Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:02:54 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Adieu...
>_http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/)

Ed,

While it's very big of you to post evidence that proves my point - we both
stated we would drop this thread.  If you still desire to continue this
discussion, let's take it offline.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/25/2005 3:26:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

...but  the second part of the sentence would still have been  absolutely
wrong.Of course, PC-CD really just means WinXP, so  I guess you're
finally admitting your mistake, so I'll drop  it.



>>
Adieu...
_http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7652606/) 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ron and Jenny Hawkins]

Howard,

Welcome to your local Custom's Checkpoint. I believe that a few countries
have been using this technology to spot criminals and terrorists for a few
years now.

Ron

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Howard Brazee
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 12:45 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
> 
> 
> Not wanting to continue this argument - I am wondering how much demand
> there
> will be for business applications to handle graphics and sound in advanced
> ways.
>   Certainly there will be continued needs to use such for identification
> purposes.   Maybe salesmen in stores will be told by their terminals the
> name of
> the customer who walked in the door (which the mainframe recognized from
> the
> security camera).Lots of these applications will want to be in big,
> fast
> databases.
> 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:21:54 -0500, Hal Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Agree. We have wandered too far off. Time to end the thread. *NOW*
>(Remember Darren's posting).
>
>No last words, nothing. End.

My apologies.  I use the digest, and I had used the online search to find
Ed's replies by searching on subject and author, so I did not see this until
now.  I am done.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:00:45 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If I'd said PC-CD instead of DOS I'd be more aligned with the
>EA catalog.

...but the second part of the sentence would still have been absolutely
wrong.Of course, PC-CD really just means WinXP, so I guess you're
finally admitting your mistake, so I'll drop it.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/25/2005 10:36:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

It seem  rather strange to me that you would omit the statement that started
this  whole issue.



>>
If I'd said PC-CD instead of DOS I'd be more aligned with the
EA catalog. Other than that I believe every word and agree this
thread has dragged on longer than BSOD.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Howard Brazee]

On 25-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Rowe) wrote:

> >Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming
> >option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high
> >end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound
> >themselves.
>
> It seem rather strange to me that you would omit the statement that started
> this whole issue.

Not wanting to continue this argument - I am wondering how much demand there
will be for business applications to handle graphics and sound in advanced ways.
  Certainly there will be continued needs to use such for identification
purposes.   Maybe salesmen in stores will be told by their terminals the name of
the customer who walked in the door (which the mainframe recognized from the
security camera).Lots of these applications will want to be in big, fast
databases.

As the ability to do things gets cheaper, users will want to include them with
their other business needs.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Hal Merritt]

Agree. We have wandered too far off. Time to end the thread. *NOW*
(Remember Darren's posting).

No last words, nothing. End.  

Hal
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
IMHO it's far off-topic.

-- 
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:31:05 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Learned that in 1st grade, been trying to rectify it ever since.
>The only authoritative statements that I think I've made. Gaming
>PCs cost more and have more horsepower, can still order with
>DOS or XP gave you a link to the Systemax Warbird, the tigerdirect.com site
>has 27 hits for No-OS. I've got a box of 3.5"
>diskettes that have stuff from Flight simulator to Donkey Kong that
>ran on an XT and delighted the kids. My current P4 won't read them
>'cause they're 256k. Lastly, gaming sites are virus prone even
>with current Norton Suite 2005.

How about this statement:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:55:40 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming
>option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high
>end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound
>themselves.

It seem rather strange to me that you would omit the statement that started
this whole issue.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:29:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

For  everyone's sake, why don't you refrain from making authoritative
statements  when you don't know the subject matter.  Also, if someone
suggests to  you the possibility that things may not work the way you assume,
maybe you  should have a more open mind and accept that you could be wrong.
Ignorance  isn't a crime.



>>
Learned that in 1st grade, been trying to rectify it ever since.
The only authoritative statements that I think I've made. Gaming
PCs cost more and have more horsepower, can still order with
DOS or XP gave you a link to the Systemax Warbird, the tigerdirect.com site  
has 27 hits for No-OS. I've got a box of 3.5"
diskettes that have stuff from Flight simulator to Donkey Kong that
ran on an XT and delighted the kids. My current P4 won't read them
'cause they're 256k. Lastly, gaming sites are virus prone even
with current Norton Suite 2005.
 
