Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!pa.dec.com!
nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!irenaeus.mlo.dec.com!eje
From: e...@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Subject: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.215408.12815@engage.pko.dec.com>
Keywords: IBM
Sender: newsdae...@engage.pko.dec.com (USENET News Daemon)
Reply-To: ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 21:54:08 GMT
Lines: 28
One of the significant reasons I oppose OS/2 is IBM's PC software product
history. What history, you say? That's correct.
Think of the best program IBM wrote that you can think of. Think hard. PC-DOS
doesn't count, because it's largely MS-DOS. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
Did you say, "Topview?" Maybe, "Displaywrite"? FORTRAN? COBOL?
Maybe we can come up with a list of programs IBM has written just for fun. I
know that there must be more than I can think of right now. But I'll bet none
of them are best sellers.
Microsoft may be arrogant. Microsoft may ship late. Microsoft may be really
nasty. But their C compiler ruled supreme for a long time. Excel is a
formidable product. Microsoft Word is at least one of the two most popular
word processing programs.
All you folks who make fun of Microsoft's code quality and delivery dates.
Tell us about the software products IBM has shipped for the IBM PC. Perhaps
we should make two lists: one set of products they've shipped since 1986, and
one set for all products.
I'm not making fun of IBM -- yet. I'd really like us to think about which
products they've shipped. If no one can come up with anything other than 3270
emulators, then I'll make fun of IBM.
Eric Ewanco
ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Path: sparky!uunet!darwin.sura.net!mips!pacbell.com!unet!zippy!jrs
From: j...@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Keywords: IBM
Message-ID: <2148@unet.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 92 23:33:14 GMT
References: <1992Jul13.215408.12815@engage.pko.dec.com>
Sender: n...@unet.UUCP
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: zippy
In article <1992Jul13.215408.12...@engage.pko.dec.com> ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>One of the significant reasons I oppose OS/2 is IBM's PC software product
>history. What history, you say? That's correct.
>
>Think of the best program IBM wrote that you can think of. Think hard. PC-DOS
>doesn't count, because it's largely MS-DOS. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
>Did you say, "Topview?" Maybe, "Displaywrite"? FORTRAN? COBOL?
>
>Maybe we can come up with a list of programs IBM has written just for fun. I
>know that there must be more than I can think of right now. But I'll bet none
>of them are best sellers.
For a previous job, I disassembled numerous bits and pieces of DOS because we
needed to know the internals. In particular, I spent some time on DRIVER.SYS,
which in DOS 3.3 was about 1.8K in size. In DOS 4.0, though, it was over
5K, but when I took a look at it I found that the basic core of the program
was virtually unchanged - only one bug about 1.44MB formatting was changed.
The extra 4K of code was a set of library routines, most of which were not
even used by the program. In fact, the exit routine for the program was
several hundred bytes long, and made a special check to see if DOS 1.x was
running. If it was, then the program would terminate via INT 20. However,
DRIVER.SYS is a device driver, and thus could never be executed on DOS 1.x
in the first place, so all of this code was pointless.
I, therefore, am not impressed with IBM's code, at least for PCs.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv1!watmath!
undergrad.math.waterloo.edu!napier.waterloo.edu!cebarton
From: cebar...@napier.waterloo.edu (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <BrCzq0.ADz@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Keywords: IBM
Sender: n...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 03:15:35 GMT
Lines: 20
ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>One of the significant reasons I oppose OS/2 is IBM's PC software product
>history. What history, you say? That's correct.
Let me get this straight. You oppose a software product on the basis that
the company producing it hasn't produced a lot of software for the machine
before. (I'm not going to argue that point - only reiterate the premise)
This begs the one word follow-up question: So?
IBM *has* a good PC software product now. It's a better OS than anything
Microsoft has yet marketed for the PC, regardless of how much "experience"
they have.
I dearly hope that you do not use the same method to judge people as you
do operating systems. Do you decide whether a person is worthy of respect
based on the number of people you have met from their country of origin?
