Re: [midatlanticretro] Re: Did Bill Gates Steal the Heart of DOS?
- On 08/03/2012 06:12 PM, Evan Koblentz wrote:
>>> |Never liked\ Shockley. If you remember his racism toward the end, you know why.Eh, Edison. WAY WAY overrated. Be careful there my friend.
> I agree.
> Nor would I defend the alleged racism of Edison or IBM, nor the overt racism of Ford ... but that doesn't impact their contributions to history and technology.
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
>> Eh, Edison. WAY WAY overrated. Be careful there my friend.I know -- the Gates of his day. But I'm biased -- grew up in Edison Township! (It was the Menlo Park section of Raritan Township until 1954 when they renamed it. No relation to the current Raritan Township which is two counties away.)
- Bill Degnan wrote:
>> [Sol Libes's article] is what I assumed what the true story.
>>Bare in mind the 16-bit 8-bit thing central to the
>> diff btwn MS-DOS and CP/M.
> I would like to hear Herb's opinion.I happened to see this subject thread today; I read the IEEE article in question. I considered writing an "opinion" to respond to Evan's question to me. I wrote some stuff, and then threw it out. Here's some short "opinions", some of which are readily verifiable, some more factual than others. I'm not looking for arguments.
1) My response would have been long(er), tedious and preachy. I'm not interested in doing that on request.
2) The details of what I might have posted, most anyone interested over 50 would know first hand; but persons under 30 would not know, and may not care about. If you are interested in my "take" on the period, I have a Web site about CP/M development and DRI:
Note: It's well established that Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products, read DRI manuals and wrote what eventually became "MS-DOS". Like other programmers of the period, he wrote an OS based on features of another OS. No source copy needed, no binary copy needed. It's even a matter of court testimony that he did that. No court has established he did any more that that. Again - look it up, I won't argue about it.
3) The premise of the question is mostly incorrect. It's really an entry into an old old discussion about how Microsoft came to "have" MS-DOS, and how Digital Research (of CP/M and Gary Kildall), didn't
initially provide IBM with an 8086 operating system. Anyone interested in that subject, can read various accounts, draw various conclusions. It's an exercise in "winners" and "losers" which I don't care for.
4) The IEEE published article, is not very good technically. There's nothing particularly modern or forensic, about doing what amounts to binary comparisons and ASCII dumps. The code he looks at, is mostly later than the time a "copy" would have been made - when 86-DOS was created by Tim Patterson. Any code subsequently produced by "Bill Gates" (Microsoft) would have avoided any DRI sources and binaries for obvious reasons.
So: in the end, the author of the IEEE article, looks at the wrong things, with familiar methods, for the wrong reasons, and - naturally - finds nothing. Why fuss over a null result?
The answer is, of course, the subtext of the question - how Bill Gates benefited from some business decisions, and Kildall did not. And yet, Kildall died a multimillionaire. He did other things of note than CP/M. His software ran on a million computers, when that was a lot of computers. DRI was sold for millions, its intellectual property continued to have value - and some of it is still in use today. So I'd say he did pretty well.
I wrote up something of Kildall's technical legacy, because it's MYlegacy, and because it's worth preservation. Why did that author of that IEEE article, write HIS article? His interests are clear, and disappointing; his results of little value.
- On 08/10/2012 06:05 PM, s100doctor wrote:
> 4) The IEEE published article, is not very good technically. There's nothing particularlyI found the forensics portion to be laughable, then I found out he
> modern or forensic, about doing what amounts to binary comparisons and ASCII dumps. The
> code he looks at, is mostly later than the time a "copy" would have been made - when
> 86-DOS was created by Tim Patterson. Any code subsequently produced by "Bill Gates"
> (Microsoft) would have avoided any DRI sources and binaries for obvious reasons.
worked for a company that sells forensic tools and I was dumbfounded.
Someone didn't live through that time and understand the context of
coding in the env.
If you look at the source code of much of the software written in
the early portion of of the micro age you might find that many folks
had similar 4, 5 or 6 character labels and variables. 8 character labels
and names was a luxury (like a 4K card!). How many folks know why so
much software such software uses i,j, & k for index variables? I expect
more than a few on this list will.
BTW, I only coded starting in 1980. So I'm more through the middle
kingdom of the micro age. ;-)
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@...
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
- On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Neil Cherry wrote:
> If you look at the source code of much of the software written inFORTRAN. I still do it, in C.
> the early portion of of the micro age you might find that many folks
> had similar 4, 5 or 6 character labels and variables. 8 character labels
> and names was a luxury (like a 4K card!). How many folks know why so
> much software such software uses i,j, & k for index variables? I expect
> more than a few on this list will.
Mike Loewen mloewen@...
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/