Guess about the 7th grade I learned "the more you know, the more you know  
you don't know". Since joining this list in '86 I've
tried to inject personnel experience of what I've tried and what
did or didn't work. That's why the list was set up. Mostly,  other
people agree or give a better explanation. I'm not good at  arguing
for the sake of arguing. No personnel axes to grind. Got another
PC to rebuild as a result of 'Gameitis'.
  

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Howard Brazee]

On 24-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I am quite happy being stereotypically ignorant.  I am also oblivious  to all
> the fine nuances of the ball point pen, pencil, and eraser I sometimes  use
> on the job.  These are merely commodities to me, just like my  PC.

It is useful in any job where we work with other humans, to know more about our
tools than what is necessary to do one task.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[R.S.]

Ed Gould wrote:

On Jul 24, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Ed Finnell wrote:



In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What I  don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all
ostensibly OS  experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts 
about a

platform we  all use on a regular basis.  There seems to be a level of
ignorance  among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs 
that only

serves to  reinforce the stereotypes.




Ed,

I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes I 
know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two?


IMHO it's far off-topic.
Of course mainframers, especially gray-haired ones do not need to know 
detailed news about computer games. (*)
However if one doesn't know, then he shouldn't express opinions about 
WinXP, modern games and DOS mode.


For example I never take part in discussion what model of S/360 had two 
cranks, or steam whistle.
(*) BTW: Sometimes I have an impression, that the only game mainframers 
know is StarTrek. The same apply to the movie. Personally I saw only TV 
version of that and have to admit it's outstanding trash and cr*p.

My opinion only.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:11:04 EDT, Bill Fairchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't play games on any kind of computer.  I am a computer  professional, I
>work on z/OS products, I use a PC as a tool to help me do my  work, and I
>gave up games 20+ years ago.  I guess I am also a grumpy old  man.
>
>I don't think of my PC or z/OS as a platform.  It is a commodity that  lets
>me connect my fingertips to mainframe-centric software.
>
>I am quite happy being stereotypically ignorant.  I am also oblivious  to all
>the fine nuances of the ball point pen, pencil, and eraser I sometimes  use
>on the job.  These are merely commodities to me, just like my  PC.

I've got no problem with that, since I've never known you to make
authoritative statements about how PCs work ;-)

"A man has got to know his limitations." - Dirty Harry

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:36:27 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know. Whatever misconceptions I have sure won't be changed
>by your attitude. Period end.

OK, I guess I do have a bit of an attitude by now...

I started off trying to inform you how far from reality your conceptions
were - without being insulting.  I could have said something like" "you
don't have a clue what you're talking about", but I tried to be nice.  I
guess I failed to get my point across - not that you made it easy.

For everyone's sake, why don't you refrain from making authoritative
statements when you don't know the subject matter.  Also, if someone
suggests to you the possibility that things may not work the way you assume,
maybe you should have a more open mind and accept that you could be wrong.
Ignorance isn't a crime.

> What I was pointing out is my
>observation of the way things work best for us in our household.
>No stereotypes, just rudimentary tool usage. Hammers for nails,
>ratchets for screws.

That's fine, but you gave me no frame of reference, and it had absolutely
nothing to do with the subject being discussed, so it sounded like jibberish.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Gibney, David Allen,Jr]

   Ed Jaffe's point was subtle, but on point. I would estimate that
SHARE's non mainframe content is close to 40 or even 50% these days.
Anyway, a lot more than one or two sessions.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

On Jul 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:

> Ed Gould wrote:
>
>> I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. 
>> Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session

>> or two?
>
>
> A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you 
> advocate SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two 
> sessions??! IMHO, that seems like a tremendous mistake!
>
>

Why? I see as it is a furtherance of basic education, no?

Ed

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search
the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Gould]

On Jul 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:


Ed Gould wrote:

I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. 
Yes I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session 
or two?



A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you 
advocate SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two 
sessions??! IMHO, that seems like a tremendous mistake!





Why? I see as it is a furtherance of basic education, no?

