PDA

View Full Version : OT Gates purchases rights to Feynman Lectures from BBC



Fasttrack
07-21-2009, 10:24 PM
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

Very entertaining and enjoyable, if you've not seen them before :)

dp
07-21-2009, 10:41 PM
I'd love to have sat for some of his lectures. He didn't let his charisma get in the way, but he din't leave it in the cloak room, either. He's so smart he even confuses himself from time to time :)

Nice to see his lectures are part of the Gates collection. Not many people have the cash on hand to preserve something for the expected lifespan of a star as does Gates.

beanbag
07-22-2009, 06:00 AM
What nefarious purposes will Microsoft use these lectures for?

Evan
07-22-2009, 06:29 AM
What nefarious purposes will Microsoft use these lectures for?

The worst possible; Education.
From the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation annual report:



In the United States, we work toward one overarching goal: more opportunity for everyone in this country. Bill and Melinda Gates believe an excellent education is the most direct path to opportunity, especially for low-income young people, so that is the focus of our efforts.
Since 2000, we have invested $4 billion in schools and scholarships. In 2008, we deepened and extended those investments based on lessons we have learned over the years.


Total granted last year worldwide was 2.8 billion dollars.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Pages/overview.aspx

beanbag
07-22-2009, 07:17 AM
The worst possible; Education.


Not sure if you mean this matter of factly, or with a large does of cynicism. Because "education", particularly with strings attached, is close to indoctrination. What, I have to install "microsoft silverlight" to watch the videos? Oh, you'll give me software for free or cheap as a student, but then charge $1k+ once I am in the "real world"?

Not saying the Foundation is evil, just being skeptical behind some motives.

Evan
07-22-2009, 07:41 AM
Mr. Gates really believes in education as the road out of misery. He is right and has the power to do something on a global scale, which he does. I wasn't being cynical. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has nothing to do with Microsoft. It also is responsible for distribution of a gift of 31 billion dollars worth of stock donated by Warren Buffet.

beanbag
07-22-2009, 07:56 AM
Mr. Gates really believes in education as the road out of misery.

I totally agree with this.

lazlo
07-22-2009, 09:47 AM
From the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation annual report:

Total granted last year worldwide was 2.8 billion dollars.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Pages/overview.aspx

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a big, complicated corporation. It donates 5% of it's net worth each year to maintain it's non-profit status, but it's a giant investment portfolio run by the same company that manages Bill's private holdings, and it's return on investment is much more than the 5% it donates:

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?page=1)

Investing for profit

"AT the end of 2005, the Gates Foundation endowment stood at $35 billion, making it the largest in the world. Then in June 2006, Warren E. Buffett, the world's second-richest man after Bill Gates, pledged to add about $31 billion in installments from his personal fortune. Not counting tens of billions of dollars more that Gates himself has promised, the total is higher than the gross domestic products of 70% of the world's nations.

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune. Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had one goal: returns "that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making." Bill and Melinda Gates require the managers to keep a highly diversified portfolio, but make no specific directives.

By comparing these investments with information from for-profit services that analyze corporate behavior for mutual funds, pension managers, government agencies and other foundations, The Times found that the Gates Foundation has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

Evan
07-22-2009, 09:57 AM
It also has a mandate to distribute ALL of the Buffet donation within 10 years after Buffet's death and the rest within 50 years of the death of Bill and Melinda Gates.


By comparing these investments with information from for-profit services that analyze corporate behavior for mutual funds, pension managers, government agencies and other foundations, The Times found that the Gates Foundation has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."


The mandate is to make money in order to give money away. Last year they gave away 2.8 billion. It's not possible to invest that amount of capital without some of it being invested in something that doesn't meet someone's standard of "social responsibility".

Fasttrack
07-22-2009, 10:36 AM
Besides which, you shouldn't be sore at the man because he's swimming in money. That's his right as an American - just because the rest of us mere mortals won't ever make as much as he does in a month, doesn't mean that we can be pissy about it.

