Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13517 > unrolled thread

file location

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-01-30 18:00 -0500
    Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-31 00:08 +0000
    Re: file location Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-01-31 00:30 +0000
      Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-31 00:51 +0000
        Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-31 09:03 +0000
          Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-31 18:14 +0000
            Re: file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-01-31 19:00 -0500
              Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-01 05:14 +0000
    Re: file location Zaphod Beeblebrox <none@none.org> - 2015-01-30 20:06 -0600
      Re: file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-01-31 18:54 -0500
        Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-01 04:52 +0100
          Re: file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-02-02 15:50 -0500
            Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-02 22:05 +0100
            Re: file location Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-02-02 22:29 +0000
              Re: file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-02-02 18:05 -0500
          Re: file location Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-02-03 01:38 +0000
            Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-03 02:54 +0100
              Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-03 09:04 +0000
                Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-03 11:27 +0100
                  Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-03 10:56 +0000
                    Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-03 12:10 +0100
                      Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-03 18:39 +0000
                        Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-04 01:51 +0100
                          Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-04 09:19 +0000
                Re: file location The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-03 12:21 +0000
                  Re: file location Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-03 12:57 +0000
                    Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-03 16:58 +0000
                      Re: file location John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-02-03 11:24 -0600
                        Re: file location The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-03 18:21 +0000
                          Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-04 01:11 +0000
                            Re: file location The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-04 10:24 +0000
                              Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-04 23:19 +0000
                                Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-05 00:34 +0100
                        Re: file location William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-04 01:08 +0000
                    Re: file location The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-03 17:20 +0000
              Re: file location "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-02-03 14:47 -0500
                Re: file location Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-02-04 02:10 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#13565

On Tuesday 03 February 2015 11:56, Richard Kettlewell conveyed the 
following to comp.os.linux.misc...

> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>>>> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the
>>>> VMS kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the
>>>> functions and
>>>> the variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued
>>>> Microsoft, but Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC
>>>> a large sum of money and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha
>>>> processor in NT.
>>> 
>>> As far as I can tell this (intrinsically rather unlikely) claim is
>>> something that ‘Aragorn’ has simply made up.
>>
>> And as far as I myself can tell, I have not made that up at all. 
>> I've heard it from someone ─ actually, multiple people ─ who
>> was(/were) "there".  You, however, are free to believe what you want,
>> including the cleaned up "official version" as posted on Wikipedia.
>>
>> If you want evidence, then I'm sure that lawsuit between DEC and
>> Microsoft will have left traces somewhere, in spite of having been
>> settled out of court eventually.
> 
> So produce some evidence.
> 
> Wait, I already challenged you to do that, [...

Not about this matter, you haven't.  

I do remember that you chose to engage me in a long debate at some point 
in the past, in which you (as always) arrogantly assumed intellectual 
superiority, and I eventually walked out on the debate because of a 
problem with my newsreader ─ it has a bug which refuses to post to 
threads with a long references header.  

I then specifically fired up Pan ─ which I normally don't use and which 
I don't even like ─ to let you know that I was not interested in 
pursuing the debate with you any longer.  You then still persisted 
nevertheless, and I stuck to my word and abstained from replying.

I think that's about as accurate a recount of the events as I can 
muster.

> ...] and we already both know that you can’t.

No, you've got that wrong.  What we both do know ─ albeit that you might 
be in denial about it ─ is that you like (nit)picking whenever I open my 
mouth on Usenet in a group that you are subscribed to as well.  And I'm 
sorry, but I'm not playing that game.

I have reported what several people who were involved at the time have 
told me.  If you have a problem believing that, but you do want to know 
the truth, then you can simply Google it yourself.  Given that you don't 
wish to Google it, it must thus be something which potentially threatens 
a belief system you have, and I'm sorry, but I've already done more than 
my share at getting people to think for themselves instead of accepting 
dogma, so I know that arguing with those who refuse to use their brain 
and prefer to adhere to dogma is a matter of casting pearls before the 
swine.

Have a nice day, Richard.  Google is your friend.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13580

Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>> So produce some evidence.
>> 
>> Wait, I already challenged you to do that, ...
>
> Not about this matter, you haven't.  

In fact I did, in January 2012.

    Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
    [...]
    > CP/M itself was loosely inspired by both UNIX and VMS.  And NT is a
    > virtually identical copy of the VMS kernel, and still carries a lot of
    > the DOS legacy in it, both from DOS directly and from OS/2, which was
    > devised - by IBM, not by Microsoft - to be the successor of DOS for
    > 80286 and later processors.  Here too, Gates pulled the same stunt, i.e.
    > he approached Dave Cutler, one of the authors of the VMS kernel, to
    > write NT.  Cutler copied “his” VMS code almost verbatim in NT, and was
    > caught in the act by DEC, who fired him on the spot and sued Microsoft.
    > Gates settled the matter with DEC out of court and immediately hired
    > Cutler as the Chief NT Architect.

    And your evidence for these claims is...

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13593

On Tuesday 03 February 2015 19:39, Richard Kettlewell conveyed the 
following to comp.os.linux.misc...

> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> So produce some evidence.
>>> 
>>> Wait, I already challenged you to do that, ...
>>
>> Not about this matter, you haven't.
> 
> In fact I did, in January 2012.

January 2012, huh?  So you keep your Usenet archives for three years?

Great, another Usenet stalker.  Sheesh.

>     Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>     [...]
>     > CP/M itself was loosely inspired by both UNIX and VMS.  And NT
>     > is a virtually identical copy of the VMS kernel, and still
>     > carries a lot of the DOS legacy in it, both from DOS directly
>     > and from OS/2, which was devised - by IBM, not by Microsoft - to
>     > be the successor of DOS for 80286 and later processors.  Here
>     > too, Gates pulled the same stunt, i.e. he approached Dave
>     > Cutler, one of the authors of the VMS kernel, to write NT. 
>     > Cutler copied “his” VMS code almost verbatim in NT, and was
>     > caught in the act by DEC, who fired him on the spot and sued
>     > Microsoft. Gates settled the matter with DEC out of court
>     > and immediately hired Cutler as the Chief NT Architect.
> 
>     And your evidence for these claims is...

Okay, so you did ─ my mistake for not remembering the details of that 
previous "disagreement".  My answer is nevertheless still the same, and 
as I've already given it to you more than once, I shall not repeat 
myself again.

The funny part of it all is how you always manage to filter out those 
points of contention to criticize me on ─ which you don't seem to be 
doing with any other poster, regardless of what they claim ─ while never 
corroborating anything else of what I said.  That sounds like someone 
with an obsession or fixation, and given that you appear to be keeping 
archives dating back over three years, you are starting to sound like a 
particular stalker from alt.os.linux.ubuntu whose name I shall not 
mention here, lest sleeping dogs could wake up.  He too likes keeping 
archives on people's posts, and even goes so far as to Google for posts 
they made ten years ago, so that he could discredit them in one form or 
another.

I seriously advise you to seek another hobby.  One that would be 
socially more constructive.  I don't handle stalkers very well.

No, don't bother replying.  Please.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13597

Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>>> Richard Kettlewell conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>> So produce some evidence.
>>>> 
>>>> Wait, I already challenged you to do that, ...
>>>
>>> Not about this matter, you haven't.
>> 
>> In fact I did, in January 2012.
>
> January 2012, huh?  So you keep your Usenet archives for three years?

I keep a copy of all mail and news I send.

> Great, another Usenet stalker.  Sheesh.

Challenging you on the same issue twice in three years is stalking, now,
is it?

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13567

On 03/02/15 09:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the VMS
>> kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the functions and
>> the variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued
>> Microsoft, but Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC a
>> large sum of money and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha processor
>> in NT.
>
> As far as I can tell this (intrinsically rather unlikely) claim is
> something that ‘Aragorn’ has simply made up.
>
For once Richard, I am going to say you have let emotion get in the way 
of accuracy and research.

It takes a very small amount of googling to come up with several 
versions of this story, of which this is one:

http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story

Essentially NT was most of what the next version of VMS was going to be.

""Why the Fastest Chip Didn't Win" (Business Week, April 28, 1997) 
states that when Digital engineers noticed the similarities between VMS 
and NT, they brought their observations to senior management. Rather 
than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft. In the summer of 1995, 
Digital announced Affinity for OpenVMS, a program that required 
Microsoft to help train Digital NT technicians, help promote NT and 
Open-VMS as two pieces of a three-tiered client/server networking 
solution, and promise to maintain NT support for the Alpha processor. 
Microsoft also paid Digital between 65 million and 100 million dollars."