Ed

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/24/2005 3:45:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Huh?  Just what does any of that have to do with anything we were  talking 
about?




>>
I don't know. Whatever misconceptions I have sure won't be changed
by your attitude. Period end. What I was pointing out is my
observation of the way things work best for us in our household.
No stereotypes, just rudimentary tool usage. Hammers for nails,
ratchets for screws. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Edward E. Jaffe]

Ed Gould wrote:

I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes 
I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or two?



A session or two?? What are you suggesting here?? Why would you advocate 
SHARE cut its non-mainframe agenda back to only two sessions??! IMHO, 
that seems like a tremendous mistake!


--
.-.
| Edward E. Jaffe||
| Mgr, Research & Development| [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318   |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801|
| Los Angeles, CA 90045  | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
'-'

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Gould]

On Jul 24, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Ed Finnell wrote:



In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What I  don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all
ostensibly OS  experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts 
about a

platform we  all use on a regular basis.  There seems to be a level of
ignorance  among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs 
that only

serves to  reinforce the stereotypes.




Ed,

I have seen employers deny education for non MF related education. Yes 
I know educate yourself hmmm.. maybe SHARE should offer a session or 
two?


Ed

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:11:50 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There's the Chess playing monkey on G4, he'll probably be
>glad to debate the issue.

I don't believe we've been debating anything, I have simply been trying to
correct your misconceptions.

>Just a quick rake over google with 'Game playing chipsets' yields
>thousands of "my PC locks up while playing games". Not to mention
>the mindset. Had to restore nephews PC three times 'cause he got
>lured into trojan city with 'great game, very entertaining'.
>
>So now we got PC's and PS2's. No cross  pollination.

Huh?  Just what does any of that have to do with anything we were talking about?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What I  don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all
ostensibly OS  experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts about a
platform we  all use on a regular basis.  There seems to be a level of
ignorance  among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs that only
serves to  reinforce the stereotypes.



>>
There's the Chess playing monkey on G4, he'll probably be
glad to debate the issue.
 
Just a quick rake over google with 'Game playing chipsets' yields
thousands of "my PC locks up while playing games". Not to mention
the mindset. Had to restore nephews PC three times 'cause he got
lured into trojan city with 'great game, very entertaining'.
 
So now we got PC's and PS2's. No cross  pollination. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Bill Fairchild]

In a message dated 7/24/2005 1:57:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:11:08 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't understand. Most games are written for the 128bit chipsets
>in Playstation, Nintendo and X-Box. They have to be tinkered to
>run on XP. I've got a box full of 3.5" diskettes that all run under DOS
>compliments of various students. Haven't played most of them
>in years. Don't know don't care.

When you say "chipsets", I am assuming you mean the graphics processing unit
(GPU) chips?  I don't understand what you mean by "tinkered"?  There are PC
(WinXP) versions of many of the games that run on game machines, but making
them run on multiple platforms requires a bit more than "tinkering".  There
are also many games that only run on PCs, sometimes because they require
more resources than the game machines provide.

In any case, these games are typically not written for a specific GPU, even
if they are written to run on game consoles.  They are written to use APIs
for graphic/sound, since code portability is important.  In the case of the
XBOX, this API is almost identical to the WinXP API, so there is an even
higher level of portability.

If this code was written directly to the hardware, as you seem to think,
then it would not work on the vast majority of PCs in the world today, since
there are numerous different GPU and sound hardware variations with vastly
different hardware specs and interfaces.  If a game developer were to try to
support even 75% of the installed hardware base, they would have to write
literally hundreds of versions of their game.

In addition to providing a common set of APIs (which are then executed by
I/O drivers provided by the hardware provider), WinXP provides many other
services that would not be available in DOS (ie virtual storage,
multitasking, interrupt handling).  I seriously doubt today's complex 3D
games could be made to run any better under DOS (if at all), even if one
were willing to re-invent the wheel so many times.

What I don't understand is how, on a mailing list where we are all
ostensibly OS experts, some can be so oblivious to the basic facts about a
platform we all use on a regular basis.  There seems to be a level of
ignorance among many (but not all) mainframers with regard to PCs that only
serves to reinforce the stereotypes.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/23/2005 11:28:50 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A  developer would never be able to complete a single product using  that
methodology.  The target, both in terms of hardware technology  and gaming
standards, moves faster than you could write the  code.