If he wants to hoard all his money, well then its his right. I certainly don't have a right to judge him. But like Evan said, in order to continue to donate large amounts of money, you need to have an investment plan to make sure those funds remain from year to year. Where do you think the money for the Nobel prizes comes from? Only a small fraction of the total is given away as prize money, the rest is reinvested.

<edit> Not sure what this silverfrost nonsense is, though. I don't like having to install a bunch of useless features/programs on my computer just to watch a damn lecture!

dp
07-22-2009, 10:52 AM
<edit> Not sure what this silverfrost nonsense is, though. I don't like having to install a bunch of useless features/programs on my computer just to watch a damn lecture!

That part is the down side of this. I won't be installing it any time soon so that pretty much cuts me off from seeing them again if they're removed from YouTube. Might be a good time to archive them before it's too late.

lazlo
07-22-2009, 11:08 AM
Besides which, you shouldn't be sore at the man because he's swimming in money. That's his right as an American - just because the rest of us mere mortals won't ever make as much as he does in a month, doesn't mean that we can be pissy about it.

I wasn't being pissy about it -- my point is that it's just a gigantic tax shelter.

Fasttrack
07-22-2009, 11:12 AM
I wasn't being pissy about it -- my point is that it's just a gigantic tax shelter.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was actually thinking of my peers when I was writting that. It's a pet peeve of mine - alot of my more liberal friends are always bashing "rich people". :rolleyes:

Evan
07-22-2009, 01:16 PM
my point is that it's just a gigantic tax shelter.


Certainly it is. One that happens to benefit a great number of people, not just Bill Gates. It's also a means of seeing that money being used directly for what he wishes instead of it going into the general revenue pot. I sure don't have a problem with that.

hoof
07-22-2009, 06:05 PM
The other side of the story, Kids that recieve a poor education usually end up in jail. We should as nation just spend more once on better education and let them contribute for the rest of thier lives. :D

Ray

Rustybolt
07-22-2009, 06:29 PM
He dragged a whole lot of people up to millionare status on his way up as well. Nothing wrong with that.

macona
07-22-2009, 10:34 PM
That part is the down side of this. I won't be installing it any time soon so that pretty much cuts me off from seeing them again if they're removed from YouTube. Might be a good time to archive them before it's too late.

Silverlight is microsofts tech for streaming video. They quality of the Feynman videos is way better than anything out of youtube. Flash video sucks. Silverlight handles full HD streaming. Just think of silverlight as another flash or quicktime.

dp
07-22-2009, 10:43 PM
Silverlight is microsofts tech for streaming video. They quality of the Feynman videos is way better than anything out of youtube. Flash video sucks. Silverlight handles full HD streaming. Just think of silverlight as another flash or quicktime.

Then you can just imagine how much I detest Windows technology that I put up with this and so much more just to avoid it :)

My OS history:

TRS-DOS 1979
PC-DOS 1982
MS-DOS 1982 - 1983
DR-DOS 1983 - > ?
Windows 2.1 1988?
OS/2 1990
Solaris 1995
MacOS 2001 - >

Because I used to work at MSFT and because I used to do product testing for them I haven't ever had to pay for any of their products.

gmatov
07-23-2009, 01:33 AM
Another thing I have read about Buffett is that his wife wanted him to donate to charity long before he did.

His reply was that they could contribute more if he kept making money.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Buffett passed away, before the charitable contributions began.

I have read that Mr. Buffet regrets that he and his wife did not contribute while she could still feel that they, as a couple, were doing so.

Reminiscent of the gravestone you never see. "I wish I had spent more time at work."

Mr. Buffett must be remorseful that he and his wife were not lauded as a couple. 50 years of marriage to the same woman makes you wish you had heeded your spouse's wishes.

Regardless, he is on record as saying his children will be taken care of, but they will not be multi-billionaires.

