Microsoft Source (fwd)
kr...@freebsd.org
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
----- Forwarded message from Dan Browning <da...@cyclonecomputers.com> -----
Microsoft Announces Surprise Cooperative Agreement
In a surprise press conference made this Friday evening Microsoft CEO
Steve Ballmer announced that Microsoft will be releasing the source
code for the upcoming Windows operating system dubbed Whistler.
"We have already begun work on the project, and have for the past
three months collaborated with a small company of enterprising young
programmers from Russia," said Ballmer in an impromptu press
conference. Ballmer appeared visibly shaken throughout the press
conference, and several times made references to how "skillful the
Russian programmers were", and how Microsoft "[didn't] want to do
anything to threaten [their] relationship with them."
"We at Microsoft are confident that by allowing peer review of the
already best-selling Windows operating system and Office suite we will
be able to offer our customers a more polished product," continued
Ballmer. "By allowing the Open Source community [or "hackers"] access
to the Windows source code, we will be able to ensure that the
operating system ships with even better security than that which you
have already come to expect from Microsoft."
In what is perhaps a policy-changing move, Microsoft has worked with
the Russian programmers to remove bugs and fix security problems
before releasing the code for scrutiny to the Open Source community.
It is yet unknown whether this change in policy will include release
of source code for previous versions of Microsoft products, or whether
this will have any bearing on the Justice Department decision to split
Microsoft into two separate companies.
Posted on Fri 27 Oct 11:50:00 2000 PDT
Written by Eugene <euge...@yahoo.com>
---
Shamelessly plagiarized from Segfault
(http://segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=39f9cdfd-08ab7ae0).
----- End forwarded message -----
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjoF9BoACgkQWry0BWjoQKXthACgroLpLHWN9Q3AhL3+cRKGUYew
MDoAoPz3lDybfz0d5/hoJ/dP/ph8cZxs
=frrp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
jswa...@uswest.net
--------------A87A2EF1CE0A1DC95912E4BE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
LOL!!
Seriously, I heard a recent rumor that Microsoft is or has
developed it's own version of Linux. Has anybody else
heard of this?
Cheers
Joe
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
--
FreeBSD = The Power to Serve
..Simply put = FreeBSD Rocks!
--------------A87A2EF1CE0A1DC95912E4BE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
LOL!!
<p>Seriously, I heard a recent rumor that Microsoft is or has
<br>developed it's own version of Linux. Has anybody else
<br>heard of this?
<p>Cheers
<p>Joe
<br>
<p>Kris Kennaway wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>----- Forwarded message from Dan Browning <da...@cyclonecomputers.com>
-----
<p>Microsoft Announces Surprise Cooperative Agreement
<p>In a surprise press conference made this Friday evening Microsoft CEO
<br>Steve Ballmer announced that Microsoft will be releasing the source
<br>code for the upcoming Windows operating system dubbed Whistler.
<p>"We have already begun work on the project, and have for the past
<br>three months collaborated with a small company of enterprising young
<br>programmers from Russia," said Ballmer in an impromptu press
<br>conference. Ballmer appeared visibly shaken throughout the press
<br>conference, and several times made references to how "skillful the
<br>Russian programmers were", and how Microsoft "[didn't] want to do
<br>anything to threaten [their] relationship with them."
<p>"We at Microsoft are confident that by allowing peer review of the
<br>already best-selling Windows operating system and Office suite we will
<br>be able to offer our customers a more polished product," continued
<br>Ballmer. "By allowing the Open Source community [or "hackers"] access
<br>to the Windows source code, we will be able to ensure that the
<br>operating system ships with even better security than that which you
<br>have already come to expect from Microsoft."
<p>In what is perhaps a policy-changing move, Microsoft has worked with
<br>the Russian programmers to remove bugs and fix security problems
<br>before releasing the code for scrutiny to the Open Source community.
<br>It is yet unknown whether this change in policy will include release
<br>of source code for previous versions of Microsoft products, or whether
<br>this will have any bearing on the Justice Department decision to split
<br>Microsoft into two separate companies.
