Sponsored by
INTRODUCTION
The news media in general, and the computer industry media in particular, are often
believed by the general public to be relatively unbiased in what they publish. In
other words, despite the fact that media personalities are "real people"
just like you and me, with feelings, beliefs, and biases, we somehow believe that
(for the most part) a journalist would never intentionally botch a story. We expect
that someone who makes a living telling people what is going on in society does
little more than that -- tell people what is happening. They may not tell the whole
story, or they may emphasize one aspect of a story in a slanted manner, but we have
a degree of trust that the overall message is relatively accurate. We don't live
in a closed, totalitarian society, so obviously the news media are not totally falsifying
the news, right?
However, occasionally an article is published that is so biased, so disingenuous,
so phony as to challenge our assumption of relative fairness and decency. If this
blatant falsehood is carried on by a particular publication as part of a long-term
trend, we must face that facts and reassess our willingness to give that publication
and its staff the "benefit of the doubt." I will now dissect an article
published in InfoWorld magazine's online edition (click HERE).
This article leaves no room for doubt about the level of extreme bias against superior
computer technologies possessed by certain members of the InfoWorld staff.
THE CULPRIT
The reviewer is Tom Yager, a regular InfoWorld contributor who operates a
private testing lab in Texas, according to the article. Visiting his site (click
HERE) shows that he is Senior Contributing
Editor and Columnist for Windows NT Systems magazine. What kind of bias do
you think this paid Windows NT writer would bring to an OS/2 Warp review? What kind
of trade magazine would select this person as an acceptable OS/2 reviewer?
THE CONCEPTS
The review article discusses a network server software package. The purpose of a
network server is to provide file transfer, file sharing, storage, printer sharing,
and the sharing and management of other resources on a network of personal computers.
The key elements of a server's performance are first and foremost, reliability;
second, scalability. This is the ability to add new users and share additional resources,
and perform ever-greater number of transactions per unit time without suffering
significant performance or reliability degradation. A server is usually more or
less "invisible" in that the users will not even be aware of its existence
if it functions properly. Similarly, technical personnel want and need a "set
and forget" server that can be installed once and thereafter requires little
or no interaction except when changing the system configuration (adding or deleting
users or reallocating shared resources).
Of secondary importance is ease of system management and reconfiguration. It is
expected that in most large installations there will seldom be a need to perform
wholesale changes in system architecture and resource allocation. Typically the
system management involves a handful of utilities and perhaps a few command-line
scripts. This is not an activity that requires a high degree of user intervention,
and hence a complex or fancy user environment is not required (and indeed may be
an unnecessary distraction).
Finally, it is desireable to have good system documentation and relative ease of
installation and configuration. However, a server that functions correctly will
not need to have constant attention or re-installation in the long term. Therefore,
these factors should be of relatively minor importance to the overall perspective
of a network server review.
THE VICTIM
The product under review is IBM OS/2 Warp Server 5.0. This product has a sterling
record of reliability on par with Unix systems. The product is capable of serving
thousands of terminals on a single server. The innovative user interface has long
been recognized as a the finest example of object-oriented technology with a user-friendly
appeal. While not among the most popular platforms, the product has nonetheless
gained a loyal following and in some cases (such as the banking industry) it is
the clear leader as a state-of-the-art platform.
THE AUTOPSY
The article itself is now quoted in Yellow, interspersed with an analysis in White.
IN THE BATTLE for the PC
server market, every player needs to set its operating system apart from the others.
Microsoft throws mountains of functionality into Windows NT and gives its users
massive free updates. Novell NetWare has good performance, leading-edge directory
services, and a loyal installed user base. Linux is almost free and a buzzword as
well as an OS. And IBM's latest release of OS/2 is expensive.
The reviewer begins his work by summarizing his
viewpoint on the essential features of each operating system. However, he immediately
betrays his bias by refusing to cite any performance or functionality traits for
OS/2. He mentions the "massive free updates" for WindowsNT, but neglects
to state that OS/2 provides regular free fixpacks that add significant enhancements.
He cites Novell's good performance and loyal user base, but neglects to mention
that these are also well-known aspects of the OS/2 platform as well. He then sets
up OS/2 by citing Linux as "free" and a "buzzword," two things
that OS/2 obviously is not. The intentional implication is that OS/2 does not have
*any* of the previously listed benefits, which is of course untrue.
Let's try this out for size: "Chicken is delicious and has a strong cultural
attachment. Hamburgers are everywhere. And steak is expensive." See how biased
-- and even stupid -- this argument sounds? The fundamental difference between steak
and mass-market food is taste; you pay more for a better-quality meal. Similarly,
OS/2 costs more because it has superior performance.