I would assume Bill and Melinda Gates feel the same way. Children will be rich, well taken care of, but NOT Richest Kids In The Country.

I admire both of them. You may not, but that is your problem.

Cheers,

George

barts
07-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Silverlight is microsofts tech for streaming video. They quality of the Feynman videos is way better than anything out of youtube. Flash video sucks. Silverlight handles full HD streaming. Just think of silverlight as another flash or quicktime.

The issue I have w/ all these is the lock-in to someone's OS. I wish people would distribute video in forms that can be read by open-source software.

It's like someone distributing printed materials in Word format; if it wasn't for OpenOffice we'd all have to buy Microsoft OSs/Word to read them.

- Bart

loose nut
07-23-2009, 11:24 AM
Besides which, you shouldn't be sore at the man because he's swimming in money. That's his right as an American - just because the rest of us mere mortals won't ever make as much as he does in a month, doesn't mean that we can be pissy about it.


That's his right as a person. There are other people on the planet besides Americans would like to be rich too. They have just as much right to get there as Americans do.

Silverlight is a free download, so don't worry about it.

We are all getting screwed over by the big corporations, it might as well be Microsoft as any of the others. Unless you go way off the grid and live in a cave wearing skins from the animals that you hunt down you can't stop it. Of course that makes you the equivalent of a corporation, living off of the suffering of other animals.

At least Gates is trying to give something back, that's a lot better then most of the big corp's.

barts
07-23-2009, 11:31 AM
That's his right as a person. There are other people on the planet besides Americans would like to be rich too. They have just as much right to get there as Americans do.

Silverlight is a free download, so don't worry about it.

We are all getting screwed over by the big corporations, it might as well be Microsoft as any of the others. Unless you go way off the grid and live in a cave wearing skins from the animals that you hunt down you can't stop it. Of course that makes you the equivalent of a corporation, living off of the suffering of other animals.

At least Gates is trying to give something back, that's a lot better then most of the big corp's.

Is Silverlight available in source form? Or only for operating systems approved by Microsoft? If you're going to give something away, then
do it w/o strings attached - otherwise, it's just a self-serving stunt.

- Bart

lazlo
07-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Is Silverlight available in source form? Or only for operating systems approved by Microsoft?

I know that's a rhetorical question, but I'm pretty sure Silverlight uses VC9 -- Microsoft's proprietary H.264 Codec.

Streaming video is a billion-dollar business, so Microsoft wants to get as many people stuck on Silverlight as possible. That's why they're buying high-value video and streaming on Silverlight. It's also why they negotiated the exclusive agreement to stream the Olympics.

loose nut
07-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Silverlight is just another windows update.

It is voluntary, you don't have to download it, can't say for sure what happens, or doesn't happen if you don't.

I installed it and I didn't see any effect but I don't watch much video.

Fasttrack
07-23-2009, 11:55 AM
LooseNut - Absolutely. I was just trying to illustrate a point. Many of our forum members are from the US and we often brag about our supposed freedom. Well if we really do value that freedom so much, then we can't be sore when someone has more money than we do.

But yes, ideally any person should be allowed to make as much money as they can without resorting to crime. Which of course brings up the whole argument as to what exactly is meant by "crime" :D

camdigger
07-23-2009, 12:59 PM
LooseNut - Absolutely. I was just trying to illustrate a point. Many of our forum members are from the US and we often brag about our supposed freedom. Well if we really do value that freedom so much, then we can't be sore when someone has more money than we do.

But yes, ideally any person should be allowed to make as much money as they can without resorting to crime. Which of course brings up the whole argument as to what exactly is meant by "crime" :D

It's one of the poorest held secrets that BG / Microsoft got started by selling product they did not own. Their purchase was negotiated after the sale. Sounds a lot like fraud - ie crime...