<p>Posted on Fri 27 Oct 11:50:00 2000 PDT
<br>Written by Eugene <euge...@yahoo.com>
<p>---
<p>Shamelessly plagiarized from Segfault
<br>(<a href="http://segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=39f9cdfd-08ab7ae0">http://segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=39f9cdfd-08ab7ae0</a>).
<p>----- End forwarded message -----
<p> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature</blockquote>
<p>--
<p> FreeBSD = The Power to Serve
<br> ..Simply put = FreeBSD Rocks!
<br> </html>
--------------A87A2EF1CE0A1DC95912E4BE--
bri...@wintelcom.net
> LOL!!
>
> Seriously, I heard a recent rumor that Microsoft is or has
> developed it's own version of Linux. Has anybody else
> heard of this?
-Alfred
jswa...@uswest.net
this one a while back. It's pretty funny! 8^)
Maybe it was just a rumor. Microsoft doesn't really
have any plans to create a Linux/UNIX variant...
....or do they? <shudder> 8^P
Joe
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Joe Warner <jswa...@uswest.net> [001105 16:56] wrote:
> > LOL!!
> >
> > Seriously, I heard a recent rumor that Microsoft is or has
> > developed it's own version of Linux. Has anybody else
> > heard of this?
>
> http://www.mslinux.org/
>
> -Alfred
--
FreeBSD = The Power to Serve
..Simply put = FreeBSD Rocks!
sca...@jurai.net
> Yeah, I've already seen this one. Dru Lavigne posted
> this one a while back. It's pretty funny! 8^)
>
> Maybe it was just a rumor. Microsoft doesn't really
> have any plans to create a Linux/UNIX variant...
> ....or do they? <shudder> 8^P
They did once already. It was called XENIX.
If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
call it MS linux.
=============================================================================
-Chris Watson (316) 326-3862 | FreeBSD Consultant, FreeBSD Geek
Work: sca...@jurai.net | Open Systems Inc., Wellington, Kansas
Home: sca...@deceptively.shady.org | http://open-systems.net
=============================================================================
WINDOWS: "Where do you want to go today?"
LINUX: "Where do you want to go tommorow?"
BSD: "Are you guys coming or what?"
=============================================================================
irc.openprojects.net #FreeBSD -Join the revolution!
pap...@udel.edu
> > Yeah, I've already seen this one. Dru Lavigne posted
> > this one a while back. It's pretty funny! 8^)
> >
> > Maybe it was just a rumor. Microsoft doesn't really
> > have any plans to create a Linux/UNIX variant...
> > ....or do they? <shudder> 8^P
>
> They did once already. It was called XENIX.
>If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
>call it MS linux.
Gotta remember that 'once upon a time' they owned (or was it that they just
had a lot of their fingers in?) SCO as well...
cfuh...@tfcci.com
> They did once already. It was called XENIX.
> If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
> call it MS linux.
>
This got me doing some research on the subject of XENIX. Microsoft
purchased a stake in SCO sometime in the early 80's which lead to the
development and release of XENIX. In '87, Microsoft was concerned that
AT&T's UNIX wouldn't be able to run XENIX app's so they entered into a
licensing agreement with AT&T to include some XENIX code in the AT&T
base. AT&T sold it's UNIX technology to Novell in '93 who then sold it to
SCO in '95. Recently, Microsoft sold it's shares in SCO after which SCO's
shares collapsed.
Some interesting tidbits: SCO asked M$ to drop the agreement since the
XENIX code wasn't relavant. M$ refused and as a consequence, SCO paid M$
about $1.138 million in royalties (ouch) in FY 1998.
Confusing, no? ;)
From the UnixWare login (Yes, I've the absolute delight of having to work
with UnixWare on a daily basis):
UnixWare 2.1.3 (volcano) (pts/1)
login: [munged]
Password:
UnixWare 2.1.3
volcano
Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
Cheers!
p.s. I got this info from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12338.html
--
Chris Fuhrman | Twenty First Century Communications
cfuh...@tfcci.com | Software Engineer
(W) 614-442-1215 x271 |
(F) 614-442-5662 | PGP/GPG Public Key Available on Request
black...@nightfire.de
>
>> > Yeah, I've already seen this one. Dru Lavigne posted
>> > this one a while back. It's pretty funny! 8^)
>> >
>> > Maybe it was just a rumor. Microsoft doesn't really
>> > have any plans to create a Linux/UNIX variant...
