os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com ?????????????? ????? #696 ??????? ??????? ?????

???: "Christian Langanke" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com> ?? ????
?????????
??: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re:
??: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:50:44 +0100
??: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>

Neil Waldhauer wrote:
This is off-topic, but I disagree with you and Rick and anyone else who thinks
the world is paying enough attention to think of us.
  

Neil,

I very much disagree as well, I second your reason very much, and I see another one.

Rules in general are nothing bad,  (but beside personal taste and popular demands) they normally are intended to help achieving a meaningful goal. But for this os rule I doubt that it leads to a meaningful goal in our days, in fact today I consider it being counterproductive if it is about building and keeping the eCS community together (this may well have been different in 2002). The reason for this is that I think no service that promotes eCS should be disclosed from any offer of another eCS related service, as long as it serves the goal of promoting eCS. I would be happy to have thousand of linux boxes, or even MS doing eCS promotion on thousands of W2k3 boxes if they only would like to :-)

IMHO promoting eCS should be the only criteria for letting users and services take part in an eCS related community and their offerings. And concerning that I would consider netlabs.org being at least one of the most valuable platforms around. I don't know a single website that has done that much for OS/2 and eComStation projects and with it application development as netlabs.org did in the last ten years. And I see _no single site_ that has done only a little part of the effort to keep the OS/2 & eCS idea running further in the future.

Therefore I conclude: rules are good, but they sometimes have to be changed. Change this one, it is high time!

bye, Christian

-------------------------------------------------

Christian Langanke
COS2E & CWSE
Team OS/2 Ruhr e.V.
cla@clanganke.de
???????: ????, ??????, ??????.
?????????
??? ????????