Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy From: rshwake@rsxtech.atww.org (Raymond N Shwake) Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:26:27 GMT References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> Organization: RSX Technical Services Lines: 16 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news.chatlink.com!news.erie.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.97.14.174!europa.clark.net!209.70.91.68!news.clark.net!phzzzt.atww.org!rsxtech!rshwake mmhankin@ouray.cudenver.edu (MICHELLE MARIE HANKINS) writes: >: In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, >: that was actually a new idea from MS. All of their most popular programs >: - Word, Excel, impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the >: last innovative product MS has produced. >I would even argue that DOS was nothing but a hack from unix. Unix >predates DOS. Gates is a creative marketer, great at selling product. >He is **NOT** a creative systems/program designer (and by extension, >neither is his company). Don't you mean a hack *compared* to UNIX? The latter did indeed predate DOS by about ten years, but DOS' parentage traces back to CP/M. I doubt the authors of QDOS had even heard of UNIX; it's obvious they took no lessons from it. ###### From: Lyle Bateman Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:15:21 +0100 Organization: PECC Nigeria Ltd Lines: 83 Message-ID: <34A76A29.86444347@linkserve.com.ng> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> NNTP-Posting-Host: lksgi4.lagnr.chevron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------13F93913025AA039D15A3235" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; IRIX64 6.4 IP30) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!hay.news.ans.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.lahabra.chevron.com!news.chevron.com!nntpserver.lagnr.chevron.com!news --------------13F93913025AA039D15A3235 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nathan Dorfman wrote: > > In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, that was > > actually a new idea from MS. All of their most popular programs - Word, Excel, > > Money, even Windows 95, were developed to mirror applications that were already > > on the market (WordPerfect or WordStar, Visicalc, Quicken, and MacOS). MS is a > > very good production and marketing company, but I've never been terribly > > impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the last innovative product > > MS has produced. > > That's not true. DOS was a rip-off of CP/M, which they didn't even > write themselves. > -- > ________________ _______________________________ > / Nathan Dorfman V PGP: finger nathan@rtfm.net / > / nathan@rtfm.net | http://www.rtfm.net / Thank you for reminding me that MS has, in fact, had NO innovative products. I stand corrected. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Lyle W. Bateman System Consultant PECC Ltd. NOTE: My views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, unless explicitly stated. --------------13F93913025AA039D15A3235 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nathan Dorfman wrote:
> In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, that was
> actually a new idea from MS.  All of their most popular programs - Word, Excel,
> Money, even Windows 95, were developed to mirror applications that were already
> on the market (WordPerfect or WordStar, Visicalc, Quicken, and MacOS).  MS is a
> very good production and marketing company, but I've never been terribly
> impressed by their innovation.  Dos is, basically, the last innovative product
> MS has produced.

That's not true. DOS was a rip-off of CP/M, which they didn't even
write themselves.
--
   ________________ _______________________________
  / Nathan Dorfman V PGP: finger nathan@rtfm.net  /
 / nathan@rtfm.net |    http://www.rtfm.net      /

 Thank you for reminding me that MS has, in fact, had NO innovative products.  I stand corrected.
 

-- 


Sincerely,

Lyle W. Bateman
System Consultant
PECC Ltd.

NOTE:  My views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, unless explicitly stated.
