OS/2 e-Zine! - Good Guys, Bad Guys and The Future of OS/2

Good Guys, Bad Guys and The Future of OS/2 - by Pete Grubbs

Summary: How faith, loyalty and friendship make the difference between two platforms, and how these factors will influence the future of computers and OS/2.

Whether you like him or not, Ralph Nader certainly gets his share of attention. He's weighed in on everything from automobiles to insurance and now he's focused on the computing industry. In recent months, Nader has come out strongly against the Microsoft monopoly, organized his own industry-wide meeting to discuss MS business practices and even published an open letter to IBM CEO Louis Gerstner, urging him to follow Netscape's lead and make OS/2's source code public.

Not surprisingly, this last suggestion was brushed aside. After all, OS/2 may not be the cash cow that Windows is, but IBM has poured a lot of money into it and they're still making money from it in the banking industry. However, there is little doubt that IBM wants to drop Warp client and focus on Warp Server and Workspace on Demand (WSOD), effectively retreating from the OS wars, abandoning OS/2 client users and surrendering the PC field to Microsoft and a handful of Linux and BeOS users.

Good Business Sense

On the face of it, this appears to be a good business move. After all, what sense does it make to compete with the ubiquitous Windows PC? There are, perhaps, hundreds of Windows-native applications for each lonely OS/2 app and thousands of Windows users for every single installation of Warp. As we all know, computer pundits have, erroneously, proclaimed the death and burial of OS/2 for at least three years, if not longer, devoting their time and energy into creating revisions of its obituary without realizing that it still has a lively base of users worldwide. Few, if any, of the mainstream media know what's going on in our world, and even fewer care, so we are ignored, condemned to a stereotype that sees us as geeky eccentrics who are technically savvy, but not very practical.

While publications like OS/2 e-Zine! and events like Warpstock are proof positive that OS/2 is still viable, the sad truth is that most of the world considers Warp to be more of a walking ghost than a serious OS. An idea reinforced by the mainstream media. Now that Windows 98 is launched, Microsoft is only months away from pushing most of their user base, kicking and screaming, into Windows NT -- a product that is actually mature enough to compare with OS/2, even if it suffers by such comparisons more often than not. To top it all off, IBM has been making money, lots of money, by creating and supporting software for the Windows platform. In fact, it's making a lot more money writing and supporting Windows apps than it does supporting OS/2. Why in the world would it want to hang on to an OS that the rest of the world has pretty much passed by?

Because, in the long run, it's good business.

The American Way

In America, and this is a quintessentially American issue even if it does affect more than half of the world. The good guys have friends who stand with them, shoulder-to-shoulder, ready to face any threat or disaster, regardless of the consequences. You can always tell who the good guys are because their friends remain friends without a thought for their own safety or profit margin. The bad guys have to coerce or buy their allies and always settle for a pack of cowardly cretins who will run off to the Bahamas as soon as the going gets tough or the money runs out.

Look at our culture, our, plays, books and movies: Star Wars, Lethal Weapon, Mortal Combat, Hamlet, Top Gun, The Lord of the Rings, Huck Finn and countless others are all built upon this idea that deeply abiding friendship and loyalty are inspired by the hero, not the villain. We believe that these are qualities that cannot be purchased or created through intimidation and we place a very high value on them. How many of you, gentle readers all, cheered when Han Solo appeared out of nowhere to save Luke Skywalker? How many of you walked out of the theater with a smile playing about your lips and a warm glow in your hearts?

Bad guys?

Now, consider this: When Senator Orrin Hatch called for a Senate hearing to investigate Microsoft's business practices, when Ralph Nader called his own miniconvention, when the Software Publisher's Association published it's recent white paper calling for an expanded DOJ investigation, Microsoft's friends and allies rallied 'round the company to defend it, right? And, without doubt, some of those friends and allies were there because they wanted to be there. But how many were there because they felt pressured? How hard did MS twist on those arms to assure that the rest of the body would show up? Even if the accurate answer is "None" (and I don't believe for a second that this is the case), we find ourselves reasonably asking this question because we know how MS does business. We've seen the depositions from Compaq, read the recent Reuters interview with former Acer employee Ricardo Correa or have been face to face with Microsoft ourselves. We can see their tactics writ large by the very fact that they've used the notorious Y2K bug to recklessly force the abandonment of billions of dollars of gear, hardware and software both, for reasons that have more to do with their profit margin than "the good of the industry" (a term that finally translates into, "that which is good for us;" after all, we are the industry).

