From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 30986 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2021 08:21:26 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 Apr 2021 08:21:26 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7D3E09CAC5; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:21:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACD59C723; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:20:56 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=planet.nl header.i=@planet.nl header.b="lYcA6uUy"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 33A6D9C723; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:20:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com [213.75.39.9]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E3F9C722 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:20:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsps-ews09.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.176]) by cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:20:43 +0200 X-Brand: 7abm2Q== X-KPN-SpamVerdict: e1=0;e2=0;e3=0;e4=;e6=(e1=10;e3=10;e2=11;e4=10;e6=1 0);EVW:White;BM:NotScanned;FinalVerdict:Clean X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=T73v89GQ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=606d6b5c cx=a_idp_e a=WB5lYbMG1jvHJ1f8o08CVQ==:117 a=soxbC+bCkqwFbqeW/W/r+Q==:17 a=x1i13A_MHe4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=3YhXtTcJ-WEA:10 a=1VdlETIw_roldFD3ZsIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-AcctID: kpn@feedback.cloudmark.com Received: from smtp.kpnmail.nl ([195.121.84.14]) by cpsps-ews09.kpnxchange.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:20:43 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=planet.nl; s=planet01; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type:from; bh=RQKbewXGm+PZitpPy3ntBTmJRdhuhIDSXZBhB1ThlA0=; b=lYcA6uUyn9e1IgzBnRLbca2+jC5uvW8kOBPSIeAfDA21EBl9hJwRvxIUJfZo8jAyoYL9KekR50aUS WM/5tafx9LwKMUsrOCE1sIau8nvFquCpuZa8TBBtYdTdMXvKKdvPguHzTLAO+EWvZDUUdoEaZDfjz5 JMehXrNUCcDmmz6I= X-KPN-VerifiedSender: Yes X-CMASSUN: 33|SSAG1uErE5mIo8bupDajb/IenzRepzfLx/qRz3W1IgV8exV1oeW7n7mz/6livki ZNvttMnoW2jQ/6x/hC1grWA== X-Originating-IP: 80.101.112.122 Received: from mba2.fritz.box (sqlite.xs4all.nl [80.101.112.122]) by smtp.kpnmail.nl (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 2586d8ee-977a-11eb-890d-00505699d6e5; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:20:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul Ruizendaal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <2313BFBA-8795-497F-AD46-46CCFC0E6E6C@planet.nl> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:20:43 +0200 To: TUHS main list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2021 08:20:43.0986 (UTC) FILETIME=[E779F320:01D72B86] X-RcptDomain: minnie.tuhs.org Subject: [TUHS] PC Unix X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" > IBM famously failed to buy the well-established CP/M in > 1980. (CP/M had been introduced in 1974, before the > advent of the LSI-11 on which LSX ran.) By then IBM had > settled on Basic and Intel. I do not believe they ever > considered Unix and DEC, nor that AT&T considered > selling to IBM. (AT&T had--fortunately--long since been > rebuffed in an attempt to sell to DEC.) >=20 > Doug Besides all the truth or legend around flying and signing NDA=E2=80=99s, = I think there were clear economic reasons for ending up with = Microsoft=E2=80=99s DOS, and the pre-cursor to that: picking the 8088. [1] By 1980 there were an estimated 8,000 software packages for CP/M = available, many aimed at small business. IBM was targeting that. The = availability of source level converters for 8080 code to 8088 code made = porting economically feasible for the (cottage) ISV=E2=80=99s. This must = have been a strong argument in favour of picking the 8088 for the = original PC. [2] In line with their respective tried and tested business models, = Digital Research offered CP/M-86 with a per-copy license structure. = Microsoft offered QDOS with a one-off license structure. The latter was = economically more attractive to IBM. I don=E2=80=99t think either side = expected clones to happen the way they did, although they did probably = factor in the appearance of non-compatible work-alikes. Although some sources suggest that going with the 68000 and/or Unix were = considered, it would have left the new machine without an instant base = of affordable small business applications. Speed to market was a leading = paradigm for the PC's design team.