To give IBM its due, OS/2
Warp Server for e-business is the most powerful OS/2 ever released. It is Warp Server
4 with accumulated fixes and a handful of new features: a journaling file system,
year-2000 and euro currency support, a Unix Network File System file-sharing client,
four-CPU multiprocessor support, a Java-enabled Web server, and a logical volume
manager that permits some changes to the file system configuration without rebooting.
Well, that sounds like a nice laundry list, but
it breezes through the list without explaining anything. Just what is "a journaling
file system," and why should I want one? What about OS/2's ability to expand
beyond just four CPUs for SMP support?
Like Windows NT, this version
of OS/2 crams a lot of functionality into one bundle. But unlike with NT, you pay
for that power by enduring an outdated user interface, scattered and concealed features,
abominable documentation, and a tiny set of third-party applications.
Now the attack begins in earnest. Calling WorkPlace
Shell an "outdated user interface" is about as insightful as calling the
Internet "just a bunch of wires." Just exactly how does a user interface
become "outdated?" Does it have wrinkles? Does it wobble when it walks?
And besides that, why would a network manager want to have a user interface change
every few years, particularly if the original interface does the job effectively?
Who needs constant retraining expenses? And just how much time does the network
engineer spend interacting directly with the GUI, anyway?
While the features may be "scattered" in different folders, being "concealed"
has a lot more to do with knowing where to look than it does with any supposed attempted
to "hide" something. Certainly a universal management console would be
helpful, so this may be a point against the Warp Server. Similarly, the documentation
is classic IBM -- either cryptic or nonexistent. However, the sentence switches
gears once again and focuses on a supposedly "tiny" set of applications.
Since when does a network server need thousands of applications? Its job is to provide
system management functions, not gameboy features for bored back-office nerds. Besides,
the fact that Warp Server's high-performance Java engine makes all Java programs
instant third-party native applications is lost on the reviewer, who fails to even
mention the embedded Java API and its industry-leading performance.
Thus one sentence combines a personal bias against the GUI, two valid complaints,
and a misleading statement that ignores the vast and growing number of Java applications
in existence.
Last December I looked at
the beta release before IBM had announced pricing, and I held out hope that OS/2
would be priced to compete with NT. But OS/2 Warp Server for e-business is more
expensive than Windows NT Server 4.0, turning out to be no competition at all. Unless
you already run an OS/2 shop and do not want to jump ship, you will find few reasons
to deploy this OS/2.
This reviewer's obsession with pricing betrays
his ignorance of relative server capabilities. If price is really so important,
why not go out and buy a copy of Multiuser DOS and use it as a server package? There
is more to a server O.S. than simply comparing features and prices.
For example, how many workstations can reliably run on a single copy of NT4 Server?
How many for WarpServer? How many times per month will the NT crash, versus the
OS/2? How badly will NT's performance drop off after adding 100 more users, versus
OS/2's performance scaling? To put the price argument in perspective, how many copies
of the NT4 Server (as well as associated hardware) will you need to buy to match
the performance, the reliability, and the scalability of just one OS/2 WarpServer?
This review is a perfect example of being "penny wise and pound foolish."
No doubt a large percentage of the two trillion dollars spent on information technology
in the last few years by U.S. companies is another such example. I suppose that
kind of stupidity is one reason why WindowsNT is still used, despite the fact that
OS/2 WarpServer is actually a less-expensive solution. That's right, if you count
the cost of doing business instead of just the price on the label, OS/2 is far cheaper.
The real problem here is that the reviewer is fooled by the unrealistically low
entry cost of the Windows platform, and fails to recognize that a network
is more than just the sum of its parts.
I tested OS/2 Warp Server
for e- business on a PC server with a Tyan motherboard, dual Pentium II CPUs, 192MB
of RAM, and a 9GB Seagate Barracuda ultrawide SCSI primary hard drive.
With how many workstations attached? Zero? That
explains a lot, doesn't it?
You boot the OS/2 install
from a CD, so if you want bootable floppy disks, you must make them yourself. During
the installation, you must constantly swap the installation and Server Pak CDs because
the boot CD contains no installable software. The installer reboots your server
several times, often without warning.
When OS/2 came on diskettes, reviewers balked.
Now a boot CD option has been added, and this reviewer whines and complains. Considering
how easy it is to make a couple of diskettes, this is a trivial complaint that has
no business in a serious product review. Now the need to swap install and server
CDs is indeed a negative point, but why mention the reboots being "often without
warning?" What kind of warning would you like, a dancing elephant? What will
you do when the warning occurs, duck and hide under your desk?
