I intend this to be my last post to the list for this thread. Anyone can
follow it up directly if they wish.
Joseph Wagner wrote:
>
> Windows 3.1 was not an OS. Windows 3.1 was a program which rode on top of a
> one-task OS (DOS).
yeah, yeah, I know. The point still holds though: Microsoft already had
a windowing system.
>
> 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.
What's your point? That Xenix it isn't a multitasking os? Well, it
is/was (as far as I'm told by people that have used it). Microsoft have
dropped os/2? What's that got to do with it? Maybe they thought that
they would be better off sticking to just two os's: windows 95 and NT.
Even now they are consolidating those two into windows 2000 (which I
might say looks pretty good). We cannot blame them for dropping
products. Everyone in every industry does it at some stage or another.
>
> 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.
Okay, I was just trying to be brief. Have you ever programmed under X11,
and under Win32? If so then you MUST concede that the differences are
more than minor or syntactical. That should be enough. And, well, it
does work differently. I would only go as far as to say that Microsoft
have used ideas and concepts from other, more mature operating systems
to produce what they have. All you have then is violation of Intelectual
Property, maybe. Quite frankly, I would say that some of the ways they
do things are better than the unix way of doing things (shock, horror!
:).
>
> 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.
Exactly. Where does that leave us? Without that proof we cannot even
begin to contemplate copyright violations. So what are we doing here
then?
Incidently, have you ever seen the windows source code? No? Well I have.
At my uni we got a copy of it for some project. I can assure you that
there is a huge difference in the way windows does things (the
documentation is quite extensive).
Look, what I'm getting at is that to prove that Microsoft have stolen
intelectual property is a whole lot harder than just pointing out
similarities between systems. As far as I understand, proving such
violations on that basis are damn near impossible!
If this was the case, then any number of different os's could be classed
as violating IP. MacOS, OS/2 warp, NT (earlier versions too!), even
LINUX!
Sugarboy
--
If a manager offers "constructive advice" and no-one is around to hear
it,
is he still an idiot?
Chris Dowling.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
