🚀 go-pugleaf

Ref article <sqfwinajutuuke.pminews@usr95.neocomm.net>, by "Carlton E.
Wyatt" <ttaywec@useiname.com>; text of that article at end.

I'm a former IBMer who asked for and took the money in the 'voluntary'
purges.  I doubt if IBM is doing anything as considered as trying to
shed personal users of OS/2.  I worked (primarily) the 370 / XA / ESA
(mainframe) end of software support for 5 yrs in IBM.  During that time
the cost of support cycled from being built into the license price to
being an added extra to being in the license price again.  Those changes
were at that time more to do with internal IBM politics and fashions
than business sense or customers.

The crux of what happened then and I what I expect is happening now with
Warp is... "Who" gets the money; within IBM that is.  The 'Upgrade
Protection' money probably goes to the part of IBM that develops Warp.
Release it as service and that part will be charged more by the service
organisation for the next release of software (because they spent more
last time i.e. on Warp 4 service).

So its probably just an internal money decision.

The following paragraph may seem to be a digression..

At one time the policy for IBM mainframe software was that a new license
fee was only charged when a product cut a new Version.  To take Warp for
example 3 to 4 could have been a version so a new license fee comes in
to the developing Lab.  But 2.0 to 2.1 is a release so no new money.  Of
course in those days you paid a fee EACH MONTH for the mainframe
software, the Lab got part of this money.  PC software changed this; in
essence the cost of new releases was seperated out and you pay an
upgrade fee; but then if you don't upgrade you don't pay as you would
have under the mainframe system.

..but it isn't

You see IBM's got 'history'.  Its structure was based on the Mainframe
model, changes take time.  Maybe (and I mean maybe) the changes aren't
fast enough for OS/2.

Pity - I've been using OS/2 since 1.x, it is (IMHO) in useablility and
technical terms better than Micros**t's offerings.  For example, I'm now
a consultant; I couldn't get Win anything (3.1, 95A, 95B, NT4) or
Caldera Linux to connect to a clients TCP/IP network over ISDN.  Warp 4
and InJoy did!

Oh and finally why did the IBM mainframe software developers take back
paying for the cost of service and upgrades?

BECAUSE CHARGING FOR IT LOST THEM CUSTOMERS.

--
"Something witty and original"
Andrew M Lindley - His personal opinion
--
Original article follows
In article <sqfwinajutuuke.pminews@usr95.neocomm.net>, "Carlton E. Wyatt"
<ttaywec@useiname.com> writes
>It seems that IBM is purposely trying to push the average user of OS/2 to
>drop the operating system, leaving it for use by their big corporate accounts
>with deep pockets.  We now have very desirable upgrades that require and
>"Upgrade Protection" contract in order to obtain.  This applies currently to
>the new TCP/IP version 4.1 that was just released.  Unless you've purchased
>that contract, you can't download it or get it.  And word is that the new
>Communicator for OS/2 will require the same thing, and only a "refresh" of
>the current Netscape 2.02 to use Java 1.1.1 will be released for the average
>user to get for free.  And how do you get an "Upgrade Protection" contract? 
>You have to contact your  IBM Account Executive (how many of us non-corporate
>people have one of those????) and pay approximately $200 per license (for an
>operating system that only cost me $89 retail????).
>
>I really love OS/2 and have been using it exclusively since 2.0 was in beta. 
>I've gone from 2.0Beta to 2.0, then 2.0+SP, 2.1, 2.11, 3.0, and now 4.0,
>purchasing the upgrades as they've come available.  I love the WPS and think
>it's the best user interface ever developed on ANY platform.  But it seems
>IBM is finally abandoning me and pushing me towards the Microsoft camp.  All
>of the new IBM software and features are Win32 platform only, with only token
>attention paid to OS/2 Warp.  I'm officially pissed off, now.
>
>Carlton Wyatt
>Usually a proud TeamOS/2 member since 1994