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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 8747 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2021 06:49:15 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 8 Apr 2021 06:49:15 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 178829CA84; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:49:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7204C9C723; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:48:49 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VPmK1DUs"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A1B919C723; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:48:47 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-il1-f172.google.com (mail-il1-f172.google.com [209.85.166.172]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E609C722 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:48:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-il1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 6so865566ilt.9 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:48:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HPlgghnnCn2MObEyOdavNwziL9mVFGvUiLtzgnvdl/U=; b=VPmK1DUslBBr/K1q7pS5Wp5jWmLwHCdgSSNzYO7AuQ7dcLV5K2uSO1CtiAeTcLtrAW /PgyLhvseT7hSdlCXwaxvfNQddsVs+g5t25vFyg4sTClmAK38PLX9ab6cfWvmKHoe/IT m3aRTk1m4BjtNY5kPHv+SRNgQMkuVZ6wVI1Q7u3NReb3RqfU2ZKvUvKPRhPCodj5oKc7 GZs7GArUyV7rs0+EUtD2IdiG64/IixdV6G66nbDiWwobE8lwpWPal/8T+zmHR6RSaXXt 3eUWVGg8FD+Ww5eLRA9oTHF12gDVZk+qZlDgMEoL9lDq2MiYCt5ZzYg8cqKk5RBcUfcQ MLFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=HPlgghnnCn2MObEyOdavNwziL9mVFGvUiLtzgnvdl/U=; b=VF9x6fL69QFPNI3UZIYB3bK8ORhmx8z6ARlWHzms+NschwExBq4hVFDF9iA6aE2SPP dC+8Xh8Fb51GvLQXan/x8Yhl71Z8+Y9uwjdgJz4Segvqd9xqiOUcARAYmJlVj5PQqXM0 fMNj1S5/OYZdBwZeTJ84QstZ+JIlmn5q+HRgBB5HFadYp2vGYFOagaJVxWy5GU/k6nAi JWu/XIBAZUNVpIeFypnyrHsBBrKUN7o1TgL80c2gqXVqhJ5BMUuzmnC4msqlCawRigaW Tw64GRjQ3/VI3UZnvZZeFVcU/JOjEI8FEiFLbBa7ZlLqyxb3mSztix/a+hlqz+nSvxn3 fSFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533f+8xKbuz2ss/szoXGf7/VnmXfqHmWXMXBYT3HU0572usxXwxH 46zHTwGzdZJDfwbdZ38hQY9kRhyuchGpJSHmm4E5WgHs X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0bOJC4Ouc0VUBoIDMbZ8bkpULF3OFwwzhdaifKaQ112tFf45eT8VRf3QlOtDWfx15lhXg5qupEcA6Ih+3+p0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:13a6:: with SMTP id h6mr5613206ilo.86.1617864525271; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:48:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ad5:4252:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:48:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Warkentin Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:48:44 -0600 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Story about Microsoft and *ix 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" On 4/7/21, Ed Bradford wrote: > In the early 80's it was Bill Gates who made strategic decisions for MS. > That was even before they went public. My wonder is if Gates had ever used > Unix. He (personally) developed BASIC for a CPM (I think) machine. I am > unaware of any system level skills in his experience. If he had knowledge > of or used Unix or XENIX (for which he had a master license from AT&T), why > on earth would anyone go down the bazaar path of DOS with lettered drives, > tortuous IO interfaces, and assembly language source code? Why didn't he > choose a far simpler to support and easier to learn operating system that > had > 10 years of maturity. I would love to hear Bill Gates' description of the > development of a DOS over Unix strategy. > > My guess is there wasn't enough memory on the first IBM PC's. I worked with > LSX while at BTL and forget the memory footprint of LSX. Memory protection > was another thing, but LSX looked and felt like UNIX without memory > protection. Does anyone recall how much RAM memory could be put on the > first IBM PC's? That was probably a major problem. > Limited RAM was probably the main factor keeping Microsoft from replacing DOS with XENIX on early PCs. I think that the main factor after most PCs started to come with sufficient RAM for Unix might have been that the divestiture allowed AT&T to fully commercialize Unix and charge a fortune for licenses. Microsoft did actually talk about gradually phasing out DOS for XENIX before the divestiture happened. I wonder if Microsoft would have actually followed through on replacing DOS with XENIX had the divestiture either not happened at all, or happened in a form that still restricted AT&T from commercializing Unix (maybe a vertical divestiture in which the Bell System continued to exist but was forced to become a wholesaler only). It would probably have been the path of least resistance. History would very likely have gone better than it actually did here, with Unix likely becoming the dominant OS family by the early to mid 90s. With their flagship OS being a Unix, Microsoft would have had a bit harder time being as anti-competitive as they were here, and at least they would have been pushing an OS that was sort of reasonable unlike anything in the DOS-like family. XENIX would probably have gone on to be the dominant implementation of Unix, but it's likely that compatibility layers for it would have been common (as some PC Unices actually did here). I guess things could have also gone a lot worse than they did here though. Linux sucks in quite a few ways, but Microsoft could very well have actually finished winning the Unix wars in the early 2000s had Linux not been there at the right time to emerge as the ultimate victor. At least the possibility of writing a better OS and having it be at least modestly successful by being Linux-compatible still remains here, whereas it would be much harder for a better OS to succeed in a world where Windows was pretty much the only relevant OS.