Slashdot Mirror
MS-DOS Not Stolen, New Forensic Analysis Concludes
theodp writes "Challenging earlier assertions that Bill Gates got the rewards due Gary Kildall, a forensic analysis conducted for the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum concludes that the landmark MS-DOS operating system which Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed to IBM was an original piece of work, not stolen goods. Using his company's CodeSuite forensic software, Bob Zeidman said he found no evidence that QDOS or MS-DOS was copied from or was a derivative of Gary Kildall's CP/M. So, what do you think of Microsoft expert witness (pdf) Zeidman's "if-the-codebase-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit" arguments?"
I think it's interesting only as a matter of curiosity at this point.
Actually, it's a fairly typical Microsoft attempt at a derivative: a copy of the superficial features on top of an unholy mess that shows that they don't understand the deeper concepts.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
From your link: "What is the evidence, then, that QDOS was a derivative work – a rip-off? The answer lies in the API, which describes how software can call up the underlying operating system and make it work for the user. The first 26 system calls of MS-DOS 1.0 are identical to the first 26 system calls of CP/M."
Yeah, just like Linux and WINE are rip-offs. The need to map system calls by number and not only name was of course due to the fact that the actual calling mechanism worked by number. However, the IEEE article is still strange, since the matters described are already settled. On the other hand, the legend of DOS being stolen and not only a clone lives on, in some places.
Windows? -> copy of MacOS Classic
Any more than Android or GNOME or KDE is a copy of Apple products?
Using his company's CodeSuite forensic software,
Alternate summary: CodeSuite found not to work as forensic software!
Or in other words, "If evidence disagrees with my irrational prejudice, evidence must be wrong!"
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
The PET was a much better design. And back then, it was all good... in fact, Chuck Peddle (inventor of the PET and the MOS 6502) actually helped Woz on some critical issues to get the Apple I up and running. But Peddle had a whole system approach, thus, all the other chips Commodore made to support the 6502. If you look at the Apple I/][ or may of the other early personal computers, you usually see a Microprocessor, some memory chips, and a vast sea of SSI and MSI parts from the TTL databook. If you look at early Commodore machines, you find all sorts of integration.
But there's a vast difference between "inspired by" and "copied". And even then, in layers. Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Alto and got inspired. Apple didn't really copy the UI, they actually left out some of the good stuff. And of course, the OS they created was vastly inferior, and the internals had nothing to do with the Xerox system. Microsoft did actually borrow some of Apple's stuff, but they's because they actually did exchange code. Most of Windows had nothing to do with MacOS, and the OS design was not something any experienced OS designer would have some up with (eg, the OS treating an application as a series of callbacks)... and that's not even counting all of the serialization Windows did in Win32 to prevent real multitasking.
Windows NT, on the other hand, was directly inspired by VAX/VMS (via Dave Cutler), but also ran a POSIX API layer from the get-go. But that was a standard by then, so no really a "copy" of UNIX anymore.
-Dave Haynie
Did Bill Gates pay $50k for QDOS? Or did he not? It's pretty simple...
If he did, it wasn't stolen, he owns it.
Microsoft didn't code MSDOS originally. They bought it. So you're saying that Seattle Computer Products copied the features of CP/M?
No, we need to fit this into a narrative that matches preconceptions, yours don't, need more work.
If you're so in-the-know why don't you present your own review of the situation and let us know what your evidence is, genius. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
but this is because this was the early eighties, the era of Pacman lawsuits, to be followed a few years later by Apple's infamous look and feel suits against DR and Microsoft/HP.
Oh how the times have changed.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This.
CP/M is a very simple beast. It's laughable to think that anybody would go to the effort of disassembling it to find out how it worked then rewriting it function-for-function in 8086 assembly code. changing the file system as you go.
It would be much less work to just read the CP/M docs then write your own little OS using the ideas gleaned. I doubt he even did that. There was no magic in CP/M even way back then and MS-DOS isn't all that similar to it.
Luckily there weren't the crazy software patents of today back then.
Well of course they wouldn't have sold the product as cheaply if they had material knowledge of a pending deal the buyer had, but unless there was some disclosure requirement in the purchase agreement then they should have been told to GTFO.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Gary Kildall died of a brain aneurysm, probably from a tumble down the stairs, though he was an avid pilot. He lived a lot longer after the CP/M debacle and eventually became wealthy after selling Digital Research for millions. You are obviously FOS.
Insider trading isn't "considered" illegal, it IS illegal - there is a law against it. It is illegal because that is the rule for being a publicly traded corporation - everyone gets info affecting the price of the stock at the same time. If that were not the case, people inside the company could profit at the expense of the other shareholders.
None of that has anything to do with private dealings. In fact, it is likely that Gates was under an NDA and could not say anything about the IBM deal, as IBM had not yet announced the PC. Divulging the IBM deal could not only have insider information ramifications, but remember that at the time IBM was under a consent decree that prohibited them from 'pre-announcing' anything.
If that were not the case, people inside the company could profit at the expense of the other shareholders.
Sure. Now why do we think that's wrong? What's the problem with allowing people inside the company to take advantage of the outsiders.? Couldn't the outsiders also get jobs within the company if they chose? Why is the asymmetric information considered a problem?
You're about to come back to me with some variation of the idea of fiduciary duty, which is simply restating the question. Why would they have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders? Why do we care if one group of people with superior information take advantage of another group of people? After all, anyone could get a job at the company. Anyone could -- in theory -- also become privy to the inside information. Why do we protect the shareholders from the reality of the market? What's the problem with asymmetric information in a capitalist market, and why do we feel the market distortions they cause to be evil?
When you get that answer, apply the principal to private dealings. Johnny Depp plays an evil man in "The Ninth Gate," a rare book dealer who visits bereaved families and buys rare books from the estate before the family realizes how valuable the books they sold are. The audience considers this to be evil behavior, and it sets up the moral corruption that a demon takes advantage of later in the script.
Why would we think those book sales are evil? After all, Depp is not doing aything illegal. He doesn't lie to them. He merely says "I can offer you this much for this book," and offers to get back to them later with offers on other books. Why do you think the audience boos and hisses at this behavior?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."