Sell something broken as originally sold (e.g. windoze vista) and then charge for additional software (e.g. office 07) and hardware (eg additional RAM) to make it more efficient, just to get somewhere just shy of what you had to start with while with Windoze XP:eek: . Newer, "faster" computer that takes 3x as long to start as the previous version... Sure, we have no reason to complain.... we swallowed the hype and paid the piper...:rolleyes:

lazlo
07-23-2009, 01:32 PM
It's one of the poorest held secrets that BG / Microsoft got started by selling product they did not own. Their purchase was negotiated after the sale. Sounds a lot like fraud - ie crime...

That's pretty close. IBM wanted the CP/M operating system for the IBM 8088 Personal Computer. So they went to Gary Kildall (the author), and asked for a flat-rate license for $250,000. Gary wanted a royalty-based arrangement.

During the negotiations, Microsoft paid Tim Patterson $25,000 to write a API-compatible CP/M clone, and then sold it to IBM for $50,000 for a flat-rate license.

Gary Kildall was furious, of course, and the rest is history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS

In October 1980, IBM was developing what would become the original IBM Personal Computer. CP/M was by far the most popular operating system in use at the time, and IBM felt it needed CP/M in order to compete. IBM's representatives visited Digital Research and discused licensing with DRI's licensing representative, Dorothy McEwen Kildall, who hesitated to sign IBM's non-disclosure agreement. Although the NDA was later accepted, DRI would not accept IBM's proposal of $250,000 in exchange for as many copies as IBM could sell, insisting on the usual royalty-based plan.[1] In later discussions between IBM and Bill Gates, Gates mentioned the existence of 86-DOS and IBM representative Jack Sams told him to get a license for it.

camdigger
07-23-2009, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE=lazlo]During the negotiations, Microsoft paid Tim Patterson $25,000 to write a API-compatible CP/M clone, and then sold it to IBM for $50,000 for a flat-rate license.

QUOTE]

Some experts claim that the CP/M clone was simply cross compiled by running it through black boxes. THis apparently is obvious to some in that there are remnants of the opriginal still embedded in the op system... More and more like fraud/theft...

Evan
07-23-2009, 05:07 PM
CP/M and DOS are very similar but that is the nature of the operating systems at the time. There are enough syntax differences that significant recoding had to be done even if CP/M was the prototype.

beanbag
07-23-2009, 05:33 PM
I know that's a rhetorical question, but I'm pretty sure Silverlight uses VC9 -- Microsoft's proprietary H.264 Codec.

Streaming video is a billion-dollar business, so Microsoft wants to get as many people stuck on Silverlight as possible. That's why they're buying high-value video and streaming on Silverlight. It's also why they negotiated the exclusive agreement to stream the Olympics.

The nefarious purpose surfaces...

lazlo
07-23-2009, 06:28 PM
During the negotiations, Microsoft paid Tim Patterson $25,000 to write a API-compatible CP/M clone, and then sold it to IBM for $50,000 for a flat-rate license.

Some experts claim that the CP/M clone was simply cross compiled by running it through black boxes. THis apparently is obvious to some in that there are remnants of the opriginal still embedded in the op system... More and more like fraud/theft...

That came up in the huge court trial -- the dis-assembled source code for PC-DOS included symbols directly from CP/M. That's pretty damning evidence...


There are enough syntax differences that significant recoding had to be done even if CP/M was the prototype.

PC-DOS copied the CP/M API, and all the internal datastructures were exactly the same. PC-DOS also copied CP/M's drive letters: A:, C:, ... that we still use 30 years later...

According to the developers, "porting" WordStar and dBase involved not much more than a re-compile.

Evan
07-23-2009, 07:45 PM
There was a lot of difference in the "look and feel" of CP/M compared to MSDOS. I had both operating systems on machines in the early 80s and while obviously similar they didn't seem the same from the outside at all. Very few people know that the Commodore 128 had two CPUs, a 65XX family of course but also a Z-80 with CP/M included as the operating system. You just pressed a key to choose which one it booted with.

oldtiffie
07-24-2009, 04:06 AM
If there ain't nothing illegal there ain't no crime.

