!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Fri Apr 7 22:16:26 2000

I know what he means, Allison. Unlike those who earn their money writing
code for the OS's we use, I see writing code as overhead most of the time.
I've written a few hundred K-lines of mostly assembler, but am taking the
position of a user, with which position I can easily identify, and as such
don't see the similarities in the two OS' because I'm using an application
which handles the interface to the OS for me and lets me focus on useful

I'm not saying programming isn't useful work, but rather that most people
not directly engaged in generating software consider it overhead or "not my
job" and therefore uninteresting. The secretary using the word processor
isn't interested in or aware of the how's of opening a file. He/she just
wants it done. One who sees from that perspective sees the glaring
differences between CP/M and MS-DOS, yet doesn't see the similarities to
which reference has been made, whether they're real or not.

Since MUCH fewer than 1% of the people who use MS products are engagedin
activity which would make them aware of the differences and similarities
between MS-DOS and CP/M if they knew both OS' I'd have to say the internals
are really never going to be part of a legal argument. Most judges, after
all, don't write their own programs.


----- Original Message -----
From: allisonp <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!

> >> the same, with a few notable exceptions where the concept don't match
> >> (MS-DOS for example does not have an IOBYTE).
> >
> >What of those things internal would you have had them leave out in order
> >be more different from CP/M, which was a VERY popular OS at the time,
> >without removing its functionality. Since the features to which you
> >are internal, I assume you have precice citations of common source code,
> >right? They're certainly not obvious to me in my role as a fairly
> >user.
> The features he refers to are the calls to the BDOS to do things like
> File_OPEN,
> FILE_CLOSE, FILE DELETE..... and so on.
> >Since there is only one segment in CP/M, I guess you've got 'em there.
> >course it really doesn't matter what the location is, does it? I guess
> >OS that load a register and then calls a specific location is a copy of
> >CP/M, right?
> Not really, CPM loaded to a specific segment but apps could use any and
> to the then 8086 1mb limit.
> >> You can also terminate a program by calling location 0000h (again, in
> >> COM program). In CP/M this causes a warm reset (similar
> >>
> >It's like saying a FORD is a copy of a Dusenberg because they both use
> >wheels.
> This was a feature unique to CPM and DOS as many others loc(0) was
> either reset (hard), ROM, unused or reserved.
> >The mapping of one register set into the other is not an accident. Ask
> >Intel about that! I'm told that CP/M-86 is considerably more than a
> >translation of CP/M-80. Now you suggest that the roots of MS-DOS are
> >entirely in CP/M? They may have common roots, as they reflect the then
> CPM-86 was not entirely 8080 code lofted, that would never ru without
> Also there was a loader change implemented, boot loads a file system aware
> loader that finds cpm.sys. This was not the 8080 way.
> As far as register usage, that is an artifact of PLM used to write the
> V1.3/1.4
> and later versions of CPM80. With that convention established it was kept
> to keep applications that called the BDOS compatable.
> >I've heard that, too. Does that mean that anyone who writes a program to
> do
> >what he's seen another program do is making a copy? You're not even sure
> he
> >actually saw and read the source code. How many programmers do you know
> >who'd simply copy someone else's work in a case like this? Everybody
> >to leave his own mark.
> DOS 1.0 had COPYRIGHT Digital Research INC inside! There was a quiet
> copyright battle that forced DOS 2.0 (buggiest thing in the world!). This
> is not
> fiction and it was documented.
> >Buying something that shortens your burden is kind-of like buying an
> >integrated circuit rather than making the thing yourself starting with a
> >wheelbarrow of sand. The fact that Microsoft knew that IBM had gone to
> >Kildall probably told them what they wanted was sort-f like CP/M.
> They didn't care only that there would be apps for it to run like
> Allison
Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 22:16:26 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:40 BST