  --------------13F93913025AA039D15A3235-- ###### From: Christian Armour Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 30 Dec 1997 20:36:14 GMT Organization: Universite du Quebec Lines: 17 Message-ID: <68blvu$e7n$1@Tropolix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <34A76A29.86444347@linkserve.com.ng> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971204 (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4m)) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uquebec.ca!not-for-mail In comp.unix.advocacy Lyle Bateman wrote: : Thank you for reminding me that MS has, in fact, had NO innovative : products. I stand corrected. Wait! That's not true! Don't forget Microsoft Pregnancy! cak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Armour-Kidson Universite du Quebec cak@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca INRS-Telecommunications Tel: 514-732-2542 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: felinoid@news.ccnet.com (Jeffery McLean) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 31 Dec 1997 06:54:35 GMT Organization: Godcorp Lines: 43 Message-ID: <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ccnet3.ccnet.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!usc!ccnet.com!nowhere.uucp!felinoid James Zepeda (garbanzo@fish.hooked.net) wrote: : I guess you forgot that MS-DOS was essentially a rip of CP/M, and not even : Linux is original either. Not that I like either. MsDos was made to run the vast base of CP/M software on a new generation of computer (Moving from 8 bit to 16... even if it was a 16 bit with an 8 bit buss for cost control) Digial Research and IBM was not seeing eye to eye for some reason... MsDos would not have existed if IBM got the CP/M 86 contract. Linux is the same story.... Linux exists to be Unix... to run the vast software base allready out there in Unix... MsDos looks like CP/M becouse it has to... but it dose it as little as posable... Linux looks like SysV Unix but only becouse it has to but Linux dose so as little as posable... Windows dosn't run any Mac software.... It exists to look as Mac like as posable... MsDos and Linux have come into there own by not only running a vast base of software that already exists but in building a base of software of there own... for years the wordprosesor of choice for Dos was Wordstar ported directly from CP/M with the aid of a CP/M to MsDos translator (Becouse MsDos is so much like CP/M and the 8088/8086 so much like the z80/8080/8085 that it only took a simple translator to move CP/M programs to MsDos) Macs were made for a market left behind and didn't rely on any vast base of software... Apple soon learned what most of the market already knew... A computer can not survive with out a software base... Many people dispise the strong arm tactics Microsoft used to insure Windows had a software base... -- Soon this account will only be used for usenet postings E-mail sent to it will be forwarded to oblivion For my current address finger felinoid@ccnet.com ###### From: r.e.ballard@usa.net Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 12:51:12 -0600 Message-ID: <883593740.1038811138@dejanews.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Organization: Deja News Posting Service References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 31 18:42:20 1997 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: r.e.ballard@usa.net X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (WinNT; I) X-Originating-IP-Addr: 199.222.78.2 (gateway.prudential.com) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Lines: 183 In article <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net>, garbanzo@fish.hooked.net (James Zepeda) wrote: > Lyle Bateman (lbateman@linkserve.com.ng) wrote: > : Rajat Datta wrote: > : That's true. But in hindsight, we can see why. Gates knew even then that Jobs > : had come up with the killer OS for a general market, and he needed an 'in' if he > : was going to get in on the action. Developing apps gave him and his company > : vital access to the basic code of the Mac OS, and allowed him, with time, to > : eventually put out a 'version' of Mac OS that ran on a PC, called Windows 95. Actually, Gates used much of the Mac tecnology in Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1. Apple wasn't exactly happy about that. Jobs thought that giving Gates a vested interest in the success of the Mac would give Apple a better position than IBM. It backfired. The key mistake in the marketing of the Mac was that they kept it a "Closed" box too early in the game. When they had the edge in terms of software technology, they were running in 512k of ROM and 128k of RAM, with to provision for upgrading the RAM. Jobs wanted to conrol everything, including the Display (Monochrome), the Printer (Dot Matrix), and the disk drive (WOZ machine floppy). To create software, you needed a LISA, very expensive software, and a ton of nondisclosure agreements. In the Mac's second year, it had competition in the form of the Atari 520 and 1040 ST, and the Amiga. Both sported high resolution, color, and sound. Atari could have had a hit if they had gone with OS/9 level 2 or 3, but lacked the MMU. Further blocking the Atari was a backlog of 500 IBM PC configurations that had to be certified by the FCC. Somehow, the PC certifications "Preempted" the Atari