>> > ....or do they? <shudder> 8^P
>>
>> They did once already. It was called XENIX.
>>If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
>>call it MS linux.
>
>Gotta remember that 'once upon a time' they owned (or was it that they just
>had a lot of their fingers in?) SCO as well...
Hi!
IMHO you mean XENIX, the Unix that SCO sold to M$ and later got back...
(Provided memory serves me right-was way befor my time, I wet my pants
those times)
Regards
Olaf Hoyer
st...@qnet.com
was a real UNIX, multiuser and multitasking and a different ballgame from
DOS. It was the first UNIX-derived OS to run on the PC platform and paved
the way for FreeBSD. Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO.
The advent of the 32-bit I386 made Xenix obsolescent.
Paul Smith
st...@qnet.com
would not allow Microsoft to pirate Linux code and sell it Microsoft style.
At least I don't think so, but I once read that WINNT uses the Mach
microkernel, which has a license very similar to the GPL. Can anybody
comment?
Paul Smith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-fre...@FreeBSD.ORG
> [mailto:owner-fre...@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Alfred Perlstein
> Sent: Sunday, 05 November, 2000 17:04 PM
> To: Joe Warner
> Cc: Kris Kennaway; ch...@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: Microsoft Source (fwd)
>
>
pf...@pitt.edu
--On Monday, November 06, 2000, 1:17 PM -0800 Heredity Choice
<st...@QNET.COM> wrote:r
>
> At least I don't think so, but I once read that WINNT uses the Mach
> microkernel, which has a license very similar to the GPL. Can anybody
> comment?
>
It is not the Mach microkernel AFAIK, Bill Gates hired most of the people
that were working on Mach to build a complete new kernel. OTOH, even if
they took code from Mach, the license is very similar to the BSD
license...in fact the last time I checked, FreeBSD still had some code on
the VM with this license. Of course John Dyson and Matt Dillon (among
others) have changed the VM so much that I doubt the original coders from
CMU would recognize it :-).
cheers,
Pedro.
n...@nectar.com
> At least I don't think so, but I once read that WINNT uses the Mach
> microkernel, which has a license very similar to the GPL. Can anybody
> comment?
Windows NT has ever used the Mach kernel. You probably read some
comparisons between the design of the Windows NT Executive and the Mach
kernel -- the latter because Mach was/is the best-known microkernel
system.
The Windows NT Executive is not a microkernel, but more of a hybrid,
much like Darwin is (although Darwin actually _does_ use Mach code).
--
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / jvid...@verio.net / nec...@FreeBSD.org
tlam...@primenet.com
> > If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
> > call it MS linux.
> >
>
> purchased a stake in SCO sometime in the early 80's which lead to the
> development and release of XENIX. In '87, Microsoft was concerned that
> AT&T's UNIX wouldn't be able to run XENIX app's so they entered into a
> licensing agreement with AT&T to include some XENIX code in the AT&T
> base. AT&T sold it's UNIX technology to Novell in '93 who then sold it to
> SCO in '95. Recently, Microsoft sold it's shares in SCO after which SCO's
> shares collapsed.
>
> Some interesting tidbits: SCO asked M$ to drop the agreement since the
> XENIX code wasn't relavant. M$ refused and as a consequence, SCO paid M$
> about $1.138 million in royalties (ouch) in FY 1998.
>
> Confusing, no? ;)
I've been in the bowels of that code.
Microsoft announced Xenix on 25 Aug 1980, the same year they
signed a contract with IBM to provide compilers for the, at
the time, unannounced IBM PC.
Most of the original developement was done on Sun equipment,
and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their
language engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as
1988 (I got a call from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy
a copy of our communications software for Xenix running on
Sun hardware; when I said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's
right, it's an internal product only". Originally, Xenix
only ran on 68000 hardware.
SCO started in 1979 as a UNIX porting and consulting company;
father and son Larry and Doug Michels were the initial only
employees.
SCO didn't release its first XENIX until 1983, and it ran on
8086 and 8088 processors only. It wasn't until 1985 that
they released 286 Xenix (and 386 Xenix was in 1987).
