Path: sparky!uunet!know!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!caen!uflorida!cybernet!news
From: way...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Wayne Desmond)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Open letter to Gordon Letwin
Message-ID: <3s57RB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:06:13 GMT
Sender: n...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
Lines: 90
Dear Mr. Letwin,
I purchased your book, "Inside OS/2", back in 1988 and read it
with interest, many times. The cover is worn and the pages
dog-eared. In your book, Bill Gates states in the Forward,
"OS/2 is destined to be a very important piece of software.
During the next 10 years, millions of programmers and users will
utilize this system." I am one of those, "millions of
programmers" that Mr. Gates refers to. Your book and the strong,
positive press by IBM, Microsoft and especially Bill Gates,
convinced me that OS/2 was indeed the future in microcomputing.
I bought all the OS/2 books from Microsoft Press and programmed
day and night to become proficient with this fabulous new
operating system. Indeed, my furvor paid off. I have been
constantly employed, as an OS/2 developer for the past several
years.
OS/2 was, in 1988, and is now, a fine operating system, powerful
and rich in features. It is a pleasure to develop software that
was virtually impossible to implement under DOS, in OS/2. It is
also pleasurable to see this fine operating system grow and
mature. I am very pleased with version 2.0, it is much more
stable than the earlier versions.
I understand, that as the Chief Architect of OS/2, you must feel
very discouraged that "your baby" has become such a controversy.
Never the less, I find it a shame, and somewhat hypocritical,
that you and other Microsoft employees feel the need to publicly
decree that OS/2 is no longer the fine, capable, rich operating
system of the future that you, yourself originally designed.
Your practice of airing IBM and Microsoft's "dirty laundry" on
the Internet only confuses developers and users alike. Everybody
loses, IBM, Microsoft, and most importantly, customers of both
companies. That practice is counter-productive and only
depreciates users confidence in both Microsoft and IBM. If you
want to remain competitive in the operating systems marketplace,
I'd suggest you do just that, compete.
If NT, or whatever comes out of Redmond next is a
technologically superior product, developers and users will take
a serious look. Let's keep the users in mind, offer them better
products at a better price, not flood the networks with name
calling and accusations. I don't want to hear about it. The
only posts I see from IBM employees are to support their
customers. What a unique idea, you should consider it yourself.
Your company is supposed to develop software. Why don't you
spend your time more constructively and start developing some?
Maybe NT would be released a little earlier if you and some of
your fellow employees would work on the product instead of
bashing IBM.
Your recent postings have stirred a memory of the last time I
saw your name on Internet. If memory serves me correctly, the
last time you were posting, you claimed that IBM attorneys
served you with some kind of a "gag order" about posting. John
Soyring, of IBM, publiclly denied knowledge of this and asked
you for a copy of the document. Did you send this document to
IBM as requested? I don't remember reading any posts from you
after that, until now. I'm very interested as to the outcome of
this accusation.
I trusted you, Microsoft and Mr. Gates, when you convinced me
that future oportunity was knocking, if I only learned "The OS/2
Religion." I believe I am getting a real taste of how Microsoft
operates now. Your company does not care one bit about users or
developers. It is my opinion that both you and Mr. Gates are so
rich now that the money doesn't even matter. You are on an ego
trip and the computing community is along for the ride, and
paying for the ticket.
By the way, I don't plan on buying any more of my development
tools, operating systems, books or magazines from Microsoft or
Microsoft Press. I've thrown enough money at the both of you.
If you care to respond and convince me that I am mistaken about
your goodwill towards users and developers, or care to discuss
your motivation, please feel free to append to this news group,
or my e-mail address, if it would make you more comfortable.
Regards,
Wayne Desmond
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Wayne Desmond | Happily using and working (read: |
| OS/2 Consultant/Programmer | earning a GOOD living) with |
| (way...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu) | OS/2, since version 1.1. |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cis.ohio-state.edu!
rutgers!cmcl2!panix!os2man
From: os2...@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.123808.16803@panix.com>
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:38:08 GMT
References: <3s57RB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 55
I bet no one would ever think that I would do this, but
I'm going to defend Gordon (how come I never notice when
he posts??? Maybe I should go back to using vn instead
of nn...), although I will do so in an odd sort of way.
Let me tell you my story:
I, too, am a successful OS/2 developer. Back in 1989,
when OS/2 1.1 was released and 1.2 was under development,
I took a coop position with IBM doing OS/2 development.
I bought Petzold's book and taught myself PM programming,
and learned all I could. As a fast learner, I have earned
the reputation of being a quick and good PM programmer,
and I get phone calls (instead of me having to solicit
myself) from clients wanting me to perform contractual
work for them.
Unfortunately, I also earned a reputation for being quite...
uh...shall we say obnoxious? Gordon and I used to have
fights both publicly and privately (Gordon, I still wonder
what would have happened if we would've debated at last
year's Rexx Symposium... :) , but he wasn't the only one.
