Slashdot Mirror
IBM's Purple Book and Open Source
Bill Kendrick writes: "I noticed a ZDNet article titled "Why we should hail IBM's ode to open source--the Purple Book". It compares IBM's open release of the classic PC's hardware and BIOS specifications with today's OpenSource model and Linux." Shortly after IBM's open-spec PC, they reverted to the closed PS/2 with a patented bus in an attempt to monopolize the exploding market. Hopefully this particular bit of history won't replay itself.
Originally IBM made equipment to deal with punched cards. However setting up a tab machine was very time consuming. Early IBM business computers were basically automated plug boards, they still used cards as i/o, but the program was quickly and easily changed. It wasn't until the 70s that mass storage started to replace punch cards. Because of this, mainframes use EBCDIC which is an enhanced version of the original punch card code, almost totally backwards compatable.
Punch cards never used ASCII, first they were in use since about 1880, long before ASCII was thought up, secondly, ASCII isn't suitable for a punch card code - if you tried to punch a card full of '7' characters, you'd end up with 400 holes on one card, which wouldn't have any structural strength. Punch cards had numbers encoded as a single hole, and everything else as one or two holes, giving a maximum of 160 holes possible on a single card. This gave a maximum of 64 different codes, so when the computer read in the card it could be very easily translated into a six bit code, a Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code or BCDIC. Extending this to 8 bits gave EBCDIC. Here is a good description of card formats and EBCDIC.
IIRC, it was Compaq, not Phoenix.
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
Q-Dos was written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, and he has admitted that it includes a lot of 'borrowing' from CP/M, which was written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research.
Supposedly as late as DOS 7.0 there was still code the the kernel that was an exact (and illegal) copy o parts of the CP/M bios.
The funny thing about DOS is that when Bill Gates made the deal with IBM to provide an operating system for the PC, he didn't really have one. He knew SCP had written an operating system, but he didn't own it yet. Instead, he ripped them both off. Says a lot for the company's later history.
SPQA
Join in, everyone:
h tml)
EVER ONWARD
Verse:
There's a thrill in store for all
for we're about to toast
The corporation that we represent.
We're here to cheer each pioneer
and also proudly boast,
Of that man of men
our sterling president
The name of T.J. Watson means
a courage none can stem
And we feel honored to be
here to toast the IBM.
Chorus:
Ever Onward! Ever Onward!
That's the spirit that has brought
us fame.
We're big but bigger we will be,
We can't fail for all can see,
that to serve humanity
Has been our aim.
Our products now are known
in every zone.
Our reputation sparkles
like a gem.
We've fought our way through
And new fields we're sure to conquer, too,
For the Ever Onward IBM!
Ever Onward! Ever Onward!
We're bound for the top
to never fall,
Right here and now we thankfully
Pledge sincerest loyalty
To the corporation
that's the best of all
Our leaders we revere
and while we're here,
Let's show the world just what
we think of them!
So let us sing men - Sing men
Once or twice, then sing again
for the EVER ONWARD IBM!
(Think I'm joking? See: http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ibmsongbook.
I know quite a number of them folks at IBM personally (being a former IBMer and an old Linux fart), and I can tell you that as long as they are in their positions (now that is a weak point I admit) IBM is not going to monopolize Linux.
Publishing the interface specification has nothing to do with creating an "open source" computer. The Purple Book provided enough information for third-party developers to build adapter cards compatible with the PC, but not enough information to clone the PC itself.
IBM was simply imitating the highly sucessful Apple II, which Wozniak designed as a platform that his fellow hardware hackers could easily extend. IBM also imitated Apple in keeping the ROM BIOS source code closed, and making it legally difficult for anybody to reverse-engineer it. Neither company was interested in having competition build the basic platform.
Unfortunately for IBM (and fortunate for consumers of commodity hardware), Phoenix, Compaq, and others were able to use "clean-room" techniques to reverse-engineer IBM's software without breaking existing law. Alas, the law has since been tightened.
Did ZDNet lay off it's editors?
The author needs a history lesson. I won't even bother to correct his "Bill Gates wrote DOS" misinformation.
But, the part that really needs clarifying is: the "Purple Book" ignited the PC revolution. While it is true that Microsoft owes it's monopoly to an open hardware platform, the "Purple Book" was not the key.
IBM owned the motherboard and system by holding the IP to the bios. People could build on top of the PC platform with the "Purple Book", but only IBM could build the systems -- Until Compaq (and soon after, others) reverse engineered the bios.
