Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules and Etiquette

Our mission ...

This forum is part of our mission to promote the preservation of vintage computers through education and outreach. (In real life we also run events and have a museum.) We encourage you to join us, participate, share your knowledge, and enjoy.

This forum has been around in this format for over 15 years. These rules and guidelines help us maintain a healthy and active community, and we moderate the forum to keep things on track. Please familiarize yourself with these rules and guidelines.


Rule 1: Remain civil and respectful

There are several hundred people who actively participate here. People come from all different backgrounds and will have different ways of seeing things. You will not agree with everything you read here. Back-and-forth discussions are fine but do not cross the line into rude or disrespectful behavior.

Conduct yourself as you would at any other place where people come together in person to discuss their hobby. If you wouldn't say something to somebody in person, then you probably should not be writing it here.

This should be obvious but, just in case: profanity, threats, slurs against any group (sexual, racial, gender, etc.) will not be tolerated.


Rule 2: Stay close to the original topic being discussed
  • If you are starting a new thread choose a reasonable sub-forum to start your thread. (If you choose incorrectly don't worry, we can fix that.)
  • If you are responding to a thread, stay on topic - the original poster was trying to achieve something. You can always start a new thread instead of potentially "hijacking" an existing thread.



Rule 3: Contribute something meaningful

To put things in engineering terms, we value a high signal to noise ratio. Coming here should not be a waste of time.
  • This is not a chat room. If you are taking less than 30 seconds to make a post then you are probably doing something wrong. A post should be on topic, clear, and contribute something meaningful to the discussion. If people read your posts and feel that their time as been wasted, they will stop reading your posts. Worse yet, they will stop visiting and we'll lose their experience and contributions.
  • Do not bump threads.
  • Do not "necro-post" unless you are following up to a specific person on a specific thread. And even then, that person may have moved on. Just start a new thread for your related topic.
  • Use the Private Message system for posts that are targeted at a specific person.


Rule 4: "PM Sent!" messages (or, how to use the Private Message system)

This forum has a private message feature that we want people to use for messages that are not of general interest to other members.

In short, if you are going to reply to a thread and that reply is targeted to a specific individual and not of interest to anybody else (either now or in the future) then send a private message instead.

Here are some obvious examples of when you should not reply to a thread and use the PM system instead:
  • "PM Sent!": Do not tell the rest of us that you sent a PM ... the forum software will tell the other person that they have a PM waiting.
  • "How much is shipping to ....": This is a very specific and directed question that is not of interest to anybody else.


Why do we have this policy? Sending a "PM Sent!" type message basically wastes everybody else's time by making them having to scroll past a post in a thread that looks to be updated, when the update is not meaningful. And the person you are sending the PM to will be notified by the forum software that they have a message waiting for them. Look up at the top near the right edge where it says 'Notifications' ... if you have a PM waiting, it will tell you there.

Rule 5: Copyright and other legal issues

We are here to discuss vintage computing, so discussing software, books, and other intellectual property that is on-topic is fine. We don't want people using these forums to discuss or enable copyright violations or other things that are against the law; whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. Do not use our resources for something that is legally or morally questionable.

Our discussions here generally fall under "fair use." Telling people how to pirate a software title is an example of something that is not allowable here.


Reporting problematic posts

If you see spam, a wildly off-topic post, or something abusive or illegal please report the thread by clicking on the "Report Post" icon. (It looks like an exclamation point in a triangle and it is available under every post.) This send a notification to all of the moderators, so somebody will see it and deal with it.

If you are unsure you may consider sending a private message to a moderator instead.


New user moderation

New users are directly moderated so that we can weed spammers out early. This means that for your first 10 posts you will have some delay before they are seen. We understand this can be disruptive to the flow of conversation and we try to keep up with our new user moderation duties to avoid undue inconvenience. Please do not make duplicate posts, extra posts to bump your post count, or ask the moderators to expedite this process; 10 moderated posts will go by quickly.

New users also have a smaller personal message inbox limit and are rate limited when sending PMs to other users.


