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

Groups > it.comp.retrocomputing > #48012 > unrolled thread

Resoconto di una Ricerca sulle relazioni fra MS-DOS (Microsoft) e CP/M (DRI)

Back to article view | Back to it.comp.retrocomputing

Contents

  Resoconto di una Ricerca sulle relazioni fra MS-DOS (Microsoft) e CP/M (DRI) ivbov <afc.bovo@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 07:34 -0700
    Re: Resoconto di una Ricerca sulle relazioni fra MS-DOS (Microsoft) e CP/M (DRI) absent <a@bs.ent> - 2016-08-07 09:26 +0000
      Re: Resoconto di una Ricerca sulle relazioni fra MS-DOS (Microsoft) e CP/M (DRI) Piero Soldi <piero.soldi@libero.it> - 2016-08-07 17:41 +0200

#48012 — Resoconto di una Ricerca sulle relazioni fra MS-DOS (Microsoft) e CP/M (DRI)

Sabato 6 Agosto, alle 10 am Pacific Time,
presso il Vintage Computer Festival, Computer History Museum, di Mountain View, CA, verranno illustrati i risultati di una attuale ricerca sulla da sempre controversa  questione dei legami fra MS-DOS e CP/M.

http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/max-unleashed-and-unfettered/4442452/Was-Microsoft-built-on-stolen-goods-?_mc=NL_EMB_EDT_EMB_weekly_20160803&cid=NL_EMB_EDT_EMB_weekly_20160803&elqTrackId=cdb0b479b52248e6b442bde8c3d00e8d&elq=3c799ef999ca40648ed9900901686193&elqaid=33305&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=29113

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#48025

Articolo iniziale, di Bob Zeidman:
<http://tinyurl.com/cw8f2a2>

Articolo dopo VCF, di Tekla S.Perry:
<http://tinyurl.com/gqpcudp>
> [...cut...]
> The conclusion? Still no sign of copying of source code. And
> no evidence to support a long-running rumor that there is a
> secret command in MS-DOS that can be called to print out a
> copyright notice in Gary Kildall’s name.
> 
> However, Zeidman did find that at least 22 system calls, the
> commands used to request an action, like sending text to a
> printer or reading from a hard disk, had the same function
> number and function. That, he says, might have meant that
> Kildall "might have had a copyright claim for the system
> calls that it could have litigated against Microsoft. On the
> other hand, there is a good chance Microsoft could have
> beaten such litigation by claiming it was a «fair use»."
> 
> Meanwhile, Zeidman has had a lot of pushback since his
> original article was published, in part because it turned out
> he had an open consulting contract with Microsoft at the
> time. (He reports that it was an old and inactive contract
> and he has since severed all ties.) So he’s putting up
> $200,000 in prize money, $100,000 for anyone who can use
> "accepted forensic techniques" to prove the copying, and
> another $100,000 for anyone who can find that secret Kildall
> copyright function.
> [...cut...]

Mi par di capire che Bob non intende mollare l'osso. OK. Bravo.
Mi domando, però, se ne valga la pena: spera che MS sia stata
abbastanza distratta da rilasciare i sorgenti di MS-DOS senza
averli «curati»?

A chi giova «tangibilmente» questa battaglia?

Salut

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

#48026

Il 07/08/2016 11.26, absent ha scritto:
> Articolo iniziale, di Bob Zeidman:
> <http://tinyurl.com/cw8f2a2>
>
> Articolo dopo VCF, di Tekla S.Perry:
> <http://tinyurl.com/gqpcudp>
>> [...cut...]
>> The conclusion? Still no sign of copying of source code. And
>> no evidence to support a long-running rumor that there is a
>> secret command in MS-DOS that can be called to print out a
>> copyright notice in Gary Kildall’s name.
>>
>> However, Zeidman did find that at least 22 system calls, the
>> commands used to request an action, like sending text to a
>> printer or reading from a hard disk, had the same function
>> number and function. That, he says, might have meant that
>> Kildall "might have had a copyright claim for the system
>> calls that it could have litigated against Microsoft. On the
>> other hand, there is a good chance Microsoft could have
>> beaten such litigation by claiming it was a «fair use»."
>>
>> Meanwhile, Zeidman has had a lot of pushback since his
>> original article was published, in part because it turned out
>> he had an open consulting contract with Microsoft at the
>> time. (He reports that it was an old and inactive contract
>> and he has since severed all ties.) So he’s putting up
>> $200,000 in prize money, $100,000 for anyone who can use
>> "accepted forensic techniques" to prove the copying, and
>> another $100,000 for anyone who can find that secret Kildall
>> copyright function.
>> [...cut...]
>
> Mi par di capire che Bob non intende mollare l'osso. OK. Bravo.
> Mi domando, però, se ne valga la pena: spera che MS sia stata
> abbastanza distratta da rilasciare i sorgenti di MS-DOS senza
> averli «curati»?
>
> A chi giova «tangibilmente» questa battaglia?
>
> Salut
>

A nessuno, IMO ! Ma se volete informarvi su alcune "pratiche"
della M$ alquanto discutibili e "piratesche" leggete
Undocumented DOS pubblicato da Addison-Wesley nel 1994
o anni successivi...

Troverete codice automodificante, controllo di una specifica
sequenza di byte in una specifica locazione della RAM, etc etc...

Per esempio, nella seconda edizione : da pagina 30 in poi,
oppure da pag 38 in poi, oltre ad innumerevoli altre
"piacevolezze" messe appositamente ad intralciare i programmi
dei concorrenti ...

Provate a cercare di togliere il loro browser dal S.O. e poi
ne riparliamo, usano delle "backdoors" per accedere ai servizi
del S.O. piu' velocemente dei concorrenti, ma queste backdoors
possono anche essere usate da chi scrive virus !!!

Ciao,

  P.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | it.comp.retrocomputing

csiph-web