Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:53:21 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:

> On 2009-03-02, Doug Mentohl <doug_mentohl@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> 
>> They were a company involved in data compression, before they got fucked 
>> over by MS ..
> 
> And they are not the only ones.
> Even IBM got burned while playing nice with Microsoft.
> While Microsoft was developing OS/2 with IBM, they
> were secretly and not so secretly poisoning the 
> marketplace with Windows NT FUD. IBM were fools to
> believe Microsoft ever had any real interest in OS/2 and
> they got burned for being foolish.
> Small companies get screwed over totally by Microsoft because
> they don't have the resources that IBM has.

You really have no clue about what really happened, do you?

First, NT was originally OS/2 3.0, and the early development was intended
to be "Portable OS/2", that is until the falling out with IBM.  This did
not happen over NT at all, nor was there any "NT FUD".

In fact, After IBM took over development of OS/2, Microsoft was supposed to
focus on OS/2 3.0 development, but about a year later the final falling out
occured.

This was largely because IBM and Microsoft had different visions of the way
the OS should be designed.  IBM wanted tight intgration with their
mainframe products with various hooks for things like their 370 on a card
project to put a full ibm mainframe inside a PC.

If anything, the fight with IBM was the result of Windows 3.0/3.1.  When
this proved to be so successful, Microsoft saw this as their opportunity
split and make things go the way they wanted.