One of the oldest arguments that I participate in is why did OS/2 fail and Windows succeed? IBM clearly had a head start in development of OS/2. OS/2 was clearly superior to Windows 3.x/95 etc and Windows NT was late. So with all those advantages, why did OS/2 fail? I think the blame could be laid at the feet of both Microsoft and IBM. Quick disclosure, I was an OS/2 guy. I used UNIX and OS/2 throughout the 90’s on a regular basis. IBM back in those days was way to corporate. Microsoft was a dirty fighter. Microsoft would often resort to dirty tricks, and still does, to make sure that everyone stays on their platform. They would go over to IBM’s booths at conferences and install malicious code on their systems to cause them to crash to show how “great” Windows was and leave the IBM guys trying to figure out what happened. IBM would not respond in kind. They took the “They go low, we go high” mentality too seriously instead relying on the users to fight back. Microsoft subjected OEM’s to draconian contracts that Im sure if any of them had half a brain their lawyers would have told them how illegal those contracts were. We acquired an OEM manufacturer and I have seen that contract and no, I would have never signed it. Now I call the tech industry the runway contest. Because we all are waiting for each other to fall flat on their face. Me, if you talk crap about me I will roast the ever loving crap out of you until you regret invoking my name and my companies name. IBM also had a problem internally, Dave Barnes, team OS/2 and the users of OS/2 were more enthusiastic about the product than IBM was. I truly believe in those waning days before the launch of Windows 95, IBM was looking for the exit sign and they got it by signing one of those draconian contracts.
Now, while an intriguing story those are the yesteryear of computer hardware and software. Whats the point?
I see a lot of similarities in Microsofts behavior towards Linux. Aside from offering schools and hospitals free licenses and support. They have started to encroach on the Linux ecosystem. Now look, I get that Satya Nadella was a UNIX guy. He was a higher up at Sun and he understands the need for interoperability. That Microsoft, while having a major stake in the server market, is extremely under water when it comes to server adoption so Microsoft has a need to cooperate and extend their tools to the Linux platform but its costing us the Linux desktop. Among consumers we are at 1.5% of user share. Corporate wise I would say 5 or 6% but even thats sinking. As a Linux professional I see more and more Linux development houses and clients who use Linux on the desktop moving to Windows 10 and subsystem for Linux. In some ways I feel like we are falling into the same trap of extend, conquer and devour. Is Microsoft genuine on interoperability? or has Satya Nadella invoked the ghost of Sun Microsystems and their old tactics of kill them with kindness?