Almost like the Klu Klux Klan, I vigorously pursued to
persecution of Unix and Windows developers, to the point
of writing 60+ lines of slandering and name-calling to
these OS/2 newsgroups. If you don't remember these, ask
Bert Moshier...or Timothy Sipples...or anyone else who
remembers when I used to work for IBM's T.J. Watson
Research Center. You see, my obnoxiousness caught up
with me because it got me fired.
So much for your comments about the only posts from IBMers
being to help the customer. If you read between the lines,
that also addresses the issue about the IBM lawyers, for
our animosity climaxed when Gordon got so upset with my
(incorrect for the most part) accusations that he
threatened legal action (remember "Lie in its worst form"
anyone?).
Now Gordon and I are friends and although you might think
me a traitor, I'm still an OS/2 programmer (and not a
Windows or NT programmer), but I would much rather spend
my energy learning than degrading or otherwise. I realize
that this is the "advocacy" group, but there is still a
lot of noise for even this group that doesn't really
need to be here. Let's stop pointing the finger and start
concentrating on making OS/2 an even betting operating
system to use and develop for.
Cheers,
Q
--
"If you choose not to decide, you | "A fool and his money are fun to go
still have made a choice" - Rush | out with" - seen on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!
news.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!physc1.byu.edu!robertson
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu>
From: robert...@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:15:11 -0600
References: <3s57RB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> <1992Oct6.123808.16803@panix.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 32
In article <1992Oct6.123808.16...@panix.com>, os2...@panix.com
(Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>
[...]
> Unfortunately, I also earned a reputation for being quite...
> uh...shall we say obnoxious? Gordon and I used to have
> fights both publicly and privately (Gordon, I still wonder
>
[...]
> So much for your comments about the only posts from IBMers
> being to help the customer. If you read between the lines,
> that also addresses the issue about the IBM lawyers, for
> our animosity climaxed when Gordon got so upset with my
> (incorrect for the most part) accusations that he
> threatened legal action (remember "Lie in its worst form"
> anyone?).
And then you go on to tell us that you got fired from IBM?
Perhaps some of your obnoxiousness led to the firing? ? ?
I have no idea what went on in the past but from Dec 1991 to
present I have read much of this newsgroup (2-5 times a week).
During this time I have only seen posts from IBM either in
defense of misinformation about IBM products, or to help users.
Additionally, I read with concern when Mr. Letwin wrote about
IBM's strong arm tatics, but since the public response from an
IBM lawyer asking for addtional information about the allegations
has gone unanswered for many weeks. This failure to respond leads
me to believe that the original post from Mr. Letwin was pure FUD
with no substance to his allegations.
Jim Robertson
robert...@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.204600.27469@microsoft.com>
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:46:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <3s57RB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> <1992Oct6.123808.16803@panix.com>
<1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu>
Lines: 67
In article <1992Oct7.231511....@physc1.byu.edu> robert...@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
> Additionally, I read with concern when Mr. Letwin wrote about
> IBM's strong arm tatics, but since the public response from an
> IBM lawyer asking for addtional information about the allegations
> has gone unanswered for many weeks. This failure to respond leads
> me to believe that the original post from Mr. Letwin was pure FUD
> with no substance to his allegations.
The IBM response wasn't from an IBM lawyer, but from John Soyring, some
kind of IBM flunky. A true-blue IBMer at that, since he
exhibitied two key characteristics of that political breed:
1) political nastiness. Mr. Soyring's posting should have been
a private query. He was asking for information on the letter
from IBM lawyers. He could have emailed his enquirey to me,
he has my address. I'd have gotten the mail in an hour or so.
Or he could have phoned me. He knows my phone number. He could
have had his response in a couple of minutes.
But instead, he POSTS this query of his, and he words it in such
a way that it clearly implys that I was lying. He posts this
to some obscure forum without even any assurance that I'd ever
see it.
In fact, I never did see his posting. A friend forwarded me a copy,
so I learned of it indirectly. It never appeared on Microsoft's
news server.
2) Mr. Soyring shows another key IBM attribute: incompetetance. Not only
was this letter sent - the one he couldn't find after such an
exhaustive search, but I sent a very memorable reply to the
IBM lawyer. I *know* that those lawyers remember me very very
clearly. :-) It looks like Mr. Soyring didn't do a very good job
in his research. That's the IBM story; you don't need to have
any technical capability, you just need political skills.
So Mr. Soyring's game is very clear - you POST a private communication
onto a public forum, word it carefully to imply that your corespondant
is a liar, and then sit back and grin. If you're lucky he'll never see
your posting and your slander will stand unchallenged. At worst, he sees
it a week or so later and you've gotten in that much damage. It's this
kind of behavior on the profession and personal level that
caused me to refuse to have any further involvement with IBM personel,
nearly 5 years ago.
Mr. Soyring posts private correspondance over the net. But not being
an IBM politician I emailed my response to him, giving him details about
the letter. He somehow forgot to post his own reply acknowledging the
existance of the letter.
I have refrained from posting the IBM letter because I feel that it's unethical
to post a private communication. Here's my challenge to Soyring:
EMAIL and POST your permision, as an IBM'er, for me to post this letter
to the net. I'll do it as a GIF file so that everyone can see the letterhead
and the signature.
