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.
Some links for further information...
.Net?
" talks of Microsoft's method of using licensing to undermine both Samba and Open Source
competition to ".net".
ZDNet's article "Will open source get snagged in
PBS/Cringley's "Triumph of the Nerds" (search for "compaq" in the transcript) talks of the hardware revolution started by Compaq's reverse engineering IBM's PC bios. The "Purple Book" may have taught folks how to build on top of IBM's platform, but IBM controlled the platform through their control of the bios. They were the only ones who could make systems. Intel's proprietary control of the processor and Microsoft's proprietary control of the OS were necessary to get the box out on time. Little did IBM realize the flaw in this strategy, and that they'd cough-up their golden ring to these partners.
And, of course, mentioning Uncle Fester (Ballmer) is incomplete without his recent ape-dance (I apologize in advance for TheRegister's router problems -- try here too). Play it in slow motion and watch the look on his face; it would be less scary if it were dripping blood.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
The trolls from Redmond are getting thick around here:
.Net. The patent covers only the encryption procedures for how a user password is changed, but as part of the transfer protocol, it is a potential dependency for all developers who have to mimic the Windows file system and seek to interoperate with it. For example, successful interoperation with Samba might make the Samba project subject to Microsoft demands for patent licenses and royalties."
>Did you read the article?
It only covers password modification (not verification), but that's very important. Try implementing a file server where the users can't change their password without an NT SMB server anyway, and you've lost the cost benefit of a Linux/Samba Windows file server.
From the article:
" One patent is believed to underlie Windows' file transfer protocol, which will probably be used in
So, what did I miss?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
"Shortly?" The PS/2 was launched in 1987, I believe -- six years after the IBM PC. That's about a bazillion computer-industry years.
I should rephrase that to, "BG didn't do much in regards to the initial programming of MS-DOS." Most of it was ripped off.
These guys have taken the ball and run with it, as far as Linux is concerned, but let's not deify the group that brought us Microchannel architecture in a move to regain absolute control of the market. Working with IBM in Linux development is good and important, but don't lose sight of their history as a megacorp bound on dominating everything in sight. The only reason they aren't still doing it, is a bigger, meaner and more evil company came along.
I gotta get a tight tension on...
So please tell me you've figured out IBMs Linux story and aren't just mindlessly eating IBM cock for breakfast.
In case you're still under a rock, IBM loves linux for the following reasons:
1) Linux is free to IBM. IBM can tell you that they'll give you Linux for free. Linux is "free" to you. Linux costs nothing. You're getting something for nothing! Yee Haw!
2) By and large, _Nobody_ has a clue as to how to make linux solve any real-world business problem. Those that do, do not need IBMs help.
3) IBM has a "little known" organization called "Global Services" which makes up a _massive_ part of their revenue. IBM Global Services would be more than happy to contract a team of its Linux Experts to custom architect a Linux Solution for your E-Business!
So, in summary: IBM gets linux, and all of your work for free. Then they sell it to anyone that will buy it for _massive_ (utterly _massive_) profits, via service contracts and custom work. Because lets be honest, when a company of PHBs (every company) wants an email/calendaring package, they need a little more handholding and infrastructure than stock sendmail and iCal. IBM GS to the rescue!
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
That's how I thought it went... He bought/ripped/whatever Quick and Dirty Operating System and turned it into MS-DOS. I don't think he did much programming.
Which came first: ed.com or command.com?
Hey, They _were_ an evil company. But they found religion. Maybe people (and corporations) can change... Besides, they threw a great party at NYC Linuxworld...
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
>IBM took an open standard (the ISA bus) and tried to take it closed
But, they'd already lost market share to the clone makers when they tried changing the bus standard. Everybody could see this was a ploy to get customers under a proprietary hardware lock again, and nobody was stupid enough to bite.
On the other hand...
The software market is still under Microsoft's domination. They can create a patent that's merely different, not necessarily novel, use it in their protocols and formats, and force it on their customers who have no choice but to use MS software, then require competitors seeking compatiblity to be licensed; thus killing the Open Source threat.
Quite a different circumstance, given todays IP laws.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
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.
Well I agree the trolls are thick, but they aren't coming from Redmond.