>>
I don't understand. Most games are written for the 128bit chipsets
in Playstation, Nintendo and X-Box. They have to be tinkered to
run on XP. I've got a box full of 3.5" diskettes that all run under DOS  
compliments of various students. Haven't played most of them
in years. Don't know don't care.
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:38:21 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>Guess the argument is the chipset is so robust, don't want the
>bloat of XP interfering with splaterring of aliens or monsters
>or police officers and hearing the lamentations of the vanquished.

Who's argument?  Who would make such an argument when no such games exist?
Show me ONE current commercial game that runs under DOS?

I am no fan of Microsoft, yet I understand that developing these games would
not be possible without the functionality provided in WinXP.  For anyone to
assume that a game developer would rather write their own device support
routines, rather than use the services built into the OS, is just ridiculous.

A developer would never be able to complete a single product using that
methodology.  The target, both in terms of hardware technology and gaming
standards, moves faster than you could write the code.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[R.S.]

Leonard Woren wrote:

[1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed 
and a friend suggested "Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to

replace all your SCSI disks."  Turns out that OS/2 can't be installed
on IDE disks > 4 GB.  And don't bother to tell me about alternate
drivers and hacks and whatever. 


I don't want to bother you, but this problem is just fixed. There are 
PTFs for that.


The same problem exist when you want to install/run z/OS 1.4 on z/990 
machine. You need Exploitation Support (FMID + PTFs) for that.

IMHO z/OS is not completely dead

BTW: Similar problem existed with Win 3.1 (no support for drives over 
512MB in '32-bit mode'), it was BEFORE Win95 came to market.


Similar problems existed with Novell NetWare, good system, well 
supported. There was a need to download new disk drives.



IMHO bad diagnoze, despite of OS/2 death.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/21/2005
   at 11:31 AM, Leonard Woren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>My recollection and understanding is (was?) that when most people ask
>for IBM to open-source OS/2, it's the WPS that they want in order to
>port just that to Linux.  If WPS gets ported to Linux, why would 
>anybody care that OS/2 is dead?  [1]

Applications that aren't available for Linux, e.g., Family Tree/2,
InCharge, MR/2 ICE. OpenDoc.

>So a good question would be "does the WPS by itself have IP that IBM
>would not be able to open-source?"

Well, the key pieces are HPFS, PM, SOM and WPS itself. I understand
that some of the Linux file systems support extended attributes. I
believe that PM is encumbered. AFAIK, SOM and WPS are strictly IBM.

>[1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed 
>and a friend suggested "Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to
>replace all your SCSI disks."  Turns out that OS/2 can't be
>installed on IDE disks > 4 GB. 

Yes it can[1], and I've done it. You need a more current release.
Although on my primary machine I use SCSI, by choice.

[1] Although I believe that the new limit is still lower than the
limit for SCSI.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Leonard Woren]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 06:43:32PM -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> >But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, 
> 
> Yes! I'd love to see an equivalent in Linux.

My recollection and understanding is (was?) that when most people ask
for IBM to open-source OS/2, it's the WPS that they want in order to
port just that to Linux.  If WPS gets ported to Linux, why would 
anybody care that OS/2 is dead?  [1]

So a good question would be "does the WPS by itself have IP that IBM
would not be able to open-source?"


[1] I discovered that OS/2 was dead when one of my SCSI HDs failed 
and a friend suggested "Forget SCSI, just get a big IDE disk to
replace all your SCSI disks."  Turns out that OS/2 can't be installed
on IDE disks > 4 GB.  And don't bother to tell me about alternate
drivers and hacks and whatever.  I wasted days on them.  They don't
work.  I bought a big SCSI disk for a ridiculous amount of money and
immediately committed myself to abandoning my once-beloved OS/2 system.
I've powered it up for a total of maybe 2 hours in the last 3 years.

Footnote to the footnote.  I just read a lot of the stuff on 
ecomstation.com .  It's pretty funny... the whole thing is an argument
for why ECS is NOT a viable option in today's world.  And BTW, after
using NT4 and XP for years, I still miss OS/2 and hate Winblows.


