From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: QDOS (again!!) (was: Re: Dispute about Internet's origins) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:05:34 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 65 Message-ID: <37E2D74E.5C@sunsouthwest.com> References: <7ror98$3v4$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> <37E268A2.F55FF46C@fast.net> Reply-To: bill_h@sunsouthwest.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!remarQ-uK!rQdQ!supernews.com!remarQ.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Tracy Nelson wrote: > > Ronda Hauben wrote: > > Well Microsoft and Apple in fact are the product of work done > > by Kemeny creating basic as part of the Dartmouth Time Sharing > > system. > > Microsoft, maaaaybe, although if BASIC hadn't existed I dare say that we > might have wound up with a different language (FORTRAN, probably) being > implemented by Paul Allen & Bill Gates. As for Apple, it made its mark > based on its hardware merits, not due to Applesoft BASIC. They DID do Fortran, in 1976. Is that early enough? > > And DOS by Microsoft is a beneficiary of the work done developing > > time sharing and then CTSS and MULTICS and its beneficiary UNIX. > > Heh, if there's one thing DOS definately does *not* have, it's the > time-sharing nature. Everybody knows that DOS was originally QDOS > (Quick-n-dirty DOS), Then ''everybody'' is an IDIOT. Bob O'Rear (you DO know who he is, and how he figures in the story, right?) described QDOS as an ''absolute'' address version of Seattle Computer's 86-DOS, which was otherwise assembled with the same sort of RELATIVE ADDRESSING as CP/M. Since that would make it NON-RELOCATABLE, maybe the ''Q'' stood for QUEER. MS bought 86-DOS; Get this story STRAIGHT. QDOS mentioned LATER is FICTION. The REASON for the FICTION is so that, if ever questioned under oath about ''QDOS'' Gates, O'Rear, Paterson et al can answer any way they want without LYING. It's like answering questions about the moon by refering to brands of CHEESES. > .....................a transposition of CP/M to the key of 8086. > AAMOF, if Digital Research had licensed CP/M to IBM, we'd probably have > better computers/software today, as we wouldn't have had to wait for DOS > to play catch-up to CP/M's capabilities for so many years. In the first place, Paterson had the SOURCE CODE for CP/M. He didn't just do a ''translation'' of the code, he had the SOURCE. In the field of patents, it would be like having the entire thought process used to reduce an IDEA to a MEANS. Commented source code is the THOUGHT PROCESS used to generate the OBJEcT CODE you get on a disk. Most companies protect it under lock and key. Microsoft had it, to work on the Z-80 SOFTCARD project that put CP/M-80 into the Apple II computer. CP/M-86 came in the very same pink IBM 3-ring binder as DOS 1.0 and 1.1 and 2.0 and 2.1 did. My version 1.0 is dated March, 1982. At least CP/M-86 came with an ASSEMBLER. The Microsoft/IBM Macro Assembler (version 1.0) didn't show up until December, 1981, so there wasn't much of an advantage there, timewise, as far as developing applications went. At that time many things were written in Basic, anyway. > > And the work on time sharing and CTSS was the result of ARPA/IPTO's > > work. > > > > The programming languages for the personal computer were the offspring > > of the programming language developed for time sharing systems like > > Kemeny's DTSS. Where do people like this get their supposed ''information''? Grumpy ol' Bill in Tucson ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: QDOS (again!!) (was: Re: Dispute about Internet's origins) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 99 10:10:49 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 18 Message-ID: <7rvvui$gup$2@winter.news.rcn.net> References: <7ror98$3v4$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> <37E268A2.F55FF46C@fast.net> <37E2D74E.5C@sunsouthwest.com> X-Trace: qk5CxYGiogEAmoUoBrDanXoOM/Kjq0ZxWfpt1jaUWkw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 12:18:26 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!newshub.northeast.verio.net!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!d12 [snip a newsgroup] In article <37E2D74E.5C@sunsouthwest.com>, bill_h wrote: >Where do people like this get their supposed ''information''? I don't know. I've encountered an even more bizarre case of thinking in sci.physics. Look for the thread about Java over the last week or so. There's some very disturbing implications if that kind of sifting becomes the norm. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.