Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330663 > unrolled thread

OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 10:09 -0500
    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 10:30 -0500
      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 10:40 -0500
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:04 -0600
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:45 -0500
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 19:25 -0500
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:23 -0600
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:39 -0500
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:09 -0700
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 19:30 -0500
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:35 -0500
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:20 -0700
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:56 -0600
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-04 19:08 +0100
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:29 -0600
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 08:44 -0500
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 14:49 -0500
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:00 -0500
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:25 -0500
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:24 -0600
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-11-05 12:31 +0000
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-05 07:51 -0500
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:59 -0500
                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 10:02 -0500
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 10:10 -0500
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 13:34 -0700
                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 13:33 -0700
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:09 -0700
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:41 -0500
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:21 -0700
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:33 -0500
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-04 09:48 -0500
                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 10:48 -0500
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 19:01 -0500
      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:03 -0600
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 19:03 -0500
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:23 -0600
    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 17:24 -0800
      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 17:41 -0800
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 21:05 -0500
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:04 +0000
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:15 +0000
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:46 -0600
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 18:27 -0500
      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 21:04 -0500
    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-05 15:28 +0000
      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 10:40 -0500
        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-06 12:27 +0000
          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 13:33 +0100
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 07:52 -0500
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 14:31 +0100
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 08:33 -0500
                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 14:39 +0100
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-11-06 07:41 -0600
                      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-07 09:21 +0000
                        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-07 10:18 -0500
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:44 -0700
                            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 19:49 +0000
                        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 07:22 -0600
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:32 +0000
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 08:50 -0500
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-06 13:53 +0000
                      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 09:04 -0500
                      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:26 -0800
                        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-09 12:51 +0000
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 06:47 -0800
                            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-10 09:29 +0000
                              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:02 -0800
                                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-12 11:12 +0000
                                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 11:09 -0700
                              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-10 09:29 -0700
                                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:38 -0800
                                  Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-12 11:18 +0000
                                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 11:10 -0700
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 09:16 -0700
                            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:10 -0800
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 12:50 -0700
                    Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-06 23:06 +0000
                      Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 18:12 -0500
                        Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-07 00:27 +0100
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 18:30 -0500
                            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-07 00:35 +0100
                              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 18:41 -0500
                                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 18:58 -0500
                            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:48 -0700
                          Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 18:53 -0500
                Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 09:49 -0600
            Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-06 13:28 +0000
              Re: OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016 Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-11-06 07:34 -0600

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#330663 — OS/2 Warp set to return in 2016

PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!

<http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/03/1337254/the-return-of-os2-warp-set-for-2016?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29>

We all known the ill-fated history of IBM's OS/2 Warp, while some others
may not know about the first OS/2-OEM distribution called eComStation.
Now a new company called Arca Noae, not happy with the results of this
last distribution, has signed an agreement with IBM to create a new OS/2
version. They announced a new OS, codenamed "Blue Lion," at Warpstock
2015 this last October; this will be based on OS/2 Warp 4.52 and the SMP
kernel. The OS/2 community has taken this news with positivism and the
OS2World community is now requesting everybody that has developed for
OS/2 on the past to open source their source code to collaborate.

-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#330667

On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:

> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!

OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3


> 
> <http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/03/1337254/the-return-of-os2-warp-set-for-2016?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29> 
> 
> 
> We all known the ill-fated history of IBM's OS/2 Warp, while some others
> may not know about the first OS/2-OEM distribution called eComStation.
> Now a new company called Arca Noae, not happy with the results of this
> last distribution, has signed an agreement with IBM to create a new OS/2
> version. They announced a new OS, codenamed "Blue Lion," at Warpstock
> 2015 this last October; this will be based on OS/2 Warp 4.52 and the SMP
> kernel. The OS/2 community has taken this news with positivism and the
> OS2World community is now requesting everybody that has developed for
> OS/2 on the past to open source their source code to collaborate.

For real?  Wow.  The blood actually drained from my head and I had 
visions of hell.  I mean, it's dead Jim.

