🚀 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

In message <5gcpte$291g$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - baxte17@ibm.net writes:
>
>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)

I'm wondering the same thing...  There must be layers upon layers upon
layers of managers at IBM who never realized that cool and useful
technology doesn't sell itself out of the labs. 

The saddest thing is that IBM probably screwed it up for Apple too. Even
with much smaller resources Apple, unlike IBM, actually got OpenDoc to work
and came up with usable OpenDoc apps of their own. Perhaps too many IBM
managers own M$ stock...

Well, perhaps some of the OpenDoc technology could be rolled into Java
Beans.


>Source: http://www.pcweek.com/news/0310/14eopen.html                  
>
>
>                   March 14, 1997 6:00 PM ET 
>                   Requiem for OpenDoc
>                   By Norvin Leach
>
>                    
>At the June 1995 PC Expo in New York, Apple Computer Inc.'s
>Gilbert Amelio, Novell Inc.'s Robert Frankenberg and IBM's John M.
>Thompson stood together on a stage asserting their commitment to
>OpenDoc and proclaiming it was key to the future of their companies.
[cut]

Hmm, I thought Amelio was just another Apple board member until early
'96...


Brgds,
___________________________________________________________________
	    pit --> @iohk.com  ---  petri i. taimisto

	Do you enjoy freedom of speech, opinion and religion? 
		 A lot of people aren't that lucky...
			F R E E  T I B * T

In <5gcpte$291g$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, baxte17@ibm.net writes:
>
>(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)
>

Why would anyone care about Open Doc when I.B.M. is on a "around the
clock 24hr Java alert" !

Between spending most of their time porting things to Windows NT and
Java they have little time for much else.

Next year who knows what it will be.

The thing I can't understand is how a company like I.B.M. stays in
business after consistently creating good technology products and 
letting them die -- along with the suckers they convinced to buy it.

It seems like the giant pool of suckers should be getting smaller.

In message <332d2a71.0@news.rz.uni-passau.de> -
hermann@hobbes.fmi.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann) writes:
:>
:>In article <5gim25$2l@dopey.magg.net>, badair@magg.net (Brooks Adair) writes:
:>|> In message <5ghtkv$lan@server1.erinet.com> - grobin@erinet.com16 Mar 1997
:>|> 22:53:19 GMT writes:
:>|> :>Why would anyone care about Open Doc when I.B.M. is on a "around the
:>|> :>clock 24hr Java alert" !
:>|> :>
:>|> :>Between spending most of their time porting things to Windows NT and
:>|> :>Java they have little time for much else.
:>|>  
:>|> What's realy stupid is that Java and OpenDoc should not even be looked at as
:>|> compeating technoligies, they are complementary. IBM should be working to
:>|> integrate them.
:>
:>Actually the two are getting integrated. The JavaBeans API uses technology 
:>from OpenDoc AFAI heard.
:>
:> -Mike
:>
:>

There's a good article on this subject at Infoworld.

Robert Thomas ->"Yeap, I said it."  
The opinions expressed above are of my own free thought and should not
be considered to represent the views of my employer or other interested
parties.

In message <E77v9M.GLK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> - carsten@edm2.com (Carsten
Whimster - EDM/2)Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:08:10 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>I know one company who will care about this announcement: the company
:>that bought Mesa and Clearlook (Sundial?). They have supposedly been 
:>working on releasing their programs as OpenDoc components. This type
:>of thing can sink a small company like that.

