Slashdot Mirror
Cringely On Gates' Free Software Connection
cworley writes: "Slashdot
recently reported
on Gates' paternity claims over Open Source at a recent shareholders meeting.
Although Gates' actual statement didn't make a great deal of sense,
it looked as an attempt to revise history to portray himself as the creator
of Open Source by initiating the PC's open architecture (or reverse engineering
the BIOS to wrestle exclusive control of PC system sales from IBM). In
Cringely's
weekly article, he attempts to find the truth in Gates' statement.
IBM's Jack Sams provides an historical perspective of Gates' role in the
genesis of the PC's open architecture.
"
Mac OS X isn't open source, but Darwin, the OpenBSD-based foundation of X is. This still means that Apple donates all of its low-level code back to the OSS community (Darwin has one of the best FireWire implementations around, just to cite one example), and is, IMO, a great example of how a commercial company and the OSS community can coexist.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Also take care not to regard anything in Pirates of Silicon Valley as factual.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
I mean only that the IBM platform is special because of what happened with it, not that it was so because it was any great innovation.
Pirates of Silicon Valley I think pretty accurately illustrates Microsoft's intent in the portability stipulation in its contract with IBM, despite any of the movie's other shortcomings.
Well, nearly open.
Somewhere back in my parents' house is an original IBM PC Technical Reference manual. I bought it for $65 back when I was in junior high school and $65 was an enormous sum of money to me. The book contained the full schematics of the IBM and specifications on talking to its hardware.
In the back of the book was a full assembler listing of the IBM's boot ROM. (The ROM BASIC was sadly not provided.) I spent lots of time parsing through the code looking at how various devices were initialized and handled.
While Compaq may have used a lot of resources making a cleanroom version of the x86 boot ROM, the original was right there, for anyone with a few dollars to see. Microsoft hadn't the slightest thing to do with it.
IBM wanted the PC to support multiple operating systems. Within a year of release, IBM was shipping PC/DOS, UCSD/P-System, and CPM/86. Soon thereafter, we saw XENIX, QUNIX, Concurrent C/CPM86, and a slew of other operating systems. If Bill Gates had the idea that he "helped" create Open Source, as we know it today, he did so because he still had to compete during that time period. A lesson he should try to remember, today.
;-) Mr. Gates probably faced this problem earlier on his career, while his basic interpreter was "pirated" to machines that his company did not ship binaries for. Probably faced it again, as an executable written for on a TI PC would not run on a COMPAQ PC, both running MS/DOS.
As for the "real" father(s) of Open Source, as we know it today, I would nominate Ward Christensen and Randy Seuss. Both of them created the world's first BBS, CBBS. Ward also created the X-modem file transfer protocol, and Randy later created one of the first public USENET nodes in the country. BBS's provided the framework under which tranfers of files first became onto the radar screen of the public eye. Earlier programs were distributed in source form, not for openness per se, but because it difficult, if not impossible to produce a binary that would run on most machines. You had to be open. The "virus" was born. Well, probably earlier, but that was before my time.
Mr. Gates, IMHO, no human being has done more to impede and retard the advancement of computing technology than yourself. Think for a moment how much M$ spends every year on R&D. Look what you have to show for it. Look at the production of NEW ideas in the 60's through the 80's. Then look at the 90's. The reason Open Source thrives is to spite you. Even though you have succeeded in driving every worthy commercial competitor into the ground, we will not stand for it. We demand that our machines ability to do work for us follow the Moore curve, and not the curve of your burgeoning empire. We demand choice. We demand the ability to make up our own minds. We will innovate. As much as you try, we will see our own vision, and not the one you attempt to impose.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
FreeBSD. Not OpenBSD.
WTF are you talking about? There were *FAR* more publishers of software, magazines and far more books about computers being published than today. Hell, CBS wasn't alone in being one of many big media providers that was releasing software. The variety was astounding, especially compared to todays' larger volume.
$5000 for an Apple 2? Yes, and it came with 4K. I know - it replaced our S-100 frankenstein, and was well worth every penny (okay, my Dad bought it), and it came with several programming environments (some on ROM, some on disk), and *full* *fold* *out* *schematics*, plus a manual that listed every IO memory address and gave a tutorial on how to access them. It's probably the most open personal computer in history, and likely will remain so.
The only software is rudimentary databases and word processors.
Ruimentary, possibly because they ran in the aformentioned 4K (64K later in the game)? Yes. But there were entire GUIs that fit in that 64K, on a 100K diskette (or two) like Geos, or fantastic apps like Print Shop that were testiments to user friendliness that have yet to be beat. Loads of educational programs, starcharts... other than things that were impossible on that days hardware, everything was available that is today. And you would be very impressed by what *was* possible on that day's hardware.
