No, what he prefers is that many OEMs move over to Linux, leaving Windows in the dust.
That presents one important challenge: How to get quality software to Linux. There is tons of it now, but not for the consumer. GiMP is not Photoshop. Really, it isn't. There is no real possibility of editing video. Open/Libre Office is not, for the average consumer, an alternative to MS Office. The overall experience is not particularly high quality (I use Linux every day, it isn't).
Linus has it right. With pre-installs, Microsoft took the PC market, and their market position hasn't changed markedly lately. The question is just what happens to the tablet market. I do know one thing for sure, with the amount of software for Win/x86 out there, the Surface Pro (if of reasonable quality) will be an instant hit. Given that it is about $499 cheaper than an iPad, it could also become a consumer hit. The Surface RT is a little more unsure, but again, there is a huge number of.NET developers out there who are more or less instantly trained on the RT as well (contrary to popular notion,.NET is still fully there for the RT as well, it just looks slightly different).
I cannot imagine anyone even thinking that CP/M was used as the base for DOS
It was, so, you know, you're wrong. Nobody has ever said it wasn't. Patterson specifically set out to clone the core part of CP/M when he created QDOS. So, you know, you're wrong. Very.
More likely, people haven't understood the original dispute. Did QDOS steal lines of code from CP/M? Most likely not, but nobody ever claimed it did. Was it a rip-off of CP/M? Absolutely. QDOS implemented calls identically to CP/M with the specific aim of being as close to CP/M as possible. In other words, as Patterson him self said, he read through Kildalls manual and tried to create something that functioned identically.
As you point out however, he did a much better job on the FS, which is both to be commended, and also should be added on the "it was not a rip-off" side. DOS was an interrupt handler, and not much more though. As an interrupt handler it clearly "ripped off" CP/M to the point of being almost identical. However, not by stealing code. No stealing of code would have been needed (as you say) and that has never been asserted either. Not by the parties involved.
You really should learn how to read. Nobody has ever claimed that Gates didn't buy QDOS. He did. What is claimed is that QDOS was a rip-off of CP/M. It was. The article is shameful and the "researcher" is an idiot.
He does ask you a relevant question. What does Mars and Earth have in common, which the Moon lacks? Why is it that you have never seen a live feed from the re-entry of a space shuttle? If you have seen the movie "Apollo 13", towards the end of the movie, what was the suspense about? Control room, ship, wife, movie audience all holding their breath. What were we waiting for, and why?
Now, once you have pondered these things and considered the bandwidth needed for a live TV feed, please ponder the following concept "far side of the planet". What does that mean? How might it impact the ability to send a live, high-speed, feed directly to Earth? Assuming that light mostly travels in straight lines, how would you, for example, use light to do this? How would you use a high-frequency radio signal (needed for the transfer of a live feed.
Back to the movie "Apollo 13", there was another suspenseful sequence in the film, where the crew was unable to communicate at all with the ground station. This was when they were out by the moon. Very suspenseful. The word "dark" is frequently used about the suspense-creating situation. What was it and how does it pertain to landing a vehicle on the far side of another planet?
Again, the scenarios are vastly different, and what you are suggesting would in fact not even be possible. The fact that you still don't understand this is proof positive that the rather violent suggestions you have received are justified. Take your self out of the gene pool, please.
And, for the inevitable popular-science comparison: Making the landing work required higher precision than a golfer standing in London and hitting hole-in-one in New Zealand would have required.
You need to get off the meds, or get on them if you are off. Samsung didn't copy Apple at all. The design pre-dates the iPad with about a decade. Only someone with their heads up Steve Jobs' ass would consider it copying the iPad.
There was no year zero. Due to various historical "stuff" the year just before "year 1 after Christ" is "year 1 before Christ". Blame the Romans. The Christ from the mythology was born in "the year 1 after Christ". Funny. Also why the first day of the new millennium was January 1st 2001, making all the people who partied in 1999-2000 wrong:-)
Slashdot Mirror
No, what he prefers is that many OEMs move over to Linux, leaving Windows in the dust.
That presents one important challenge: How to get quality software to Linux. There is tons of it now, but not for the consumer. GiMP is not Photoshop. Really, it isn't. There is no real possibility of editing video. Open/Libre Office is not, for the average consumer, an alternative to MS Office. The overall experience is not particularly high quality (I use Linux every day, it isn't).
