How about sponsoring from IBM?

[Roland]

At 02:12 PM 1/12/02 -0500, David Elliott wrote:

>hahahhahahahahaahahahahahahaha
>
>Sorry, ROTFLMAO, see below.

Good to know you are having some fun right now! :))
Laughing is healthy!

>Read up on your computer history a bit son.
>
>OS/2 ran Windows apps, and from about version 2 upwards ran all DOS and 
>Windows stuff perfectly (except for the Win32s stuff).  I am sure IBM does 
>/not/ want to make the same mistake again.

The question is, where the mistake was? The only similarity between OS/2 
and WINE+LINUX is that both want to run M$ Windows software. You should ask 
some additional questions like:
-would OS/2 have failed if it was for free like Linux+WINE?
-would it fail if it had the ever growing acceptance that Linux is having.
-would it fail if it where actually one of the most used OS on the server side?

Even IBM is putting Linux on their big-iron. Ask yourself, why don't they 
use OS/2 for it? There are also other points to consider:

-WINE is not an IBM project/product. So they can pull back from it anytime 
without losing their face. They couldn't do this with OS/2, so it costs 
them Billions for all the user support, etc...Thats where the real problem is!
-Why should someone pay for OS/2 if they can have WINDOWS? Moving from one 
proprietary system to another is nonsense. But Linux+WINE are free, so it 
would make sense to move from WINDOWS to Linux.



>Some people would argue that had IBM comitted to supporting Win32 stuff 
>that OS/2 would still be around.  Of course the bottom line is that the 
>way they were doing this meant MS got the money for a copy of Windows 
>every time someone bought OS/2.  Not good.  Wine wouldn't

And this also means that OS/2 will cost as much as WINDOWS at least, so 
there is no incentive to move.

>As for IBM investing in Wine.  I suppose there are a couple things they 
>could do.  For one, they could somehow use the $10e6 you suggest but who 
>would they pay it to.  What might be more helpful is if some of the guys 
>and gals that wrote OS/2 would help out with Wine.  They

Well, I think once they are willing to pay that money, I'm sure we would 
find out how to use it in a meaningfull way. There are at least two ways I 
can think about it.
1. Invest money in some company that already is on WINE developing like, 
Codeweavers and Transgaming. Actually I remember some guy of one of that 
companies saying it would contribute back some huge chunk of code they 
developed if they got the funding to pay for their costs from somewhere.
2. Pay some programmer(might be someone already developing WINE on their 
par-time) to become a full-time WINE developer.

>Anyway, the bottom line is that IBM is not going to start throwing money 
>at stuff.  They made that mistake with OS/2 and look where that got 'em.

Once again I think this is no fair comparison. Investing on OS/2 meant a 
much BIGGER investment in money and, worse a company commitment to that 
product, which meant they couldn't simply pull back when they wanted, they 
had to support if for YEARS to come. With WINE things are totally 
different. They have to invest much less, in fact they can invest any 
arbitrarily value. I don't think 10 Million is much for them in comparison 
with what they invested(and still pay) on OS/2.

>No, IBM spends money when and where it helps their bottom line.  Taking 
>down MS does not help their bottom line.  Building their own services does 
>help their bottom line.  IBM could care less if everyone could run Windows 
>software on Linux.  They are in the business of

AFAIK, one of their bottom lines is promoting LINUX popularity, I don't 
want to quote one of their web-sites again(read my other mails). I think no 
one here will disagree if I say that WINE is THE cornerstone to promoting 
Linux popularity.

>Note that IBM has already caught the eye of MS with IBMs ad campaign for 
>moving onto 390 systems running Linux.  Some of those internal MS memos 
>recently released are really anti-IBM.  Right now I think MS is at the 
>point where they have competitors.  They can go

Since IBM already caught the eye of MS it doesn't make a difference if they 
also invest on WINE.

>waste their money on MS.  When it breaks, let 'em waste more money on 
>moving it back to what worked.  MS is going to shoot itself in the foot 
>soon enough, no need to bring out your own shotgun.

If this was true, we wouldn't need Linux at all. The reality is different. 
We need to give the end-user a REAL alternative, and here is where WINE 
comes in...

Roland