>A quick read of the linked article suggests that maybe the author is somewhat confused
Not likely. From Wikipedia:
In the early 1990s Black served as the editor-in-chief for OS/2 Professional magazine and OS/2 Week and reported on OS/2 users and technology.
>the author also makes mention of new documents in order to back up his claims. I would have to review such documents for myself (and I may do this when I get the chance), because it's been my experience that when the press or whoever claims to have "smoking gun" documents, those documents often don't necessarily say what they're being claimed to say.
> In the early 1990s Black served as the editor-in-chief for OS/2 Professional magazine and OS/2 Week and reported on OS/2 users and technology.
He's a journalist, not a techie. Just because he did some tech reporting and such back in the day doesn't necessarily mean that he has a clue, especially given the vintage of the tech that we're discussing here.
> Ah yes, the old "fake news" defence.
Yeah, you should maybe get a clue about that yourself! :)
And you should know that if and when various "smoking gun" documents turn up in court, as has been happening quite a bit lately, judges tend to react rather harshly if they don't actually say what they're claimed to say. This has also been happening quite a bit lately.
Not likely. From Wikipedia:
In the early 1990s Black served as the editor-in-chief for OS/2 Professional magazine and OS/2 Week and reported on OS/2 users and technology.
>the author also makes mention of new documents in order to back up his claims. I would have to review such documents for myself (and I may do this when I get the chance), because it's been my experience that when the press or whoever claims to have "smoking gun" documents, those documents often don't necessarily say what they're being claimed to say.
Ah yes, the old "fake news" defence.