This is the part where IBM always lays down - they're big on writing nasty
and misleading things, but they're really weak on actually backing up
the talk with deeds.
I'm waiting
Gordon Letwin
not a spokesperson for Microsoft
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!
bcm!lib!oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Summary: long reply: Gordon wants to call IBM bad names and not get a response
Message-ID: <7559@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 1992 01:47:38 GMT
References: <1992Oct6.123808.16803@panix.com> <1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu>
<1992Oct12.204600.27469@microsoft.com>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston
Lines: 95
Nntp-Posting-Host: oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
In article <1992Oct12.204600.27...@microsoft.com> gord...@microsoft.com
(Gordon Letwin) writes:
>1) political nastiness. Mr. Soyring's posting should have been
> a private query. He was asking for information on the letter
> from IBM lawyers. He could have emailed his enquirey to me,
> he has my address. I'd have gotten the mail in an hour or so.
Why should he have? In particular, you posted a very serious accusation - one
designed to evoke a very negative response, given the net's cultural hatred of
lawyers - to this very forum. John Soyring chose to defend his organization in
this same forum. This is an entirely reasonable action.
> But instead, he POSTS this query of his, and he words it in such
> a way that it clearly implys that I was lying. He posts this
> to some obscure forum without even any assurance that I'd ever
> see it.
Obscure forum? NOT! After all, you've been an active participant in this very
forum in the past, and the forum was the same one you'd used to post your
accusation in the first place.
As for clearly implying you were lying, the best information he had led to
that exact conclusion. His tone was considerably more restrained than yours
when discussing IBM and OS/2. His response was measured, restrained, and
appropriate.
> In fact, I never did see his posting. A friend forwarded me a copy,
> so I learned of it indirectly. It never appeared on Microsoft's
> news server.
[I am mailing this to Gordon, just to avoid the possibility that this posting
doesn't arrive at microsoft.com. Of course, the vagaries of news propagation
never crossed Gordon's mind.]
>So Mr. Soyring's game is very clear - you POST a private communication
>onto a public forum, word it carefully to imply that your corespondant
>is a liar, and then sit back and grin. If you're lucky he'll never see
>your posting and your slander will stand unchallenged. At worst, he sees
>it a week or so later and you've gotten in that much damage. It's this
>kind of behavior on the profession and personal level that
>caused me to refuse to have any further involvement with IBM personel,
>nearly 5 years ago.
Oh, good grief. Read my .signature.
If you make accusations in public, expect them to be answered in public, and
to lose credibility if you do not resolve the issue in public. With all this
in mind, why did you make the accusation in the first place?
Personally, I'd be honored to work with IBM personnel, especially with those
in John Soyring's organization, on the development of OS/2. My experience as
an IBM customer for the past 11 years is far better than my experience as a
Microsoft customer over roughly the same period of time.
>Mr. Soyring posts private correspondance over the net. But not being
>an IBM politician I emailed my response to him, giving him details about
>the letter. He somehow forgot to post his own reply acknowledging the
>existance of the letter.
A response to a public accusation is not private correspondence if the
correspondent does not wish it to be. If you'd wished this matter to remain
private, then you should not have made the accusation in public. You're asking
for nothing less than the right to slam IBM in public without any basis for
the complaint and not get called on it.
>I have refrained from posting the IBM letter because I feel that it's unethical
>to post a private communication. Here's my challenge to Soyring:
>EMAIL and POST your permision, as an IBM'er, for me to post this letter
>to the net. I'll do it as a GIF file so that everyone can see the letterhead
>and the signature.
If you do not wish to post the letter, for whatever reason, I'll be happy to
email you my fax number so that you can back up your accusation. I'll even
pledge that I'll burn my copy after reading it, if you'd like.
>This is the part where IBM always lays down - they're big on writing nasty
>and misleading things, but they're really weak on actually backing up
>the talk with deeds.
Of course, when you're called on such an accusation, you don't want them to
defend themselves...
>I'm waiting
As am I.
> Gordon Letwin
> not a spokesperson for Microsoft
If not, you're the closest thing to it, besides Bill Gates.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: Bertram.Mosh...@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredG...@tdkt.kksys.com
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!
uum1!kksys.com!tdkt!
FredGate
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Open letter to Gordon Let
Message-ID: <722478270.F00001@tdkt.kksys.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:19:28 -0600
Lines: 24
Gordon:
I am pleased to hear from you again. Hopefully this message means the
PC Week rumor/report of your retirement was incorrect.
As for John Soyring being an IBM flunky (as you said in your posting), I
hardly believe he is a flunky. John is an official and legal IBM
spokesperson (or so is my impression as a member of the press). There
are few of these people around the world.
I am sure others will pass your not on to John. On the outside chance
no one else will do so, I captured a copy of your note and all replies
on this BBS. I will forward a copy to John on Compuserve in a couple of
days.
Stay well.
Bert Moshier
Unemployed but now able to devote the daylight hours to OS/2, portable
OS/2 and other visions with action behind them.
* Origin: (1:282/115)