Our first interview this month is with Charlie Hodgson, a software developer,
who has been in the industry for 20 years now
VOICE > What kind of business are you involved in?
Charlie > I develop communications * messaging software
VOICE > Can you please describe your current use of OS/2 in your workplace?
What kind of hardware and software are you using for OS/2? Approximately how many
pc's are running OS/2 at your site?
Charlie > I'm a loner here (in regards to OS/2). The company supports Windows
platforms officially, though some of us use alternatives (a few on Linux, me on
OS/2).
I use OS/2 mainly as a workstation - Telnet sessions to other hosts for building/testing,
NFS file access for editing (I use EPM to edit, kick off builds, etc). Of course
I surf the net daily, OS/2 is a great platform for that. THe machine at work is
a P-100 with 96MB RAM, 17" monitor.
VOICE > How did you decide to use OS/2? What features were considered important
for this project(s)? What previous experience was there with OS/2 and other operating
systems?
Charlie > I've been an OS/2 user since version 2.0. I got my first PC in 1983
and always wanted multitasking capabilies. In the early days there was a package
called 'Double DOS" that allowed two programs to be run, timesharing. I found
that I could do a "CTTY COM1" on one session and swith control to a terminal
and then use the second session on the console. That led to Desqview, a great product
at the time and then Desqview/X. I had tried Windows 2.x, 3.0, 3.1 and never liked
it. Too much flash and not enough capabilities. When OS/2 2.0 came out, I gave it
a whirl, and found it did everything I wanted, and did it well. I also use various
flavors of UNIX.
VOICE > What other operating systems if any were under consideration or are
used for your business? If you use OS/2 in conjunction with other OSes in any form
of a network, how well does OS/2 work with these other systems?
Charlie > As I stated above, most of the desktops are Win95, with a Win-NT
server. Our products are for use on UNIX and Stratus VOS. I connect to these machines
daily. For typical TCP/IP type stuff - Telnet, ftp, mail, etc, OS/2 is a great platform.
The TCP/IP stack is just super - very stable and complient. IBM missed the boat
with thier poor quality TCP/IP clients though. Ultimail is deficient in many areas,
PM-FTP should be multhreaded and allow multiple transfer to occur at once, the Telnet
client has a couple minor deficiencies. I have some problems with the Lan Server
access to the NT and other desktop PC, though it's most likely my lack of familiarity
with this more than anything.
VOICE > Do you foresee continued/increasing use of OS/2 in this fashion?
Charlie > Yes, though lately I've wondered if there is something better out
there.
VOICE > Are there any changes that you would like to see to OS/2 that would
facilitate your continued use or expanded use of OS/2?
Charlie > Yes. It's taken many years for me, but I want to be totally object
driven. If I never 'see' another 'file', I'd be happy. There are many little things,
such as: file save dialogs. Why? shouldn't it be object save? I really don't care
where the 'file' resides, just where to store the associated object.
A lot is the ISV faults. Take E-Mail. Why not make each message an object and
store it in a folder? Add methods to the object to perform reply, forward, etc,
from the RMB. It comes down to people designing in the File based mentality. It's
all wrong. I could go on and on here.
VOICE > How have IBM's statements that they are targeting the medium to large
business sector affected your work or your decision to continue using >OS/2 for
this/these task(s)?
Charlie > Not much, as long as the little guy can still get it at a reasonable
price.
VOICE > If IBM licensed another company to sell the OS/2 client to home/SOHO
users, would it affect your usage of OS/2 (would you use more OS/2 clients for your
work, etc)? If this company could add features, what features would you like to
see added?
Charlie > I'd need a lot of space for this. As long as well supported, I really
don't care who sells it. For features, see above. Also:
WIN32 Support
Dynamic configuration changes
Replacement of config.sys with something totally object or notebook.
Good base utilities
Resurection of PMX. PMX beats XFree/86 in that WPS is the manager.
VOICE > PMX was IBM's X-Windows client wasn't it? I never used it, but I heard
it was good and no one knew why IBM just let it die from neglect.
Charlie > You are correct about PMX. I suspect that there wasn't a huge demand,
but it does work great. Unfortunately, it;s X11r4, and the world is now on X11r6.
What I liked about it the most was that WPS was the manager, so that if you ran
an X program, the windows it opens on your PC are the same as any other. Under XFree/86,
you run a seperate window manager, such that your X windows and OS/2 windows are
not on the same screen, kinda like running program manager (?) in a full screen
session.
VOICE > Would you be interested in a refreshed version of OS/2 Warp 4.0, that
is a new install package that included all fixes and new enhancements as well as
new harware support since the original release or a new client based on Aurora?
Charlie > Depends on the price. I don't think I'd pay much for a refresh.
An Aurora based client would be sweet. (I have 'signed up' to buy it already)
VOICE > Has your business been contacted by IBM about the potential use of
Work Space on Demand? Do you see any use for that product in your business?
Charlie > I was sent a copy of WSOD a while back but haven;t used it. Need
a server.
VOICE >Do you know of any other sites using OS/2 in your industry?
Charlie > No