We know that MS has invested a fair chunk of change to lay some Astroturf in an effort to prop up its shaky corporate image. When it comes to seeing anyone or anything which supports the MS side, we have a legitimate right to ask tough questions and challenge the speaker or document's authenticity. Is it real or did MS pay for it?

The Imperial Microsoft Empire and Darth Billy have earned our distrust.

Good guys?

Now, how many people will attend Warpstock this year because they have to? How many ISVs, pundits, end users, managers, et. al., will be in attendance because there's a giant corporate gorilla reefing on their arms the whole way through the door? How many members of TeamOS/2 volunteer their time and expertise because they know their managers are looking over their shoulders, ready to write them up if they don't contribute? How many OS/2 user groups formed for the money? the prestige? the chicks? For that matter, how many members of the Warpstock steering committee are in this because they see it as a great way to advance their careers?

How many of you use OS/2 because you're afraid not to?

Not many, right?

Warp has generated a fierce sense of loyalty throughout much of the computer community because of its outstanding performance and reliability. We see ourselves and our fellow OS/2 users as the good guys because we're sticking to our operating system against massive peer and economic pressure to do otherwise. It would be easy to knuckle under and admit defeat, but we won't go against our principles. We'll support each other, take on one of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world and spit in its eye. We know we have a superior OS; we know that the rest of the world is wrong, dammit, and we're not going to jump ship.

Does this look familiar? It should. It's pretty much the description of 'hero' you'll find in the vast majority of our culture's art. We fit squarely into the role of the good guy. Performance and reliability issues notwithstanding, this may be one reason so many of us have stuck with OS/2 for so long.

Image is . . .

In cultural terms, Microsoft and Windows don't appear to have the right stuff. The majority of those who champion Microsoft seem to do so because they're either forced into that position or they're paid to take it. The opposite seems to be true for OS/2. (Notice I said "seem." This may not actually be the case, but, from all appearances, it looks as though it is.) Without realizing it, Microsoft has created an image of itself which resonates very strongly with The Evil Bully, one of the cultural icons we love to hate and this will come back to haunt them if they don't correct it.

Windows users are rarely as excited about their OS as Linux, Apple, Amiga or OS/2 users. They have accepted as fact that the world runs Windows and, like it or not, they toe the MS line. Even columnists like Jesse Berst aren't immune to this syndrome. But grudging acceptance of this sort carries with it an inherent burden of anger. People who feel that they have to use Windows are not always people who want to use Windows and such anger, such resentment is cumulative. Unless it's contained, it will reach critical mass and blow up in time.

If this is the case, the thoughtful person may ask, "Why haven't we seen some evidence of this anger?" In response to that, let me pose this question: How long has the computer world been a Windows world? How many years have people had to get good and angry? A decade? Less? My friends, that isn't a very long time. Even though it's hard for us to believe, the computer has not been always with us. Neither has Microsoft. This is a company that is setting itself up for a tremendous consumer revolt if it doesn't change its practices and improve its products. They need to make those changes now because as time goes on and the resentment builds. You'll start seeing a marked difference in the way the public perceives both company and product. In fact, the change is already upon us.

. . . damn important

I remember a time not long ago when you couldn't find a bad word about MS or Bill Gates in print unless you looked at fringe publications which catered to the alternative OS crowd. This is far from the case today. I've seen a number of mainstream computer print and online publications (Computer World, ZDNet AnchorDesk, PC Week, InfoWorld Electric to name a few) whose editors, columnists and reporters are seriously taking the Redmond gorilla to task. It's taken them a long time to realize what we knew years ago, but they are finally waking up. If this trend continues, and I haven't seen anything which indicates that it won't, MS is going to look more and more like the bad guy and, sooner or later, a good chunk of end users are going to see it that way. When that happens, look for a deep hole because the fallout will spread far and wide.

