27 Aug
2012
27 Aug
'12
10:48 a.m.
On 27 Aug 2012 at 10:10, Alan Perry wrote:
Haven't we been here before?
And a recent code analysis indicates that QDOS was not
stolen from CP/M
http://m.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/did-bill-gates-steal-the
-heart-of-dos/0
That IEEE Spectrum article was so much of a bald attempt by some guy
to push his analysis software (I can't even figure out the logic in
his method), that as an IEEE member, I was ashamed that such
stupidity was published in the flagship publication of the Institute.
If he didn't copy it from CP/M, why isn't it a
"new OS"?
Having "cloned" the CP/M API myself, I'll say that it would be far
more work to disassemble the CP/M object code to implement the API
that it would be to simply re-implement the API. Paterson was no
idiot.
Yes, Paterson did copy the CP/M-80 API, but the CP/M-86 interface is
completely different. Note that others copied the API before he did;
e.g. TurboDOS, TP/M (used on the Epson QX-10) and several others. I
think that even in our litigious time, copying an API is not a crime.
I'm not a MS-lover, but I do believe in keeping perspective.
--Chuck