/Leonard

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:00:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

current  commercial PC game software, the additional development effort
required to  replicate all of the graphic/sound, etc functions of WinXP would
be  astronomical.



>>
Guess the argument is the chipset is so robust, don't want the
bloat of XP interfering with splaterring of aliens or monsters
or police officers and hearing the lamentations of the vanquished.
 
Goes way back to "Woz" and PACMAN.. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:24:52 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I don't know. This is pretty typical for Gamer Customizations.
>
>_http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=12
>72096_
>(http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=1272096)

Well, I never actually buy pre-built systems (I build my systems myself),
but I hadn't seen DOS recently.  I'm still wondering what "DOS" they are
referring to, since MS-DOS is no more.  It could be Caldera's DOS or
Free-DOS, but they don't specify.

In any case, I don't think you should assume that DOS is used for any of the
current commercial PC game software, the additional development effort
required to replicate all of the graphic/sound, etc functions of WinXP would
be astronomical.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/21/2005 10:15:38 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Ed: I  took a look over at Alienware and didn't see options for DOS or NONE,
so  I'm interested in how you got there.  I haven't seen a PC sold with  DOS
for several years, but NONE can be found as an option on  occasion.



>>
I don't know. This is pretty typical for Gamer Customizations.
 
_http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=12
72096_ 
(http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/configdetails.asp?Base=1272096)
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:35:22 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


>Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents
>to?  Does XP "allow" viruses?  They thrive nonetheless.

What?  A "usermod" to allow the program to reboot the system under a
different operating system, while continuing to use WinXP services (disk
access, network, DirectX for display/sound)?  That's not only silly, that's
downright absurd.

Ed: I took a look over at Alienware and didn't see options for DOS or NONE,
so I'm interested in how you got there.  I haven't seen a PC sold with DOS
for several years, but NONE can be found as an option on occasion.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Paul Gilmartin]

In a recent note, Ed Finnell said:

> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:08:23 EDT
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> What  "high end games" are you referring to here?  The games written 10  years
> ago?  I doubt they would qualify as "high end" today.   AFAIK, all current PC
> >>
> I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect
> site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the
> alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should
> be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or  none.
> 
"none" as in install your own?  Likely Linux?  Legacy OS/2?  Etc.

As for the clipped sentence:

AFAIK, all current PC based games run on WindowsXP, which does
not allow the behavior you describe.

Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents
to?  Does XP "allow" viruses?  They thrive nonetheless.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Paul Gilmartin]

In a recent note, Ed Finnell said:

> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:08:23 EDT
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> What  "high end games" are you referring to here?  The games written 10  years
> ago?  I doubt they would qualify as "high end" today.   AFAIK, all current PC
> >>
> I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect
> site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the
> alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should
> be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or  none.
> 
"none" as in install your own?  Likely Linux?  Legacy OS/2?  Etc.

As for the clipped sentence:

AFAIK, all current PC based games run on WindowsXP, which does
not allow the behavior you describe.

Can't the game install a usermod, if that's what the gamer consents
to?  Does XP "allow" viruses?  They thrive nonetheless.

Computer: Access denied.

Scotty:   Override!

Computer: Access granted.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/20/2005 12:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What  "high end games" are you referring to here?  The games written 10  years
ago?  I doubt they would qualify as "high end" today.   AFAIK, all current PC



>>
I don't know, I'm not a high-end gamer. Was just at the tigerdirect
site looking for a back to school PC for my niece and fell into the
alienware site. The area 51 looks impressive-for $3350 it should
be. The ordering options were XP, DOS or  none. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Scott Rowe]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:55:40 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming
>option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high
>end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound
>themselves.

What "high end games" are you referring to here?  The games written 10 years
ago?  I doubt they would qualify as "high end" today.  AFAIK, all current PC
based games run on WindowsXP, which does not allow the behavior you describe.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/18/2005
   at 10:07 PM, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if
> it really makes inroads into UNIX land.

More likely someone would port the interesting stuff to Linux.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/19/2005
   at 10:48 AM, David Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out.

Which Windows code? The "for Windows" version, which didn't include[1]
any windoze code, or the full function version, which did. FWIW, I've
never wanted to run winapps on my OS/2 system.

