Confronting the Bigwigs - by Tim Harrison

Will IBM's Executives Meet with the Users?

othing is more frustrating for an OS/2 lover than seeing more messages, reading more articles, or hearing more snide comments about OS/2's death. I feel my heart beating faster, my blood growing cold, and I feel this intense urge to suddenly edit my config.sys and reboot, just to show that I'm actively using and supporting OS/2. I feel helpless, yet I imagine jumping on a plane, flying to IBM's headquarters, and having a chat with the esteemed Louis Gerstner. I keep thinking that maybe I could stride into that office, head held high, show Mr. Gerstner the error of his ways, and watch him suddenly grasp how important it is to the world that he immediately channel all the IBM development money into OS/2. What a wonderful thought, eh? Hey, why not?

Consider this a warning. I will not spout facts and figures here. This is a personal essay.

I've been told that I should just give up, as I can't change the path that OS/2 is on. What path is that? To dominance as a network operating system (incredibly optimistic viewpoint)? To its death, which has been heralded for so long by so many people, as a desktop operating system (incredibly pessimistic viewpoint)? A lot of people that I talk to have just taken the "NT is where everyone is going, so why fight it?" stance, and are either migrating now, or planning on it soon. And just why can't we fight it? We still buy copies of the operating system. We still use the OS/2 products we know and love (and purchase new ones when they are made available). We do this because we love the freedom of choice we enjoy. We do this because we feel that we are running an operating system that is superior. We do this because we can. I shall now step off my soapbox for a little while, but reserve the right to get right back up upon it.

A personal note. I approached my investment manager recently with a business plan. My partners and I had put an incredible amount of work into it. Part of the plan was our choice of operating system. OS/2 Warp Server, and OS/2 Warp 4. He read it, read it again, and read it a third time. He called me a short time later, and asked two simple questions: Why are you intending to use OS/2? Wouldn't Unix be a better idea? I hadn't expected this. Of course, Unix is a wonderful operating environment. I use Linux at home as well, and actually enjoy it. However, my experience is mostly in OS/2 and I knew I could count on it to come through in a business environment. Any business environment. However, I held back one thing in my response. I love OS/2. I wanted to have it in my workplace. I wanted to show my support. However, I couldn't say, "...and IBM stands behind OS/2 100%" because I didn't feel it.

The continuing argument (recently more prominently discussed in OS/2 e-Zine! ) that IBM should sell off OS/2 to a third party, or licence the client code, has brought to mind the need for a commitment from IBM. We seem to be lost in a deluge of "official statements", press releases, rumours, and form letters. At least I am. Has anyone actually managed to get a chance to talk to someone high up in the ranks of IBM? Has anyone actually received anything more than an "official statement" from IBM?

I'm not attempting to start some form of grass roots revolution here. I've seen some movements begin with the most wonderful of intentions, only to degenerate into name calling, stone throwing, and ending up only hurting the cause (I'm not necessarily pointing to an OS/2 example here). I would, however, like to see one simple thing (simple may not be the correct word)... I would like to see IBM executives agree to meet with the heads of the ISVs, ISPs and User Groups, and answer the direct questions and concerns of the OS/2 community at large. I know the top dogs are busy, but, maybe they could fit in a 2 or 3 hour meeting, sometime in their work week. It's not like we buy their products or anything.

Now, as much as I agree with IBM's intentions to position OS/2 in the network computing environment, I also wish to have the option to run it at home with support from its creators and a fantastic bunch of ISVs behind me. Yet, how can I expect to have that option when I feel that IBM doesn't understand the needs of the installed OS/2 user base? I feel that if we had an opportunity to lay out our gripes, concerns, and ideas, maybe someone would begin to understand what it is that the users are yelling about.

Pardon me while I climb back onto my handy soapbox. (Remember, I reserved that right several paragraphs above.) I feel I must repeat myself. We (as users) support OS/2 because we can. We trust it. We run our mission critical applications on it. We run our games on it. We connect to the Internet and our networks with it. It's a system that works. It's a system that is powerful. It's a system that gives us a choice of what software we wish to run to be productive, to connect to others, or just to have fun. And, it's stable.

IBM seems to want to stumble blindly into the darkened tunnel of the future. Sure, networking does, and will, play an important role in the future. However, what about the users who are on those networks? What about the users who want the choice? What about the users who are forced to run other operating systems at home? Are they going to want to run Windows at home, and then something else at work? They're going to want to use the same platform in both places. With OS/2 in the workplace, it's not a far hop to bring it home to the PC there. Why can't marketing reflect that?

I think the users should have a choice in what that future holds. As it stands, it seems that the major corporations decide the future of computing. Big business makes the product, and then creates the need for that product. Why can't the users hold that power? We can't just stop this trend, but we can sure change its direction. Why can't we drive the industry? After all, we are the ones who use the products they develop. Let's keep our ability to choose. And let's see what IBM says...

Tim Harrison is the head of Superior Internetworking, a group with interests in the Internet Service Provider industry. He is an OS/2 supporter, a self described "armchair activist", and general all-around computer do-gooder.