--
Casey Barton (Mr.) cebar...@descartes.waterloo.edu (519)725-6861
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!
nntpd.lkg.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!irenaeus.mlo.dec.com!eje
From: e...@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.135842.19776@engage.pko.dec.com>
Keywords: IBM
Sender: newsdae...@engage.pko.dec.com (USENET News Daemon)
Reply-To: ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <BrCzq0.ADz@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 13:58:42 GMT
Lines: 32
> I dearly hope that you do not use the same method to judge people as you
> do operating systems. Do you decide whether a person is worthy of respect
> based on the number of people you have met from their country of origin?
No, but I wouldn't hire a hardware engineer to write a next generation operating
system that I will use for mission-critical applications. Nor would I hire a
COBOL or PL/I hacker to write such an operating system.
> IBM, in the PC market, has never been a large application supplier.
> I don't know if they ever will be. But who cares? OS/2 is slick, slick,
> slick.
Remember that MS wrote a large portion of OS/2. How do we know IBM has the
capability to keep it running? Just because Dan Quayle is in the White House
doesn't mean he can run the presidency if Bush resigns.
In article <1992Jul14.043829.47...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, s...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>(or Wait and Signal). When you P on a semphore, if its value is zero, the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Just though that was funny.
You should have seen us in class when the prof said it. Yes, that's the proper
terminology.
That's why some people prefer "Wait" and "Signal". The P and V are from Dutch
words used in the original paper on semaphores, proberen (to test) and verhogen
(to increment).
Eric-who-hasn't-come-up-with-a-.signature-yet
Nothing I say officially represents DIGITAL(TM). (Can't say DEC. It's wrong.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!
usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dab6
From: d...@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.145514.3395@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Sender: n...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: d...@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
References: <1992Jul14.135842.19776@engage.pko.dec.com>
<BrCzq0.ADz@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:55:14 GMT
Lines: 25
In a previous article, e...@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) says:
>Remember that MS wrote a large portion of OS/2. How do we know IBM has the
>capability to keep it running? Just because Dan Quayle is in the White House
>doesn't mean he can run the presidency if Bush resigns.
Eric of DEC,
Have you ever used OS/2 2.0?
Have you ever compared it to the microsoft os/2 product?
IBM has all ready managed to add a non trivial amount of functionality
between OS/2 1.2 to OS/2 2.0, mainly the work place shell and the ability
to run windows binaries. IBM did this without microsoft's support or
cooperation. In fact, about 1 year ago, Stephen Balmer said that adding
the ability to run windows binaries to OS/2 would be dificult if microsoft
was cooperating, and microsoft is not cooperating. IBM was able to
write code that microsoft said could not be done. This demonstrates some
ability.
I really doubt that you have used OS/2 2.0 because of the claims you are
making. Why don't you try OS/2 2.0 before you make all of your
'IBM can't write code' statements.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!
engage.pko.dec.com!irenaeus.mlo.dec.com!eje
From: e...@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.154533.23309@engage.pko.dec.com>
Sender: newsdae...@engage.pko.dec.com (USENET News Daemon)
Reply-To: ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <1992Jul14.135842.19776@engage.pko.dec.com>
<BrCzq0.ADz@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> <1992Jul14.145514.3395@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 15:45:33 GMT
Lines: 61
In article <1992Jul14.145514.3...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, d...@po.CWRU.Edu
(Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>IBM has all ready managed to add a non trivial amount of functionality
>between OS/2 1.2 to OS/2 2.0, mainly the work place shell
Good. It was desperately needed.
> and the ability to run windows binaries.
Wasn't that code courtesy of Microsoft? Or did IBM reengineer it?
>IBM did this without microsoft's support or
>cooperation. In fact, about 1 year ago, Stephen Balmer said that adding
>the ability to run windows binaries to OS/2 would be dificult if microsoft
>was cooperating, and microsoft is not cooperating. IBM was able to
>write code that microsoft said could not be done. This demonstrates some
>ability.