"Right and wrong" if not criminal are "moral" issues.

Even if the Law were changed to make these activities illegal, I doubt they'd be retrospective.

If, for that sake of the discussion, all or any MS product is or was in part derived from that stolen product, and if you are sure of it, and yet knowing that you still use it, then it seems that you are complicit after the fact and are using stolen goods.

Now - we were talking about morals and ethics, what they are in this case and about practicing them in this case (too?) etc.

So, instead of just "bad-mouthing", how about really taking the high moral ground you profess to admire and setting an example and purging you conscience and your computer of these "tainted" products.

There aren't anyone more "purer" than the "purified".

Yeah - right.

.RC.
07-24-2009, 04:43 AM
Mr. Gates really believes in education as the road out of misery.

Depends on what the education is...

If I had total control on the worlds education system, I would be the most powerful person on the planet..

lazlo
07-24-2009, 10:22 AM
If, for that sake of the discussion, all or any MS product is or was in part derived from that stolen product, and if you are sure of it, and yet knowing that you still use it, then it seems that you are complicit after the fact and are using stolen goods.

The story of Bill Gates commissioning a bootleg version of CP/M to steal the original IBM PC contract out from under Gary Kildall is a famous part of computer history. So is Bill stealing the interface for Windows 1.0 from the 3 MacOS prototypes that Steve Jobs lent Microsoft for a joint software project.

Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement, and the court case lasted 4 years before most of Apple's claims were denied on a contractual technicality. Microsoft ended up settling out of court with Apple for an undisclosed sum, which included Microsoft committing to perpetual development of a MacOS port of Microsoft Office.

So now that you know this, you're complicit as well. Let us know when you've deleted all your Microsoft products...

barts
07-24-2009, 10:28 AM
So, instead of just "bad-mouthing", how about really taking the high moral ground you profess to admire and setting an example and purging you conscience and your computer of these "tainted" products.

There aren't anyone more "purer" than the "purified".

Yeah - right.


I use a computer free of Microsoft's "taint" - I use OpenSolaris:


http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/buttons/iboot_os_blu_180.gif (http://www.opensolaris.org)

loose nut
07-24-2009, 11:08 AM
The story of Bill Gates commissioning a bootleg version of CP/M to steal the original IBM PC contract out from under Gary Kildall is a famous part of computer history.
.

IBM went originally to Microsoft for an OS, Billy G said they had a "gentlemens" agreement with Kidall in that he did the OS's and MS did applications and he wouldn't cross that line. IBM then went to Digital Research, known at that time as "Intergalactic Digital Research" (this should have been a red flag to IBM right there) and Kidall wouldn't play ball. At this time IBM went back to MS and it was Gates opinion that he had given Kidall his chance and he blew it (boy did he blow it, DR could have been MS) and supplying the new OS was now fair game.

At this time MS contracted to sell an OS for almost nothing with an agreement that IBM would market and sell other MS products like Office, which is where MS makes it's money.

Problem, MS didn't have anything that they could develop to sell to IBM. Solution , they went out and bought one. It was similar C/PM as were most other OS's at the time and MS changed it in some ways to make it different, the most obvious is the a:/ became c:/.

I don't see that MS did anything wrong, in fact Gates tried to do the right thing, most companies wouldn't.

For those that think it was wrong look at all the modern OS's. Linux, Mac OS10 and Vista are all based on some form of Unix like Free BSD. MS isn't any better or worse then any of the others.

For those that hate MS they can use one of the "other " operating systems , like Barts, but try getting serious programing to run on it.

Like it or not Windows is still the only real OS for most of us.

lazlo
07-24-2009, 11:17 AM
IBM went originally to Microsoft for an OS, Billy G said they had a "gentlemens" agreement with Kidall in that he did the OS's and MS did applications and he wouldn't cross that line.

