[vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?

[Peter Jay Salzman]

On Thu 08 May 03, 11:12 AM, Michael Wenk <wenk@praxis.homedns.org> opined:
> On Thursday 08 May 2003 10:31 am, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> >> On Thu 08 May 03, 10:03 AM, Michael Wenk <wenk@praxis.homedns.org> opined:
> >
> > what exactly was IBM's killer product in the mid 90's?   nobody used
> > typewriters.  nobody really used OS/2.  other companies that provided
> > cheaper PC's were flourishing because the average person was less
> > knowledgable about what "quality components" meant.  the only thing i
> > can think of is the high end mini and mainframe market.  but by the mid
> > 90's, even that was out of vogue, and can't support a company with such
> > a big overhead (as you point out).
> >
> > i can't think of anything that you could point to and say "IBM is king
> > of this market" in the mid 90's.  i think they see linux as providing
> > them with the opportunity to have a "killer product" again.
> 
> IBM doesn't need to have a "killer product",

all companies that sell their own products want to have a product so
useful, so compelling and so adopted that it makes them tons of money.

like microsoft.  or the record company that sells britney spears albums.


> and I disagree with you in the 
> sense that any OS is a killer product.

if you re-read what i wrote above, you'll see i didn't actually say
this.   IBM doesn't actually market linux itself...

pete


-- 
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D