holding up it's release until after the Christmas season. The Mac had limited "multitasking" in the form of desk accessories. While these were much better than TSRs, they were not as flexible as the true preemptive multitasking available on UNIX. Jobs also strived to make the Mac a "Status Symbol", like a BMW or a Mercedes Benz or a Rolex Watch. People saw that their Citizen Quartz watch kept pretty good time and their Honda Accord gave them pretty good transportation. They reasoned that a PC gave them pretty good graphics and text. Status sells perfumes, cars, boats, and Rolex Watches. It doesn't sell computers. In fact, the "Status Symbol" approach made Mac a "Perk" rather than a necessity for the survival of the enterprise. Many of the folks doing graphics applications were actually using UNIX and using GKS and PHIGS. The objects oriented concepts were integrated into the X11/R3 windowing system. Apple tried to protect it's intellectual property rights, but there were blurry distinctions between Mac and Smalltalk-80 which Xerox had all but given away. Sun's SunView was also object oriented but still used in-line code for initialization routines. Later, Xview was provided for backward compatibility with SunView. > : In the end, the OS we saw in 1995 from Microsoft was about as robust as Mac OS > : in, say, the mid to late eighties. It just needed a lot more hardware and > : resources to run on. Remember, the early MACs used Monochrome graphics, outline glyphs, and scalable fonts. Windows 95 uses 24bit color, 64x64 icons, and several different font families and true text fonts. Furthermore, the equivalent of the "LineA" machine is implemented though an interpretive loop and DLLs that resolve to OCX entry points. Furthermore, each lineA call was executed to completion before proceeding, eliminating most of the reentrancy problems associated with threads and preemptive multitasking. > : Any one with any brains (and I count Bill Gates here, regardless of what I think > : of his business policies - you don't get the income of a small country without > : brains) Al Capone was rich, Mother Theresa was poor. Which was the "success"? Gates used many powerful and influencial allies, and then double-crossed them. This includes, suppliers, partners, and customers. If economic wealth equals success, then we should be grovelling to the Cocaine dealers and Heroine pushers of Newark. After watching "Vibe", I don't think Gates would like to be stranded in Newark, on foot, after dark. Many of Micrsoft's business relationships were like the very sexy looking prostitute who takes you to a motel, ties you up, ball-gags you, coats you with honey, and leaves you for the rats to eat. (In Harlem, a sleeping child with crumbs on his face will have his face eaten off by the rats). > : could see in the mid-eighties that DOS, a purely command line based > : interface was, basically, a dead-end street for PC's when compared to graphical Microsoft has always used it's ability to do graphics, colors, and WYSIWYG to distinguish itself from CP/M and UNIX. Gates has always feared two things. First, that UNIX would get a good graphical interface (which happened in 1992), and the the price of UNIX (or it's equivalent) would drop below $200 for a fully functional system. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were intended to compete with "Software Carousel" and Quarterdeck, both of which were threatening to make the PC too compatible with UNIX (Quarterdeck offered true preemptive multitasking and X11/R4 client and server capability). Windows95 was intended to thwart Linux (which was making NT 3.51 look disappointing). Microsoft spent nearly $4 Billion in 1995 promoting a product that hadn't even been fully defined yet. They had spent $3 billion the year before promoting NT 3.51. They spent another $4 billion, and gave deep discounts to OEMs to get 25 million users by the end of 1996 (less than 20% of the expected market). > : systems like Mac OS. MS wouldn't be the PC powerhouse it is today, and it > : wouldn't have anything like Win95, if it hadn't developed apps for the Mac in > : the eighties. Probably true. And meanwhile people in California and Colorado are wondering if they will be employed next year, while Gates sits on $38 billion gained primarily from intellectual property rights it effectively stole from Apple. > : > rajat > [...] > : In fact, I can't think of a single product, > : with the exception of DOS, that was > : actually a new idea from MS. MS had only one "new idea", which was to demand commitments, a guarantee, and a substantial advance, from PC manufacturers. To enforce it, he threatened to port to competitors, or break on their machine, if the PC maker didn't comply. To be 100% compatible with the IBM PC was nearly impossible, and deprived you of any competitive advantage. To offer features or performance, you were entirely at the mercy of Microsoft. Microsoft discovered this formula back in 1977, and has been using to force billions in tribute since. > : All of their most popular programs - Word, Excel, Money, > : even Windows 95, were developed to mirror applications that were already > : on the market (WordPerfect or WordStar, Visicalc, Quicken, and MacOS). > : MS is a Worse than that, Microsoft often used code, sent to Microsoft in order to get support, to create their applications. MS-BASIC was fished out of a dumpster. MS-DOS was a crippled version of CP/M, originally purchased from a company who purchased rights (to QDOS) from DRI. > : very good production and marketing company, but I've never been terribly > : impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the last innovative > : product MS has produced. Nearly every "Innovation" since the conversion from QDOS to MS-DOS was driven by UNIX. Windows 86, Windows 286, and Windows 386 were (poor) imitations and attempts to emulate Mac. Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 were attempts to emulate the GUI found in X11/R3 and X11/R4 with Motif. Gates owns a 25% stake in SCO and is kept well informed of every move made by the OSF. He tries to counter with "innovations" that are intended to come out within a year of what is released by OSF. Gates, and Microsoft, are not allowed to enter the UNIX market (including application compatibility) directly. The UNIX market, however, was looking directly at Mac for guidelines (according to comp.graphics.x11 from 1985 to 1988). > I guess you forgot that MS-DOS was essentially a rip of CP/M, and not even > Linux is original either. Not that I like either. You might like it better soon. MkLinux already runs on Linux quite well. It should be fairly trivial to port NextStep to MkLinux and have BOTH your NextStep "Mac Interface", with true multitasking and UNIX reliability. Knowing Jobs, Mac will still have that special "MacIntosh Flair", even while running Linux. > Un hombre briliante dijo una vez "Cuidado hay NT". > - j. a. zepeda Rex Ballard http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ###### From: "Anthony W. Youngman" Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:48:21 +0000 Organization: vinny-puch Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> <68e7lp$hlr1@news.midusa.net> Reply-To: "Anthony W. Youngman" NNTP-Posting-Host: thewolery.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: thewolery.demon.co.uk [158.152.222.21] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.04 Lines: 33 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!thewolery.demon.co.uk!thewolery In article <68e7lp$hlr1@news.midusa.net>, "H. Blakely Williford" writes >(Jeffery McLean) wrote: >| James Zepeda (garbanzo@fish.hooked.net) wrote: >| : I guess you forgot that MS-DOS was essentially a rip of CP/M, and not even >| : Linux is original either. Not that I like either. > >| MsDos was made to run the vast base of CP/M software on a new generation >| of computer (Moving from 8 bit to 16... even if it was a 16 bit with >| an 8 bit buss for cost control) > >| Digial Research and IBM was not seeing eye to eye for some reason... >| MsDos would not have existed if IBM got the CP/M 86 contract. > >so what would the would be like today running CPM/M in a GUI? > We wouldn't have that bloody stupid 640k limit - CP/M was relocatable and stuck itself at the top of available memory. The only fixed addresses was the jump table below 0x100. Incidentally BG bought MS-Dos off a friend, it was called QDOS (quick and dirty operating system). And typical BG, he agreed to pay a licence fee based on how many people he sold it on to. ie he paid one licence fee, for the sale to IBM (if that). -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk Trousers with a single hole in their waistband are topologically equivalent to a doughnut. These sugarcoated trousers have yet to catch on at fast-food outlets! (SuperStrings by F. David Peat) If replying by e-mail please mail wol. Anything else may get missed amongst the spam. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 02 Jan 1998 04:24:35 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 felinoid@news.ccnet.com (Jeffery McLean) wrote: >Digial Research and IBM was not seeing eye to eye for some reason... >MsDos would not have existed if IBM got the CP/M 86 contract. According to an TV Interview of the IBM Manager responsible for getting an OS for the PC with Robert X Cringley the following happened: IBM (he) appeared at DRI and wanted a CP/M license. They presented the person at DRI doing the deal (Gary Killdals wife) their normal NDA contract. She was scared by it and had an befriended lawyer read it before she would sign. He regarded some of the stuff in it as dubious. So she didn't sign. While IBM was going through internal processes to resolve the impasse Bill Gates heard of the episode. Knowing that Tim Paterson of Seattle Computers had written an CP/M clone called QDOS he quickley made an offer to IBM, then bought QDOS. Rumour has it for $50'000. The rest, as they say, is history. Then we all called IBM the evil, now Microsoft. -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 02 Jan 1998 04:37:50 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 unknown (from was snipped) wrote: >: In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, >: that was actually a new idea from MS. All of their most popular programs >: - Word, Excel, impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the >: last innovative product MS has produced. DOS wasn't by MS either, they bought it from Tim Patterson. Their Basic interpreters (leading up to todays VisualBasic) are most likely the only software that they wrote from scratch (barring perhaps their C/C++ compilers). mmhankin@ouray.cudenver.edu (MICHELLE MARIE