Other suggestions
  • Use Google, books, or other definitive sources. There is a lot of information out there.
  • Don't make people guess at what you are trying to say; we are not mind readers. Be clear and concise.
  • Spelling and grammar are not rated, but they do make a post easier to read.
See more
See less

DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

    Did MS-DOS use code copied from CP/M? Forensic software engineer Bob Zeidman said "no" in 2012 but now he has new research to disclose at VCF West.

    That's all I can say for now.
    @ Founder, Vintage Computer Federation -- resigned Dec. 2019
    @ Author, Abacus to smartphone: The evolution of mobile and portable computers
    @ My homepage
    @ My Lego Robotics Page

    #2
    I'm a bit skeptical. SC-DOS seems to use CP/M 2.2 as its basis (COM programs can issue system calls by doing a far call to CS:0005 and putting the request number in CL; this is very different from CP/M-86's conventions. So you're trying to compare a bunch of 8086 code with 8080 code? That's a pretty far stretch.
    Reach me: vcfblackhole _at_ protonmail dot com.

    Comment


      #3
      Microsoft was sued when they pirated DOS through a third party.

      They settled with IBM paying cash settlement on Microsoft's behalf and agreeing to sell CP/M-86 for PC's.

      Of course they were selling it for $250.00 a unit

      So no CP/M has no DOS code but DOS started as an illegal translation of CP/M.


      Randy

      Comment


        #4
        Betteridge's law of headlines seems to apply.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Randy McLaughlin View Post
          So no CP/M has no DOS code but DOS started as an illegal translation of CP/M.
          In 1979, what constituted an "illegal translation"? Really, Gary didn't have a case and he was aware of it. Reverse-engineering wasn't illegal then; there was no DMCA.

          By 1979, there were other "work-alikes" of CP/M-80. Nobody got sued for that either.
          Reach me: vcfblackhole _at_ protonmail dot com.

          Comment


            #6
            It went to court, Microsoft was found guilty. There was a fine. There was a settlement.

            The scuttlebutt is it wasn't reversed engineered, it was taken from original sources that were covered in a non-disclosure agreement.

            IBM had contracted with both DRI and M$, DRI was to provide the DOS and M$ the basic.

            As usual in the early computer days DRI was way behind schedule, IBM asked M$ if they could write a DOS. M$ knew 86-DOS was a stolen product but DRI hadn't brought legal action yet. So M$ said they could do it all by buying 86-DOS and selling it as Microsoft DOS.

            IBM found themselves in a legal quagmire and paid the fine and agreed to sell CP/M-86.

            M$ never ported their Gee-Whiz basic (GWBasic) to CP/M-86 and IBM decided to complete their legal requirements by selling CP/M-86 for four times the cost of DOS and no basic to boot.


            Randy

            Comment


              #7
              What court case? Where? Could you provide a PACER reference?

              IBM was a public company; any settlement would have been obvious in the filings. IBM was also still under the consent decree. Playing loose with the law was a good way to prevent the consent decree from being lifted.

              Also, if there was a case that MS lost to DRI, that would have been precedent in the various reverse engineering BIOS cases and would have ensured losses for both Compaq and Phoenix Technologies.

              That rather goes against all the history that exists. Strong documentation is needed.

              Comment


                #8
                The lawsuit was settled in an out of court settlement after Gary was already dead and DRI was bought my Caldera. it had been going back and forth for years. It took that long for courts to catch up with changing technology.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Research

                Gary was a computer genius but not a great businessman, Bill was a genius businessman but not a computer genius.

                That's why all the DRI computer languages had great math packages but M$ couldn't add one plus one and get two (literally). M$ didn't get a working math package until Visual Basic in windows 95.

                As for CP/M replacements there basically were none. Several people provided BDOS replacements that required you own CP/M. The only two exceptions I can remember was IMDOS by IMSAI and TP/M by TDL.

                After the PC came out some continued to replace "CP/M" but again in pieces you still had to have CP/M to have a complete package. Caldera (DRI) finally release CP/M-86 that had morphed into DRDOS to public domain (freedos).


                Back "in the day" hacking a program like CP/M was considered good as long as the original got their money before the hack was put in to make it better. I hacked a program named electric pencil to run under northstar dos. Originally the electric pencil only ran on audio cassette tapes. I would sell my hack for $75 to modify a legal copy of it. Later Michael came out with a disk version and my hack was put away (and finally lost).

                There is a big difference between modifying a legal program and taking it over completely.