>But the Workplace Shell was an interesting hack, 

Yes! I'd love to see an equivalent in Linux.

[1] That WINOS2 would run windoze 3.1 applications if you had an
existing copy of windoze. The name was confusing because it was
the package of choice for those that did *not* want to run windoze
applications.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Jon Brock]

Brad Wardell!  Stardock!  Galactic Civilizations!  Woohoo!

Sorry.  Got a little carried away there.

Jon




And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective
on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business.  There's even some advice
that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community.  See:
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Gould]

On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:48 AM, David Andrews wrote:


On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:57 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors


I'm thinking that IBM might have an entanglement with Serenity, which
remarkets and enhances OS/2 as "eComStation".  See:
http://www.ecomstation.com/

Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out.


o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to
  convert to OS/2?


Not this one.  I'd have to give up ~way~ too much.  But the Workplace
Shell was an interesting hack, and was extensible in useful ways by
Stardock and others.

And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective
on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business.  There's even some advice
that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community.  See:
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html

--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ted MacNEIL]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050718

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
  -- W. Edwards Deming

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[David Andrews]

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:57 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors

I'm thinking that IBM might have an entanglement with Serenity, which
remarkets and enhances OS/2 as "eComStation".  See:
http://www.ecomstation.com/

Also: the Windows code would likely have to be stripped out.

> o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to
>   convert to OS/2?

Not this one.  I'd have to give up ~way~ too much.  But the Workplace
Shell was an interesting hack, and was extensible in useful ways by
Stardock and others.

And speaking of Stardock, Brad Wardell has an interesting retrospective
on the rise-and-fall of his OS/2 business.  There's even some advice
that can be taken to heart by some of us in the MVS community.  See:
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[David Andrews]

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:07 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
> Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if 
> it really makes inroads into UNIX land.

Only insofar as it adds another free competitor to the OS landscape.
OS/2 and *nix aren't so alike.

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:51 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2
> 
> 
> Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> > 
> > o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to
> >   convert to OS/2?
> > 
> 
> Linucians? Wow, that's so much more erudite than Linux-heads. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -Steve Comstock

We prefer the name Penguinistas! Well, the more "radical" branch, at
least.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
UICI Insurance Center
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its'
content is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/18/2005 10:57:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

o IBM  might have legal entanglements with contractors (perhaps even
with  Microsoft?) that preclude redistributing OS/2 source  code.



>>
That would be a formidable obstacle. Guess I was thinking more of the MVS  
snippets lying around.
 
Don't think we'll see many converts unless they can offer a gaming
option, but the gamers are far out in front(as usual). The high
end games now run under DOS and manage the graphics and sound
themselves.  

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Steve Comstock]

Paul Gilmartin wrote:

[snip]




o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to
  convert to OS/2?



Linucians? Wow, that's so much more erudite than Linux-heads. 

Kind regards,

-Steve Comstock

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:25:16 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/18/2005 8:27:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html?part=rss&tag=5792778&subj=news
>
(wrap repaired -- gil)

> They can clamor 'til they're blue in the face, ain't gonna happen.
> Too much IP invested.
>
OTOH, IBM, like Netscape, SUN, and to some extent Apple, might just
hate Microsoft enough to do it.

On the Gripping Hand:

o IBM might have legal entanglements with contractors (perhaps even
  with Microsoft?) that preclude redistributing OS/2 source code.

o How many Linucians would be impelled, even by open source, to
  convert to OS/2?

-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Gould]

On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Ed Finnell wrote:



In a message dated 7/18/2005 8:27:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html?
part=rss&tag=5792778&subj=news






They can clamor 'til they're blue in the face, ain't gonna happen.
Too much IP invested.




Plus if they did that might make LINUX less interesting especially if 
it really makes inroads into UNIX land.


Ed

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 7/18/2005 8:27:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html?  
part=rss&tag=5792778&subj=news



>>
They can clamor 'til they're blue in the face, ain't gonna happen.
Too much IP invested. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

The clamor begins for IBM to give up the code for OS/2

[Ed Gould]

http://news.com.com/2061-10809_3-5792778.html? 
part=rss&tag=5792778&subj=news


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html