NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/programm/7538

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.programmer:7538 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12159
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!jaguar.cs.utah.edu!brian
From: [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Why you should get everything in writing (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:42:55 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>> I think you misunderstand Bob's problem.  All he wanted was a sample printer
>> driver.  IBM should have had this available well before OS/2 2.0 GA shipped.
>> The point is that they didn't, and they still don't.
>> I would agree with you comment if Bob had wanted something unusual from
>> IBM, but this is standard stuff.
>
>But wasn't the problem that the code in question was not IBM's to give out?
>
>It was MS code.
>
>Or did i miss something........

That _might_ be a convenient excuse for not having it at the time of OS/2's
release, but it is definitely not an excuse 9+ months later.
Microsoft is not in business to help IBM, and if IBM is stupid enough
to get into a situation where the don't have rights to critical code
for what is supposedly their operating system, then I don't see how that
is Microsoft's fault.  After all Microsoft is making a _competing_ product.
IBM should of spotted and fixed this problem long before now.

How can IBM expect appropriate driver support from third parties, when
they still don't have a device driver kit available?  The NT one is
already out (since November), months before NT ships.  IBM likewise
should have had that kit available before, or as soon as, OS/2 2.0 GA
shipped.  Just because MS had some code _used_to_ work with older
versions of 2.0 is not an excuse.  For people with access to working
2.0 drivers, it should be a trivial matter to create a DDK.  It is
perfectly reasonable for an ISV like Bob to expect that IBM would get a
DDK out within a reasonable time.  This should not normally be a matter
which requires getting something from a vendor in writing. Why IBM has
not done this, I don't know.  At the very worst a bad negotiation with
MS could have most/all of there driver code locked up, but it would be
an easy matter for one programmer to look at that code, create the spec
and then have others write the DDK samples, so I cannot conceive of
what could be taking IBM so long.

Regardless of MS's involvement, the fault is clearly IBM's.  People that
make OS's need third party help in getting drivers made, and the normal
way to do this is by putting out a device driver development kit.
I don't see why MS's having said code over a year ago is relevant.

>
>Steve
>--
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |
>[e-mail]         |        Space for rent.
>[phone]                          |   - cheap rates, nice location.
>**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       |

Brian
--
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
[e-mail]; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; [phone]