HANKINS) writes: >I would even argue that DOS was nothing but a hack from unix. Unix >predates DOS. Gates is a creative marketer, great at selling product. >He is **NOT** a creative systems/program designer (and by extension, >neither is his company). rshwake@rsxtech.atww.org (Raymond N Shwake) wrote: > Don't you mean a hack *compared* to UNIX? The latter did indeed >predate DOS by about ten years, but DOS' parentage traces back to CP/M. >I doubt the authors of QDOS had even heard of UNIX; it's obvious they >took no lessons from it. DOS was extended QDOS, that was an CP/M clone, that started as an extremely simplified RSX/11-style OS for Gary Killdals personal Intel 8080 (or even 8008, I have seen both claims) micro (this would have been am Altair class thing). The first Unixy stuff in MSDOS were the introduction of subdirectories and fopen/fread/fwrite/fclose and exec/wait style system calls in version 2.0. By this time MS had allready got a bit of Xenix experience and started its track towards DOS becoming the OS of the patched design. Gee, writing history like this, I am starting to feel like an dinosaur. Is it allready that long since 1981 when I started? Where has the time gone? Who stole it? :-) -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: Jerry Hicks Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 23:51:52 -0500 Organization: TerraEarth Lines: 23 Message-ID: <34AC7268.199A44A5@ix.netcom.com> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> Reply-To: wghhicks@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: atl-ga23-09.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jan 01 8:50:06 PM PST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.5-STABLE i386) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news remove .nospam wrote: > [snip] > > The rest, as they say, is history. > Then we all called IBM the evil, now Microsoft. > > -- > Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 Uhh... what makes you think IBM isn't evil anymore? They just don't have the masses fooled the way they used to. They still scare me at least as much as Microsoft does, though not in the microcomputer arena. Happy New Year, Jerry Hicks jerry_hicks@bigfoot.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 03 Jan 1998 03:07:31 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1zyqxqcc.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> Reply-To: wghhicks@ix. <34AC7268.199A44A5@ix.netcom.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch wrote: > Then we all called IBM the evil, now Microsoft. Jerry Hicks wrote: >Uhh... what makes you think IBM isn't evil anymore? >They just don't have the masses fooled the way they used to. IMHO you have just answered your own question. What made IBM evil (as opposed to simply bad) was being able to lead all too many ignorant power holders into following them like rats following the pied piper, causing untold suffering for all too many sysadmins and their users. Today IBM has been discredited enough (in the eyes of the rats) to have lost that ability, so now they are just simply bad, not evil. Today the rats follow MS and its NT pipe, thats why MS is today considered evil. The rats haven't learned. I suppose lack of brain:-) -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: crosby@nordsieck.cs.colorado.edu (Matthew Crosby) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 21 Jan 1998 20:33:46 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6a5m3a$5jv$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: nordsieck.cs.colorado.edu Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!enews.sgi.com!coop.net!csnews!nordsieck.cs.colorado.edu!crosby In article , remove .nospam wrote: >unknown (from was snipped) wrote: >>: In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, >>: that was actually a new idea from MS. All of their most popular programs >>: - Word, Excel, impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the >>: last innovative product MS has produced. > >DOS wasn't by MS either, they bought it from Tim Patterson. Their Basic >interpreters (leading up to todays VisualBasic) are most likely the >only software that they wrote from scratch (barring perhaps their >C/C++ compilers). Their original C compiler came from Lattice. The basic, otoh, was indeed unarguably theirs from the beginning. -- Matthew Crosby crosby@cs.colorado.edu Disclaimer: It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead. ###### From: bem@news.cmc.net (brian moore) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 6 Jan 1998 07:34:58 GMT Organization: Chambers Multimedia Connection Lines: 53 Message-ID: <68smr2$5oe$1@news.cmc.net> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> <68e7lp$hlr1@news.midusa.net> <68jmo2$sea$6@news.cmc.net> <34AFF696.167E@imada.ou.dk> Reply-To: bem@news.cmc.net NNTP-Posting-Host: thorin.cmc.