The OS/2 desktop is still
painted by Presentation Manager, a Windows 3.1 contemporary.
The writer is in error by failing to tell the
whole story. The WorkPlace Shell (WPS) GUI of OS/2 was smartly updated with the
release of OS/2 Warp 4.0 to include the Warpcenter, 3-D icons, TrueType font support,
and more. Since OS/2 Warp 4.0 was released in September of 1996, this makes the
OS/2 GUI two months newer than the Windows NT 4.0 GUI. In other words, the OS/2
GUI is in reality a "Windows NT 4.0 contemporary." Since the OS/2 GUI
is newer, does this imply that the Windows NT GUI is "outdated," then?
Besides, since when is keeping a superior GUI a negative point? This argument is
completely empty-headed. Let's see how this sounds with more everyday items: "Nobody
should still be driving a 1968 Mustang, a VW contemporary." "Nobody should
still listen to the Beatles, a Herman's Hermits contemporary." "The 1985
Chicago Bears were losers -- they were Tampa Bay Buccaneers contemporaries."
Placing a time limit on great products falsely implies that anything new is automatically
better than anything old. This is a major cultural fallacy of the early twenty-first
century. It is too bad the reviewer has fallen into that trap himself.
The default desktop's root
window icons and taskbar menus look haphazardly laid out by a dreadfully disorganized
user. Essential functions are buried in submenus, and administrative tools and utilities
are scattered and concealed in the pages of anachronistic on-screen notebooks. It
is a GUI OS/2 fans have learned to love, but a hard taste to acquire if you are
accustomed to Windows 98 or Linux's Gnome.
Hello, wake up in there! Have you ever
heard of right-click, arrange? OS/2 allows you to make a fresh folder with shadows
for just the tools you use regularly, and keep the more obscure stuff hidden out
of sight. That is actually a nice advantage of a true object-oriented interface.
And what is this garbage about "anachronistic" notebooks? Since when did
notebooks become obsolete? How many million units of notebooks are sold each month
in this country? Would you prefer a pop-up Elvis impersonator for every menu choice?
The idea that the OS/2 GUI is a "hard taste to acquire" is totally backwards
reasoning. Let's try that argument with foodstuffs: "Sirloin steak is a hard
taste to acquire when you've become accustomed to McDonald's or KFC." Do you
see how stupid the review looks when its bias is exposed?
If you have the patience
(or experience) to find your way around, you will find some worthwhile elements.
In a mixed LAN with shared NT servers, OS/2 will replicate the user list and let
you set up a single-login environment. The new Journaled File System improves reliability
and speeds recovery after a power or software failure. OS/2 Warp Server for e-business
plays well as a peer in an NT LAN.
IBM touts online volume management as a key new feature of this OS. The Java-based
Logical Volume Manager (LVM) brings less to the party than is needed--you can't
format a volume or change its file system type from within LVM, and it does not
support software RAID, as do NT and Linux. But you can extend a journaled volume
without rebooting, which worked in my testing. The LVM tacked the new space onto
the end of the existing volume, while retaining the existing volume's contents.
The one killer app in the package is IBM's WebSphere Applications Server. WebSphere
equips Web developers with robust server-side Java programming support via servlets
and Java Server Pages. CORBA object broker support is built into other versions
of WebSphere, but sadly, not this version. Java outperforms script, potentially
making for more scalable Web applications, but the missing CORBA support leaves
OS/2 with nothing to compare to Microsoft's Component Object Model technology.
FUD alert! Notice how casually the reviewer slipped
from "WebSphere for OS/2 lacks CORBA support" to "OS/2 lacks CORBA
support?" Certainly IBM should get in gear with a fully-functioning WebSphere,
but there is no need to use that point to FUD the whole platform.
The OS/2 Warp Server for
e-business literature winks at a comprehensive Java environment, promising the "OS/2
Warp Developer's Kit, Java Edition." This turns out to be the Sun Java Developer's
Kit, which is a free download, some online documents, and an IBM just-in-time Java
compiler. An editor touted as the "Java editor" is passable but offers
no special Java-related features such as syntax highlighting or statement completion.
IBM also supplies a folder full of links to Sun Java examples, copied to your hard
drive during installation. Many of these did not execute during my testing. This
may be a good place for an experienced Java jock to work out, but it certainly isn't
the best place to start.
Agreed, most IBM examples are more in the vein
of "show and tell." But nowhere in this entire review was the issue of
relative Java performance on different Server platforms even mentioned. Perhaps
it was too embarassing to admit that OS/2 continues to drive the industry forward
in terms of Java performance?