I doubt Steve was talking technically. Still, I do seem to remember that IBM
is relying on MS code to incorporate Windows into OS/2.
>I really doubt that you have used OS/2 2.0 because of the claims you are
>making. Why don't you try OS/2 2.0 before you make all of your
>'IBM can't write code' statements.
No, I haven't used OS/2 2.0. (For that matter, I haven't used Windows or
Windows-NT, either.) I am interested in technical merit and I've heard
lots of information on both products. I do know that I had a very hard time
finding anything on OS/2 2.0 in the bookstore. I have used OS/2 1.3 and
found it brain-dead. (Certainly not a credit to Microsoft, since this was
before the split.) But IBM didn't write all of OS/2 2.0. It's impossible to
know who wrote how much (though it is possible to say which features IBM added
after the split), but I'm sure MS wrote a considerable part of it.
I never said "IBM can't write code." I asked for evidence that they could.
Evidence that IBM is able to stand on its own and carry OS/2 a few more
versions. Evidence that OS/2 is the future operating system, instead of a
a product that will die because half its development team was wrenched from it.
Why did IBM team up with MS in the first place if they had confidence that they
could do it themselves?
Maybe OS/2 will be the OS of the future. Companies have been known to come out
with good products unexpectedly. But I am not willing to hedge my bets on an
OS whose future is uncertain. OS/2 is here now, everyone screams. So was the
TRS-80 in 1980. Yes, but will it be here two years from now? Being here
now and having nifty features doesn't mean that the OS will stay around.
MS has the skill to develop new OSes. IBM is like a pregnant mother whose
lover has abandoned her. She may be able to carry the baby to term, but can
she raise the child alone? (Naturally I would think that the father was a
scum, and I'd support the woman, but this is just an illustration.)
I guess I still haven't gotten over the fact that OS/2 1.3 was the laughing-
stock of the industry, and I have difficulty taking anything named OS/2
seriously.
Eric
Not speaking for DIGITAL(TM)
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!bcm!lib!oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <6935@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 14 Jul 1992 16:45:24 GMT
References: <BrCzq0.ADz@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
<1992Jul14.145514.3395@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Jul14.154533.23309@engage.pko.dec.com>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
In article <1992Jul14.154533.23...@engage.pko.dec.com> ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>I guess I still haven't gotten over the fact that OS/2 1.3 was the laughing-
>stock of the industry, and I have difficulty taking anything named OS/2
>seriously.
That's where I was two months ago, to the point that I laid out $200 for
DESQview/X and its TCP/IP manager. Now I'm a happy OS/2 user, wishing I had
that kind of functionality two or three years ago.
This is not your father's OS/2. Look at it on its own merits.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"[...] have you noticed how many people have joined you on the back of
Rosinante to help subdue this particular windmill?" -- Dan Herrick
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!
desire.wright.edu!jstewart
From: jstew...@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.213905.2857@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 15 Jul 92 02:39:05 GMT
References: <1992Jul13.215408.12815@engage.pko.dec.com> <2148@unet.UUCP>
Organization: Wright State University
Lines: 33
In article <2...@unet.UUCP>, j...@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
> In article <1992Jul13.215408.12...@engage.pko.dec.com> ewa...@kalvin.enet.dec.com
writes:
>>
>>One of the significant reasons I oppose OS/2 is IBM's PC software product
>>history. What history, you say? That's correct.
>>
>>Think of the best program IBM wrote that you can think of. Think hard. PC-DOS
>>doesn't count, because it's largely MS-DOS. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
>>Did you say, "Topview?" Maybe, "Displaywrite"? FORTRAN? COBOL?
>>
>>Maybe we can come up with a list of programs IBM has written just for fun. I
>>know that there must be more than I can think of right now. But I'll bet none
>>of them are best sellers.