                Randy

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Randy McLaughlin View Post

                  After the PC came out some continued to replace "CP/M" but again in pieces you still had to have CP/M to have a complete package. Caldera (DRI) finally release CP/M-86 that had morphed into DRDOS to public domain (freedos).

                  Randy
                  Got any good references Freedos is based from DRDOS.

                  I know folk where enhancing DRDOS(OpenDos) well after Caldera but once Freedos had finally became a usable alternative the programmers moved over to the FreeDos project http://www.drdosprojects.de/
                  Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

                  Comment


                    #10
                    ...I thought the subject was "DOS code in CP/M", not "CP/M code in DOS"....

                    Just saying...
                    Reach me: vcfblackhole _at_ protonmail dot com.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Chuck(G) View Post
                      ...I thought the subject was "DOS code in CP/M", not "CP/M code in DOS"....

                      Just saying...
                      Yeah I (bleeped) that one. Sorry!!
                      @ Founder, Vintage Computer Federation -- resigned Dec. 2019
                      @ Author, Abacus to smartphone: The evolution of mobile and portable computers
                      @ My homepage
                      @ My Lego Robotics Page

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Court case had nothing to do with whether DOS has any stolen CP/M stuff in it.
                        @ Founder, Vintage Computer Federation -- resigned Dec. 2019
                        @ Author, Abacus to smartphone: The evolution of mobile and portable computers
                        @ My homepage
                        @ My Lego Robotics Page

                        Comment


                          #13
                          FreeDOS has _nothing_ to do with DR-DOS, Novell DOS, or OpenDOS beyond the fact that it's MS-DOS compatible.

                          g.
                          Proud owner of 80-0007
                          http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            CPM-80 preceeded DOS by years. So you won't find DOS code in CPM, but you will find the Digital Research CPM-80 Copyright Notice and Code inside DOS 1.0 since whole sections of code were lifted from CPM-80 illegally when Seattle Computer ported CPM-80 without authorization into the 16-bit Operating System that Seattle licensed to Microsoft to sell to IBM for sale with 8088 based PCs. A friend of mine from back when I worked for Radio Shack showed me the Digital Research Copyright Notice inside of DOS 1.0 that he discovered while he was working inside of DOS. I think he was trying to find the location of the DOS serial number at the time.

                            This was the basis of the lawsuit that Seattle filed against Microsoft. Seattle never licensed Microsoft to sell DOS on any other platform/processor besides the IBM PC with 8088 processor. Seattle had a mysterious fire that put them out of the active retail S-100 computer selling business, but the lawsuit lingered on for years, until Microsoft finally settled with Seattle (paying them off, I think it was a token 1 million or 5 million dollars).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Randy McLaughlin View Post
                              It went to court, Microsoft was found guilty. There was a fine. There was a settlement.

                              The scuttlebutt is it wasn't reversed engineered, it was taken from original sources that were covered in a non-disclosure agreement.

                              IBM had contracted with both DRI and M$, DRI was to provide the DOS and M$ the basic.

                              As usual in the early computer days DRI was way behind schedule, IBM asked M$ if they could write a DOS. M$ knew 86-DOS was a stolen product but DRI hadn't brought legal action yet. So M$ said they could do it all by buying 86-DOS and selling it as Microsoft DOS.

                              IBM found themselves in a legal quagmire and paid the fine and agreed to sell CP/M-86.

                              M$ never ported their Gee-Whiz basic (GWBasic) to CP/M-86 and IBM decided to complete their legal requirements by selling CP/M-86 for four times the cost of DOS and no basic to boot.


                              Randy


                              Microsoft is know for getting access to Code to this day by approaching software companies asking to see the code for software programs and applications, claiming that they are interested in licensing the intellectual property for inclusion in a future Microsoft product or revision. Microsoft signs a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for access for a specific amount of time. When the time period expires, they say "sorry we changed our minds about licensing your product" And go on their merry way. Some time later, when Microsoft unveils a new, the code from the programs or applications that they did not license after being allowed access to the Code shows up in their "new" product. Microsoft has been accused, and convicted of this strategy several times in the past. In many cases causing delay in marketing a product because the product ends up being rewritten, OR some product recalls. This is documented history.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X