IBM went to Gary Kildall first -- CP/M was the dominant OS for personal computers at the time, and IBM was sure that they needed the real CP/M for the original IBM PC to be successful. The Urban Legend is that Gary was out parachuting when the IBM guys arrived.

All parties involved: Gary Kildall, his Wife (the Digital Research business manager), Bill Gates, and the IBM project managers that visited Digital Research, have been interviewed countless times since then, and the timeline is very consistent across all parties involved.

loose nut
07-24-2009, 11:51 AM
Got to argue that one Lazlo, I watched the interview with Billy G. too and IBM went to MS first, Gates sent them to Gary Kidall who wouldn't deal with IBM on their terms so they went back to MS and the rest is history.

Everyone see MS as the evil empire, name one corporation that is any better, they all only exist to take as much as they can from a many as they can as often as they can.

MS is no better or worse then the rest, we are all just cannon fodder in the commercial world.

Evan
07-24-2009, 12:02 PM
The story of Bill Gates commissioning a bootleg version of CP/M to steal the original IBM PC contract out from under Gary Kildall is a famous part of computer history. So is Bill stealing the interface for Windows 1.0 from the 3 MacOS prototypes that Steve Jobs lent Microsoft for a joint software project.

Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement, and the court case lasted 4 years before most of Apple's claims were denied on a contractual technicality. Microsoft ended up settling out of court with Apple for an undisclosed sum, which included Microsoft committing to perpetual development of a MacOS port of Microsoft Office.



The real reason that suit folded is because Xerox intervened on the side of Microsoft. They came to the trial as a "friend of the court" (Amicus Curieae) displaying a license they has recently negotiated with DRI granting DRI all the salient elements of the Mac OS as developed by Xerox before Apple existed. Of course it was Apple that stole the interface from Xerox.

This happened at about the time that Xerox was switching over from their own in house proprietary computer systems (The Xerox Star) to PCs running Windows. What a coincidence.

lazlo
07-24-2009, 12:08 PM
Got to argue that one Lazlo, I watched the interview with Billy G. too and IBM went to MS first, Gates sent them to Gary Kidall who wouldn't deal with IBM on their terms so they went back to MS and the rest is history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS

IBM interest

In October 1980, IBM was developing what would become the original IBM Personal Computer. CP/M was by far the most popular operating system in use at the time, and IBM felt it needed CP/M in order to compete. IBM's representatives visited Digital Research and discused licensing with DRI's licensing representative, Dorothy McEwen Kildall, who hesitated to sign IBM's non-disclosure agreement. Although the NDA was later accepted, DRI would not accept IBM's proposal of $250,000 in exchange for as many copies as IBM could sell, insisting on the usual royalty-based plan.[1] In later discussions between IBM and Bill Gates, Gates mentioned the existence of 86-DOS and IBM representative Jack Sams told him to get a license for it.

Rich Carlstedt
07-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Man I am impressed with what you guys know ..really.
I lived and worked in Silicon Valley during the 80's and have heard
those stories and many more that I don't remember.

As a "consumer" and not a computer industry employee/engineer, I can only say one thing.
Having had computers since 1981 that I am glad we have Microsoft. We had so many operating systems back then it was confusing and actually hampered development ..as I saw it.
Atari,Apple, Osborn,IBM,Commodore,Sun and a hundred others
The gravitation to MS-DOS, cleared the way for hundreds of software companies to unite and GROW
The consumer benefited and allowed my computer could give information to your computer.

Rich

loose nut
07-24-2009, 01:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS

IBM interest

In October 1980, IBM was developing what would become the original IBM Personal Computer. CP/M was by far the most popular operating system in use at the time, and IBM felt it needed CP/M in order to compete. IBM's representatives visited Digital Research and discused licensing with DRI's licensing representative, Dorothy McEwen Kildall, who hesitated to sign IBM's non-disclosure agreement. Although the NDA was later accepted, DRI would not accept IBM's proposal of $250,000 in exchange for as many copies as IBM could sell, insisting on the usual royalty-based plan.[1] In later discussions between IBM and Bill Gates, Gates mentioned the existence of 86-DOS and IBM representative Jack Sams told him to get a license for it.


