Some clarification.

Post #75,660 by Another Scott 1/20/03 12:04:38 PM Reply	Some clarification. Hi Rick, In your post that I responded to, you wrote: My recollection is that the development stage of WPS did (partly) hail from the partnership days.. In my reply, I didn't claim that there was no non-IBM patent constraints on the WPS. I was simply trying to address the fact that all the evidence and discussion I've seen indicates that the WPS was an IBM project and had nothing to do with the pre-split agreements IBM had with MS. So our recollections are different. As some evidence that the Workplace Shell had no input from Microsoft, I'll present the following: 0. The IBM and MS split was in [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&th=2cddd935db86acea&rnum=3\|September 1990]. 1. The version of OS/2 2.0 that Microsoft released to its OEM Citrix (the only version of OS/2 2.0 that Microsoft released AFAIK) didn't use the Workplace Shell. 2. The Workplace Shell is trademarked by IBM. 3. The Workplace Shell is built on top of SOM - IBM's System Object Model. 4. It took 3+ years after IBM's OS/2 2.0's Workplace Shell was released for Microsoft to have a (sort-of) comparable shell for Windows 95. 5. Moskowitz and Kerr - "OS/2 2.1 Unleashed" - ISBN: 0-672-30240-3, p. 122, write: With the release of OS/2 2.0, IBM introduced the first of a new generation of user interfaces built around an object-oriented design. Extensive usability and human-factors studies by IBM indicated that first-time users of computer systems had trouble learning to use existing computer-user interfaces. Early in 1991, the OS/2 development team made the most significant decision affecting the OS/2 2.0 product. Based on a prototype created by a small group of programmers, IBM made the Workplace Shell a component of the operating system. During the ensuing 12 months, the Workplace Shell team grew from that small group of programmers to include many other areas of IBM's research and development community, including usability testing, human-factor research and object-oriented programming technology, compiler research and development, information development, graphics design, and, of course, the tens of thousands of beta testers both inside IBM and in the industry who provided invaluable guidance, advice, and feedback. 6. [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=5ajp1v%24b14%40nnrp1.toronto.ican.net\|This] USENET post by Keith Medcalf. I have no inside information on whether the WPS for OS/2 was coded by external companies or is encumbered by IP or patent rights held by others. My gut feeling is that it's an exclusive IBM product, but I don't have any information other than the above. (Deitel and Kogan's "The Design of OS/2" may have more details, but I can't find my copy at the moment.) I wouldn't be shocked if outsiders helped as I believe that the WPS for Windows 3.x was done externally. But I believe the evidence shows that the WPS was a project done by IBM after the divorce from Microsoft. If you have any contrary evidence, even if annecdotal, I'd like to see it. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #75,689 by deSitter 1/20/03 1:18:40 PM Reply	Re: Some clarification. WPS is often confused with PM. If you were learning to spit out text etc. in early OS/2, you were doing PM. WPS arrived well after PM was developed. -drl
Post #75,854 by orion 1/21/03 6:42:53 AM Reply	Re: Some clarification. You are correct in that, I recall Presentation Manager with an old copy of OS/2, I cannot remember if it was 1.3 or 2.0 that used it. In a College Computer Lab we ran for students to use, we had some PS/2 Machines running IBM's OS/2. I even did a report on it, saying how much better than Windows it was, and that it was the better choice. Of course I didn't take into account the marketing power of Microsoft at the time, my mistake. I even did another report on how the Amiga was better than the PC or the Macintosh. It was for a Systems Analysis class. WPS came later, because my memory is a little fuzzy with OS/2 2.0 and 3.0, I worked with it at another company later, but we converted the systems from OS/2 to DOS/Windows 3.1 as per the request of the VP of IS. Once Warp 3.0 came out, we were beta testing Windows 95, I remember it was called Chicago, and the Warp 3.0 Beta said "Arrive in Chicago a little sooner than expected", stating that it was the better product. But when Management favors Microsoft products, over other products, what can you do? [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #75,741 by rickmoen 1/20/03 5:15:34 PM Reply	Re: Some clarification. We are somehow failing to communicate. Here is a key pair of sentences from my immediately preceding post: "On the subject of the Workplace Shell itself, I frankly no longer care, having moved on. However, I thought it was an interesting case study in the business obstacles to taking a codebase open-source that has previously been not only proprietary but also binary-only, like other real and hypothetical cases people have discussed, such as Star Office, Netscape Communicator, and WordPerfect." It seems that you still do care about WPS, and not just as a case study in obstacles to open-sourcing. That's fine, but I simply don't. Accordingly, my concern was not whether "Workplace Shell has input from Microsoft", but rather, in part, whether Workplace Shell is encumbered by patents, copyrights, or trade secrets held by any third party. The fact that you talk, in your post, about trademarks suggests that you probably didn't follow what I was talking about, since it's inherently irrelevant to the open-sourcing question. Your use of the meaningless term "IP" is unfortunate, as it lumps together four vastly different categories of abstract legal rights. And: I wouldn't be shocked if outsiders helped as I believe that the WPS for Windows 3.x was done externally. This, of course, is purely and simply changing the subject. (Yeah, yeah, you can't see why that is, and want me to prove it to you, right?) At this point, I'm obliged to give up on this discussion as hopeless. I'm sorry I tried. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #75,838 by CRConrad 1/21/03 3:12:37 AM Reply	Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject! Can't you just fucking admit that you were WRONG?!? But then, you NEVER do that, do you? Please prove me wrong -- a simple link will do... [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #75,902 by rickmoen 1/21/03 11:39:38 AM Reply	Re: Bullshit, Rick - it's YOU who are changing the subject! You know, Christian -- my longtime friend, Christian -- that's twice in one week you've personally gone far, far out of your way to make me wish that wIWETHEY had a killfile. If you ever decide you would like to discuss what might be holding IBM Corp. back from open-sourcing WPS, as opposed to reverting to Team OS/2 catechism, then... I was going to say, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But the truth is, in that event, frankly I'd rather you discussed it with someone else. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #75,859 by Another Scott 1/21/03 7:40:43 AM Reply	The Horror! Subject creep on zIWeThey! Whoda thunkit. :-/

Welcome to IWETHEY!