(nitpick: "taken this news with positivism" should be written "taken 
this news positively" otherwise you sound like a community college 
dropout).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330670

On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
> 
>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
> 
> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
> 
> 
>>
>> <http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/03/1337254/the-return-of-os2-warp-set-for-2016?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29>
>>
>>
>> We all known the ill-fated history of IBM's OS/2 Warp, while some others
>> may not know about the first OS/2-OEM distribution called eComStation.
>> Now a new company called Arca Noae, not happy with the results of this
>> last distribution, has signed an agreement with IBM to create a new OS/2
>> version. They announced a new OS, codenamed "Blue Lion," at Warpstock
>> 2015 this last October; this will be based on OS/2 Warp 4.52 and the SMP
>> kernel. The OS/2 community has taken this news with positivism and the
>> OS2World community is now requesting everybody that has developed for
>> OS/2 on the past to open source their source code to collaborate.
> 
> For real?  Wow.  The blood actually drained from my head and I had
> visions of hell.  I mean, it's dead Jim.
> 
> (nitpick: "taken this news with positivism" should be written "taken
> this news positively" otherwise you sound like a community college
> dropout).

OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.


-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330707

On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>> 
>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>> 
>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3

[deletia]

> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.

   "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.

   It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330721

On 2015-11-03 2:04 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>
>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>
>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
> 
>    "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.

The thing is sorely outdated at this point; it clearly needs to be
developed. Marketing such obsolete trash would not end well.

>    It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.

People, for whatever reason, still trust the IBM name. That, alone,
would give people a reason to look at the operating system.

-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330767

On 2015-11-03 19:45:18 +0000, Slimer said:

> On 2015-11-03 2:04 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>> 
>>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>> 
>>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>> 
>> "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
> 
> The thing is sorely outdated at this point; it clearly needs to be
> developed. Marketing such obsolete trash would not end well.
> 
>> It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
> 
> People, for whatever reason, still trust the IBM name. That, alone,
> would give people a reason to look at the operating system.


IBM have nothing to do with this effort beyond letting AN have a license.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330891

On 2015-11-04, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-03 19:45:18 +0000, Slimer said:
>
>> On 2015-11-03 2:04 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>>> 
>>>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>>> 
>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>>> 
>>> "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>> 
>> The thing is sorely outdated at this point; it clearly needs to be
>> developed. Marketing such obsolete trash would not end well.
>> 
>>> It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
>>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
>> 
>> People, for whatever reason, still trust the IBM name. That, alone,
>> would give people a reason to look at the operating system.
>
>
> IBM have nothing to do with this effort beyond letting AN have a license.
>

    That doesn't matter. A trademark is a trademark. If it's a good mark,
then it will be of considerable marketing value. Most consumers are Lemmings.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330903

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:23:02 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2015-11-04, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03 19:45:18 +0000, Slimer said:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-03 2:04 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-03, Slimer <> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
>>>> 
>>>> [deletia]
>>>> 
>>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>>>> 
>>>> "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>>> 
>>> The thing is sorely outdated at this point; it clearly needs to be
>>> developed. Marketing such obsolete trash would not end well.
>>> 
>>>> It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
>>>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
>>> 
>>> People, for whatever reason, still trust the IBM name. That, alone,
>>> would give people a reason to look at the operating system.
>>
>>
>> IBM have nothing to do with this effort beyond letting AN have a license.
>>
> 
>     That doesn't matter. A trademark is a trademark. If it's a good mark,
> then it will be of considerable marketing value. Most consumers are Lemmings.

If that were the case Linux would have a much higher market share than the
1.2 percent it currently has.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330757

On 11/03/15 12:04, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-11-03, Slimer<>  wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>
>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>
>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
>
> [deletia]
>
>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>
>     "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>
>     It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.

Which is something linux community lacks... Marketing.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330768

On 2015-11-03 23:09:59 +0000, GreyCloud said:

> On 11/03/15 12:04, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2015-11-03, Slimer<>  wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>> 
>>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>> 
>>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least OS X 10.3
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>> 
>> "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>> 
>> It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS trolling.
>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
> 
> Which is something linux community lacks... Marketing.


The Linux community has the greatest things going for it

1. A free OS, free distros, free productivity apps and an enthusiastic 
user and developer base.
2. Professional contributions to the OS from revenue earning companies.
3. Word of mouth to get people to at least try it.
4. Various major PC makers who ship Linux versions of their laptops and 
desktops.

And yet ... Linux desktop use (percentage) has fallen year to year...

Linux desktop is not viable in the real world.

Windows dominates.

OS X grows.

iOS grows.

Android grows (backed by major marketing and a major company).

