🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5gcpte$291g$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, baxte17@ibm.net writes:
>all:
>
>IBM must be licking its wounds from its many, many, many failed software
>initiatives.  Ad OpenDoc to the list of "great IBM technology; zero IBM support."
>
>(I wonder how the myriad of IBM software developers feel about designing
>superior technologies only to have their top managers to blunder 
>opportunity after opportunity at pushing these products onto the market place)
>
>-Kevin
>
>               
>Source: http://www.pcweek.com/news/0310/14eopen.html                  
<Snip the article - too depressing>

I think they must feel very, very badly, Kevin. It should be noted that OpenDoc
was cursed almost from the beginning, as the PCWeek article correctly points out.
I also note that Thompson seems not to understand OpenDoc very well when he
says it is not web-enabled enough.  That scarcely seemed necessary for a version
1 level of a new technology which had the goal of creating compund documents.
As the WebPak showed, they were already thinking about this in Austin, but it
didn't need to be a priority.

Ah, well - if you've spent a few years watching IBM, you know this kind of thing
happens very frequently, which is not to say that it doesn't smart every time. And
we got so much closer to OpenDoc than to, say, Kaleida or the original scheme for
Taligent, that it hurts all the more.

Time to reclaim the disk space and move on - or wait to see if IBM will proceed with
Windows and OS/2 even without Apple on board.

Mark