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.cmc.net 884072098 5902 (None) 206.102.31.253 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cmc.net X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.102.31.251!news.cmc.net!not-for-mail In article <34AFF696.167E@imada.ou.dk>, Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen writes: > brian moore wrote: > >> DR just couldn't sell worth beans, though. They made great software for >> their day, though. Concurrent CP/M (later Concurrent DOS) was a nice >> toy. It suffered from the usual cruddy DR marketing and software companies >> writing god-awful-code that mucked with hardware directly instead of through >> the APIs, but even then a surprising amount of stuff worked just fine. > > I do not have much experience with GEM except that I thought that it was > much better designed with regards to the various device independent > system calls. > > Concurrent CP/M was build on CP/M+ (or 3) which went to great length to > eliminate the hardware dependencies prevalient in version 2.2, so I > don't think your comment on the code quality is valid. Have you ever > written any code under either CCPM or CDOS to warrant this claim? Actually, Concurrent was based more on MP/M. (In fact the last version of MP/M was II and the first of Concurrent was 3.) CP/M3 was pretty much a single user Z80 MP/M. A lot of nifty tricks from DR in that one too. As for the problems: what I was referring to was the early days of the PC era where we had vendors writing "PC-DOS" programs that would ONLY run on certain hardware combinations and would choke and gag when asked to multitask nicely. The apps written specifically for Concurrent worked just fine. It even networked well: we had a nice Arcnet LAN with drives and printers shared all over the place with less hassle than current "user friendly" software. It was certainly trouble free. And, yep, I wrote quite a bit of code for Concurrent CP/M and then Concurrent DOS back in the olden days, and loved it. 'twas the evil folks writing PC software that broke things. DR had excellent concepts and code, but cruddy marketing and had to contend with people writing code that would run on 'PC-DOS' but not 'MS-DOS' (remember when there used to be a difference? ugh). Of course the lawsuits from Apple ("you stole our trashcan!") didn't help any either -- DR being a firm mostly of engineers and Apple being mostly lawyers at the time. Actually, Caldera now has all the DR code in their hands: would love to see some cool stuff done with all the DR stuff. The world would have been a different place indeed if Kildall had the patience to deal with the IBM folks 17 years or so ago. -- Brian Moore Kill A Spammer For Jesus Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker ###### From: nico@p133.idnet-local.fr (Nicolas MONNET) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 7 Jan 1998 11:37:04 GMT Organization: ImagiNET Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <01bbec53$3d3450a0$f18b389d@toddn650> <597o7p$aod@news.tamu.edu> <01bbecae$573b7680$7fe43d9d@toddn650> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> <68e7lp$hlr1@news.midusa.net> <68jmo2$sea$6@news.cmc.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cyber89.paris.imaginet.fr X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsgate.duke.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news1.isdnet.net!imaginet.net!imaginet.fr!nico In article <68jmo2$sea$6@news.cmc.net>, brian moore wrote: >> so what would the would be like today running CPM/M in a GUI? >Um, Digital Research had a nice GUI for its day with GEM. Hum, I did some Gem coding a while back on an AtariST, and believe me, that was not that pretty ... I was too poor to afford a mac, but when I have been able to do some programming on a mac, I really *enjoyed* how clean it was (by today's standards, this is a joke) -- and most of all,well documented. The graphic commands of GEM (how was it called? VDI?) were really horrible. Full of arbitrary limits. No support *at all* for floating windows. No support for popup menu. 8 windows max. The refreshing scheme was stupid (you had to redraw everything 12 times in 12 different fragmented rectangles). But the worst part was the handling of the double click: you had the all system wait for the end of the delay, that's to say, you clicked, nothing happened for 3/10 secs, which in the end sucks. >DR just couldn't sell worth beans, though. They made great software for >their day, though. Concurrent CP/M (later Concurrent DOS) was a nice >toy. It suffered from the usual cruddy DR marketing and software companies >writing god-awful-code that mucked with hardware directly instead of through >the APIs, but even then a surprising amount of stuff worked just fine. Well, when you had no APIs (or GEM's were too slow) what would you do... -- Nicolas MONNET - Developer, IdeaNet, Paris "A nuclear war can ruin your whole day." ###### From: Dan Hollis Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 9 Jan 1998 06:50:43 GMT Organization: PDN/Chatlink Lines: 52 Sender: Dan Hollis Message-ID: <694hc3$d8f$1@news.chatlink.com> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <599409$3i5@news.tamu.edu> <01bbede4$481717e0$778c389d@toddnp6> <1996Dec20.141127.27538@taylor.infi.net> <01bbee95$e54961b0$f51a369d@toddn650> <59gb8r$sop@cwis-20.wayne.edu> <59h7gb$ram@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <349F83F0.E9F293F4@linkserve.com.ng> <68c6ck$mo7$2@its.hooked.net> <68cq7b$itf$1@ccnet2.ccnet.com> <68e7lp$hlr1@news.midusa.net> <68jmo2$sea$6@news.cmc.