-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13568

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 03/02/15 09:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:

>>> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the
>>> VMS kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the functions
>>> and the variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued
>>> Microsoft, but Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC a
>>> large sum of money and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha processor
>>> in NT.
>>
>> As far as I can tell this (intrinsically rather unlikely) claim is
>> something that ‘Aragorn’ has simply made up.
>
> For once Richard, I am going to say you have let emotion get in the
> way of accuracy and research.

I don’t think so.  The reason I say Aragorn’s claim that NT is
essentially VMS with the function names changed is implausible, is that
they weren’t even written in the same languages.

> It takes a very small amount of googling to come up with several
> versions of this story, of which this is one:
>
> http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story

...which says:

  Digital developers wrote the VMS kernel almost entirely in VAX
  assembly language. To be portable across different CPU architectures,
  Microsoft developers wrote NT’s kernel almost entirely in C.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13571

On 2015-02-03, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 03/02/15 09:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>
> ...which says:
>
>   Digital developers wrote the VMS kernel almost entirely in VAX
>   assembly language. To be portable across different CPU architectures,
>   Microsoft developers wrote NT???s kernel almost entirely in C.

Book A cannot be a copy  of Book B because A is in English and B is in
French. A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13574

William Unruh writes:
> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.

Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
copyright, though).

It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
remained.

Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a seperate issue, of
course.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13579

On 03/02/15 17:24, John Hasler wrote:
> William Unruh writes:
>> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>
> Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
> copyright, though).
>
> It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
> trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
> argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
> changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
> remained.
>
> Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a separate issue, of
> course.
>

Its not trade secrets - not OS code that can be disassembled. It is 
copyrightable intellectual property.

A bubble sort algorithm doesn't change intellectual property just 
because its written in BASIC instead of FORTRAN.



-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13596

On 2015-02-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/02/15 17:24, John Hasler wrote:
>> William Unruh writes:
>>> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>>
>> Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
>> copyright, though).
>>
>> It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
>> trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
>> argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
>> changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
>> remained.
>>
>> Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a separate issue, of
>> course.
>>
>
> Its not trade secrets - not OS code that can be disassembled. It is 
> copyrightable intellectual property.
>
> A bubble sort algorithm doesn't change intellectual property just 
> because its written in BASIC instead of FORTRAN.

Well, it does actually. As Hassler said, it is a derivative work. But it
is still covered by copyright. It is a work whose expression depends on
the expression in the original Now had they done the Phoenix thing, and
set up two teams, one to abstract what the code did, the other to encode
that functionality without having seen the orginal, then it is NOT the
same, and is perfectly legal under copyright law. Independent creation
of the expression of an idea is perfectly OK. Thus My bubble sort
algorithm and yours both written in Basic can be independent creations,
if I never saw yours but read somewhere how a bubble sort works. 


>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13598

On 04/02/15 01:11, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-02-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/02/15 17:24, John Hasler wrote:
>>> William Unruh writes:
>>>> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
>>> copyright, though).
>>>
>>> It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
>>> trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
>>> argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
>>> changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
>>> remained.
>>>
>>> Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a separate issue, of
>>> course.
>>>
>>
>> Its not trade secrets - not OS code that can be disassembled. It is
>> copyrightable intellectual property.
>>
>> A bubble sort algorithm doesn't change intellectual property just
>> because its written in BASIC instead of FORTRAN.
>
> Well, it does actually. As Hassler said, it is a derivative work. But it
> is still covered by copyright. It is a work whose expression depends on
> the expression in the original Now had they done the Phoenix thing, and
> set up two teams, one to abstract what the code did, the other to encode
> that functionality without having seen the orginal, then it is NOT the
> same, and is perfectly legal under copyright law. Independent creation
> of the expression of an idea is perfectly OK. Thus My bubble sort
> algorithm and yours both written in Basic can be independent creations,
> if I never saw yours but read somewhere how a bubble sort works.
>
>

I am afraid that if the algo is patented AS an algo, whether or not you 
know of it or not when you re code it is a breach of whatever governs 
patent law.