Then anyone could build motherboards and systems, and the PC revolution was ignited; hardware became more functional and faster at a furious pace.
If IBM still controlled the platform, then 8088's would still be hot technology.
And here is where the real lesson for Open Source starts.
If today's IP laws favoring those with popular software were in place in the 80's, then Compaq would never have been legally able to reverse engineer the IBM PC bios, and IBM would still be in control of their platform.
Open source indeed has the potential to put all software application's competition on a level playing field (where no one vendor can leverage the operating system to favor their applications and break other's applications).
But, in order to get people to switch from Microsoft to Open Source, we need some degree of compatibility. Customers are slow to change old habits. They fear training. They fear that old data won't make the transition exactly correctly. They trust that Microsoft won't shoot itself in the foot as often as they kill their competition... usually Microsoft applications work with their OS, as long as you keep upgrading on their schedule. If you want to gauge how quickly the US market will switch to an Open Source OS, just look athow quickly the US has embraced the metric system: it may be a world standard,it may be superior, it may be compatible, but the thought of change scares people.
Compatibility with Microsoft requires reverse engineering of their API's, file formats, and protocols.
Competitors are used to chasing Microsoft's tail: every release and patch has changes that make compatible software obsolete, and competitors have to scurry to be compatible again. But, this game just took a turn forthe worse: with today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's, or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal. They don't need to patent something novel, just different: Microsoft customers are forced to follow like lemmings.
From the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends to do with Samba. Samba is usually a foot-in-the-door for the Linux OS in corporate america. It's easy to show management the savings on a Linux based file server running Samba.
Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption algorithm for their password verification and modification.
That will kill Samba.
No Open Source project can afford a license. Usually when pressed fora license, the Open Source project ends compatibility immediately. For Unisys's LZH patent on GIFs, we just switched to other image compression algorithms. We've still yet to see how far Dolby will go to stop distribution of Open Source AC3 decoders. The mere letter from the lawyer is usually enough to stop anOpen Source project.
Worse: even if Microsoft were to grant a license, it would probably require that the licensed algorithm's source not be distributed.
Even worse: this license covers encryption. Most data is copyrighted by default, even if you don't include the circle-"C", therefor: it falls under the DMCA's prohibition on unlicensed decryption; it will be a criminal offense to even discuss compatible software.
What if Microsoft were to preemptively change the html or ftp protocols likewise? Microsoft customers are forced to follow; the standard rules of competition won't apply. Microsoft can end up owning every port and protocol on the net as their proprietary IP.
Microsoft will use our maligned IP laws to kill any Open Source project that attempts to be compatible. The Antitrust laws have failed; Microsoftis on a shooting spree. Samba will be first. Wine and compatible word processors and office suites will be next. But, they won't stop until every client and server is a Windows machine running MS applications.
If you don't think Ballmer is that ruthlessly competitive, then you haven't been watching him.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
IBM vigorously pursued any clone maker that didn't very carefully reverse-engineer their BIOS using clean room techniques. At least until very late in the game, you couldn't buy a BIOS license from IBM; if they called you on the carpet, the only course open was to revise your BIOS until IBM was happy with it.
In addition to threats of litigation against US clone makers, they also enlisted the US Customs service to impound shipments of PCs entering the US that IBM claimed had infringing BIOSes. In fact, IBM gave software to Customs to allow them to test for infringement -- if the IBM software said the BIOS was "too similar", the PCs were assumed guilty until the importer could prove their innocence. Several offshore clone companies died this way.
Phoenix and other BIOS companies that developed clean room BIOSes were the direct result of this, as was a very profitable business by National Software Testing Labs and others to do BIOS infringement evaluations. Lots and lots of money was spent to come up BIOS code that was both compatible and non-infringing. Writing assembly language interrupt routines that acted precisely like IBM's, but looked sufficiently different to avoid infringement claims was about the least pleasant programming task imaginable.
The Purple Book may have made clones possible, but IBM's copyright enforcement added lots of unnecessary cost to the clone market, without even adding much to IBM's bottom line (the money went to the reverse engineering industry, not to IBM).
Like Steve Jobs *stole* the GUI from XEROX as well? XEROX allowed him to parts of the GUI and sell it himself. *shrugs* Gates probably did so *some* programming in Messy DOS. And as for a CLI OS, it was great. Not the best. But good enough for the average back in the late 80s early 90s. Win3.x was another good OS from M$, after that, they went downhill in quality.
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.