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: anime.net User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971215 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.32 (i586)) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.105.25!news.chatlink.com!not-for-mail In comp.unix.advocacy Nicolas MONNET wrote: : Hum, I did some Gem coding a while back on an AtariST, and believe : me, that was not that pretty ... From the sounds of it, you didn't do much coding at all. : I was too poor to afford a mac, but when I have been able to do some : programming on a mac, I really *enjoyed* how clean it was (by today's : standards, this is a joke) -- and most of all,well documented. Ho ho ho. The mac is a mess. : The graphic commands of GEM (how was it called? VDI?) were really : horrible. Not really. Most of the API is very simple, and relatively easy to extend. It is all thoroughly documented. : Full of arbitrary limits. True. But your posting doesnt address any of them. : No support *at all* for floating windows. These are *easy*. : No support for popup menu. Also easy. : 8 windows max. Nope. : The refreshing scheme was stupid (you had to redraw everything 12 times : in 12 different fragmented rectangles). Or you could optimize redraws yourself. Also easy. : But the worst part was the handling of the double click: you had the : all system wait for the end of the delay, that's to say, you clicked, : nothing happened for 3/10 secs, which in the end sucks. Wrong. Aside from the delay being configurable, event timers still go off during that delay. I abandoned atari years ago. Im an Unix/X guy now. But really, GEM wasnt all that bad. -Dan [ Remove the 'NOUCE' from my address to reply in email. ] ###### From: cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: 22 Jan 1998 00:36:27 GMT Organization: Hex.Net Superhighway, DFW Metroplex 817-329-3182 Lines: 27 Message-ID: <6a64ab$327$6@blue.hex.net> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> <6a5m3a$5jv$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> Reply-To: cbbrowne@hex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: gvtx253.hex.net X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 Windows) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!blue.hex.net!cbbrowne On 21 Jan 1998 20:33:46 GMT, Matthew Crosby wrote: >In article , >remove .nospam wrote: >>unknown (from was snipped) wrote: >>>: In fact, I can't think of a single product, with the exception of DOS, >>>: that was actually a new idea from MS. All of their most popular programs >>>: - Word, Excel, impressed by their innovation. Dos is, basically, the >>>: last innovative product MS has produced. >> >>DOS wasn't by MS either, they bought it from Tim Patterson. Their Basic >>interpreters (leading up to todays VisualBasic) are most likely the >>only software that they wrote from scratch (barring perhaps their >>C/C++ compilers). > >Their original C compiler came from Lattice. The basic, otoh, was indeed >unarguably theirs from the beginning. But don't be so sure about more recent variations such as Visual BASIC; it is not at all the same thing as the BASIC implementations of yesteryear. And I don't think that they created it; I heard tell that VB was actually an acquisition... -- Running Windows on a Pentium is like having a brand new Porsche but only be able to drive backwards with the handbrake on. (Unknown source) cbbrowne@hex.net - ###### From: John Riddoch Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:47:09 +0000 Organization: Robert Gordon University Lines: 19 Message-ID: <34D1BDBD.1BB0EE62@NOSPAMscms.rgu.ac.uk> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> <6a5m3a$5jv$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> <6a64ab$327$6@blue.hex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: astar.scms.rgu.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4m) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.206.0.75!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!server6.netnews.ja.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!server2.netnews.ja.net!yama.mcc.ac.uk!liv!rgu.ac.uk!scms.rgu.ac.uk!not-for-mail Christopher Browne wrote: > >Their original C compiler came from Lattice. The basic, otoh, was indeed > >unarguably theirs from the beginning. > > But don't be so sure about more recent variations such as Visual BASIC; > it is not at all the same thing as the BASIC implementations of > yesteryear. And I don't think that they created it; I heard tell that > VB was actually an acquisition... Acquisitions seem to be a standard business practice; Sun have done this for some of their MPI technology and a few other little bits of code. -- John Riddoch Programmer/Webmaster Room C6, School of Computer and Mathematical Science Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, AB25 1HG Email jr@scms.rgu.ac.uk Telphone: (01224)262721 I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it. ###### From: MJ Hughes Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:05:44 +0000 Organization: Force 9 Internet Lines: 2 Message-ID: <34D65148.4E2A@hughesm.force9.net> References: <32AAD579.632B848B@rannoch.demon.co.uk> <67rgq4$34c$4@news.cudenver.edu> <6a5m3a$5jv$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> Reply-To: MJH@hughesm.force9.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.166.133.164 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsxfer.visi.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!btnet-peer!btnet-feed1!btnet!arbiter-force9-uk!news1-force9-uk!usenet M$ basic is generally agreed to have sucked. experts tell me that BBC basic was best.