Linus has it right. With pre-installs, Microsoft took the PC market, and their market position hasn't changed markedly lately. The question is just what happens to the tablet market. I do know one thing for sure, with the amount of software for Win/x86 out there, the Surface Pro (if of reasonable quality) will be an instant hit. Given that it is about $499 cheaper than an iPad, it could also become a consumer hit. The Surface RT is a little more unsure, but again, there is a huge number of .NET developers out there who are more or less instantly trained on the RT as well (contrary to popular notion, .NET is still fully there for the RT as well, it just looks slightly different).
You need to take your medications today. Also, put on some reading-comprehension glasses.
Some people seem to think it is, I don't.
Which is the basic definition of rip-off.
Or, you haven't got a clue. I agree with the facts only. Facts says you are a retard.
Yes. That is generally the way the term is used (unless talking about a financial transaction).
Also known as ripping off.
Yes, it is. Doesn't mean it isn't a rip-off. That is basically the very definition of a "rip-off" used in such a context.
Yes. But then again, "ripping off" is basically part of the spec for Wine. Right?
Hence, the "ripped-off" claim, not the "stole copyrighted stuff" claim.
When I said "nobody" I should have specified, "involved in the case". Pournelle had a severe marble deficiency.
Gates wouldn't do anything that crude
Obviously not, since he didn't do it. He had no hand in writing MS-DOS, Patterson did. When it was QDOS.
I cannot imagine anyone even thinking that CP/M was used as the base for DOS
It was, so, you know, you're wrong. Nobody has ever said it wasn't. Patterson specifically set out to clone the core part of CP/M when he created QDOS. So, you know, you're wrong. Very.
More likely CodeSuite is right
More likely, people haven't understood the original dispute. Did QDOS steal lines of code from CP/M? Most likely not, but nobody ever claimed it did. Was it a rip-off of CP/M? Absolutely. QDOS implemented calls identically to CP/M with the specific aim of being as close to CP/M as possible. In other words, as Patterson him self said, he read through Kildalls manual and tried to create something that functioned identically.
As you point out however, he did a much better job on the FS, which is both to be commended, and also should be added on the "it was not a rip-off" side. DOS was an interrupt handler, and not much more though. As an interrupt handler it clearly "ripped off" CP/M to the point of being almost identical. However, not by stealing code. No stealing of code would have been needed (as you say) and that has never been asserted either. Not by the parties involved.
You really should learn how to read. Nobody has ever claimed that Gates didn't buy QDOS. He did. What is claimed is that QDOS was a rip-off of CP/M. It was. The article is shameful and the "researcher" is an idiot.
He does ask you a relevant question. What does Mars and Earth have in common, which the Moon lacks? Why is it that you have never seen a live feed from the re-entry of a space shuttle? If you have seen the movie "Apollo 13", towards the end of the movie, what was the suspense about? Control room, ship, wife, movie audience all holding their breath. What were we waiting for, and why?
Now, once you have pondered these things and considered the bandwidth needed for a live TV feed, please ponder the following concept "far side of the planet". What does that mean? How might it impact the ability to send a live, high-speed, feed directly to Earth? Assuming that light mostly travels in straight lines, how would you, for example, use light to do this? How would you use a high-frequency radio signal (needed for the transfer of a live feed.
Back to the movie "Apollo 13", there was another suspenseful sequence in the film, where the crew was unable to communicate at all with the ground station. This was when they were out by the moon. Very suspenseful. The word "dark" is frequently used about the suspense-creating situation. What was it and how does it pertain to landing a vehicle on the far side of another planet?
Again, the scenarios are vastly different, and what you are suggesting would in fact not even be possible. The fact that you still don't understand this is proof positive that the rather violent suggestions you have received are justified. Take your self out of the gene pool, please.
(Your) Ignorance appears to not generate the assumed bliss.
And, for the inevitable popular-science comparison: Making the landing work required higher precision than a golfer standing in London and hitting hole-in-one in New Zealand would have required.
There is only four cords used in a pop song/hit, but you can chose from a total of ten :-)
Read about Stetson Kennedy and the KKK.
You need to get off the meds, or get on them if you are off. Samsung didn't copy Apple at all. The design pre-dates the iPad with about a decade. Only someone with their heads up Steve Jobs' ass would consider it copying the iPad.
Or in other words, we can have 0 AD if we want
Yes, we could, but we didn't, so we don't.
There was no year zero. Due to various historical "stuff" the year just before "year 1 after Christ" is "year 1 before Christ". Blame the Romans. The Christ from the mythology was born in "the year 1 after Christ". Funny. Also why the first day of the new millennium was January 1st 2001, making all the people who partied in 1999-2000 wrong :-)
Three on-site interviews means an employer with a massive decision making disorder. They are doomed to fail. Run for your life.