RE: IBM iSeries Advertisements -- MIDRANGE-L

Tom,

You wrote with some editing by me to reduce lines:

"IBM is obviously dumping it (slowly), so it's the old supply and
demand
curve. I'm sure demand is low, but supply is low, so when that last
remaining OS/2 shop's developer passes on, the demand will be high and
supply low. That's the time to make a move to OS/2.
 
> I wonder how many of us really have any idea at all what's 'happened'
to OS/2? I loved OS/2 back then and still think it's superior to WinXP
in quite a few ways, so I keep an eye on it.
> 
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/strategy/ 
> 
> I wonder how much an experienced OS/2 developer can make these days?
> 
> Tom Liotta"

IBM has been dumping OS/2 for many years now and if it still lingers it
is no fault of IBM.  From my experience, the shame is that IBM never
really embraced OS/2 in any serious way but was only a "dip of the toe"
against Mickysoft.   IBM marketing reps were never really incented to
sell OS/2 unless they could sell more than 300 copies to a customers. 
PC stuff was just a part of something bigger.     
 
As for an OS/2 comeback, I SERIOUSLY doubt it.  Most of the folks from
Boca or Austin are gone or have been moved on to other things.  IBM
embraces Windoz because it doesn't want to fool with something like a PC
operating system.  

Don't get me wrong, I wish it would come back and be enhanced as it has
a much better base architecture when compared to Windoz anything.  I 
think it would be a better PC operating system for business, and most
consumers for that matter.   The reason is philosophy of operating
system architectures.  They are fundamentally different between IBM and
Microsoft.   Even though Microsoft was involved with the development of
OS/2(and I think some of NT, etc., has some OS/2 in it), it appears that
OS/2 has more of an IBM mainframe(VM) and to some extent AS/400
operating system architecture that does anything of Microsoft design. 
Therefore, it handles tasks and activities better than Windoz without
crashing and its more oriented to security and other things of a mission
critical nature. (How many times in the last year did you have to reboot
your iSeries or mainframe vs. Windoz.)  Windoz anything is basically a
consumer oriented operating system.    The bottom line is a PC operating
system didn't have enough margin for IBM to be seriously interested over
the long haul.   Not to mention that PC operating systems were and are
being driven by consumers interests and designs, not serious IT
concerns.  And IBM is not a consumer company, Microsoft is.  

I know IBM acted as if they were really interested to the outside
world, as they advertised a fair amount and put out all kinds of
benchmarks against Windoz.   But, from what I could see from within and
later from without, that was eye-candy.    To understand how a product
is really seen by IBM, you have to look at a few things:

1. How is the product being sold by IBM marketing? (I don't mean the
brand rep involved with a particular product, I mean what product sets
does marketing really push and what's the financial incentive to the
marketing reps or partners)?  

2. What's the movement of business partners to the product? 

3. What do the folks like Gartner, etc. think about the product?   They
have the ear of some CIOs and CFOs and some CEOs.

4. How does IBM think the CIOs and CFOs of the world, view their
tools[solutions](and to most CFOs IT products are just tools and not
something to get religious about)?   IF CIOs and CFOs that SPEND don't
talk about it as being strategic to their company's direction, look out;
your favorite piece of IT stuff could be on the way out, however slowly.
       

5. How does the product really fit with its other major initiatives?  

6. Other like-type strategic considerations.

Concerning how much an OS/2 developer is worth to the market place... 
well if friends of mine are any measure, nothing... as they had to get
out that game years ago or go broke.   So, as I believe in micro
economic principals,  I think your underlying premise there is or will
be any OS/2 demand, is faulty.   I wish it were not so, but I'm afraid
it is.   I was a zealot for OS/2 for a LONG time and I still  have it
and like it but even zealots need to face reality in the market place. 
Religious passion for IT hardware and software means nothing to a CFO or
CEO and any business-oriented CIO and they control the bucks.     

Take care,

Dave