Yeah, and that is what really irritates me about IBM. It is getting harder
and harder to "still believe". IBM makes awesome technology, but doesn't
know how to sell it.  To large companies and to consumers,, stuff has to
be "sold".  They have to be given a reason "beyond" the fact that it is
good technology to buy into it.  Large companies have to be sold on a
"bottom line"  approach, and consumers simply have to be innundated with
glitchy commercials, since the techno-aspect of it all is generally lost
on them. However, in between the big companies and the unwashed masses, we
have the companies and the people who are intelligent enough to recognize
the value of the technology, without having to be "sold" on it, and who
are flexible enough to choose things based on things other than the bottom
line, if it so suits them. So for Sundial, and those of us as individuals
who looked forward to the promise of opendoc technology, IBM's failures
are starting to really add up.  I don't know about the technical aspects
of Javabeans and Opendoc "merging"  or whatever, but I do know that IBM is
stupid for leaving those that "voluntarily" supported their technology
high and dry.
The saddest part of all is,,, they could have made opendoc an accepted
industry technology. Ever since they bought Lotus,, Lotus has been
fighting IBM's initiatives tooth and nail every step of the way,, well,
for my money, IBM's CEO should have grabbed Lotus's CEO by the short
hairs, and explained the situation to him.. Lotus should have been
Showcasing IBM technology, and it shouild have been top priority and done
quickly.  They didn't, they prefered to "follow Bill" around picking up MS
_Office crumbs (when are these people gonna learn?) and what good did it
do?  MS-Office still owns the windows market, Smartsuite for OS/2 sucks
(compared to what it shouild be/could have been), and IBM's technology is
wasted cuz Lotus wanted to be a captive  x shop.
  I don't know how well Sundial will be able to weather this kind of
setback, but if/when they release an OS/2 "suite",, I will be in line to
buy it, (even though I already have dbexpert) and I still hope it will be
opendoc components, because I think Opendoc was a good idea. Of course,
the idea behind opendoc is prettty useless if you are the only one using
it. (G).


Chris J. Alumbaugh
********************************
As it is SPOKEN.. so it appears
OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Voice Dictation
********************************
* my email address in the header has been hacked*
* please shift all letters 1 letter to the right*
*to decipher correct address to reply by email*

In message <5glvgi$1bri$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - cwbrenn@ibm.net
writes:
:>
:>Could someone give me the run-down on this situation?  Does the fact that Apple is
:>pulling out of OpenDoc mean that everyone  else _has_ to, or simply that it's looking
:>like everyone is _going_ to?
:>
:>OpenDoc has always pissed me off - not because it's lousy, because it isn't.  No, what
:>pissed me off is that no one really understood everything OpenDoc could _do_, and
:>the people running the show didn't bother to explain it very well.  If I'd had the venture

 This is IBM technology for you.   Usually hands_down the BEST on the
planet, but so misunderstood that it never gets any support.  People are
always comparing Active X to Open doc, or Java to Opendoc, because they
rarely understand what OpenDoc can do. I don't even really understand it,
but I have played with it enough to figure out that it is something i
WANT. (g).  Just like OS/2 /WPS/SOM,,, Opendoc is technological Best of
Breed but nobody understands WHY they SHOULD WANT it.  It get pretty
depressing sometimes to think what the personal computing experience COULD
be like, if the amazing technology was in the hands of the amazing
marketing. (g).


Chris J. Alumbaugh
********************************
As it is SPOKEN.. so it appears
OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Voice Dictation
********************************
* my email address in the header has been hacked*
* please shift all letters 1 letter to the right*
*to decipher correct address to reply by email*

In <332e80c6.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J. Alumbaugh) writes:
>In message <E77v9M.GLK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> - carsten@edm2.com (Carsten
>Whimster - EDM/2)Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:08:10 GMT writes:
>:>
>:>
>:>I know one company who will care about this announcement: the company
>:>that bought Mesa and Clearlook (Sundial?). They have supposedly been 
>:>working on releasing their programs as OpenDoc components. This type
>:>of thing can sink a small company like that.
>
>Yeah, and that is what really irritates me about IBM. It is getting harder
>and harder to "still believe". IBM makes awesome technology, but doesn't
>know how to sell it.  To large companies and to consumers,, stuff has to
>be "sold".  
>

[snip]

>
>Chris J. Alumbaugh

Chris:

I was hoping to spark these sorts of responses when I posted this article.

In defense of IBM, I must say that Big Blue is a $60-$70 billion dollar
a year corporation.

$70 billion a year.  That's alot of money... IBM managers must be doing
something right.

$70 billion.  This is how $70 billion dollars look with all its zeroes:

	$70,000,000,000.00

That's *ALOT* of money!

