Windows 3.1 was not an OS. Windows 3.1 was a program which rode on top of a
one-task OS (DOS).
Microsoft dropped OS/2 WARP and fled from it at the speed of light (no pun
intended). Microsoft has stubbornly stood behind Win95/98. Discuss the OS
in use and backed by Microsoft, not what could have been used in theory. If
you want to discuss what could have been used theory, I could lecture you
about the Alpha processor. (Granted it is used, but not widely.)
As for Xenix, we'll never know because Xenix was never widely implemented.
How do you know that Win95/98/NT is substantially different from Linux/Unix?
"Because Win95/98/NT works differently," you say. Granted. I never accused
them of Cut-and-Paste. I accused them of copying aspects/portions of
Linux/Unix source code, which would still be a copyright violation. "But it
works so much more different!" you protest. How do you know? Once a
program is compiled, no one can extrapolate the higher-level language source
code. Win95/98/NT are compiled black boxes. The only people who know how
the boxes work are at Microsoft. I'm not accusing Microsoft of lying when
they tell us how their OS works; they're misleading, but truthful.
The point I'm trying to make is that we cannot confirm or rebuke the
allegation of copyright infringement without access to the Win95/98/NT
source code, which we do not have. Microsoft can confirm or rebuke this
allegation, if you'll take their word for it.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
