!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard A. Cini, Jr. <rcini_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Apr 8 10:32:12 2000

From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_armigeron.com> and
the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:

> > Tim Patterson, who wrote the initial version of MS-DOS while at Seattle
> > Products, may have had access to CP/M sources since Seattle Products sol
> > CP/M systems and they were working on an 8086 based computer in the late
> > 70s. Tim probably modeled his QDOS (Quick-n-Dirty Operating System) clo
> > after CP/M (some say he may have mechanically translated CP/M since
> > copyright statements to Digital Research have allegedly been found in MS
> > 1.x but I haven't seen any). Why not? It would have been a quick and e
> > way to get an OS for the 8086 system up and running.
> I've heard that, too. Does that mean that anyone who writes a program to
> what he's seen another program do is making a copy?

>>> Ask the lawyers or philosophers.

    I have a copy of DOS 1.1 that I've done a Sourcer disassembly of. I have
not found anything referring to DR or CP/M anywhere in the resulting source.

    Now, one thought that I had is that there may be a sequence of code
bytes unique to CP/M that was duplicated in DOS (nee, QDOS) by
virtue of directly copying the CP/M source. This would produce a
unique and identifyable signature.

    Since I only have v1.1 to examine and it doesn't have a DR notice,
maybe that's why there's a v1.1 :-).

    If anyone has a copy of 1.0 that they can send me to work on, I'll
do a book report for y'all...


[ Rich Cini
[ ClubWin!/CW1
[ MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
[ Collector of "classic" computers
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
<================ reply separator =================>
Received on Sat Apr 08 2000 - 10:32:12 BST

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