As most of us know, the vast majority of this gross revenue is derived
from IBM's mainframe operations (S/390, MVS, MVS/ES, MVS,VSE, VS,
and whatever other letter combinations you can put together).

To a lesser degree, the AS/400 group (with its OS/400) figures in there.

So does the RS/6000 group (with its famous AIX flavour of Unix).

The IBM PC Co. (that target of our derision) does add some value to the bottom
line, but not much.

Let's see, who did I leave out...?

Oh, yeah:  the ISSC, which is IBM's Global Services Division:  It brought
in excess of $23 billion last year.  ISSC is IBM's fastest growing division.
This group is known to push OS/2 just because it's IBM technology (I wish
there were more groups like this at Big Blue!)

Hmmm, who else is there...?  There's the Internet Group (in Raleigh, NC).

There's PSP (our champions and favourite band of fools and misfits -- not the
software developers and engineers, just the managers!).  

And then there's SWS (the Software Solutions Division run by a General Manager
who is one of OS/2's biggest supports).

There's also the Microelectronic Division -- you know them, they're the
chumps who teamed with Apple and Motorola to develop the PowerPC.
So of course these guys mean *NOTHING* to IBM.

Then there's is the new Edmark Group -- IBM's newly formed
Consumer Division... These guys are doomed before they even start:
The consumer market and IBM go together like oil and water!

Then there's the Hursley (England) research groups. (Mike Cowlisaw (sp)
is there).

Like wise, Big Blue has a group is Boulder, CO.  I'm not sure waht they do.

Then there's is that group up in Redmond, WA, helping MS operating systems
run on IBM hardware.  Strangely, I'm not angry over this...

There are many other IBM groups and divisions.  I just can't remember them.

My point is:  IBM has many diffreernt divisions that all operate with
conflicting interests.  This leads to the abnormal behaviour: many IBM
divisions/groups have no use for IBM technologies:

	TopView
	OS/2
	IBM Software Servers (far more scalable then anything Netscape, RADNet or Open Market, etc, has)
	WorkPlace OS (never saw the light of day)
	PowerPC (huge disappoinment)
	IBM PC DOS
	OpenDoc
	DOM/DOSM
	etc...

All of these products are software.  IBM is *NOT* a software company.

IBM stands for International *BUSINESS* *MACHINES*

Big blue sells *HARDWARE*

Let's not foget this!

Sadly, I feel AIX will be the next IBM technology to get the cold shoudler, only
because IBM managers have no real vision or focus for it.  I love AIX.  I love OS/2.

They're both being allowed to fend for themselves!

So don't be surprised if IBM divisions/groups won't support its software.

IBM simply isn't in the business to sell software.

IBM sells hardware, and they are *VERY* good at it.

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then PSP must 
sell its own hardware (much like AIX is sold with RS/6000s, OS/400s
is sold with AS/400 and OS/390 is sold with S/390s).

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then we must buy OS/2 software
(from Stardock, Sundial, SofTouch, SPG, StarDivision, DUX and, yes,
even Lotus).

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then we must have ISVs who will
port standards to OS/2 (why are there no independent ports of RealAudio,
ShockWave, etc.)

If we want IBM to support OS/2, then PSP must do a better job
telling the industry of the benefits of OS/2.  This will be the
hardest thing to do...

So, with all that said:

   Should Lou Gerstner force Jim Pappos (of Lotus) to use OpenDoc?
   Should John M Thompson force the PC Co. to preload OS/2 on everything insight?   
   Should RS/6000 group bundle Notes/Domino instead of Netscape products? (They've started bubdlly Lotus recently).
   Should the AS/400 groups help PSP market OS/2?
   Should IBM make silly consumer commercials extolling the virtues of OS/2 (a business OS)?
   Should all IBM units support OpenDoc, SOM/DSOM, Software Servers?

They answer to all the above questions is: NO!

IBM *MUST* give it's customers what they want.  If the customers want
Netscape, then give them Netscape.  If they want Windows, then give them
Windows.  If they want Java, then give then Java.