The Microsoft licensed code includes some of the FS, part of
the x.out image activator, and some other bits. Most of the
code is pretty redundant these days. I'm surprised that they
continue to include it.
> UnixWare 2.1.3
> volcano
> Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved.
> U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
The Microsoft stuff is as described above.
The Novell stuff is the ODI drivers and the NetWare client
and server code, as well as the Novell Directory Services.
Terry Lambert
te...@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
gr...@lemis.com
>>> They did once already. It was called XENIX.
>>> If they still have it, they could dust it off, slap in a linux kernel and
>>> call it MS linux.
>>>
>>
>> This got me doing some research on the subject of XENIX. Microsoft
>> purchased a stake in SCO sometime in the early 80's which lead to the
>> development and release of XENIX. In '87, Microsoft was concerned that
>> AT&T's UNIX wouldn't be able to run XENIX app's so they entered into a
>> licensing agreement with AT&T to include some XENIX code in the AT&T
>> base. AT&T sold it's UNIX technology to Novell in '93 who then sold it to
>> SCO in '95. Recently, Microsoft sold it's shares in SCO after which SCO's
>> shares collapsed.
>>
>> Some interesting tidbits: SCO asked M$ to drop the agreement since the
>> XENIX code wasn't relavant. M$ refused and as a consequence, SCO paid M$
>> about $1.138 million in royalties (ouch) in FY 1998.
>>
>> Confusing, no? ;)
>
> I've been in the bowels of that code.
>
> Microsoft announced Xenix on 25 Aug 1980, the same year they
> signed a contract with IBM to provide compilers for the, at
> the time, unannounced IBM PC.
XENIX came first. I'm sure the announcement was earlier; they had an
article in the August 1980 Byte. And my best guess is that the IBM
deal was done in September 1980. It was definitely done by November,
when I heard about it.
> Most of the original developement was done on Sun equipment,
What equipment did Sun have in 1980? Did they even exist?
> and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their language
> engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
> from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
> communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
> said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
> only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
extrapolating here.
Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
st...@qnet.com
> > and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their language
> > engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
> > from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
> > communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
> > said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
> > only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
>
> Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
> hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
> reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
> have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
> especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
> and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
> extrapolating here.
I have seen Xenix on a Radioshack computer which had the 68000 processor.
Paul Smith
br...@lariat.org
>I have seen Xenix on a Radioshack computer which had the 68000 processor.
Yes, Radio Shack did have such a machine. It was a one piece terminal-like
affair with the floppies and hard drive mounted to the right of the console
CRT. I believe it had an MMU similar to those of the old Cromemco systems.
(Cromemco's 68000-based models used the S-100 bus, though, and required
huge power supplies.)
--Brett Glass
gr...@lemis.com
>
>>> and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their language
>>> engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
>>> from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
>>> communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
>>> said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
>>> only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
>> hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
>> reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
>> have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
>> especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
>> and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
>> extrapolating here.
>
> I have seen Xenix on a Radioshack computer which had the 68000
> processor.
I didn't know that Radio Shack ever built 68000 based machines. What
was it called? When was this?
Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
do...@doug.net
> > engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
> > from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
> > communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
> > said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
> > only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
>
> Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
> hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
> reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
> have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
> especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
> and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
> extrapolating here.
Gents,
My first Unix machines, which I purchased very-well-used in 1987 or
so, were two M68000 (10MHz) contraptions manufactured by a company
called Spectrix. They ran Microsoft Xenix (v3.2? v2.3? - I forget). The
machines, I believe, were manufactured in 1981 or thereabouts. Spectrix
called them model 30s. They used the Intel Multibus and had a couple
dozen serial ports, 2MB of RAM, two 29MB SASI drives and a QIC tape.
I heard a rumour that these boxen were actually Sun 0's or some such thing.
If anyone can shed any more light on the origins of these boxes, I
would love to hear about it. I no longer have the machines but I am
now curious again.
-- Doug
--
doug mackintosh
the unix geek
do...@doug.net
pe...@netplex.com.au
> > > and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their language
> > > engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
> > > from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
> > > communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
> > > said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
> > > only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
> > hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
> > reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
> > have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
> > especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
> > and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
> > extrapolating here.