>
> For a previous job, I disassembled numerous bits and pieces of DOS because we
> needed to know the internals. In particular, I spent some time on DRIVER.SYS,
> which in DOS 3.3 was about 1.8K in size. In DOS 4.0, though, it was over
> 5K, but when I took a look at it I found that the basic core of the program
> was virtually unchanged - only one bug about 1.44MB formatting was changed.
>
> The extra 4K of code was a set of library routines, most of which were not
> even used by the program. In fact, the exit routine for the program was
> several hundred bytes long, and made a special check to see if DOS 1.x was
> running. If it was, then the program would terminate via INT 20. However,
> DRIVER.SYS is a device driver, and thus could never be executed on DOS 1.x
> in the first place, so all of this code was pointless.
>
> I, therefore, am not impressed with IBM's code, at least for PCs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PC-DOS 99.9% MS-DOS. This brain
deadedness was almost certainly fromn MS.
John Stewart
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!gordonl
From: gord...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.231022.5094@microsoft.com>
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:10:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <1992Jul13.215408.12815@engage.pko.dec.com> <2148@unet.UUCP>
<1992Jul14.213905.2857@desire.wright.edu>
Lines: 58
In article <1992Jul14.213905.2...@desire.wright.edu> jstew...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <2...@unet.UUCP>, j...@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
>> For a previous job, I disassembled numerous bits and pieces of DOS because we
>> needed to know the internals. In particular, I spent some time on DRIVER.SYS,
>> which in DOS 3.3 was about 1.8K in size. In DOS 4.0, though, it was over
>> 5K, but when I took a look at it I found that the basic core of the program
>> was virtually unchanged - only one bug about 1.44MB formatting was changed.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PC-DOS 99.9% MS-DOS. This brain
>deadedness was almost certainly fromn MS.
You're wrong. He states that he's comparing DOS 4 to DOS 3.3. DOS 4.00
was entirely an IBM product. (MS produced 4.01, a bug fix release, but
didn't substantially change anything).
I worked on DOS 5 and in the process studied DOS 4 very closely; that
ridiculous code plus a lot of other sh*t was indeed put in there by
the brilliant boys in boca. As you may recall, DOS 4 ballooned in size
vs. DOS 3.3 yet added little functionality. It didn't sell well for that
reason, as well as the bugs that IBM installed. MS wrote DOS 5 which is
much smaller and faster (even without HMA). I remember seeing a project
planning memo re: DOS 5 which started out, essentially,
"First we rip out all that IBM code"
I can say from personal experience that it's a great pleasure to wield
one's DELETE key like a mad slasher, in circumstances like this.
In sum, it's fair to say that DOS 3.3 and DOS 5.0, successful and
popular products, are "Microsoft writing DOS". DOS 4.00, bugs and
obesity and all, are a good example of "IBM writing DOS". IMHO, the problem
is based in IBM's inability - or unwillingness - to distinguish between
their good programmers and their poor ones. I think that they feel that
just as it would be discriminatory to give the important jobs only to
men, or whites, it's also discriminatory to give key jobs only
to the good engineers. Jobs are assigned by seniority and an unblotted
copybook, rather than skill or ability.
So you get folks who can have enough skill to stick N instructions together,
but not enough experience or judgement to decide if it makes sense, or if
it's stupid, to put a 4K hunk of code into the resident kernel.
For example, DOS 4.00 had "optimizations" added to it whose net effect was
to slow things down. The decision was made by someone who knew what
an optimization was, but didn't have the experience to to evaluate such
things - both on paper before and by stopwatch afterwards - to see if they
make sense.
Some IBM guys have been offended because they feel that I'm denegrating
all IBM programmers. By no means. I worked with some sharp guys there.
But I also worked with at least as many utter bozos. And more often then
not, the sharp guys (who were considered untrustworthy "mavericks" because
they said what was true vs. what management wanted to hear) were doing the
scut work and the utter bozos were running things.
gordon letwin
not a spokesperson for anyone