The Domino Go Web server,
an adapted edition of the Unix/Linux Apache server, does a fine job with basic Web
content. Domino Go improves on Apache with a Web-based administrative interface.
Compared to Netscape's administrative front end, Domino Go's GUI is fractured and
disorganized. Basic configuration requires lots of tiny steps. This is a far cry
from Windows NT's IIS, which groups all of your Web parameters together whether
you are administering it locally or from the Web.
Once again, the parts you are given can be rearranged
at will using that OS/2 GUI. You know, the GUI with the "hard to acquire taste?"
Windows had better provide you with some kind of pre-arranged gizmo, because working
with goofy "shortcuts" can be a nightmare compared to OS/2's elegant icon
shadowing function.
The Web server is quite
functional and includes Secure Sockets Layer and basic (Web, FTP, and Gopher protocols
only) proxy support. I am a fan of the Apache server, and I advise you to forego
Lotus' tedious Web administration interface and edit the server's configuration
files directly. But don't get too attached: IBM is discontinuing Domino Go Web Server.
Support for it is scheduled to be discontinued in 2001.
Telling half the story is as good as a lie in
some cases. IBM pre-announces discontinuance of products and then periodically extends
the support period. This has been true at IBM for years. This still occurs with
OS/2 and a number of other IBM products. This is the opposite of Microsoft's pre-announcing
delivery and then failing to deliver. Besides, why not ask IBM what they are planning
to replace the Domino Go with? That would actually be some new information, something
this reviewer apparently has little of.
WebSphere holds tremendous
promise for hosting server-side Java Web applications, but it is not enough to carry
OS/2 Warp Server for e-business. No combination of its features could make this
costly OS appeal to anyone not looking to upgrade from a prior release.
"Anyone?" Once again, the reviewer attacks
cost without explaining the performance benefits -- because he obviously failed
to test the Server's performance. A server review that ignores performance is like
a basketball box score that fails to list the points scored. You know who the teams
were, and you know the names of the players, but you have no idea whether anybody
did anything or not. This review is so useless as to be a travesty.
If you like WebSphere, run
it on IBM's AIX, Windows NT, or one of its supported Unix variants. That will cost
you less, and you'll be using IBM's advanced server-side Java on an operating system
with a future.
The reviewer cannot help himself. He has to take
a parting shot with the boring, worn-out rumor that FUDs the future of OS/2. Yes,
this is yet another FUDmeister review that says a lot but tells us nothing of real
value.
CONCLUSION
A bad product review is not a crime, at least not when it occurs in isolation. But
a bad product review when published by a major trade magazine also reflects badly
on the editors and the managers that approved its publication. How could an ostensibly
responsible computer magazine publish a review of a network server that was never
networked and never served anything? Knowing that IBM is targeting OS/2 shops, why
not have a regular OS/2 user (instead of a professional Windows NT writer) perform
the product review? Would selecting an OS/2 developer to do a product review of
a Windows98 release be considered "unbiased journalism?"
This is the same magazine, InfoWorld, which withdrew its Product of the Year
award in 1997 because the "wrong platform" won it -- OS/2 Warp. An editor
at this magazine claimed that OS/2 "zealots" had "stuffed the ballot
box," yet the entire voting population was only some 400 people. Does 400 votes
out of 300,000 readers sound like ballot stuffing, or rather a poorly-conducted
poll? The magazine chose to use trumped-up charges of tomfoolery in order to cover
its own bad work. The fact that OS/2 won the poll for a fourth straight year angered
the people who have staked their careers on error-prone, dead-end platforms like
Windows. Another incident shows the emotional investment of top InfoWorld
management in Windows: after he publicly refuted Microsoft's wimpy excuses in the
DOJ trial, InfoWorld fired "Help Desk" guru Brett Glass.
This is also the magazine that published a series of anti-OS/2 articles, including
one by Ed Scannel entitled "OS/2 Users Head for the Exits," which purported
to show a decreasing level of interest in OS/2 among corporate users. Yet the pie
chart accompanying this article showed more companies increasing their investment
in OS/2 than those decreasing it. And then there was the matter of a product comparison
that needed a little tinkering.... but I'm sure it is obvious by now that plenty
of "tinkering" has gone on at InfoWorld for several years now.
With magazines like InfoWorld blocking the channels of information between
software vendors and decisionmakers, is it any wonder that IBM refuses to pander
to their whims? How can IBM or any other vendor of quality products expect to overcome
such a massive cultural and intellectual bias against innovation, against excellence,
against the laws of engineering? Attempting to sell superior products to InfoWorld's
readership is like trying to wake the dead.
