network card, cable, hub, local server, wide area network, enterprise servers, global network with sub-second response time. Think man! How does IBM manage the employment of over 220,000 people worldwide; on NT servers? HAHAHA I laugh at your smallness! >If they did, it would be centered around the big iron mainframes, because that's where their money is. (And that is what they tried to do with OS/2 1.x.) Sorry. Not very much money in mainframes today. Services is where it's at. Installing and manageing all those desktops, servers, and networks that "you people" use. Something that Microsoft is just too SMALL to understand. >Just the fact that they sell a Unix solution and are considering x86/PPC Linux prove that a little disunity is good over at IBM. Yes, a little "disunity" is good over at IBM. Which is what we're seeing here. >(Although, let's face it, most of their revenue is from the installed base.) Wrong, wrong, and wrong. You haven't done your homework!
Ahem; Microchannel was the pre-cursor to today's video board design: Peripheral device intelligence reduces the load on the CPU. IDE vs. SCSI, no? It was a good idea. The only bad idea was that they tried to make money by licensing the design. VHS vs. Beta?
Take this from an IBM'er who previously has worked on the "outside" for MOST of his career; There is no "They" from IBM. You won't get a consistent opinion from everyone at IBM, merely different opinions from different heads of divisions. The clown who said this will be corrected, eventually. Assume the opinion comes from a much smaller company who has never dealt with the Americas. If you want to know how HUGE companies appear to the public, read this; http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-03/ lw-03-penguin.html
When Shaw Cable (Toronto, Canada) tried to balk at my use of OS/2 and Linux, I merely told them that I wouldn't ask for support. They gladly installed, waived all installation fees, the cable-modem appears to be free (been a year now), as is the ethernet card (two actually, I didn't like the original cheapo 3-Com), and it's $39.95/mo CDN. I immediately hit a download high of 150M/s from Netscape (4.05, 12MB) since their bastardized Netscape 3.0 for Win was useless to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you. In the meetings with DOJ last week and the week before, I'm sure something along the lines of "Split yourselves up, or we'll do it for you." was said. MS, being the back-stabbing-savvy company that it is, has done it "Their Way". I'm sure we'll hear later that when forced to divide, they'll try it along these lines that are drawn.
>OS/2 1.x was an example of too much "unity" over at IBM --
Is that the last time you looked at OS/2? Wow, where have you been hiding?
>it ran well only on IBM MCA hardware,
You didn't look very deeply, did you!
>and included green screen emulators and other things that non-IBM shops did not want.
Excuse me, but "green-screens" are what run every large business that you deal with. Do you not own a bank account?
>I'm not sure if IBM really "unity", because they are just too damn big to sell an integrated solution like Microsoft does.
Too BIG to sell an integrated solution? An oxymoron! Try scaling things up a bit. Your desktop hardware, software, network card, cable, hub, local server, wide area network, enterprise servers, global network with sub-second response time. Think man! How does IBM manage the employment of over 220,000 people worldwide; on NT servers? HAHAHA I laugh at your smallness!
>If they did, it would be centered around the big iron mainframes, because that's where their money is. (And that is what they tried to do with OS/2 1.x.)
Sorry. Not very much money in mainframes today. Services is where it's at. Installing and manageing all those desktops, servers, and networks that "you people" use. Something that Microsoft is just too SMALL to understand.
>Just the fact that they sell a Unix solution and are considering x86/PPC Linux prove that a little disunity is good over at IBM.
Yes, a little "disunity" is good over at IBM. Which is what we're seeing here.
>(Although, let's face it, most of their revenue is from the installed base.)
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. You haven't done your homework!
Ahem;
Microchannel was the pre-cursor to today's video board design: Peripheral device intelligence reduces the load on the CPU. IDE vs. SCSI, no? It was a good idea.
The only bad idea was that they tried to make money by licensing the design. VHS vs. Beta?
Take this from an IBM'er who previously has worked on the "outside" for MOST of his career;/ lw-03-penguin.html
There is no "They" from IBM. You won't get a consistent opinion from everyone at IBM, merely different opinions from different heads of divisions. The clown who said this will be corrected, eventually. Assume the opinion comes from a much smaller company who has never dealt with the Americas. If you want to know how HUGE companies appear to the public, read this;
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-03
What's all this about DSL?
When Shaw Cable (Toronto, Canada) tried to balk at my use of OS/2 and Linux, I merely told them that I wouldn't ask for support. They gladly installed, waived all installation fees, the cable-modem appears to be free (been a year now), as is the ethernet card (two actually, I didn't like the original cheapo 3-Com), and it's $39.95/mo CDN. I immediately hit a download high of 150M/s from Netscape (4.05, 12MB) since their bastardized Netscape 3.0 for Win was useless to me.