Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)

Expand Messages
  • Herb Johnson
    ... the job it really needed to progress. I mean DOS used COPY and CP/M uses PIP. ... historians to argue about. ... wrapped up in their open source religion
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 30, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Christian Liendo <christian_liendo@...> wrote:
      >
      > While I also agree you also have to remember that while CP/M "did
      the job" it really needed to progress. I mean DOS used COPY and CP/M
      uses PIP.
      >
      > You can argue that such things were minor, but I guess thats for
      historians to argue about.
      >
      > I have the same argument with Linux people. Linux people are so
      wrapped up in their open source religion they don't see why many
      people think Linux is to hard for them and they get Windows/Mac machines.
      >
      > Also Dr. Kildall was his own worst enemy and DOS had IBM and which
      helped.
      >

      These are cheap shots, sorry to say. Easier to say that, than to
      explain why. Anyone who cares to, can find information in respond to
      these "points". I have a few Web pages about Kildall, at

      http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/

      I think he did pretty well. Better than most of us who read this. As
      for IBM and MS-DOS, it's a long story, not part of this thread beyond
      my reference to Hertzfeld's reference. Linux's devotees is just an
      off-topic reference.

      I got tired of people ignoring, or dismissing, CP/M and Gary Kildall
      merely because Kildall did not become the world's richest man like
      Bill Gates. It's interesting to see that kind of misplaced envy, even
      in a primary developer of the Macintosh like Andy Hertzfeld. But the
      issue actually comes from under-informed journalists and publisists,
      like the one interviewing Hertzfeld.

      Long story short, that situation is why I spent a few years writing up
      CP/M on my Web site. The response from Christian, makes my case again.
      I did what did, not to promote a "religion" of CP/M, but to nail down
      its developmental history before all of its developers die, as did
      Kildall.

      Herb Johnson
      retrotechnology.com
    • Christian Liendo
      Sorry I took so long to respond but ask Evan I have been busy. I don t deny the contributions of CP/M and Gary Kildall. I don t dismiss their historical
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry I took so long to respond but ask Evan I have been busy.

        I don't deny the contributions of CP/M and Gary Kildall. I don't dismiss their historical significance. I don't have to tell you that CP/M was the "standard" and that other computers either ran CP/M or was CP/M capable. There is no disagreement on this.

        I just believe that when DOS came out, Gary should have done everything to make CP/M better.

        History is written by the winners. ~Alex Haley

        But I have had this argument before and I think at the time DOS was better, think the commands are easier to use than CP/M and I believed that helped. I used PIP as an example because it is rather blatant.

        This is again all personal opinion. I mean I know that PIP is used because PDPs used PIP. But to an end user who never used a PDP, COPY is just better.

        I lay the blame for this on Dr. Kildall. He was a genius, but from what I was told didn't listen to anyone.

        BTW: You have great pages discussing the history of Dr. Kildall and CP/M. The only thing I think you are missing is GemDOS for the Atari 68xxx computers.




        --- On Sat, 8/30/08, Herb Johnson <herbjohnson@...> wrote:
        From: Herb Johnson <herbjohnson@...>
        Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)
        To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 1:34 PM











        Christian Liendo <christian_liendo@ ...> wrote:

        >

        > While I also agree you also have to remember that while CP/M "did

        the job" it really needed to progress. I mean DOS used COPY and CP/M

        uses PIP.

        >

        > You can argue that such things were minor, but I guess thats for

        historians to argue about.

        >

        > I have the same argument with Linux people. Linux people are so

        wrapped up in their open source religion they don't see why many

        people think Linux is to hard for them and they get Windows/Mac machines.

        >

        > Also Dr. Kildall was his own worst enemy and DOS had IBM and which

        helped.

        >



        These are cheap shots, sorry to say. Easier to say that, than to

        explain why. Anyone who cares to, can find information in respond to

        these "points". I have a few Web pages about Kildall, at



        http://www.retrotec hnology.com/ dri/



        I think he did pretty well. Better than most of us who read this. As

        for IBM and MS-DOS, it's a long story, not part of this thread beyond

        my reference to Hertzfeld's reference. Linux's devotees is just an

        off-topic reference.



        I got tired of people ignoring, or dismissing, CP/M and Gary Kildall

        merely because Kildall did not become the world's richest man like

        Bill Gates. It's interesting to see that kind of misplaced envy, even

        in a primary developer of the Macintosh like Andy Hertzfeld. But the

        issue actually comes from under-informed journalists and publisists,

        like the one interviewing Hertzfeld.



        Long story short, that situation is why I spent a few years writing up

        CP/M on my Web site. The response from Christian, makes my case again.

        I did what did, not to promote a "religion" of CP/M, but to nail down

        its developmental history before all of its developers die, as did

        Kildall.



        Herb Johnson

        retrotechnology. com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.