IBM's Choices

There's only one villain who's worse than the bully that beats up everyone: The Betrayer. Think of Judas Iscariot. Brutus. Macbeth. Robert Ford. In the 13th century, Dante saved the lowest level of Hell for those who had betrayed their benefactors. Nearly 800 years later, we still don't have much sympathy for someone who rats out his buddies. We become enraged when the hero gets screwed by his best friend or lover. Why? Well, we identify with the hero. We're up there on the big screen fighting the evil Empire, so we take it personally when we see Han turned over to Vader by Lando Calrissian. A part of us treats what we're seeing as though it were really happening to us, responding to the perceived act of betrayal as though it were real and we experience feelings of anger and a desire to even the score. This isn't an impulse that's confined strictly to the world of art. I doubt that there are many of you who haven't experienced, up close and personal, what it means to be deceived, tricked, bamboozled. Few other experiences in life leave as deep a feeling of resentment and distrust or as great a desire for revenge.

How does all this relate to IBM and Warp?

Very simply, IBM has to decide if it wants to follow a business plan that will eventually orphan, isolate and infuriate millions of OS/2 users worldwide, or if it will continue to support those few customers -- even though they may never represent more than a small fraction of its total customer base, real or potential.

If they choose to abandon us, they will, without doubt, quickly realize some increased profits because they will be better able to align their resources to take advantage of a Windows market where they already have a strong presence. However, if they do this, they will not only run the risk of losing all or most of those former customers but they will be sending a clear message that IBM is yet another Judas, willing to sell out its staunchest friends and allies for 30 pieces of silver or its 20th century equivalent.

While some of the world watching these events will chalk it up to business as usual, others will take note and perhaps decide that it might not be a wise idea to commit to a long-term relationship with IBM. After all, if IBM will put the screws to millions of users who have, in many cases, remained loyal to it and its OS for a decade or so despite tremendous pressure to bolt, what will prevent it from doing the same thing to a new client that represents half that many licenses? If I'm that new client, what guarantee can Big Blue come up with to reassure me that they won't dump me the way they dumped all those people using OS/2?

Or, to put it another way, if you're dealing with Microsoft, you know you can expect to be bullied, pushed, shoved and generally mistreated, but at least it's a consistent form of abuse. You know you're going to take a beating, but it's the same beating over the same issues, it happens at about the same time each year and you can work it into your schedule. This is more acceptable than having a trusted confidant suddenly pull the rug from under your feet and smack you around if only for the simple reason that you can plan for the one but not the other.

Conversely, if IBM remains faithful to us, the Warp client user, it has the opportunity to point out to any new customers that it has a proven track record of loyalty to its customer base, a marketing advantage that Microsoft claims to have but obviously doesn't. In the long run, this may be a lot more important than it looks. I believe that end users are getting tired of the vicious consumerism that has been the hallmark of the computer industry for the past decade. People are getting to the point where they are less and less interested in upgrading to every new piece of hardware or software that comes down the pike. They're getting fed up with trying to find places to stuff all those still serviceable but obsolete systems and software that don't support a 3-D desktop or WebTV. If the market moves in this direction, disgruntled users will be a company's worst nightmare and IBM would do well to avoid creating millions of the same worldwide by remaining loyal to us.

Corporations have realized the importance of keeping their images clean for decades, but they often lose sight of the larger picture this involves. If IBM doesn't want to come across in the worst possible light, it would be well-advised to watch a few movies, take some notes and beware the dark side.

Pete Grubbs is a self-described OS/2 wonk, a doctoral candidate in English literature at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, a part-time faculty member at Penn State and is currently developing a copy editing/creation service, The Document Doctor, which tailors documents for small businesses.