Incidently, jumping back to the topic, quite a bit of it was open source as well - some of it was even published in magazines like Nybble, and typed in.
Games are less sophisticated than those on the Atari 2600. Monitors are monochrome.
First off, in those days, many computers used TVs as monitors, and thus were full color. Games, imho, were far far *more* sophisticated. It's *hard* to write a good game that is fun to play. It's easy to write one that looks impressive nowadays, but still equally hard to write one that plays well and is fun. And back then, clones were notable things - most games were very unique in certain ways. Nowadays, the differences between Alice, HalfLife and Halo are miniscule in general overview, but back then, most games really stood out from one another (or were semi exact clones by rival publishers).
Want Final Fantasy VII circa 80s? Use Ultima for the world map and fights, and Kings Quest for the side view sequences. Sure, the graphics are way better, but you're working with an incredible 33 Mhz and megs of memory for FFVII.
Apple is enforcing a closed source policy which improves the quality of the machines, but hampers development.
*Shrug* They are using closed source on BSD. Running any closed source app on Linux is the same, IMO: not a sin, unless you follow brother RMS. Not a great thing either, but I'm kicking HancomOffice's tires to see if I want to buy. But then, Apple has jumped around under many different management philosophies over the years, so I'd imagine there is a very schitzophrenic nature to their decision making process. My last Apple was a Mac LC, and I had long since switched to an Intel box as my primary computer. The titanium powerbook may tempt me in the future... my laptop's screen died, and I've vaguely been thinking when I get a bit more disposable income...
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I don't know what parallel universe you were living in, but this isn't my memory of the early 1980's computing scene at all.
The Atari 2600, though popular, was sorely limited. Complex games simply weren't possible. Conversely, Apple-][ games were getting good graphics, and very deep game play. Brøderbund built its entire business on selling high-quality Apple-][ games that beat anything you could get for the Atari 2600.
Apple-][ systems only cost $1500, but that was for the base machine. Disk controllers, drives, and additional RAM were extra. Even though Commodore-64's were going for $300, Apple never lowered the price of the ][ line. You're also forgetting the other major players at the time: Atari with the 400, 800, and 1200 series systems; Commodore with the PET, VIC-20, and C-64; and Cromemco's line of S-100-based systems (popularized by the writings of Jerry Pournelle in BYTE Magazine). I'm probably forgetting a few others, but you get the idea.
Color monitors, though expensive, were quite common. Amdek was the big name in those days.
Apple's "closed policy" didn't really start until the release of the Macintosh in 1984. Prior to that, all the inner workings of the machine were published. I have on my bookshelf a copy of the Apple-][ System Manual, which comes complete with ROM monitor source code, and a fold-out schematic of the machine. Following Apple's lead, IBM likewise published the source to the ROM BIOS in the system manuals (tiny little three-ring binders). The only evidence of a "closed-source" policy at Apple prior to this was when they sued Franklin Computer for manufacturing an Apple-][ clone.
In many ways, the industry was more forthcoming with system and software information than it is now. Back in the 1980's, a request for hardware programming docs would be granted without a second thought. Now they look at you as if you're some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
If you agree with that statement, you're simply wrong. In markets with a single CPU architecture and operating system (VAX -> VMS, SPARC -> Solaris, x86 -> MS-DOS) people just trade executables, they don't for the most part bother with source. You only need source in markets with a variety of CPU architectures and/or operating systems. The ideas behind Open Source were conceived in an environment of many, often propietary operating systems and CPU architectures, pre-1989, pre MS-DOS dominance. The economies of scale that caused cheap Pee Cee hardware have little or nothing to do with Open Source.
Actually you're wrong. The issues that caused the rise of Free Software have nothing to do with having to recompile your application for different architectures and everything to do users being free to fix bugs in software they have been sold.
Here's a history lesson or two
I worked for a shop that made most of its money selling CP/M boxes with customized software back in the early '80s, and what you say here is completely wrong. The industry was going great guns. There were dozens of players in every conceivable niche of the market, and some of them did very well for themselves indeed. Remember Altos? Eagle? Lotus? DBase II? Apple?
True, the market was a bit more fragmented than it is now. If you worked someplace that had a small system doing the bookkeeping, it probably ran CP/M or MP/M. When you went home, if you had a computer, it was probably an Apple, Commodore, TRS-80, or some such. There wasn't the crossover you see today. But so what?
It was the pairing of M$'s DOS with IBM PCs, and an open policy towards clones, that allowed the explosion of PCs seen in the mid-80's.
No. I remember clearly the introduction of the IBM PC. Sure, it had a 16-bit processor, but it also had an architecture that largely failed to take advantage of it, and there were huge libraries of existing products for 8-bit CP/M machines. The IBM PC took over the market for one reason alone: the nameplate. It was a trusim in those days that nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and it overcame the reluctance of many organizations for adopting small computers.The OS? Obviously a CP/M ripoff of some kind, and completely irrelevant to the decision to buy.
While Gates is hardly responsible for coming up with the idea of Open Source, he was certainly a key person in the expansion of the computer industry.
Nope. He was a key player in the contraction of the computer software industry, at least in terms of the number of major players. ("Major player" being defined as companies with a significant percentage of market share, not in terms of absolute size.) The dominance of MS in the software market will, I'm sure, be cited someday in economics textbooks as a classic case of market failure through the application of unfair and predatory business practises. Learn for yourself what happened to DR-DOS, just to mention one early competitor in the field of PC operating systems.
If we still had to use machine language and punch cards, there wouldn't be open source.
I programmed on a variety of boxes before MS came along, and I never once had to resort to either machine language or punch cards. And none of the users for any software I ever developed needed to be particularly sophisitcated, either. As it turned out, you didn't need to be a genius to use a menu-driven system.
Gates' comments were perhaps worded less specifically than they should have been, but the Open Source community is likely also guilty of jumping on the comment more than necessary.
The "Open Source community" should do whatever it takes to keep BG honest.
And the brethren went away edified.
> Anyone who remembers computing in the early '80's should recognize that the industry wasn't going anywhere. ;-) (just warning that I'm going to be harsh, but harsh in a friendly way!)
Obviously, you don't
$5000 for an Apple 2?
1978: Apple II is $1295. 1979: Apple II+ is $1195. Maybe you're thinking the Apple III ($4340-$7800, yikes!)
> The only software is rudimentary databases and word processors.
Like visicalc, in 1978. Or appleworks, an integrated office suite.
> Games are less sophisticated than those on the Atari 2600. Monitors are monochrome.
Apple II was color and much better than the 2600. If you're talking early PC graphics (monochrome, CGA), yeah, they sucked. But it wasn't microsoft that improved them.
> Apple is enforcing a closed source policy which improves the quality of the machines, but hampers development.
Like publishing the schematics and ROM source code? Most of the demo code is written in listable basic, and code magazines (like nibble) flourish.
> It was the pairing of M$'s DOS with IBM PCs, and an open policy towards clones, that allowed the explosion of PCs seen in the mid-80's.
Did you read the article? IBM fought the clones vigourously... Compaq spent $1 million to make a clean-room bios.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Anybody who buys Bill's rediculous assertion that he created Open Source needs a severe beating with a clue stick.
History lesson: Bill's first reaction to an "Open Source" effort was the following (infamous) letter:
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
What a ringing endorsement of the principals of Open Source.
Why am I not suprised that Cringley is ignorant of this letter?
So, not only is Bill Gates a philanthropist, he's the greatest philanthropist ever. Microsoft's business practices notwithstanding, accusing him of avarice is misguided.
The year was 1975, Bill Gates and co. begain porting BASIC (where did they get the source?) to the Altair, but it was taking them longer then they had planned.
Many had long already paid for it, as they had for hardware they had yet to receive or had gotten but didn't work.
Well the hombrew computer club.....
There was a show at some hotel, where the Altair was running Bill's port of BASIC, but many wondered why they didn't yet have it as they had already paid for it.
Sooooo, someone took a copy of the paper tape and made some copies. Took these copies to the club meeting and gave them out with one requirement. That the
receiving parties also make copies and bring them to the next club meeting and share.
Bill didn't want to release his BASIC yet because he claimed it still had some bugs in it. But by the time he did release it, the buggy paper tape version had
already spread across the country. But not only had it spread, but people were debugging it, learning how it worked and fixing it themselves and even selling
their bosses and companies they worked for on buying it. Certainly knowing how it worked was a big plus.
Well Bill got mad that he finally released version of BASIC wasn't selling very well and coined the term "Piracy".
The matter even made it to the front cover of TIME Magizine as "The Great Software Flap"
So yeah, Bill Started OSS, But sure as hell, not because he wanted to.
All this can be found in an early book by Steven Levy like "hacker: heros of the computer revolution"