Stangely
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
it doesn't ask what would have happened had it all been patented, back in the day. Nice bit of history, but it was a remarkably different way of operating back then.
it doesn't ask what would have happened had it all been patented, back in the day.
Simple - it would be dead. Just like the WWW if it were patented. Or Linux (well, not patented but placed under proprietary license).
-- Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Stangely
by
ModernGeek
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If it would have been patented, there would be no linux, no open standards, all would be closed, compaq's would run compaq os, ibm's would run OS/2, dell would run DellOS. Noone could make software in one language and have it interoperate between operating systems like we seemlessly do today thanks to C. We would have to pay money to develop software, we would spend more time worrying about liscensing then actually programming. Computing would not be what it is today. Thank god they did not patent any of it.
It was proprietary software, patents wouldn't have done a thing to it.
There's a difference between proprietary software and patented software. BSD could easily reimplement all proprietary parts of UNIX and won the lawsuit that followed. But if these parts had been patented ("e.g. a method to write an OS using a programming language"), that wouldn't be possible. I think you're either uninformed or trolling, or both.
There was an implementation of UNIX and it was proprietary. But there were other implementations of UNIX that were free. What matters isn't some implementation, but ideas. And the idea of UNIX hasn't been developed only by AT&T, but also by the UNIX community - in a open way, since the beginning. Patent that and UNIX is dead.
*NIX is modular in that you can pass output from one command to another via pipes
Definitely, and I think what escapes modern comp sci people is the incredible flexibility of being able to use several simple, distinct programs together to achieve a broader processing goal. Data flow between processes achieves the best separation possible, allows for the ultimate 'compatibility' (inter-process communication) and leaves performance monitoring/control to the OS. In the long term, the UNIX model sounds like a winner to me.
The sad loss of the terminal room
by
Paul+Crowley
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Dr Pike says that the thing he misses most from the 1970s at Bell Labs was the terminal room. Because computers were rare at the time, people did not have them on their desks, but rather went to the room, one side of which was covered with whiteboards, and sat down at a random computer to work. The technical hub of the system became the social hub.
Even/. readers occasionally want to see people face-to-face. Even if we're arranging meetings over IM and bringing WiFi laptops, let's occasionally try to set eyes on other geeks:-)
Re:quick history leason
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No no no nope. First of all, it was stated in the article. Secondly, it is common knowledge to people who lived and watched the nightly news with Walter Cronkite in those times that the gubbmint used to actively prevent tech monopolies in the public interest. This is not to say there were no monopolies, but new ones were monitored closely and shot to hell if they looked active and this was the case of AT&T.
It wasn't about whether it was copyrighted or even patented. They were under order, just like Xerox, to share their technology. This wasn't a mistake or an oversight. They were FORCED by the government.
Pass that bong, dude
by
melted
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Unices were SO proprietary back in the day Microsoft is a child's play in comparison. Ever heard of FreeBSD and a lawsuit against them? UNIX systems used to cost a heck of a lot, and the entire UNIX world was thoroughly licensed and lawyer-infested. On top of that UNIX companies used to fight each other and pull "embrace and extend" thing when on the surface the system would remain POSIX compatible, but to use its advanced features you'd have to sell your soul to the devil and go entirely incompatible with everything else.
MS entered server market precisely because of this situation. It was a low cost, no hassle alternative to UNIX that was good enough for small and medium businesses.
The moral of the story is...
by
peterpi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Managers: If you have a couple of coders with nothing to do for a month or two, don't panic. Tell them to do what the hell they want and they'll come up with something useful.
Re:The funny thing is
by
cheesybagel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It was a word processor. I am certain they could find other uses for a word processor than a patent office.
Slashdot Mirror
it doesn't ask what would have happened had it all been patented, back in the day. Nice bit of history, but it was a remarkably different way of operating back then.
Dr Pike says that the thing he misses most from the 1970s at Bell Labs was the terminal room. Because computers were rare at the time, people did not have them on their desks, but rather went to the room, one side of which was covered with whiteboards, and sat down at a random computer to work. The technical hub of the system became the social hub.
/. readers occasionally want to see people face-to-face. Even if we're arranging meetings over IM and bringing WiFi laptops, let's occasionally try to set eyes on other geeks :-)
Even
Xenu loves you!
No no no nope. First of all, it was stated in the article. Secondly, it is common knowledge to people who lived and watched the nightly news with Walter Cronkite in those times that the gubbmint used to actively prevent tech monopolies in the public interest. This is not to say there were no monopolies, but new ones were monitored closely and shot to hell if they looked active and this was the case of AT&T.
It wasn't about whether it was copyrighted or even patented. They were under order, just like Xerox, to share their technology. This wasn't a mistake or an oversight. They were FORCED by the government.
Unices were SO proprietary back in the day Microsoft is a child's play in comparison. Ever heard of FreeBSD and a lawsuit against them? UNIX systems used to cost a heck of a lot, and the entire UNIX world was thoroughly licensed and lawyer-infested. On top of that UNIX companies used to fight each other and pull "embrace and extend" thing when on the surface the system would remain POSIX compatible, but to use its advanced features you'd have to sell your soul to the devil and go entirely incompatible with everything else.
MS entered server market precisely because of this situation. It was a low cost, no hassle alternative to UNIX that was good enough for small and medium businesses.
Managers: If you have a couple of coders with nothing to do for a month or two, don't panic. Tell them to do what the hell they want and they'll come up with something useful.
It was a word processor. I am certain they could find other uses for a word processor than a patent office.