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

[vox@lists.lugod.org]

re:

> I have been told that until a year or two ago, almost every bank ATM in
> N. America ran on OS/2.

similarly, aren't there supposedly still more lines of mainframe cobol on
planet earth than anything else, and non-public/proprietary corporate
network traffic vastly exceeds internet traffic (or at least did until
recently?).

As far as I know, successful commercial OS/2 apps tended to be part of
IBM's integrated technology stack.

If so, that supports my theory: that IBM's dominant paradigm
("organizational culture") didn't exploit the potential adaptive value
involved in investing in a mass market (populist) role for OS/2.

IBM's paradigm is characterized by elite technical purism.

MS's paradigm is characterized by mediocre (but populist) products that
are "good enough" for mass markets.

I'm interested in the sociology of the Linux community's paradigm, and
specifically whether or not it will be able to "transcend and include"
both of the above paradigms in a "higher order" holistic-integrative
paradigm, or if it will get "stuck" by going "retro" with one or the
other.

At the level of value systems and memetics, the enlightened "hobbyist"
element of the Linux community seems like it is more oriented toward a
populist paradigm (and thus is more hostile toward the "enemy" that is
more proximate: MS and its mass market populism).

Linux/Open-source seems to be a social evolution that is attempting to
readapt its elite technical purism towards populism.

On the other "side", MS seems to be trying to evolve its paradigm from
populism toward elite technical purism ("secure", "enterprise"
products/services).

regards,
ep