How come when OS/2 won three of the five categories no one used the word "ridiculous" to describe the categories?
I think it is quite simple actually. If you look at the categories and consider an unbiased overview of the capabilities of OS/2 Warp, it can easily fit into each category. Let's follow this logic a bit within each category.
Client
The first category is the Client category. For the moment I'll assume that you're not all that familiar with OS/2 Warp Connect or OS/2 Warp 4.0. Both of these products come with a very complete and robust set of integrated network protocols. This allows the operating system to connect to just about any network on the planet, becoming a client on that network. It is a very robust client, and thanks to OS/2's crash protection, creates an environment where it is possible to be a client on a network on a continual basis, without interruptions of work. It is far from ridiculous to include Warp in the Client category.
Server
In case you havn't noticed, there's a product on the market known as OS/2 Warp Server. It is a complete operating system and network server, all packed into one box. I'm sure people have heard of such products, but if you're unclear on the concept, check out something which might be a bit more familiar - NT server. It isn't ridiculous to include OS/2 Warp Server within the Server category.
Networking Product
Presuming that the definition of networking product includes both network servers and network clients, it would seem that OS/2 Warp would not be a ridiculous product to include in this category either
Internet product
Once again, OS/2 Warp comes with a large number of internet products, and a very stable and mature TCP/IP stack. While my own personal choice for such a product as overall internet product winner would likely be Linux, OS/2 Warp is not a ridiculous answer for this category.
As for the results of the first vote being ridiculous? Well, sometimes voting and the democratic process IS ridiculous and DOES produce ridiculous results. Just look at the 1988 Canadian federal election, when 56% of people voted for parties against the free trade deal, yet the only federal party supporting that deal won a majority government and subsequently passed the bill. Is that not ridiculous? Consider that something like 26% of people in the province of Quebec who voted for separation in the fall of 1995 referendum on Quebec sovreignty didn't really think that a positive vote really meant that the province would separate (for those who don't know, the "&yes"& side narrowly lost by a mere 50,000 votes). Is that not ridiculous? Yes, even if we don't like it, voting and the democratic process does at times produce ridiculous results. But does that mean it is invalid or should be branded as invalid? I guess that's a question which will continue to be discussed.
For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor