Dos 1.1
Irv Mullins
>
> In article <372E2EB0...@xtra.co.nz>
> Jack Cammell <j.ca...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Some time ago there was a discussion on this group about early Dos.
> > I'm in New Zealand and have been told by a friend that he has PC?
> > Dos1.1 probably complete with Manuals. Question would there be any
> > interest in me getting this and posting it on the Net?
> > Regards Jack
> >
>
> Probally a lot of interest..... From Microsoft. Don't assume just
> because a product is obsolete they won't go after it.. with gusto.
>
They claim it is intellectual property.
They would be hard pressed to prove any intellect went into
it.
Irv
Jack Cammell
Scott A. Moore
Probally a lot of interest..... From Microsoft. Don't assume just
because a product is obsolete they won't go after it.. with gusto.
[sam]
Please note that I will NOT take mail from an
AOL or HOTMAIL address. These are SPAM generating
addresses. Please get a REAL email address.
you_kn...@you_know_where.com
'Kaptain' (rap...@calweb.com) wrote:
| Here's Microsoft DOS 1.1
|
| begin 666 ms_dos_11.zip
[...snip...]
Listen, you stupid sh*t, this is a -text- newsgroup, not binary.
Not only have you just violated dozens of different copyright laws by
posting proprietary material, but you've wasted Net bandwidth, and have
inconvenienced thousands of people - including ME - by filling our hard
disks with mega-kilobytes of useless crap.
Next time, take it to e-mail, you ignorant *ssh*le. You were so f*cking
stupid you even posted the message using your REAL address. You must be
some kind of sub-teen-age "script kiddie."
I STRONGLY suggest that you never again pull this kind of stupid-*ss
stunt. And that's a REAL strong suggestion, friend.
Tmckean
>
>Not only have you just violated dozens of different copyright laws by
>posting proprietary material, but you've wasted Net bandwidth, and have
>inconvenienced thousands of people - including ME - by filling our hard
>disks with mega-kilobytes of useless crap.
>
>Next time, take it to e-mail, you ignorant *ssh*le. You were so f*cking
>stupid you even posted the message using your REAL address. You must be
>some kind of sub-teen-age "script kiddie."
>
>I STRONGLY suggest that you never again pull this kind of stupid-*ss
>stunt. And that's a REAL strong suggestion, friend.
Jeeprers and here I thought this was such a NICE newsgroup. So many newsgroups
I have wanted to read but they are al like this and people arguing. CP/M has
been pretty kewl ... until now... :(
Thomas
Donato B. Masaoy III
>
> They claim it is intellectual property.
> They would be hard pressed to prove any intellect went into
> it.
>
I've heard that M$-DOS 1.0 was "cloned" from CP/M. I've even heard a
suggestion that you can read comment lines written by Gary Kildall in
the source...
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-04 104625.s...@compuserve.com said:
>I've heard that M$-DOS 1.0 was "cloned" from CP/M. I've even heard a
>suggestion that you can read comment lines written by Gary Kildall
>in the source...
Seattle Computer Products -- from whom Micro$loth bought QDOS (Quick and
Dirty Operating System, later renamed "MS-DOS 1.0") -- was an authorized
CP/M value-added re-seller. In those days, Digital Research's VARs had
access to the CP/M source code.
Tim Paterson, the "author" of QDOS at Seattle Computer Products, is
alleged to have essentially "lifted" whole sections of the CP/M source
code...making appropriate translations for the 8086 processor, of course.
Kildall heard about the impending release of QDOS (MS-DOS 1.0), and
informed IBM that to do so would violate his copyrights. Well, it
sent IBM's legal department into a tizzy. This occurred after the
negotiations for CP/M-86 between IBM and DRI had already broken down.
Ultimately, an agreement was reached: Kildall agreed not to sue, and
IBM agreed to make CP/M-86 available as an alternate operating system
for their PC, if the customer wanted it.
That turned out to be a bad deal for DRI. IBM broke the spirit of
the agreement by virtually "giving away" the DOS operating system
with the PC...while CP/M-86, if the user wanted it, cost an additional
$495.
Guess which operating system prevailed, and why...! :/
.....................................................................
Return address is mangled to foil spambots. Remove all "g"s to e-mail.
Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive
Don Maslin
: 'Kaptain' (rap...@calweb.com) wrote:
: | Here's Microsoft DOS 1.1
: |
: | begin 666 ms_dos_11.zip
________O/_______
O\
much ill considered blather deleted
: stupid you even posted the message using your REAL address. You must be
: some kind of sub-teen-age "script kiddie."
I assume that his was an error out of ignorance. What's your's
'friend'?
- don
bill_h
It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
Microsoft alleged (in the MS-DOS Encyclopedia) that
Tim Paterson got the FAT structure from their MDOS.
The only MDOS I've been able to find was Micropolis'.
NO ONE has come forward with an operating system called QDOS.
No articles. No advertisements. Only after_the_fact quotes.
NOTHING contemporaneous; no reviews called it anything but 86-DOS.
The only QDOS I've been able to find is some sort of menuing thing.
Very curiously, it came from somebody called Gazelle.
That (Gazelle) was the name of the Seattle Computer Products
8086 computer system that Paterson 'developed' 86-DOS for.
Coincidence?
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>It was NOT called QDOS it was called 86-DOS.
>It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
"86-DOS" was the =official= name of Paterson's operating system.
But internally within Seattle Computer Products, it was usually
referred to as "QDOS"...apparently because of the slap-dash manner
in which it was originally put together ("Quick-and-Dirty Operating
System").
The =official= name of the U.S. President is William Jefferson
Blyth Clinton. But if someone mentions "the Fornicator-in-Chief,"
or "Slick Willie," or even "Bubba," we all know who they're talking
about. Same idea.
>Microsoft alleged (in the MS-DOS Encyclopedia) that
>Tim Paterson got the FAT structure from their MDOS.
>The only MDOS I've been able to find was Micropolis'.
Have no information about that aspect of it. But if that's M$'s
official version, one can pretty well view it with an extremely
jaundiced eye.
>NO ONE has come forward with an operating system called QDOS.
>No articles. No advertisements. Only after_the_fact quotes.
>NOTHING contemporaneous; no reviews called it anything but 86-DOS.
See my first paragraph, above.
>The only QDOS I've been able to find is some sort of menuing thing.
>Very curiously, it came from somebody called Gazelle.
>That (Gazelle) was the name of the Seattle Computer Products
>8086 computer system that Paterson 'developed' 86-DOS for.
>Coincidence?
This long after the fact, who knows? Slapping the monicker "QDOS"
on that Gazelle menuing thing could have been some kind of droll
inside joke. Only Mr. Paterson knows for sure...and he ain't talkin'! :)
Le Guerrier Louis-Luc
:
:
: >It was NOT called QDOS it was called 86-DOS.
: >It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
:
: "86-DOS" was the =official= name of Paterson's operating system.
: But internally within Seattle Computer Products, it was usually
: referred to as "QDOS"...apparently because of the slap-dash manner
: in which it was originally put together ("Quick-and-Dirty Operating
: System").
:
release of Seattle DOS (QDOS 0.10) in August 1980. And yes, it
means "Quick and Dirty Operating System". During the fall of 1980, they
renamed it 86-DOS, and in December they released v0.30. In April 1981,
SCP released 86-DOS 1.00, before passing it on to IBM to adapt to the
PC. There may be other versions of Seattle DOS that my reference doesn't
mention. However I don't know if one of them has ever been named MDOS.
This is from "The Osborne/McGraw Hill MS-DOS User Guide", but I've seen the
same info elsewhere too (I'd have to check).
: The =official= name of the U.S. President is William Jefferson
: Blyth Clinton. But if someone mentions "the Fornicator-in-Chief,"
: or "Slick Willie," or even "Bubba," we all know who they're talking
: about. Same idea.
:
: >Microsoft alleged (in the MS-DOS Encyclopedia) that
: >Tim Paterson got the FAT structure from their MDOS.
: >The only MDOS I've been able to find was Micropolis'.
:
: Have no information about that aspect of it. But if that's M$'s
: official version, one can pretty well view it with an extremely
: jaundiced eye.
:
The earliest M$ version I've ever seen or known about is MS-DOS 1.25 from around 1983. My
documentation says M$ bought DOS from SCP in 1981. The first thing Paterson
did then was to adapt DOS to the PC (IBM called it PC-DOS), but I'm sure
they also started to adapt it to other 8086 based computers. Did they called
that MDOS? At least not externally, maybe internally to M$ but I've not seen
MDOS anywhere in my references.
: >That (Gazelle) was the name of the Seattle Computer Products
: >8086 computer system that Paterson 'developed' 86-DOS for.
: >Coincidence?
:
: This long after the fact, who knows? Slapping the monicker "QDOS"
: on that Gazelle menuing thing could have been some kind of droll
: inside joke. Only Mr. Paterson knows for sure...and he ain't talkin'! :)
:
I've seen such a menuing system called QDOS too, but it's quite recent,
and I don't know the origins.
I'm always trying to find QDOS (the OS!), and if anyone has it, then it
would be an irrevocable proof that it exists (and same for MDOS)...
Louis-Luc
: .....................................................................
Scott A. Moore
kgl...@seganet.com wrote:
> Ultimately, an agreement was reached: Kildall agreed not to sue, and
> IBM agreed to make CP/M-86 available as an alternate operating system
> for their PC, if the customer wanted it.
>
> That turned out to be a bad deal for DRI. IBM broke the spirit of
> the agreement by virtually "giving away" the DOS operating system
> with the PC...while CP/M-86, if the user wanted it, cost an additional
> $495.
>
Good fight, interesting information.
Well, I developed on CP/M 2.2, looked at 3.0, dumped the whole
thing, never saw CP/M-86.
But if CP/M-86 was near 3.0 in design, then DOS won the battle on
technology as well. DOS moved towards handle based, byte length
file systems, and away from FCB blocked file systems al la CP/M.
CP/M 3.0 indroduced at long last.... A length byte ! WOW.
Sorry, but Gary was just not moving forward at that point in time.
I watched DRI move from a company where I could call up, ask a few
intellegent questions and get a developer in about three phone
transfers. After a while they just told me to pound salt. The story
that Gary hadn't answered the phone when Itty Bitty Machines called
rang too true for me, and yes, I have seen gary deny it, on TV, up
close, in person.
Put it this way. DRI leapfrogged the small company stage and went
to arrogant slow moving cash cow status in record time for this
industry.
bill_h
> The information I have from my source is that QDOS is the initial
> release of Seattle DOS (QDOS 0.10) in August 1980. And yes, it
> means "Quick and Dirty Operating System". During the fall of 1980, they
> renamed it 86-DOS, and in December they released v0.30. In April 1981,
> SCP released 86-DOS 1.00, before passing it on to IBM to adapt to the
> PC. There may be other versions of Seattle DOS that my reference doesn't
> mention. However I don't know if one of them has ever been named MDOS.
According to private email with Paterson, there were less than 30 copies
of
the version 0.3 released; seems to me less than ten people ever saw
anything
earlier, ie a version 0.1 or whatever. While version 0.3 might have
qualified
as a 'release version', he indicated version 1.0 was the first
'official'
one. Everything before was considered 'BETA'.
I hope somebody comes forward with a version 0.1; the others are
available.
> This is from "The Osborne/McGraw Hill MS-DOS User Guide", but I've seen the
> same info elsewhere too (I'd have to check).
> : >Microsoft alleged (in the MS-DOS Encyclopedia) that
> : >Tim Paterson got the FAT structure from their MDOS.
> : >The only MDOS I've been able to find was Micropolis'.
> :
> : Have no information about that aspect of it. But if that's M$'s
> : official version, one can pretty well view it with an extremely
> : jaundiced eye.
Not when there's a possibility of having to testify about what you say.
I'm still trying to connect to Caldera's factual statments released
(well, filed with the court) last week.......maybe they've gone into
this stuff.....
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?1136
> The earliest M$ version I've ever seen or known about is MS-DOS 1.25 from around 1983. My
> documentation says M$ bought DOS from SCP in 1981.
Well, again, from the 'official' source, MS-DOS Encyclopedia, there's a
photo
of what is claimed to be MS DOS Version 1.0; It may well have been sent
to
OEM's only.
The first thing Paterson
> did then was to adapt DOS to the PC (IBM called it PC-DOS), but I'm sure
> they also started to adapt it to other 8086 based computers. Did they called
> that MDOS? At least not externally, maybe internally to M$ but I've not seen
> MDOS anywhere in my references.
Somehow I'm thinking Rick Weiland knows something about MDOS. It's also
possible
it was M(ITS)DOS. Since Version 1.0 of MITS' Altair DOS is dated May,
1977, it's
certainly possible the MS guys worked on it. Roberts sold out MITS in
April/May.
To have a DOS to release suggests it was being worked on for at least
some months
prior.
> I'm always trying to find QDOS (the OS!), and if anyone has it, then it
> would be an irrevocable proof that it exists (and same for MDOS)...
amen. Also, any references to reviews, etc. Bill Machrone did an
excellent
review of 16 bit operating systems, and when it came to Seattle
Computer,
added details about 86 Basic. See MicroSystems, Vol2 No4 Jul/Aug 1981.
It's
clear he was in close contact with the folks at SCP, and there'd have
been
no reason whatever to NOT call it QDOS, if that's what they'd been
calling
it. He said ('nother private email) he has no notes, etc from those days
so
can't comment. This is just another example of why I find the QDOS
moniker
suspect......
Anybody know EXACTLY what version was sold with these little things?
(click here for image....
http://www.azstarnet.com/~bill_h/tiny_scp.jpg)
I can provide an email address for a source, if any collector types are
looking to own one of the 'world's smallest computers'.
Bill
Tucson
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
:It was NOT called QDOS it was called 86-DOS.
:It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
Good to see you've stopped trolling alt.folklore.computers with this
crap.
A shame you moved over to comp.os.cpm and started there.
How many times do you have to be told of the distinction between a
product's official name and its in-house name?
Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
--
Communa (lis...@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing
Steve Coffman
1.1. There is a distinct chance that whoever sent it was just trying to be
nice, and unknowingly got your ire up. Sure it is copyrighted, but with
something that old, it is easy to forget that anyone other than collectors
and historians would have an interest in it. I think a friendlier response
to an honest error would have been in order. I always thought this was a
nice, friendly newsgroup where people with a slightly unusual interest got
together to swap notes and information, not to cuss someone out for sharing
some of that information, no matter how it was done.
Steve Coffman
you_know_who@you_know_where.com wrote:
> 'Kaptain' (rap...@calweb.com) wrote:
>
> | Here's Microsoft DOS 1.1
> |
> | begin 666 ms_dos_11.zip
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Listen, you stupid sh*t, this is a -text- newsgroup, not binary.
>
> Not only have you just violated dozens of different copyright laws by
> posting proprietary material, but you've wasted Net bandwidth, and have
> inconvenienced thousands of people - including ME - by filling our hard
> disks with mega-kilobytes of useless crap.
>
> Next time, take it to e-mail, you ignorant *ssh*le. You were so f*cking
> stupid you even posted the message using your REAL address. You must be
> some kind of sub-teen-age "script kiddie."
>
Edward Williams
but DRI was paid $800,000 by IBM (not to be sued) for licencing some of the
CP/M Code that was/is in PC-DOS.
Thanks
Edward
<--- I know because I was there.
----------
Robert Flossmann
as far as I have heard, MDOS was a later development that brought the
MS-DOS file structure to 8bit systems. It might stem from a cooperation
with a japanese company or the japanese MS branch.
Yours, Robert
Le Guerrier Louis-Luc
: Le Guerrier Louis-Luc wrote:
:
: > The information I have from my source is that QDOS is the initial
: > release of Seattle DOS (QDOS 0.10) in August 1980. And yes, it
: > means "Quick and Dirty Operating System". During the fall of 1980, they
: > renamed it 86-DOS, and in December they released v0.30. In April 1981,
: > SCP released 86-DOS 1.00, before passing it on to IBM to adapt to the
: > PC. There may be other versions of Seattle DOS that my reference doesn't
: > mention. However I don't know if one of them has ever been named MDOS.
:
: According to private email with Paterson, there were less than 30 copies
: of
: the version 0.3 released; seems to me less than ten people ever saw
: anything
: earlier, ie a version 0.1 or whatever. While version 0.3 might have
: qualified
: as a 'release version', he indicated version 1.0 was the first
: 'official'
: one. Everything before was considered 'BETA'.
:
: I hope somebody comes forward with a version 0.1; the others are
: available.
0.3 is available?!? Where is it possible to obtain it?
: > The earliest M$ version I've ever seen or known about is MS-DOS 1.25 from around 1983. My
: > documentation says M$ bought DOS from SCP in 1981.
:
: Well, again, from the 'official' source, MS-DOS Encyclopedia, there's a
: photo
: of what is claimed to be MS DOS Version 1.0; It may well have been sent
: to
: OEM's only.
Are you sure it's not a photo of PC-DOS 1.00 on 5 1/4"? If not, is it on
8" then for an OEM?
: Bill
: Tucson
:
Louis-Luc
Montréal
bill_h
> How many times do you have to be told of the distinction between a
> product's official name and its in-house name?
>
> Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
Looks like this creature has finally said something that makes sense.
QDOS is merely descriptive of the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT.
Those of us looking to collect things will NEVER find it.
We may find 86-DOS versions: 0.1; 0.3, 1.0
We may find MS-DOS 1.0, 1.25, etc
We may find IBM PC DOS 1.0, 1.1, 1.whatever
We will NEVER find QDOS. Which, simply put, is my point.
Bill
Tucson
Oh, yeah, I have nothing against LIZARDS. I have a yard full of them.
They eat bugs.
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-05 sam...@cisco.com(ScottA.Moore) said:
>But if CP/M-86 was near 3.0 in design, then DOS won the battle on
>technology as well. DOS moved towards handle based, byte length
>file systems, and away from FCB blocked file systems al la CP/M.
>CP/M 3.0 indroduced at long last.... A length byte ! WOW.
I'm no myopic defender of DRI, but I'll certainly take issue with the
allegation that File Handles and byte-length file systems are some
kind of great "technological advance." They ain't! :) We can get
into the specifics later, if you like. And those kinds of things are
not what won the "O.S. Wars," anyway.
BTW, DOS 1.x did =NOT= support File Handles; it used the good ol' FCB!
>Sorry, but Gary was just not moving forward at that point in time.
>I watched DRI move from a company where I could call up, ask a few
>intellegent questions and get a developer in about three phone
>transfers. After a while they just told me to pound salt.
Or was it "sand?" Either way, welcome to real life, Scott! <g> =No=
growing company with a popular and successful product can long afford to
provide that kind of personalized service. As the user base grows
geometrically, it's just not economically feasible. That's why literally
all major software companies today charge a fee for technical support...and
make you negotiate a convoluted automated call direction system. It helps
winnow out the wheat from the chaff.
Whenever anything is available for free, it gets abused. I deal with this
most every day, and believe me, I know. The reality is, the majority of
the support-seeking general public is just plain bloody stupid. And lazy.
Talked to one ol' redneck awhile back who told me, "Wull, this damn thing
don't WORK!" I asked, "Did you read the manual?" He said, "Wull, no; I
ain't too big on READIN'." That pretty much typifies the sort of mentality
you deal with on 99 per cent of all tech support calls.
>The story that Gary hadn't answered the phone when Itty Bitty Machines
>called rang too true for me, and yes, I have seen gary deny it, on TV,
>up close, in person.
Well, that story about Kildall "snubbing" IBM is urban legend. The part of
the story you =don't= hear is that IBM arrived at DRI on less than an hour's
notice, and came in with a retinue of attorneys demanding not only full
source code disclosure of CP/M-86, but also ridiculously haughty marketing
restrictions. Kildall wasn't even on the premises; he was out of town at
the time.
It was only after this display of arrogance that Kildall stopped taking
IBM's phone calls! :)
>Put it this way. DRI leapfrogged the small company stage and went
>to arrogant slow moving cash cow status in record time for this
>industry.
Pretty much the same way that IBM did with their PC hardware. <g> It
happens. Whenever a company gets large enough, it tends to become a
snail-paced bureaucratic entity...fostering the mid-level "managers,"
the internal empire-builders, the bean-counters, and the fiendish
policy nit-pickers. The company loses its enterpreneurial edge. Near
as I can tell, this must be the result of some kind of innate foible of
human nature. But whatever the cause, it IS reality...and we must
recognize it as such. The marketplace will usually decide the fate of
such organizations.
Except, maybe, in the case of Micro$loth. THAT outfit is so rich, it
can probably maintain its arrogant inefficiency for the next 50 years,
even if it never sells another copy of its bloated gooey.
kgl...@seanet.com
On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>I hope somebody comes forward with a version 0.1; the others are
>available.
=WHERE?=
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-05 legu...@ERE.UMontreal.CA(LeGuerrierLouis-Luc) said:
>The earliest M$ version I've ever seen or known about is MS-DOS 1.25
>from around 1983.
Actually, MS-DOS version 1.25 was released in June of 1982. It was
designed specifically for the "clone" market. All previous DOS
versions were available only from IBM ("IBM Personal Computer DOS")
..since IBM's licensing agreement with Micro$loth prevented M$ from
selling the operating system themselves.
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-05 lis...@zetnet.co.uk said:
>On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
> : It was NOT called QDOS it was called 86-DOS.
> : It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
>
>Good to see you've stopped trolling alt.folklore.computers with this
>crap.
>A shame you moved over to comp.os.cpm and started there.
>How many times do you have to be told of the distinction between a
>product's official name and its in-house name?
>Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
Or maybe a Micro$loth "Cairo"...! <g> What's the deal, Lisard?
Is Bill H. wanting to write a book, or something?
Kolaga Xiuhtecuhtli
>The =official= name of the U.S. President is William Jefferson
>Blyth Clinton. But if someone mentions "the Fornicator-in-Chief,"
>or "Slick Willie," or even "Bubba," we all know who they're talking
>about. Same idea.
You mean that guy who balanced the budget, made the US prosperous
and saved Social Security?
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>QDOS is merely descriptive of the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT.
>Those of us looking to collect things will NEVER find it.
> [...]
>We will NEVER find QDOS. Which, simply put, is my point.
Ah. =That's= the deal. You're a COLLECTOR. Well, tread carefully,
Bill. Collecting can become an all-consuming mania. Expensive, too.
And remember, you can't take your collection with you when you go.
If you ever get the chance, rent the movie "A Breed Apart" for an
interesting profile of the rippled convolutions generated by this
particular fetish.
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-06 Xiuhte...@Worldnet.Att.Net(KolagaXiuhtecuhtli) said:
> >The =official= name of the U.S. President is William Jefferson
> >Blyth Clinton. But if someone mentions "the Fornicator-in-Chief,"
> >or "Slick Willie," or even "Bubba," we all know who they're talking
> >about. Same idea.
>
>You mean that guy who balanced the budget, made the US prosperous
>and saved Social Security?
Heh! Yeah, must be the very same guy...at least, in some politically-
correct, leftist-speak, "feel-your-pain" symbolism-over-substance
alternate reality! :)
I =have= to assume that you're being facetious. Surely, no one
truly believes that the budget is "balanced" or that Social Security
is "saved."
That would be like alleging that the Republican party wanted to "starve
old people and throw them out into the snow" because the Republican
congressional contingent wouldn't agree to increase the Social Security
budget by the same percentage that the Democrats wanted. It's patently
absurd, prima facie.
Last time I checked, the office of President is strictly an executive
position; it has no authority, or direct influence, over the economic
well-being of the private-sector economy.
I s'pose we could claim that Gary Kildall caused the double-digit
monetary inflation of the late '70s/early '80s, too...but we'd have
a doggone tough time substantiating that claim in an intellectually
honest manner.
Well, we're WAY off topic, so I'm hereby unravelling this thread.
Ten-seven.
bma...@iglou.com
john knox
> They claim it is intellectual property.
> They would be hard pressed to prove any intellect went into
> it.
>
> I didn't even know that MS put any *work* let alone intelect into it.
Steve Coffman
Steve Coffman
IBM Peanut, make offer.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
I have a copy of IBM PC DOS 1.1, will that run CP/M programs?
Steve
Edward Williams wrote:
> Well I don't want to get too deep in this discussion for obvious reasons
> but DRI was paid $800,000 by IBM (not to be sued) for licencing some of the
> CP/M Code that was/is in PC-DOS.
> Thanks
> Edward
> <--- I know because I was there.
>
> ----------
> In article <3730971a$0$4...@news.zetnet.co.uk>, lis...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
> > :It was NOT called QDOS it was called 86-DOS.
> > :It appears QDOS is a later fabrication, or cover story.
> >
> > Good to see you've stopped trolling alt.folklore.computers with this
> > crap.
> >
> > A shame you moved over to comp.os.cpm and started there.
> >
> > How many times do you have to be told of the distinction between a
> > product's official name and its in-house name?
> >
> > Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
Donato B. Masaoy III
> >Blyth Clinton. But if someone mentions "the Fornicator-in-Chief,"
> >or "Slick Willie," or even "Bubba," we all know who they're talking
> >about. Same idea.
>
> You mean that guy who balanced the budget, made the US prosperous
> and saved Social Security?
Speaking of Quick & Dirty....
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<vendin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>For sale:
>IBM Peanut, make offer.
>(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
>I have a copy of IBM PC DOS 1.1, will that run CP/M programs?
>Steve
>
Post it here, zipped and in in mime format, and we will let you
know.
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-06 vendin...@yahoo.com said:
>I have a copy of IBM PC DOS 1.1, will that run CP/M programs?
No, it won't. All DOS versions...even the earliest...were built
for the 8086/8088 processor.
CP/M, on the other hand, is designed for the 8080/Z80 processor.
The two processors are totally different in their internal
architecture. So software written for one will be incompatible
with the other.
It would be like trying to install a piston from a one-ton Chevy
V8 pick-up truck's engine into a Yugo's engine. Won't work.
.....................................................................
Return address is mangled to foil spambots. Remove all "g"s to e-mail.
Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive
Scott A. spam-me-some-moore
> >Sorry, but Gary was just not moving forward at that point in time.
> >I watched DRI move from a company where I could call up, ask a few
> >intellegent questions and get a developer in about three phone
> >transfers. After a while they just told me to pound salt.
>
>Or was it "sand?" Either way, welcome to real life, Scott! <g> =No=
>growing company with a popular and successful product can long afford to
>provide that kind of personalized service. As the user base grows
>geometrically, it's just not economically feasible. That's why literally
>all major software companies today charge a fee for technical support...and
>make you negotiate a convoluted automated call direction system. It helps
>winnow out the wheat from the chaff.
>
There is a definate point in a companies growth where they stop taking
calls from technical people. Let me define this. If you know more than
the average user, and you know you have found a bug or problem, often
you can talk about it to the manufacturer and make them realize that you
are not a dumb user, and it would pay them to talk to you.
Inevitably, I agree, they stop doing that. Is that bad ? Well, what happens
is that information starts to flow one way, that is, from the company
to the user. It is no longer possible to tell them anything, because
they have essentially decided that they know to much to take advice
from the outside world.
A typical case in point was where IBM had just released OS/2 2.0, the
famous 32 bit version. I found a serious design flaw in their position
driver code, the code that makes mice and drawing tablets, etc. work.
They supported both relative and absolute modes, relative (mouse)
being the most common. I tried for weeks to get through to someone
in charge to let them know that absolute mode had inherent flaws.
I even convinced someone in IBM to help me, but in turn he was getting
nowhere. The best we got was a letter from the OS/2 developers that
sniffed something like "...we are sure....what you are saying is not
possible... and don't have time to check it out".
Microsoft stayed a "good" company for quite a while. They, of course,
eventually stopped. They actually probally do listen to developers,
but now that group is a club consisting of $2500 a year subscribers.
The point of this is that as it applies to technical companies,
this is a first sign of ossification of the company.
>Whenever anything is available for free, it gets abused. I deal with this
>most every day, and believe me, I know. The reality is, the majority of
>the support-seeking general public is just plain bloody stupid. And lazy.
>Talked to one ol' redneck awhile back who told me, "Wull, this damn thing
>don't WORK!" I asked, "Did you read the manual?" He said, "Wull, no; I
>ain't too big on READIN'." That pretty much typifies the sort of mentality
>you deal with on 99 per cent of all tech support calls.
>
True, and I have done technical support. But the most unfortunate outcome
is to assume ALL your customers are stupid. After you do that, eventually
they start to look elsewhere for solutions.
> >The story that Gary hadn't answered the phone when Itty Bitty Machines
> >called rang too true for me, and yes, I have seen gary deny it, on TV,
> >up close, in person.
>
>Well, that story about Kildall "snubbing" IBM is urban legend. The part of
>the story you =don't= hear is that IBM arrived at DRI on less than an hour's
>notice, and came in with a retinue of attorneys demanding not only full
>source code disclosure of CP/M-86, but also ridiculously haughty marketing
>restrictions. Kildall wasn't even on the premises; he was out of town at
>the time.
>
Oh, I don't doubt that IBM showed up as arrogant. (see above). But they
did show up, and by that time Gary felt big enough to let them go without
asking to talk further. Microsoft did not do that, and now they own the
business. Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for Gary.
>It was only after this display of arrogance that Kildall stopped taking
>IBM's phone calls! :)
>
Translation: he had a fit of pique and stopped talking to them.
The result of that was clear.
> >Put it this way. DRI leapfrogged the small company stage and went
> >to arrogant slow moving cash cow status in record time for this
> >industry.
>
>Pretty much the same way that IBM did with their PC hardware. <g> It
>happens. Whenever a company gets large enough, it tends to become a
>snail-paced bureaucratic entity...fostering the mid-level "managers,"
>the internal empire-builders, the bean-counters, and the fiendish
>policy nit-pickers. The company loses its enterpreneurial edge. Near
>as I can tell, this must be the result of some kind of innate foible of
>human nature. But whatever the cause, it IS reality...and we must
>recognize it as such. The marketplace will usually decide the fate of
>such organizations.
>
The individuals in the market do things for many different reasons,
but the market as a whole will come and go for very practical reasons,
such as the above.
>Except, maybe, in the case of Micro$loth. THAT outfit is so rich, it
>can probably maintain its arrogant inefficiency for the next 50 years,
>even if it never sells another copy of its bloated gooey.
>
Microsoft is successful because people are basically scared of computers
(yes, still) and don't want to be different from others. Its understandable.
But what people don't understand is that it dosent last forever.
The microsoft monopoly is a temporary thing, abet fairly long lasting.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-05-05 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
:lis...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
:> How many times do you have to be told of the distinction between a
:> product's official name and its in-house name?
:> Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
:Looks like this creature has finally said something that makes
:sense.
And even then you managed to miss the point, qv:
:QDOS is merely descriptive of the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT.
:Those of us looking to collect things will NEVER find it.
Oh, is that your problem? You got caught by not reading your history
books carefully enough, and now you're on a mission...?
You said that QDOS was a hoax. It has been pointed out to you countless
times that it was merely the in-house name. You seem to agree with this.
Yet in 6 months you'll be saying it's a hoax again.
In what way do you think "hoax" and "private name" are synonymous?
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-05-06 kgl...@seganet.com said:
:>Go find an IBM Peanut, and then we'll talk.
:Or maybe a Micro$loth "Cairo"...! <g> What's the deal, Lisard?
:Is Bill H. wanting to write a book, or something?
Nah, he's just a dickhead on a crusade. God alone knows why.
Barry Marks
>Pretty much the same way that IBM did with their PC hardware. <g> It
>happens. Whenever a company gets large enough, it tends to become a
>snail-paced bureaucratic entity...fostering the mid-level "managers,"
>the internal empire-builders, the bean-counters, and the fiendish
>policy nit-pickers. The company loses its enterpreneurial edge. Near
>as I can tell, this must be the result of some kind of innate foible of
>human nature. But whatever the cause, it IS reality...and we must
>recognize it as such. The marketplace will usually decide the fate of
>such organizations.
Having worked in a company while this change from small to huge was taking
place, I can tell you that the reason they lose their edge in beaurocratic
morasse is because that works. It pays.
I started with a small outfit. I was employee number 65. When I left 12
years later I was 11 on the seniority list out of over 2000 employees and
more coming on as fast as they could get them.
They got big because they were good at what they did. Very good. They were
flexible, inventive and could turn on a dime. Employees had a lot of
control of their own work and their standards.
Then when they reached a certain size that started to be expensive. The
system got too complex and more central control was needed. That failed a
few times until finally rigid rules are put in place. People were fired for
handling an emergency without permission.
At that point the company began to be a lot more productive. I'm sorry to
say it but it's true. It worked. Theyre doing very well.
Huge behemoths with good management can be extremely efficient.
I'm not longer there. A lot of very dedicated and capable people left to
find better challanges. I'm not advocating beaurocracy. But after having
experienced this, I understand why there is beaurocracy. It's because it
works.
Barry
bill_h
> :QDOS is merely descriptive of the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT.
> :Those of us looking to collect things will NEVER find it.
>
> Oh, is that your problem? You got caught by not reading your history
> books carefully enough, and now you're on a mission...?
>
> You said that QDOS was a hoax. It has been pointed out to you countless
> times that it was merely the in-house name. You seem to agree with this.
> Yet in 6 months you'll be saying it's a hoax again.
Why don't we end this stupid thread? You have no idea what you're
talking about; you have yet to contribute one verifiable FACT, and
you continue both to attack me and spew your uninformed opinion.
I have claimed repeatedly the QDOS story is an after-the-fact
INVENTION. It was NOT used during development, it came into being
AFTERWARDS. It is a cover-your-ass attempt to camouflage the actual
'design' process, and the potential financial impact (on DRI, MS,
Novelle, Caldera, who knows who else) should it ever be proven
that MS-/PC-DOS is a derivative product of DRI's former industry
standard Operating System. I await proof to the contrary.
If there existed ANY use of the term QDOS during the period it
'evolved' I'm sure SOMEBODY would have mentioned it. I've poured
through countless issues of Byte, Kilobaud, PC Tech Journal,
Dr Dobbs, etc etc without finding QDOS mentioned ONCE.
You offer no explanation for this.
You don't think it's significant.
We are not going to agree.
Let it go.
Bill Hemmings
Tucson
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-07 ba...@fbtc.net said:
> [...snip...]
>
>But after having experienced this, I understand why there is
>beaurocracy. It's because it works.
If it's working for the company you mentioned, I wish them well.
May their ability to adapt continue. But history and human nature
tend to indicate otherwise. When a company transmogrifies into a
corporate bureaucracy, it generally tends to become unwieldy, and
ultimately hide-bound. Oh, sure, they continue to adopt the super-
ficial trappings of "contemporaneity," but it becomes harder to
truly react to changing conditions.
Ever seen an oil tanker in the water? It carries a whole lot of
freight, but because of its size, it takes a long time to change
course or change speed. If I were on the water and found myself
suddenly confronted by an iceberg, I'd much rather be in a small
speedboat than an oil tanker. :)
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-07 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>I have claimed repeatedly the QDOS story is an after-the-fact
>INVENTION. It was NOT used during development, it came into being
>AFTERWARDS. It is a cover-your-ass attempt to camouflage the actual
>'design' process, and the potential financial impact (on DRI, MS,
>Novelle, Caldera, who knows who else) should it ever be proven
>that MS-/PC-DOS is a derivative product of DRI's former industry
>standard Operating System. I await proof to the contrary.
What, in your mind, constitutes "proof?" I don't really wish to
continue this thread, but I think you're in error here, Bill...
and I think you KNOW it, but just don't want to own up to it.
Anyway, there already HAS been a financial impact, so this is old
news. There's no need for a cover-up NOW.
Edward Williams <tche...@flash.net> stated in this newsgroup just
a day or two ago: "Well I don't want to get too deep in this discussion
for obvious reasons but DRI was paid $800,000 by IBM (not to be sued)
for licencing some of the CP/M Code that was/is in PC-DOS. I know
because I was there."
So here's your "financial impact:" Seattle Computer Products made $75,000.
DRI made $800,000. IBM made millions, and Micro$loth made billions.
Since MS-DOS is almost dead, it's all pretty much over and done with.
Except, of course, for the Caldera lawsuit...which isn't really germane
to this discussion.
>If there existed ANY use of the term QDOS during the period it
>'evolved' I'm sure SOMEBODY would have mentioned it.
Not necessarily. Why =would= they? Here was this tiny little piss-ant
company in Seattle (Seattle Computer Products) in 1981 -- with no formal
public relations apparatus in place -- doing an Alpha development of a
tiny little piss-ant operating system...which, incidentally, they were
(according to many allegations) STEALING large parts of from CP/M.
Would =YOU= want publicity at that point? I don't think so.
>I've poured through countless issues of Byte, Kilobaud, PC Tech
>Journal, Dr Dobbs, etc etc without finding QDOS mentioned ONCE.
Proving...what? That there's some great, vast "conspiracy" afoot?
Doubtful. Lack of mention isn't "proof;" you can't "prove" a negative.
Besides, contemporaneous press accounts are often deficient...or even
downright wrong. If you doubt this -- and want a good laugh in the
bargain -- go back and read some 1968 newspaper reports about the
Viet Nam war.
You, yourself, have corresponded privately with Tim Paterson. =He=
calls the operating system "QDOS." The other programmers who were
working with Paterson at the time call it "QDOS." Bill Gates called
it "QDOS." The "Osborne/McGraw Hill MS-DOS User Guide" calls it "QDOS."
Hell, the court documents that =YOU= posted in this newsgroup call it
"QDOS." You think there's some big, conspiratorial cover-up going on?
What proof do YOU have of THAT? And I mean =positive= proof...not merely
a lack of mention in the commercial computer-related press at the time.
Now listen carefully: there NEVER WAS an =actual= commercial product
called QDOS, so it's true that you'll never find a copy of it by
that name for your collection. The final, marketed product was named
86-DOS. "QDOS" was an interim, in-house name for 86-DOS -- just as
"Cairo" was an interim, in-house name for...you know.
The difference is that Micro$loth =wanted= publicity for THEIR product
at the time. As I said, I think you already KNOW all this in your
heart-of-hearts, Bill.
But let's just suppose that what you say is correct, and that the whole
QDOS fiasco is some after-the-fact, C.Y.A. gambit. The relevant question
is: WHY? You allude to potential financial impact. WHAT potential
financial impact? And on WHOM?
It looks to me like the impact has already been made, and the protagonists
have all gone home.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-05-08 kgl...@seganet.com said:
:Now listen carefully: there NEVER WAS an =actual= commercial product
:called QDOS, so it's true that you'll never find a copy of it by
:that name for your collection.
Actually...
There was a text mode file manager type thing (point and smack, you
might say) called QDOS for DOS. I think it was Russian.
There was also the operating system of the venerable QL. 7k of code
which supported multi-tasking, a filesystem and removable device
drivers. Tony Tebby was the man responsible, apparently, and he went on
to develop several replacements. I think they kept SuperBasic...
Whaever became of the Thor XVI? And can I still get a QL-on-a-card for
this PC clone..?
com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk
It's still me. I changed providers.
On 1999-05-07 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
:lis...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
:> :QDOS is merely descriptive of the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT.
:> :Those of us looking to collect things will NEVER find it.
:> Oh, is that your problem? You got caught by not reading your
:>history books carefully enough, and now you're on a mission...?
:> You said that QDOS was a hoax. It has been pointed out to you
:>countless times that it was merely the in-house name. You seem to
:>agree with this. Yet in 6 months you'll be saying it's a hoax
:again.
:Why don't we end this stupid thread? You have no idea what you're
:talking about; you have yet to contribute one verifiable FACT, and
:you continue both to attack me and spew your uninformed opinion.
No, just attack you. My "uninformed opinion" is merely that you're a
jerk with a bee in your bonnet, and I don't regard that as uninformed.
And as for whether I know what I'm talking about - ferchrissakes, it's
all I can do to work out what *you're* talking about!
:I have claimed repeatedly the QDOS story is an after-the-fact
Yes. You have claimed. I haven't claimed anything. You're the one who
needs to provide the facts, to support your claim. And since you
haven't, I am quite justified in telling you, to your face, that you're
full of it. Which is what I'm doing. If you don't like it, tough -
you're wasting my bandwidth.
When you can bring forward one witness to say definitively that the
story which is now common currency is false, then fine, I'll listen to
you. Until then, you'd be better advised to expend effort finding that
witness, rather than making yourself look like a crackpot by continually
going off on your own monomania. It's not shared, it's not relevant,
it's not even important to DRI's court case.
--
Communa -- you know soft spoken changes nothing
bill_h
> Yes. You have claimed. I haven't claimed anything. You're the one who
> needs to provide the facts, to support your claim. And since you
> haven't........
Well I guess when you refuse to acknowledge a ''fact'' it's pretty
easy to avoid complications to your simplistic view of the world.
So you go ahead and believe whatever you want.
I'm looking for facts, and from time to time other readers here have
come up with some.
It's pretty clear there's a major effort to cover up some things that
happened on the way to creating the current World's Wealthiest Man.
Except there are some nagging little facts that get in the way.
Like, the trademark registration for MS-DOS claiming a first date of use
of June, 1980. Like the August issue of Byte carrying the name 86-DOS in
a Seattle Computer ad. Since most magazines take 6-8 weeks to reach the
newstands, and assuming that issue came out in late July, you're looking
at copy probably submitted in late May, 1980. And another thing - the
registration by MS for SOFTCARD (you do =know= what that was, right?)
claimed a date of first use of April, 1980. Impossible to produce the
SOFTCARD without the SOURCE for CP/M-80. You need to know what's going
on so you can decide which proceedure to code for the 6502, which for
the Z-80. There's more, but those are enough.
Since it's widely stated Paterson 'worked on' 86-DOS in April, 1980,
that
amounts to, at most, a month or two before the public name of the thing
was 86-DOS. IF, and a VERY BIG IF, he was 'going around' calling it
QDOS.
Which I consider highly unlikely. Because there exists NO contemporary
mention of anything BUT 86-DOS. NO QDOS, until maybe late 1982. Why?
Rather than answer to the above easily verifiable facts, you resort to
repeated name calling. You say I called QDOS a hoax. Prove it.
Caldera is making a big mistake in continuing to quote clearly erroneous
'facts'. Many lawsuits are won or lost on a jury's perception of who's
LYING to them. They may never figure out the truth, but they can usually
spot inconsistancies, which they assume mean lies. Good lawyers will
cross
examine witnesses expressly for the purpose of planting the idea in the
jury's mind that the witness has said something inconsistant. Even if
they
have not. Because they know inconsistancies, even imaginary ones, will
register as lies. So they try to plant ''inconsistancy''. Screw the
facts.
I wouldn't say QDOS is a hoax. A hoax is usually some sort of a prank.
QDOS is an attempt to cover up the biggest theft of the century.
I bet MS is going to purchase CP/M. And since there is no viable reason
EXCEPT to cement the coverup, and protect their monopoly, if it happens
I'll take the act as proof of what I've been saying.
Bill
Tucson
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-05-10 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>I bet MS is going to purchase CP/M.
I very much doubt that they'd =buy= it outright. But I wouldn't be
surprised if M$ eventually settles the Caldera lawsuit with monetary
compensation...and, in a minor sidebar to that settlement, assumes
all rights to CP/M and its later derivatives. That way, everybody
would get what they want. It's a logical solution.
com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk
On 1999-05-10 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
:com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk wrote:
:> Yes. You have claimed. I haven't claimed anything. You're the one
:>who needs to provide the facts, to support your claim. And since
:>you haven't........
:Well I guess when you refuse to acknowledge a ''fact'' it's pretty
:easy to avoid complications to your simplistic view of the world.
I'll acknowledge facts when I'm presented with them. You've presented
presumptions, suppositions and deductions.
Having said which...
:Rather than answer to the above easily verifiable facts, you resort
:to repeated name calling. You say I called QDOS a hoax. Prove it.
I thought you had. I thought you'd even used the word in one of your
prior postings. If you hadn't, then fine; I'm not going to go and check.
:QDOS is an attempt to cover up the biggest theft of the century.
Ah... now I see what you're getting at here. You're saying that CP/M was
essentially ripped off in its entirety by MS-DOS, and 86-DOS was merely
purchased as a cover. Yes?
Except that MS-DOS used a rather different file organisation format that
owed more to DEC's operating systems than to CP/M's method. Admittedly
though, this could easily be cobbled on to deter lawyers.
I can't say I agree with your conclusion, but it's a lot clearer where
you're coming from. And believe me, I do sympathise with that cause. I
am *not* a Microsoft fan, and the sooner they go south the better (since
I note you're in Tucson, I'll say "no offence" here; it's a lovely city,
and I have good memories of it).
:I bet MS is going to purchase CP/M.
Well, there's an easy way for Caldera to prevent this. They can simply
release the source code under the GPL (rather than the terms under which
it's already on public release). Perhaps Tim Olstead could have a word
with them...?
com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk
On 1999-05-11 kgl...@seganet.com said:
:>I bet MS is going to purchase CP/M.
:I very much doubt that they'd =buy= it outright. But I wouldn't be
:surprised if M$ eventually settles the Caldera lawsuit with monetary
:compensation...and, in a minor sidebar to that settlement, assumes
:all rights to CP/M and its later derivatives. That way, everybody
:would get what they want. It's a logical solution.
Not everyone. Caldera is Ray Noorda's baby, and he is out for
Microsoft's blood. I don't think he can be bought so easily. I suspect
if things get ropey, he does have the option of GPL'ing CP/M, which
would now and in the future put MS up against not only Caldera, but the
FSF, and by implication every lawyer in Berkeley and Boston. ;>
But Caldera is suing MS over anti-competitive practices, most noticeably
over the use of tests in Windows 3.x to detect and complain about a
non-MS host OS, most particularly DR-DOS. Caldera bought the lawsuit
from Novell, which had in turn bought Digital Research, the originator
of the lawsuit. DR had earlier obtained an $800k settlement from MS over
the fact that MS-DOS was a blatant rip-off of CP/M.
John Elliott
>Well, there's an easy way for Caldera to prevent this. They can simply
>release the source code under the GPL (rather than the terms under which
>it's already on public release). Perhaps Tim Olstead could have a word
>with them...?
I asked (on the caldera-opendos list) why they didn't. The response was:
i) They still can make money from CP/M;
ii) There were legal reasons connected with the MS lawsuit.
The idea that they intend to make money from CP/M by selling it to Gates
looks scarily plausible.
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
bill_h
> But Caldera is suing MS over anti-competitive practices
If you've ever been to court in a major lawsuit you'll know
you NEVER assume the issues are going to be limited to the
pre-trial posturing.......Only on TV is everything 'obvious'.
> DR had earlier obtained an $800k settlement from MS over
> the fact that MS-DOS was a blatant rip-off of CP/M.
WRONG AGAIN. That was IBM, NOT MS. At law, this amounts to a
collateral admission of (potential) fault or liability. That
means it (probably) can't be used as evidence, but to those
of us outside the court room, it is of some interest.
And I really wonder what kind of life you've got when you go
around spouting half truths and plain falsehoods at every turn.
The FACTS I quoted previously are documented. Byte Magazine? The
United States Patent and Trademark Office? What more do you want?
Anyway, since you still don't get it, the real reason the SOURCE
of what became MS-DOS.....right up into Win98, is this:
Say MS takes someone into court for infringement. MS alleges this
person copied THEIR copyrighted work. In his defense, HE brings forth
TESTIMONY (because at law, that is the ONLY WAY you can ever prove
anything) that MS/Paterson/SCP used the source code (which, as I
pointed
out WAS IN MS' POSSESSION) putting it through a -80 -> 8086 translator
(see the Byte ad via link posted previously), and he manages to produce
strings of CODE BYTES that tend to show exactly that.
All the CIRCUMSTANTIAL factors are in place. As I repeatedly point out.
If MS HAS NOT divulged that SOME PARTS of it's alleged property is in
fact derivative, or copied from someone else, they risk DISMISSAL of
their lawsuit, or other sanctions. They CAN NOT collect for copies of
ANYTHING that they don't own. Even if it's only a 30 byte long
algorithm.
Any sharp defendant will want to SUBTRACT the derivative parts. And if
it should happen that any SUBTRACTION renders the whole thing
INOPERATIVE,
he could be found guilty of copying SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T WORK. Which
would seriously cut into any damages he might have to pay.
If MS FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE, they risk dismissal. If they DO, they risk
a slam-dunk verdict in the Noorda/Caldera/former Novelle-DRI case.
MS is currently caught between a rock and a hard place.
As a chess player, I say they've got only ONE viable end-game. BUY CP/M.
Whatever it costs. Probably upwards of a billion. It's only money.
com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk
On 1999-05-13 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
<whatever>
I haven't got time to be patronised. If you cannot make your case
without being rude to those who question you or randomly SHOUTING,
you're scarcely worth talking to, a prime example of someone who can
both have right on their side and yet still be an unpleasant person.
*plonk*
kgl...@seganet.com
Jerry Avins
No. It's also pride and principle. Are you suggesting that Gates will
make Noorda an offer he can't refuse?
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art | Let's talk about what
of making what you want | you need; you may see
from things you can get. | how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Gene Buckle
: On 1999-05-14 com...@euphrates.idps.co.uk said:
: >*plonk*
: "Plonk." Isn't that cheap wine? :)
Naw, it's the sound some poor bastards head makes as it breaks
open upon impacting the bottom of someone elses killfile. :)
g.