Not Linux desktop, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330770

On 2015-11-03 7:30 PM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
> On 2015-11-03 23:09:59 +0000, GreyCloud said:
> 
>> On 11/03/15 12:04, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-03, Slimer<>  wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-03 10:30 AM, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-11-03 15:09:44 +0000, Slimer said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PC users might finally have a decent alternative to Windows!
>>>>>
>>>>> OS X has been the supperior alternative to Windows since at least
>>>>> OS X 10.3
>>>
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>>>
>>> "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>>>
>>> It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS
>>> trolling.
>>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
>>
>> Which is something linux community lacks... Marketing.
> 
> 
> The Linux community has the greatest things going for it
> 
> 1. A free OS, free distros, free productivity apps and an enthusiastic
> user and developer base.
> 2. Professional contributions to the OS from revenue earning companies.
> 3. Word of mouth to get people to at least try it.
> 4. Various major PC makers who ship Linux versions of their laptops and
> desktops.
> 
> And yet ... Linux desktop use (percentage) has fallen year to year...
> 
> Linux desktop is not viable in the real world.
> 
> Windows dominates.
> 
> OS X grows.
> 
> iOS grows.
> 
> Android grows (backed by major marketing and a major company).
> 
> Not Linux desktop, though.

People want technology that is accessible and operates like an extension
of themselves. They don't want it to have a steep learning curve and for
it to cause compatibility issues. They also don't want it to have a
nasty community attached to it which constantly makes them feel stupid
or guilty for some imagined wrong. Essentially, they want OS X, iOS and
the new Windows.


-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330778

On 11/03/15 16:31, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 4:09 PM, in article
> ObCdnZaVA6ZXo6TLnZ2dnUU7-YPus__v@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud"<cumulus@mist.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, it might
>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>>>
>>>      "Development" has nothing to do with it. It's all marketing.
>>>
>>>      It takes a lot of effort to push back against 20 years of WinDOS
>>> trolling.
>>> Apple couldn't even manage despite a pretty damn valiant effort.
>>
>> Which is something linux community lacks... Marketing.
>
> True... but it has been marketed by such giants as Dell, HP, Walmart, and
> others. None were able to do so with any great success.
>
>
Their marketing efforts weren't all that focused on linux, for whatever 
reasons.  I didn't see anything on TV at the time nor the newspaper ads.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330863

> slime wrote:
>>
>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, 

Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.

>> it might
>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.

Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
Idiot.

Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
thriving???"

-- 
"'Advocates' like you the small-minded control freaks. Take a look at
the hate and boycott sites you idiots put up. Take a look at the
disregard for personal property shown by 'advocates.' You freaks are
the ones who are intolerant to anyone who doesn't drink the same
kool-aide as you."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330864

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:56:12 -0600
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > slime wrote:  
> >>
> >> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows
> >> than Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for
> >> it,   
> 
> Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/ibm_linux_mainframes/
http://www.informationweek.com/software/operating-systems/ibms-linuxone-mainframe-whats-old-is-new-again/a/d-id/1321789

Yeah, IBM is putting their fate in OS/2 ;)

> 
> >> it might
> >> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same
> >> kind of people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.  
> 
> Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
> Idiot.

Amount of work done so far for Linux surpasses any OS of today, I think.

> 
> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
> thriving???"
> 
Yeah desktop ;ppppp
But I take Linux anyway before anything else ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331048

Melzzzzz wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> 
>> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
>> thriving???"
> 
> Yeah desktop ;ppppp
> But I take Linux anyway before anything else ...

Well, the existance of one market, the desktop, where Linux does not
dominate, shows that the "people responsible" for Linux are doing it
all wrong, you see.

Sheesh.

-- 
"You still don't understand the drawbacks and realities of a fractured
user base then?"  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, attacking
Android

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331049

On 5 Nov 2015 13:34:28 GMT, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:29:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz wrote:
>> 
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
>>>> thriving???"
>>> 
>>> Yeah desktop ;ppppp But I take Linux anyway before anything else ...
>> 
>> Well, the existance of one market, the desktop, where Linux does not
>> dominate, shows that the "people responsible" for Linux are doing it all
>> wrong, you see.
>> 
>> Sheesh.
> 
> 'does not dominate' meaning in this case, less than 2% of the desktop/
> laptop market.  So yes, the 'people responsible' for Linux are doing it 
> all wrong for that part of the market.

Yes.
Obviously choice between 1000 different versions of Linux isn't working.
Maybe when they reach 2000 different versions of Linux, the masses will
start using desktop Linux?
Is 2000 the magic number for Linux?
Time will be the judge.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330878

On 2015-11-04 12:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> slime wrote:
>>>
>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, 
> 
> Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.
> 
>>> it might
>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
> 
> Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
> Idiot.
> 
> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
> thriving???"

