Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:830 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7684 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10684
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!rzusuntk.unizh.ch!ps
From: ps@rzu.unizh.ch (Sezgey Pachkovsky)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Message-ID: <1993May13.162259.9649@rzu-news.unizh.ch>
Followup-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Sender: newsadm@rzu-news.unizh.ch (CNEWS ADMINISTRATION)
Organization: University of Zurich, Switzerland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <C6ywJx.1prM@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 16:22:59 GMT
Lines: 10

Mike Dahmus (mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
: Yes, a lot of what OS/2 2.0 has in common with OS/2 1.x was written by you
: guys. However, many of the things that made OS/2 2.0 so much more successful
: (Win-OS/2, Workplace Shell) than previous versions were IBM work.

Win-OS/2 is IBM work? You make me laugh... Re-writing couple of thousands
lines of code to make Windows compatible with your DPMI implementation does
not make the rest of Windows IBM work...

/Serge.P