/. do it with something that isn't so verifiable. Maybe if you didn't provide the link, that would help.
You made a specific claim that Microsoft is going to require a license for this verification scheme.
The article simply talks about generalities. That there is a patent, that Microsoft could do this, etc. All of these are what-if, basically typical sensationalist journalism, or what you might call FUD.
I just find it's interesting how you take a statement of what might or could happen, and extend it into a claim that it is happening now. That's truly FUD.
Next time you troll
You're absolutely right. IBM made a mistake, and now they're back to being the fuzzy little happy company they used to be back when they were founded by a kind old man with a heart of gold and his loyal wife out in America's heartland.
We're lucky that IBM has returned to its pure intentions by spreading Linus' Good News to the world, and doing so completely selflessly. As the prophet Stallman says,
In conclusion, I think we can all rest easy in the knowledge that we all have a multinational ally in our blessed Jihad against the anti-christ and his unbelievers at Microsoft. They are an evil, self-interested demon-corporation.
IBMah Akbar!
> Oh? So your history is all correct, then?
Yes, it is!
Just follow the link I provided. There's plenty of interviews with folks that were there. Compaq did reverse engineer the bios before Phoenix.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Hopefully, this little bit of history will replay itself.
.NET framework. They're putting the squeeze on, in an attempt to lock it all up once and for all. Hopefully the market will respond to .NET in the same way it responded to MCA: evil empire loyalists may adopt it, but everyone else will go running to some other, non-empire-controlled, open standard(s). J2EE, Linux, it's all there and it all works.
IBM took an open standard (the ISA bus) and tried to take it closed (the MCA bus) so they'd put an impenetrable lock on the market. The industry responded by saying "to hell with you, IBM; we're all going to EISA (and later, PCI)." Who's playing the close-it-up game now? Microsoft, of course. The Internet currnently runs on open standards, but Microsoft's 'MCA bus' is the
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
To clarify my original post, I was not trying to imply that IBM has altruistic goals. I was merely stating that their original motivation for openness (a severe time constraint) is not applicable to the present situation, so they must have a different motivation now. I actually agree with you and seriously doubt that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts - I would say that they serendipitously discovered that openness can actually be very good for business and that it also breeds good will.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
If I remember my history correctly, the original IBM PC was open-spec only because they didn't have enough time to come up with something proprietary. They wanted to monopolize the market from the start, but they were running behind and had to get something out so as not to lose the market entirely. So, I don't think we have to worry too much about this piece of history repeating itself because their push for openness isn't motivated by time pressures this time (at least I don't think it is).
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
IIRC, it was Compaq, not Phoenix.
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
"Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption algorithm for their password verification and modification. "
Really?
Did you read the article? You provided a link, but did you actually read the article?
THE PURPLE BOOK "contained the hardware schematics for the IBM PC as well as the code listings for the ROM BIOS," Dave Bradley, one of the machine's 12 original designers, later explained to me. "It contained just about everything you'd want to know if you were going to build a device that would plug into the IBM PC."
In the Purple Book, as Bradley said during the panel, "We told all the PC secrets."
IBM wasn't the first personal computer maker to spill its guts. Apple published the source code for its Apple II. Atari and Commodore also offered similarly extensive documentations. But for Big Blue, a company that built a dynasty on proprietary products, the Purple Book represented a break with tradition as almost as radical as Martin Luther's breach with the Holy Mother Church.
WHY DID IBM SO WILLINGLY bare the soul of its new machine? Bradley again: IBM wanted to "make it as simple as possible to design hardware and software that would work with the PC."
"We wanted the software and hardware industry to participate."
Participate they did. What's more, the Purple Book made the IBM PC easy to copy, and thus, in came the clones. The result: A de facto standard was born, and that standard made way for the widespread deployment and use of PCs. The rest, as they say, is history.
The historical significance is the parallel that exists between the Purple Book of yesterday and the open-source movement of today. The comparison isn't a perfect one. The Purple Book did not constitute a license for use; IBM retained intellectual property rights.
Whatever! The retaining of intellectual property rights is ther whole point. What they did is what everyone else who had attempted to put out a PC would have to do in that era. The subset of technicians working on these technologies was quite small- small enough that a collegial flow of information was necessary even to drum upo interest in one's hardware.
So what IBM was doing was trying to raise itself to a playing field which Apple and Commodore had already delineated; to break into a technological community which was already occupied with other hardwares, it had to disseminate technical information.
There is a parallel today; Geron, the company which licensed the technology to extract stem cells from blastocyst-stage embryos, dissseminated the technology, advice and support to institutions of learning, retains commercial rights to any salable products that come out of these laboratories - or even the precursors of those products.
Then and now, such a technique is to take advantage of an academic desire for learning, or a desire to help the sick, and commercialize its output.
There is really no choice for software developers in the Microsoft world, or for stem cell scientists outside the apron of federal approval, except to sell their first-born breakthroughs to loan sharks.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; capitalist systems cannot sustain innovative energy or scientific responsibility.
Goat sex free since 2001
IBM also imitated Apple in keeping the ROM BIOS source code closed, and making it legally difficult for anybody to reverse-engineer it.
I thought that at one point you could get a large book, from IBM, with the complete, commented, assembly source for the PC BIOS. I understood that is was intended as a resource for programmers, not reverse-engineers, but that it formed the basis for some of the early (CompaQ?) clones...
I could be making this all up, but I don't think so...
Living better through chemicals
You are correct. It is sitting on my bookshelf at work. It has the assembly listings for the ROM BIOS and the schematics for the motherboard and I/O cards. The only thing missing are the listings for Microsoft's ROM BASIC.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Simply put. Microchannel was great. The biggest problem was the stupid reference diskettes, and that was simply because flash memory wasn't there, yet.
Microchannel machines simply worked longer and more reliably than ISA or even PCI machines.
The problems was the stupid #$%& licensing terms. Gotta separate the technical side from the idiot marketing side.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Hopefully this bit of history will replay itself.
Hopefully, MS, in trying to monopolize the Internet, will loose. Everybody will "just say no", like they did to the PS/2 and Microchannel.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
and licensing their technology. IBM has more patents every year than any other company. If I am not mistaken, the PS2 architecture was ahead of it's time by having devices speak directly to the processor and memory speeding things up. I also believe IBM opened the PC spec up to put down the monopoly abuse cries from their trials. If memory serves, IBM put alot of companies in business.
The first thing that people said when they read the BIOS was "damn, this is slow, I'll write directly to video buffer at this address here". The first PC was barely out of the factory before somebody wrote around the BIOS and ensured his code would be stuck to the hardware forever.
In many ways it was the failure of the BIOS that made the PC architecture a standard; if the damn thing had worked the way IBM said it would, all programs would use BIOS to interface with the hardware, which would be just about anything. I think IBM even thought, for about five minutes, that they could license the BIOS to Apple or anyone else that wanted to use this ingenious hardware abstraction.
The main effect of publishing the BIOS was that everyone picked out the addresses of the video buffer, serial port, and other devices, embedded them in their programs, and made the hardware architecture a standard.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Or something like that. Any day now you can expect Steve Mills from IBM to just come out and say that AIX5L is the end of the road and that after that they'll bolt their kernel (largely MACH) onto Linux and throw in all the great stuff AIX is much better than Linux at such as JFS, span PV, SMP, commercial support. Or even replace the whole kernel and open source that. Even IBM is starting to realize that developing and maintaining something as complex as AIX on their own doesn't make an awful lot of economic sense. Not when the margin on Unix server hardware is 30% and the margin on Software is nearly zero. Most of the apps that IBM and IGS has already identified as strategic run on Linux, Linux already runs on PC, (some) PPC, OS/400 LPARs, and mainframes, natively, instances under VM and VM LPARs as well. They don't develop a PC based OS anymore and the OS's for AS/400s and mainframes are inseperable from the hardware anyway. It's only in the commodity *nix space where the margins are low AND the development costs are high. So fling AIX the hell out the door and move on. They're already more than halfway there with AIX5L.
Yes, I realize IBM has said that they won't do their own distro... but I still think they should.
One of the biggest reasons for the success of the PC was not just the openess, but because the IBM brand name was something that provided a bit more confidence for "the corporate suits" to adopt... an image which Apple and Radio Shack didn't quite have then... and most distros don't quite have right now.
IBM should probably buy an existing distro like Redhat in addition to the multi-distro support they're already doing. Thanks to the GPL, all of their developments for their own distro will still be available to other distros who will in turn refine IBM's developments, and so on.
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).
Actually, MCA wasn't all that horrific as far as the concept went. Don't forget that the PC was IBM's first "open" system, and that was only for expediency to get it to market in a year. IBM was still very much a big iron company, and thought that way. You could always be sure that IBM components would play well together, and MCA continued this concept into the PC world.
However, the fact that patenting MCA didn't improve IBM's share of the PC market should be a lesson in the advantages of truly open technologies over proprietary ones.
(And yes, my first Linux install was Slackware on a MCA PS/2)
Cringely is a rumor mongeror, and Petreley is the FUDmeister of all time. Neither is a particularly noteworthy source of inspiration.
Do I think you shouldn't consider it? No.
Do I think you should go around trolling and claiming it has already happened? No
It's the latter you guilty of, and why it's called FUD and not introspection.
If you believe IBM has learned some sort of lesson, then I've got some great free games that I've compiled myself just for you. All you have to do is log in as root and run them.
IBM was just following in the footsteps of the Apple ][ computers which provided complete schematics for the computer in the manuals. The Apple ][ pioneered multiple expansion cards and an easily openable case, and here IBM realising what a good idea it was also folowed suit. Too bad Apple sometimes forgot those concepts.
--
blinko - "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"
So, you don't have a problem with my saying that Compaq started the open
hardware PC revolution by reverse engineering the bios.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that the current IP laws would
make that illegal today.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that this is an important difference
between the open hardware historical perspective and the impending
Open Source revolution that the Open Source movement must be aware of.
Nor do you have a problem with my argument that compatibility is crucial
to winning the hearts and minds of Windows users.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that current IP laws can be
used to stop Open Source *nix/Windows compatibility projects.
You don't even have a problem with my saying that Ballmer is ruthlessly
competitive.
Your only reason for calling my entire writing FUD and me a troll rests
on the statement (I'm guessing it may be the only one you read):
"Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption
algorithm for their password verification and modification. "
Which was predicated with statements (that you missed) like: "with
today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's,
or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal..." and "From
the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends
to do..."
That's not tentative enough? Was it really worth degrading the
whole writing? Was it worth bitching and ranting about?
You call my writing bad, and cut down two prominent IT authors to help
prove your case.
You're either one of the trolls sent in from Redmond (Why do I always
get them?), or you're suffering from "writer-envy"!
If you were an advocate of Open Source, your criticism would be, at
worst: "it's a good argument but nobody can prove Microsoft is pursuing
this course (outside of Redmond)" rather than labeling the entire writing
"FUD".
Better yet: you should be trying to figure out ways to fight what may
become a serious problem for Open Source. If Ballmer were to do this
to Samba, most every IT manager would say "switch the Linux file server
to XP now!"? Are the Open Source projects you work on ready for a
response? The NetBSD folks got rid of their AC3 link the moment they
got a letter from Dolby's lawyers -- even though Dolby might not have a
legal leg to stand on.
This tactic can be used to stop Open Source compatibility; that's a
serious threat that should have us (if you are an "us" and not a Redmond
"them") circling the wagons. Wouldn't it be better to start preparing
a response now rather than bickering about the non-tentative nature of
a statement taken out of context? Should we just wait and provide our
standard knee-jerk reaction when it happens? Should we just bend-over
now and say: "Ballmer is right -- we are un-American, we can't handle licensing
at all -- we're just a bunch of hackers that deserved to die"? Do
you really have a point or are you just mad because you lack any talent
for writing?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
What the clone-makers did was use the clean room technique. You have two teams of developers, who work completely separately. Team A's job is to analyze the program you need to clone. (I was under the impression the the firmware team A people reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS, but perhaps I misremember). They document what the product does, but are very careful to avoid describing how.
Team B knows as little about the source product as possible. Even if source code is available, they are not allowed to read it. The work only from Team A's documentation, and implement the functionality described therein. Team A tests the behavior of the two products, and documents any inconsistencies. This goes back and forth until the two behaviors match.
Of course, this only works with copyrighted code. Simply reading code and telling somebody what it does is not copyright violation. (Disassembling object code in order to read its source might be a license violation, but that's controversial.) But it won't work with patented code, 'cause a patented technique can't be reproduced, even if discovered independently.
I've often thought that it would make a lot of sense to force Microsoft to use the Clean Room technique to resolve issues about undocumented Windows behavior. It makes a lot more sense than breaking them up -- whichever company ended up with Windows would still have a monopoly. If Microsoft were forced to provide (at a reasonable cost) a clean room Team A for anybody who wanted to play at being Team B, there would be no issues of whether they were deliberately fiddling the product in order to make live hard for competitors.
Yep, pretty much. That's the line that caught my attention in your work of Science Fiction.
There's a long list of products that were technically better than their competition, but weren't marketed/licensed worth a damn. OS/2 vs Windows, MCA vs ISA, SanFrancisco vs Web's Fear; the list goes on and on just with IBM's products, let alone the rest of the industry. (And the list of tech that never made it out of the blue walls would probably tripple that list.)
I've browsed your work -- you do have problems communicating! And you're a died-in-the-wool WinDoh's lemming too! Take heart: these things will pass as you mature.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Well thank you. I wasn't at all interested in anything that you wrote, but I'm glad to see some interest in my creations.
I'm not familiar with this term WinDoh's lemming. Is that any relation to Winnie the Pooh?
Does the posting of FUD disappear with age? I think it's remarkable how you've tried to change the topic of this away from your paranoid FUD attack into a personal attack upon myself.
This is a common misperception and there's an interesting story behind it.
In 1988 I met one of the MicroChannel bus architects. At that point, the PS/2 was not selling and peripheral makers were avoiding it in droves. He told a group of us the actual story of the licensing.
The MicroChannel bus (which was based on one of the System/370 busses) was released to the public domain in order to get a lot of peripheral support. The actual implementation and chipsets were IBM proprietary and were available for a very steep license. The computer press didn't understand the difference and reported that the bus was proprietary and only availble for a very high license fee. IBM marketing (who had opposed making the bus itself public) saw the chance to make some quick money and punish the cloners. They reinforced the bad information that the industry papers were reporting and never managed to get them corrections so the story took on its own life and almost nobody ever realized the truth.
The man I spoke to was also one of the architects of the PC/AT extensions to the original PC bus (which later became ISA) and felt that MCA was a much better design. He felt that IBM marketing had hurt both the future of the PC industry by blocking a generation change and the future of IBM by keeping their bus families incompatible with each other.
One problem with the conversation is, I've addressed your concerns, yet you continue to baselessly rant. At that point, I can't address anything but your character. If you say something intelligent, I'll gladly address that (but I'm not holding my breath)!
While you may find you resemble WTP, that was not my intent. Let me interpret:
"WinDoh's" refers to products made by Microsoft used by people with the "Homer Simpson" mentality.
"Lemming's" are creatures that, without question, follow their god (Ballmer) where ever he forces them to go.
If you don't see the fit, you lack introspection.
For example, the only verbiage on your "Opinions" page:
http://www.sodablue.org/Opinion/Default.asp
is: "I have no opinion at this time."... Doh! You don't need opinions of your own, Ballmer can tell you what they are!
Maybe, if Ballmer is successful in owning every port and protocol on the net, you won't have to play NetTrek with Unix folks (who made NetTrek ~15 years ago), thereby cutting out the competition! Trying to make people think Ballmer isn't ruthlessly competitive may just get you your reward!
And, finally, as for FUD, you need to read more than one sentence before passing judgment. The sentence you chose, out of context, could be mistaken as not tentative enough... and I have addressed that concern (showing you some other sentences you missed). You have seemingly agreed with the rest of the argument (if not, lets hear why you think the work ranks as "Science Fiction"), yet seem highly agitated.
So, all I can conclude is that I wrote something that said something bad about your God Ballmer, and that made you rant; not because it's untrue, you just don't want to know about it.
Your turn....
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!