1. don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia, anyone can go in and change whatever they want, it may be right or not.

2. While what your wiki says is true it just doesn't tell the whole story, hunt down the interview on it by Bill Gates, it will be on the web somewhere (early 90's), it adds "the rest of the story".

3. Bill G. and IBM aren't exactly friends (IBM and MS split on bad terms over IBM's OS2 system) so there stories my differ I'm inclined to believe what came out of Bill Gates mouth rather than a IBM spin doctored press release.

4. Rich is right, in the early days of home computers there was at least a doz. different system that where not compatible even with products from there own company, it was a major headache trying to find software that would work on your computer or would let you run a doc. from another type of computer. Windows my suck in a lot of ways but it's better than having that.

barts
07-24-2009, 01:46 PM
For those that hate MS they can use one of the "other " operating systems , like Barts, but try getting serious programing to run on it.


I guess I don't know what constitutes "serious programming" in your estimation, but a machine w/ 256 processors and 2 TB of RAM running a large database is serious in my opinion - and Solaris is often found running exactly those sorts of applications. Closer to home, Pro-E runs very nicely on Solaris.

Windows is sort of the Black and Decker of operating systems - you see a lot of it around, but folks in the know aren't proud of using it.

Right now I'm running OpenSolaris at work on a 4 core 3.2 Ghz Intel Nehalem; 12GB of RAM and 4TB of disk. Using it at home is kind of like having a Monarch or Hardinge in the garage.... probably overkill for what I do with it, but it's always a pleasure to use a well-designed tool.

My point in saying this is that there are choices; one isn't stuck running some insecure Microsoft OS that requires periodic re-installation or delousing.

Solaris, Linux, OS-X - all are legitimate and practical alternatives to running Windows.... and attempts to distribute "free" content that requires you to run a non-free OS is just more of the same from a company whose dubious business practices are well known.

<Oblig. disclosure - I help write OpenSolaris at work>

- Bart

lazlo
07-24-2009, 02:02 PM
1. don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia, anyone can go in and change whatever they want, it may be right or not.

I picked a Wiki link because it was convenient, but the legend of Bill Gates commissioning a bootleg CP/M copy to swipe the deal out from under Gary Kildall is legendary. It was portrayed in "The Pirates of Silicon Valley", for example.

If you Google "Gary Kildall Skydiving" you'll find a 1,000 hits that describe the same story:

http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/kildall.htm

IMSAI, needing to compete with MITS, approached Gary for a non-exclusive CP/M license for a fixed $25,000 fee. Since several other manufactuters also wanted CP/M, Gary rewrote it completely to make it easier to install on different hardware systems. He made it hardware independent by creating a separate module which he called the BIOS (Basic Input/Output System). He also added an editor, assembler, debugger, and several utilities. CP/M became a full-blown computer development system Gary, and his former wife, Dorothy McEwen, formed Digital Research Inc. to market CP/M-80. They placed a small classified ad in Dr. Dobb's Journal and were suprised by the large number of orders from hobbyists for the $90 software package. By early 1977, several manufacturers were including CP/M with their systems. They provided a ROM-BIOS so that CP/M loaded immediately on power-up.

By 1978 Microsoft BASIC and FORTRAN, UCSD Pascal, MicroPro's WordStar, Ashton-Tate's dBase, and other programs were running on CP/M-based on machines from Apple, Radio Shack, Commodore, Zenith, Sharp, and almost a hundred other manufacturers. In 1980, IBM approached DRI, to license CP/M-86, an 8086 version of CP/M then being developed. Gary had been working on this but delayed finishing it while working on several language projects. Intel had introduced the 8086 16-bit microprocessor in June 1978 and followed it a year later with the 8088, a lower-cost and slower version. IBM decided to use the 8088 for its new PC.

