... DOS or OS/2? lol I do suppose there are some analogies to be had if we talk about OS/2... i.e. that was supposed to be more of a partnership versus a norm

... DOS or OS/2? lol I do suppose there are some analogies to be had if we talk about OS/2... i.e. that was supposed to be more of a partnership versus a normal vendor agreement... However my understanding is that there was a lot more org cultural friction; A big one being IBM's insistence on early versions of OS/2 supporting the 286 (as well as similar rigid bureaucratic support requirements) on top of the way IBM did 'Process Management' on developers as far as using LOC to measure productivity. While I am a huge proponent of .NET, I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft... But I've also worked at orgs that have run the gamut between 'too conservative' and 'a little bold/reckless' in engineering practices. Microsoft was able to iterate way faster and decided to tackle backward compatibility in different ways. They got tired of the bureaucracy of IBM, and I'll use Raymond Chen's story of a coffee maker to example the type of bureaucracy and how ironically simple it was to avoid; https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220426-00/?p=106528 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220426-00/?p=10...