So many features of engineering design are implementation independent, 
but still patented.

>>
>>
>>


-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13605

On 2015-02-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 04/02/15 01:11, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2015-02-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 03/02/15 17:24, John Hasler wrote:
>>>> William Unruh writes:
>>>>> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
>>>> copyright, though).
>>>>
>>>> It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
>>>> trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
>>>> argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
>>>> changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
>>>> remained.
>>>>
>>>> Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a separate issue, of
>>>> course.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its not trade secrets - not OS code that can be disassembled. It is
>>> copyrightable intellectual property.
>>>
>>> A bubble sort algorithm doesn't change intellectual property just
>>> because its written in BASIC instead of FORTRAN.
>>
>> Well, it does actually. As Hassler said, it is a derivative work. But it
>> is still covered by copyright. It is a work whose expression depends on
>> the expression in the original Now had they done the Phoenix thing, and
>> set up two teams, one to abstract what the code did, the other to encode
>> that functionality without having seen the orginal, then it is NOT the
>> same, and is perfectly legal under copyright law. Independent creation
>> of the expression of an idea is perfectly OK. Thus My bubble sort
>> algorithm and yours both written in Basic can be independent creations,
>> if I never saw yours but read somewhere how a bubble sort works.
>>
>>

IF it is patented then yes, bubble sort is not patented, and since that
was your example, it is not clear why you are now brigin up patents.
Note that many companies do not want to patent, because you MUST reveal
all of the details of your system in order to patent it, allowing others
go discover how to the do the same thing but evading your patent. 

>
> I am afraid that if the algo is patented AS an algo, whether or not you 
> know of it or not when you re code it is a breach of whatever governs 
> patent law.
>
> So many features of engineering design are implementation independent, 
> but still patented.

See above. Most algorithms are not patented, some are-- not least
because they are obvious or there is prior art. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13606

On Thursday 05 February 2015 00:19, William Unruh conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2015-02-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I am afraid that if the algo is patented AS an algo, whether or not
>> you know of it or not when you re code it is a breach of whatever
>> governs patent law.
>>
>> So many features of engineering design are implementation
>> independent, but still patented.
> 
> See above. Most algorithms are not patented, some are-- not least
> because they are obvious or there is prior art.

Fortunately, of all the things that the Ewwropean Ewwnion does wrong, 
they got one thing right: software patents are not recognized here.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13594

On 2015-02-03, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> William Unruh writes:
>> A translation of book A IS a copy of it.
>
> Strictly speaking it is a derivative work (still controlled by
> copyright, though).

Agreed. But then almost any copy is a derivative work. 

>
> It is not at all clear how the case would have turned out had it gone to
> trial, though.  Ideas are not protected by copyright and it could be
> argued that by the time they went from VAX assembler to C and made
> changes to meet Microsoft's requirements that no "creative expression"
> remained.

Hard to do. That was why Phoenix went through the whole "Chinese wall "
game with the IBM bios back in the original PC days. They had one team
abstract the functionality of the bios, and the second code that
functionality without ever seeing the original code. But it would have
been pretty hard for Microsoft to argue that they had done that. Having
one of the chief architects on board makes "independent creation" a hard
sell. 

>
> Misappropriation of trade secrets would have been a seperate issue, of
> course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13572

On 03/02/15 12:57, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 03/02/15 09:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>
>>>> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the
>>>> VMS kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the functions
>>>> and the variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued
>>>> Microsoft, but Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC a
>>>> large sum of money and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha processor
>>>> in NT.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell this (intrinsically rather unlikely) claim is
>>> something that ‘Aragorn’ has simply made up.
>>
>> For once Richard, I am going to say you have let emotion get in the
>> way of accuracy and research.
>
> I don’t think so.  The reason I say Aragorn’s claim that NT is
> essentially VMS with the function names changed is implausible, is that
> they weren’t even written in the same languages.
>
>> It takes a very small amount of googling to come up with several
>> versions of this story, of which this is one:
>>
>> http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story
>
> ...which says:
>
>    Digital developers wrote the VMS kernel almost entirely in VAX
>    assembly language. To be portable across different CPU architectures,
>    Microsoft developers wrote NT’s kernel almost entirely in C.
>

I really think you are digging a hole here. I have reproduced ALL of a 
basic clib in assembler.

And the reverse is equally possible: The architecture of an operating 
system, how the communications go and how the interrupt architecture is 
formed are not language dependent.

Aragorn never said they copied the code exactly - he said 'more or less' 
  and that to me is certainly enough to allow for 'translation into a 
different language'.

What seems to be the case is that what was to become the next VMS 
version left, source and all,  with Cutler and 20 of his chums, got 
translated into C and  ended up as windows NT kernel. Why would they NOT 
make it as close to that as possible? they had already decided what the 
next version of VMS should be, and believed in their own efforts.. 
Naturally they would simply port it to *86  and C and then make it 
backwards compatible with windows.

They changed names, they changed language, but they duidnt change the 
functional architecture.



And Microsoft didnt bother to deny it, instead cutting a  deal with DEC 
to make NT run on DEC hardware and throwing in lots of cash.


-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13581

"Aragorn" <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote in message 
news:map9ms$o16$1@dont-email.me...
> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 02:38, Chick Tower conveyed the following to
> comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> On 2015-02-01, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, HPFS, the old filesystem used in OS/2 and upon which NTFS is
>>> supposed to be based, ....
>>
>> I thought NTFS was loosely based on VMS, since Microsoft hired the
>> designer of VMS, (Dave?) Cutler, to design NTFS.
>
> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the VMS
> kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the functions and the
> variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued Microsoft, but
> Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC a large sum of money
> and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha processor in NT.

    I've heard people claim and I see it too. Microsoft never really seems 
to come up with anything original. neXT step and the first guis. Silverlight 
and Adobe's flash. MS's COM and Apple's componets.

[snip]

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13595

On Tuesday 03 February 2015 20:47, Bill Cunningham conveyed the 
following to comp.os.linux.misc...

> 
> "Aragorn" <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote in message
> news:map9ms$o16$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Tuesday 03 February 2015 02:38, Chick Tower conveyed the following
>> to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>
>>> On 2015-02-01, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, HPFS, the old filesystem used in OS/2 and upon which NTFS
>>>> is supposed to be based, ....
>>>
>>> I thought NTFS was loosely based on VMS, since Microsoft hired the
>>> designer of VMS, (Dave?) Cutler, to design NTFS.
>>
>> His name is Dave Cutler, yes, and he more or less copied over the VMS
>> kernel code into the NT kernel, but simply renamed the functions and
>> the variables.  That's why DEC fired him on the spot and sued
>> Microsoft, but Gates settled the matter out of court by paying DEC a
>> large sum of money and conceding to supporting DEC's Alpha processor
>> in NT.
> 
>     I've heard people claim and I see it too. Microsoft never really
> seems to come up with anything original.

"Embrace.  Extend.  Extinguish."

> neXT step and the first guis. Silverlight and Adobe's flash. MS's COM
> and Apple's componets.

Well, to be fair, NeXtSTeP had nothing to do with Microsoft.  NeXt was a 
company founded by Steve Jobs after he had been fired from Apple.  It 
was similar to Apple in that it supplied both the hardware and the 
operating system, and they used Motorola processors of the same family 
as used in the Apple machines of the time, but they did introduce a few 
novel concepts.

NeXtSTeP, later on renamed to OpenSTEP [*], was the operating system for 
the NeXt, and was based upon the BSD Lite UNIX foundation, but with a 
proprietary graphical interface ─ similar in concept to the Aqua 
interface currently running on OS X ─ rather than on top of the (for a 
UNIX platform more common) X Window System.

Eventually NeXt was about to go bankrupt, and having been offered a job 
again as the (then temporary) CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs sold the hardware 
─ I'm not sure to whom anymore but I believe it may have been Compaq ─ 
and took the software with him over to Apple, where it then became the 
foundation for Rhapsody, and through it, OS X later on.

Steve Jobs had always been a fan of UNIX, as opposed to Bill Gates (and 
Dave Cutler), who hated UNIX.


[*] Several Free & Open Source Software window managers for the X Window
    System have been created with the look & feel of OpenSTEP, e.g.
    WindowMaker, GNUstep, AfterStep, et al.  There was also a Windows
    graphical shell replacement called LightStep which shared the same
    look & feel.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web