Seattle Computer Products in early 1979 introduced the first 8086 computer kit. Sales languished while SCP waited for DRI to introduce CP/M-86. In desperation SCP hired Tim Paterson to develop a DOS for them. Tim quickly created a simplified 8086 version of CP/M which he called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System, since it did not implement all of CP/M's features). Microsoft, located nearby, modified BASIC for the system.

IBM met with a cool reception when they approached DRI for a CP/M license. Dorothy McEwen and DRI's attorney refused to sign the IBM non-disclosure agreement (Gary did not attend the meeting-it's been said that he was out flying his airplane), refused to make any modifications to CP/M-86 and insisted on a higher royalty than what IBM proposed. Bill Gates, who had been negotiating a BASIC license with IBM, seized the opportunity and offered to provide a DOS/BASIC package to IBM on favorable terms. Gates licensed SCP-DOS (for $50,000) and hired Tim Paterson to modify it to run on the IBM-PC. Microsoft submitted a copy to IBM for testing, who found over 300 bugs. IBM cleaned up many of the bugs, made a number of improvements and wrote the user manual.

DRI released CP/M-86 soon after IBM released DOS Version 1.0. DOS had fewer features and poorer performance. IBM offered both CP/M-86 and DOS. CP/M-86 was offered at $240 versus $60 for DOS. Few PC owners were willing to pay the extra money. DRI considered suing Microsoft for copying all the CP/M system calls, program structure, and user interface. However, DRI knew it would also have to sue IBM. It knew it did not have the resources for this and that its chances of success were remote.

loose nut
07-24-2009, 06:16 PM
Everything there is true, except the part that is omitted, before IBM went to see Kidall they talked to Gates. He sent them to kidall and after he dropped the ball Gates grabbed it and ran, just like it said in your quote.

oldtiffie
07-24-2009, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by oldtiffie
If, for that sake of the discussion, all or any MS product is or was in part derived from that stolen product, and if you are sure of it, and yet knowing that you still use it, then it seems that you are complicit after the fact and are using stolen goods.


The story of Bill Gates commissioning a bootleg version of CP/M to steal the original IBM PC contract out from under Gary Kildall is a famous part of computer history. So is Bill stealing the interface for Windows 1.0 from the 3 MacOS prototypes that Steve Jobs lent Microsoft for a joint software project.

Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement, and the court case lasted 4 years before most of Apple's claims were denied on a contractual technicality. Microsoft ended up settling out of court with Apple for an undisclosed sum, which included Microsoft committing to perpetual development of a MacOS port of Microsoft Office.

So now that you know this, you're complicit as well. Let us know when you've deleted all your Microsoft products...

I don't recall claiming the high moral ground in this or any other instance in this regard - and I didn't - and I won't.

What I have I bought from credible sources in good faith - and I use it - and I will continue to use it.

If I am guilty of any "crime" in that process, then so be it.

Taking it off my computer?

No way.

As I said earlier, if there is or has been no crime proven in the proper process under the Criminal Law, then I can't see why I should be concerned about it.

A lot of this seems to be ranting by zealots.

loose nut
07-24-2009, 06:40 PM
Quit ranting, are you kidding. Ranting like zealots is half the fun of the forum.;) :rolleyes: :D

camdigger
07-24-2009, 06:53 PM
Quit ranting, are you kidding. Ranting like zealots is half the fun of the forum.

Hey!! I represent that!! Mild-mannered-desk-jockey off line, but a finger-in-your-chest/spit-in-yer-face/died-in-the-wool flag waving zealot logged onto a machine made by a relatively faceless corporation using 3rd world labor running software with a shady pedigree :eek: :D

I'm so much cooler on line.... I think there's a song lyric in the making.... Rats, already been done... The guy in the video looks like me too! (Bubbles I mean, not Brad P.)