Linux isn't "thriving," it's *surviving*. Since it a pretty shitty
combination of a number of elements developed by a number of people,
nobody owns the whole thing. As a result, if KDE dies, Linux sticks
around. If gstreamer's development ends, Linux remains. It's hard to
kill something which isn't owned by anyone. Linux development is indeed
thriving, but that doesn't mean that it has reached the same level of
quality as commercial products like OS/2 have even today.



-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330881

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:49:19 -0500, Slimer wrote:

> On 2015-11-04 12:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> slime wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, 
>> 
>> Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.
>> 
>>>> it might
>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>> 
>> Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
>> Idiot.
>> 
>> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
>> thriving???"
> 
> Linux isn't "thriving," it's *surviving*. Since it a pretty shitty
> combination of a number of elements developed by a number of people,
> nobody owns the whole thing. As a result, if KDE dies, Linux sticks
> around. If gstreamer's development ends, Linux remains. It's hard to
> kill something which isn't owned by anyone. Linux development is indeed
> thriving, but that doesn't mean that it has reached the same level of
> quality as commercial products like OS/2 have even today.

I have a fond spot in my heart for OS/2 because I truly believe it was an
excellent OS stuck with horrible marketing and support from IBM.
At the time, technically, it was light years ahead of Windows.
It wasn't even close.

However, PERCEPTION wise, the consumer was mostly task switching at the
time (TSR programs were popular as was Desqview) and Windows multi-tasking
was good enough. And then there was the same situation that Linux suffers
from, programs and hardware support.

Microsoft made certain just about every piece of popular hardware was
supported with Windows and IBM didn't.
Then there is WinOS debacle.

So why write an application for OS/2 when you can write one for Windows and
it will run under the WinOS module of OS/2?
Huge mistake by IBM.

OS/2, like BEOS and GEOWORKS missed the boat a long time ago.
Give it up already and let it die gracefully.


-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330927

On 2015-11-04 3:00 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:49:19 -0500, Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-04 12:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> slime wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, 
>>>
>>> Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.
>>>
>>>>> it might
>>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>>>
>>> Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
>>> thriving???"
>>
>> Linux isn't "thriving," it's *surviving*. Since it a pretty shitty
>> combination of a number of elements developed by a number of people,
>> nobody owns the whole thing. As a result, if KDE dies, Linux sticks
>> around. If gstreamer's development ends, Linux remains. It's hard to
>> kill something which isn't owned by anyone. Linux development is indeed
>> thriving, but that doesn't mean that it has reached the same level of
>> quality as commercial products like OS/2 have even today.
> 
> I have a fond spot in my heart for OS/2 because I truly believe it was an
> excellent OS stuck with horrible marketing and support from IBM.
> At the time, technically, it was light years ahead of Windows.
> It wasn't even close.
> 
> However, PERCEPTION wise, the consumer was mostly task switching at the
> time (TSR programs were popular as was Desqview) and Windows multi-tasking
> was good enough. And then there was the same situation that Linux suffers
> from, programs and hardware support.
> 
> Microsoft made certain just about every piece of popular hardware was
> supported with Windows and IBM didn't.
> Then there is WinOS debacle.
> 
> So why write an application for OS/2 when you can write one for Windows and
> it will run under the WinOS module of OS/2?
> Huge mistake by IBM.
> 
> OS/2, like BEOS and GEOWORKS missed the boat a long time ago.
> Give it up already and let it die gracefully.

I think that there's still a demand for OS/2, albeit minimal, from
people who want to use something else than Windows and have already been
disappointed by Linux. OS/2 users will tell you themselves that the
operating system was robust, something that only the kernel in Linux
happens to be. For that reason alone a lot of companies would likely be
interested in using it. Besides, OS/2 applications from the 1990s still
work on eComStation today AND OS/2 has direct support for DOS
applications which, I've heard, is stellar. It ends up being quite a
package for enterprises.

I'd probably stick to Windows myself but I have to imagine that its
resurrection could interest quite a few parties.


-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330897

On 2015-11-04, Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2015-11-04 12:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> slime wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OS/2 still provides more hope for a decent alternative to Windows than
>>>> Linux does. If IBM gets involved and actively develops for it, 
>> 
>> Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Idiot.
>> 
>>>> it might
>>>> turn into something decent. It development is left to the same kind of
>>>> people responsible for what we see in Linux, it's doomed.
>> 
>> Which is why OS/2 is essentially dead, while Linux is thriving.
>> Idiot.
>> 
>> Cue for snotty assholes to focus on "the desktop" and sneer "2% is
>> thriving???"
>
> Linux isn't "thriving," it's *surviving*. Since it a pretty shitty

    It thrives as much as MacOS does. 

[deletia]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web