>
> Gents,
>
> My first Unix machines, which I purchased very-well-used in 1987 or
> so, were two M68000 (10MHz) contraptions manufactured by a company
> called Spectrix. They ran Microsoft Xenix (v3.2? v2.3? - I forget). The
> machines, I believe, were manufactured in 1981 or thereabouts. Spectrix
> called them model 30s. They used the Intel Multibus and had a couple
> dozen serial ports, 2MB of RAM, two 29MB SASI drives and a QIC tape.
>
> I heard a rumour that these boxen were actually Sun 0's or some such thing.
Dont forget the Tandy/Radio Shack Model 16. It was a 68000 based Xenix box
with a Z80 "IO coprocessor". It was commercially produced and marketed.
You could have three terminals, and (wait for it) 8 inch floppys (with three
external drives) and even a 5 or 10MB *hard disk*... :-)
I actually threw out my catalog that had photos and details from about the
1983-84 era.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - pe...@FreeBSD.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; pe...@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
al...@clegg.com
> Dont forget the Tandy/Radio Shack Model 16. It was a 68000 based Xenix box
> with a Z80 "IO coprocessor". It was commercially produced and marketed.
> You could have three terminals, and (wait for it) 8 inch floppys (with three
> external drives) and even a 5 or 10MB *hard disk*... :-)
>
> I actually threw out my catalog that had photos and details from about the
> 1983-84 era.
I did tech support for these monsters. Biggest problem was they had a BAD
habit of overwriting their boot sector. We'd charge people $175 to tell
them how to 'dd' a new boot sector to their floppies.
AlanC
br...@lariat.org
>Dont forget the Tandy/Radio Shack Model 16. It was a 68000 based Xenix box
>with a Z80 "IO coprocessor". It was commercially produced and marketed.
>You could have three terminals, and (wait for it) 8 inch floppys (with three
>external drives) and even a 5 or 10MB *hard disk*... :-)
What's more, the Z80 could run CP/M or TRSDOS (which folks called "TrashDOS")
in a pinch. Handy when you needed to run WordStar.
There's a lot of good info about the Model 16 and the other machines
that were based on the TRS-80 Model II chassis at
http://home.iae.nl/users/pb0aia/cm/modelii.html
--Brett Glass
tlam...@primenet.com
> > signed a contract with IBM to provide compilers for the, at
> > the time, unannounced IBM PC.
>
> XENIX came first. I'm sure the announcement was earlier; they had an
> article in the August 1980 Byte. And my best guess is that the IBM
> deal was done in September 1980. It was definitely done by November,
> when I heard about it.
See Bill Gate's "timeline for Microsoft" on his personal web site.
> > Most of the original developement was done on Sun equipment,
>
> What equipment did Sun have in 1980? Did they even exist?
I believe the equipment was SUN 1 and SUN 2 hardware. The
one that Microsoft requested product on was a Sun 3 with QIC-11
tape drive, which was the commercial model.
> > and Microsoft was actually running a large chunk of their language
> > engineering on Xenix on Sun machines, as late as 1988 (I got a call
> > from a Microsoft employee wanting to buy a copy of our
> > communications software for Xenix running on Sun hardware; when I
> > said "What?!?", he said "Oh, that's right, it's an internal product
> > only". Originally, Xenix only ran on 68000 hardware.
>
> Do you have any evidence for this? Admittedly, there was 68000
> hardware at the time, but it was very early, and there's no obvious
> reason why Microsoft (which was definitely in charge of XENIX) would
> have bothered to port to an architecture they didn't plan to use,
> especially since it was big-endian and 32 bit, whereas both the PDP-11
> and i86 were little-endian and 16 bit. I'd suspect that you're
> extrapolating here.
Also on Bill Gates personal web site, and in the "History" section
of the SCO web site. As a friend of mine is fond of saying "It's
all out there, you just have to know how to find it". 8-).
Actually, I was offered a job in the compiler group at Microsoft
in the late 80's; I probably should have taken it, I'd be, uh,
"more retired" now...
Terry Lambert
te...@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.