As long as it's running on IBM hardware then that's all that matters.

Bill Gates was right:  Hardware companies should never try their hands
at software (at least, not above the OS level).

IBM suffers from a lack of software vision and focus.  It has no software
strategy.  IBM's software effort is like a rudderless ship.

$70 billion.  That's alot of *HARDWARE* money!

-Kevin

In <5gnuil$1hb4$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, baxte17@ibm.net  (Kevin J Baxter) writes:

<snip>

>As most of us know, the vast majority of this gross revenue is derived
>from IBM's mainframe operations (S/390, MVS, MVS/ES, MVS,VSE, VS,
>and whatever other letter combinations you can put together).


     Really?  Do you have a relevant URL that you wouldn't mind 
posting?  I could swear I read that the AS/400 group was the single 
most profitable division of IBM.

In <5gnuil$1hb4$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, baxte17@ibm.net  (Kevin J Baxter) writes:
  ...  long interesting posting ...  please see the original.
>I was hoping to spark these sorts of responses when I posted this article.
>
>In defense of IBM, ...

>
>As most of us know, the vast majority of this gross revenue is derived
>from IBM's mainframe operations (S/390, MVS, MVS/ES, MVS,VSE, VS,
>and whatever other letter combinations you can put together).

The mainframe revenues, especially MVS/ESA (OS/390), DB2, CICS, are very
good. The old IBM used to compete by selling hardware at incredible 
markups and giving away the OS.  That ended about 1970.  The new IBM 
essentially gives away the hardware and sells the software at incredible
markups.  Essentially gives away????  Compare a full house 1970
data center, 360/91, outboard channels, 1403 printers, hundreds of 2314
disks, dozens of 2400 tape drives.  Enough computer power to run a 
medium sized national government, the food stamps for a consortium of
states, or all the processing for a Bank of America or Chrysler.

All that hardware cost tens of millions of dollars and was run by free
operating system software, compilers, TP software.

Fast forward to today, that kind of hardware power costs a fraction of 
the tens of millions but IBM's mainframe revenues have not slumped. 
While slashing prices on easy to duplicate hardware, they have shifted 
the cost to their impossible to duplicate software.

Competition in the hardware business has turned IBM into a software 
company.

>
>Oh, yeah:  the ISSC, which is IBM's Global Services Division:  It brought
>in excess of $23 billion last year.  ISSC is IBM's fastest growing division.
>This group is known to push OS/2 just because it's IBM technology (I wish
>there were more groups like this at Big Blue!)
>

and into a consulting company.  In either case, the value provided is 
expensive intellectual work not banging out nuts and bolts.   ISSC may 
be pushing OS/2 because it works.

>
>Then there's the Hursley (England) research groups. (Mike Cowlisaw (sp)
>is there).

Yes, Hursley is a bunch of software loonies.  I still wonder about the 
PL/I X (for optimizer not to be mistaken for PL/X) compiler.  I used to 
crank code on Assembler H and PL/I X and the PL/I compiler seemed, felt 
faster than the assembler.  How could that be?  How did Hursley write a 
compiler that compiled faster than an assembler could assemble?  And for
a language like PL/I which is, well, shockingly complex.

There are nooks and crannies in PL/I that are great fun to explore. 
iSUB is one, AREAs are another.

>
>Like wise, Big Blue has a group is Boulder, CO.  I'm not sure waht they do.
>

That's because they're not sure what they do.  They think they have 
something to do with printers, federal contracting, and the internet. 
Given that Lexmark and IBM Federal Systems Division have escaped, 
Boulder is a mystery, it's IBM's area 51.

>Then there's is that group up in Redmond, WA, helping MS operating systems
>run on IBM hardware.  Strangely, I'm not angry over this...
>
That's because you've figured out that they're there to keep an eye on 
MS.

>There are many other IBM groups and divisions.  I just can't remember them.
>

You've done a nice job, pull a stock holders report for more info. 

  ...

>Let's not foget this!
>
>Sadly, I feel AIX will be the next IBM technology to get the cold shoudler, only
>because IBM managers have no real vision or focus for it.  I love AIX.  I love OS/2.

Don't worry about AIX.  There's the SP2 and anyway AIX seems to be a 
chameleon.  I'm waiting for someone to slap the workplace shell onto 
AIX.

>
>IBM simply isn't in the business to sell software.
>
>IBM sells hardware, and they are *VERY* good at it.

Today, the edge between hardware and software is very blurry. Take a 
look at http://www.funsoft.com, the name tells the story, fundamental 
software.

>
>If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then PSP must 
>sell its own hardware (much like AIX is sold with RS/6000s, OS/400s
>is sold with AS/400 and OS/390 is sold with S/390s).
>

Not a bad idea.

>If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then we must buy OS/2 software
>(from Stardock, Sundial, SofTouch, SPG, StarDivision, DUX and, yes,
>even Lotus).
>

Another fine idea.  Let me chat it up with the OS/2 ISVs and see about 
running an April, tax refund, OS/2 sale.  Something where everyone wins.

>
>IBM suffers from a lack of software vision and focus.  It has no software
>strategy.  IBM's software effort is like a rudderless ship.
>
>$70 billion.  That's alot of *HARDWARE* money!
>

Hardware, software, the edges are very blurry.  It's intellectual 
property and the product of high quality thinking..

>-Kevin


Cory Hamasaki  Kiyo Design, Inc     http://www.kiyoinc.com
HHResearch Co. 11 Annapolis St.     OS/2 Webstore & Newsletter
REDWOOD        Annapolis, Md, 21401 (410) 280-1942

kiyoinc@ibm.net wrote:

<snip>

> >
> >Sadly, I feel AIX will be the next IBM technology to get the cold shoudler, only
> >because IBM managers have no real vision or focus for it.  I love AIX.  I love OS/2.
> 
> Don't worry about AIX.  There's the SP2 and anyway AIX seems to be a
> chameleon.  I'm waiting for someone to slap the workplace shell onto
> AIX.
> 

No, I wouldn't worry about AIX.  The first 64 bit computer for AIX is
out, SP2 became SP (because support for SP1 stopped <g>) and it runs
deeper blue, the Olympics webserver, and truckloads of companies want to
use the SP for it scalability.  Your SP is too small?  Add another
Frame.  BTW AIX is nr 3 in U*ix land after Sun & HP, and just sold its
500,000th unit.  If you need midrange, and the AS400 is a tad cumbersome
to you (or doesn't deliver the scalability), AIX is the way to go.  Do
3D design : go CATIA and AIX.  Need a Notes server, that's AIX for you. 
Tivoli management of your Computerpark, here's AIX.  Oh, AIX now runs on
the newly U*ix branded S/390 servers.  No, AIX is alive and Kicking
(butt).

-- 
Pieter Dubois

___________________________________
Disclaimer ... which Disclaimer?
Didn't you read my name?

WARNING : E-mail adress prohibited for usage in mailinglists without
strict permission of owner (me).
Unsollicited usage agrees in paying 1000$ for each time used to me by
the offender.

In article <333008b1.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J. Alumbaugh) wrote:
>What a lame, ignorant post, from someone who defends a certain other
>software company whose dismal record on ship dates is overshadowed only by
>horror stories of ~43 yr old "lost" letters from the postal service.  IBM
>has "delievered" quite a bit of the technologies that are the computer you
>are running, and let's see,, Microsoft made a mouse and BOB and a some
>other stuff that  I have even a lower opinion of.  Yeah, I guess Microsoft
>delievered on Windows 95 and active X and IE,, but I got to say, I'll take
>"dead" IBM technology ANY day over what MS dellievered. Can you say
>CAIRO=1994??  Wouldn't happen to have a harddrive with PMRL technology
>would you?

Excuse me?  NT 3.1 didn't even come out until 1993, Cairo wasn't even planned 
until 1994.  How the hell could it have been late before it was even 
announced?

Fact is, the vast majority of MS products are delivered ON TIME or *EARLY*.