From: rochkind@basepath.com (Marc Rochkind)
Subject: [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:21:52 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOkr1zVpR-LaNMgenNf6sGFVyREOQBeXiSa5Sc+uUoq5qD6F=A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2Puwdr=EM3OpPbbFVdROVku4826r_kJtGzEBR=gXuHWAQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5998 bytes --]
thanks for these comments... lots of interesting stuff
On Thursday, June 30, 2016, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I mostly agree but you have a little history out of order. Apple and
> Franklin really are important here. More inline...
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Marc Rochkind <rochkind at basepath.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rochkind at basepath.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Clem Cole: "IBM allowed the system to be cloned"
>>
>> I never looked at it that way. To discourage cloning, IBM published and
>> copyrighted the BIOS source code.
>>
> Hang on that it was not quite that simple. In fact IBM did publish
> everything because that was what all the PC folks did at the time. As did
> IBM themselves in their mainframes. Remember when the PC was originally
> developed, Judge Green has not yet left IBM from its bondage. So IBM was
> very careful in those days to follow industry norms. The PC folks (like
> Apple, Altair, Cromemco et al) published the schematics and the ROM
> listings. The OS's and higher level tools were closed but the rest tended
> to be generally available so IBM followed suit.
>
>
>
>
>
>> ....
>> A few outfits sprang up to do clean-room BIOS clones, including an
>> outfit called Phoenix, which had the best. Compaq's internal BIOS was also
>> excellent.
>>
> This post the Franklin Computer case. Clones of Apple II sprung up,
> with CPU motherboards coming from Taiwan. Hey I made an Apple II clone,
> as well as an Xerox 820 clone in those days myself (I may still have the
> later).
>
> Franklin Computer of Philadelphia started to sell their Apple II to run
> Visacalc - which was the "killer app" of the day (note a theme here). Jobs
> did not like it and took them to court. I actually knew the main attorney
> for Franklin at the time (one of the few big cases he even lost). Apple
> won because it was the contents of the ROM (bit for bit) that was found to
> be identical. The question became could you "copyright" the bits. [There
> is a whole side discussion about what the memory chip guys of that day did
> to try to keep people from copying them BTW].
>
> Anyway, once that became case law, the concept of a "clean room" was
> created. As you say, Phoenix did a remarkable job. BTW: in an
> interested side note, years later, IBM sold Phoenix its BIOS and started to
> use theirs when the Phoenix BIOS became the gold standard.
>
>
>
>>
>> As for the computer hardware, it was just Intel parts
>>
> Motorola, WD, and TI parts originally.
>
>
>
>
>> For the clones, no copyrighted code was used, the programmers had never
>> seen the code, and the function of the BIOS wasn't copyrightable. So, IBM
>> really had no way to prevent the clones.
>>
> If they had not published the original material, I suspect it would have
> been far, far harder and less attractive. But also remember, clone in the
> IBM land was already around. Amdahl was selling like hot cakes. IBM had
> learned that with the clone market, they sold more of their own product.
> It was an interesting business view. The pie was getting bigger faster,
> so they got a larger amount of pie, even though the percentage of the pie
> got smaller. So IBM made more money.
>
> This was a lesson a lot of companies, particularly computer firms, never
> quite understood. Having a weak, buy alive competitor is better than no
> competition.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> There were a lot of PCs in the early 1980s that weren't clones.
>>
> Absolutely. But if the OS has been reasonable and had be able to hide
> the differences (and you not be able to go directly to HW addresses etc..)
> this would have been less of an issue.
>
>
>
>
>> ...
>> DEC, which had their own weird version of a PC, was the worst.
>>
> No doubt.
>
>
>
>> One might ask why we had such a primitive system with 384K, when UNIX had
>> been developed over 10 years before on a smaller system. Simple: UNIX had
>> swapping.
>>
> Truth is folks built systems that swapped to floppies (and cassette tape
> et al) in those days. Originally Magix was going to be in that same camp
> when it was a "G-job" by Roger and myself. When our boss funded its the
> first thing we did was add a 10M disk.
>
>
>
>
>> ...
>> To get the screen speed on a PC, the application had to own the hardware.
>>
> That was a deficiency of the PC HW design. Other systems, such as the
> Magnolia and later Apollo/Masscomp/Sun, showed you could have fine speed
> with out having to do that. Also in "PC land" consider when the '20 Mac
> came out and Apple started to get religion (as did NeXT shortly there
> after).
>
> You could do it, but the original PC designs were sloppy and did not care
> -- the feeling was that extra HW (and SW to support) was unnecessary.
> In many ways, the original PC guys were right given how far and how long
> those systems lived. But it was painful for the SW building as you
> pointed out. You should not have had to do such "unnatural" or "unsafe"
> acts.
>
>
>
>
>> UNIX insists on standing between the application and the hardware.
>>
> As it should ;-) It required good HW under the covers and then UNIX
> drivers that did the the right things. In the same time frame as the PC
> was developed it was definitely possible and would not have cost more.
>
>
>
>
>> In PC land that would be unacceptable.
>>
> Only because the HW sucked and the OS did not have the right types of
> structures to make it work.
>
> Seriously, Marc I get it and you are better man for dealing with the craziness
> of the day. Many of the rest of us would not at the time, and until we got
> "real HW" did not mess that much with it. Then again, I did not care to
> run a VisaCalc or a Word Perfect :-)
>
> Clem
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160630/ad177082/attachment-0001.html>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-01 1:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-29 15:17 scj
2016-06-30 5:06 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-06-30 5:08 ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 11:18 ` arnold
2016-06-30 11:45 ` arnold
2016-06-30 13:22 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 14:05 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 14:33 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 14:43 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-06-30 14:57 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 15:07 ` Ori Idan
2016-06-30 23:07 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01 3:27 ` Jesus Cea
2016-06-30 15:32 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 15:49 ` Larry McVoy
2016-06-30 16:32 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-04 5:08 ` [TUHS] OS for IBM PC (was: Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2016-06-30 17:07 ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs John Cowan
2016-06-30 17:57 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 18:31 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:21 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:51 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:55 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:04 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 18:26 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-06-30 19:21 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-06-30 19:43 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:53 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:47 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:57 ` Nemo
2016-06-30 23:11 ` Random832
2016-06-30 23:16 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 23:38 ` Random832
2016-07-01 0:38 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01 1:21 ` Marc Rochkind [this message]
2016-07-01 1:34 ` John Cowan
2016-07-04 19:23 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-04 19:56 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-01 2:35 ` Nemo
2016-07-01 3:01 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-01 3:52 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2016-07-01 12:47 ` [TUHS] MS-DOS William Cheswick
2016-07-01 13:43 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-07-01 21:58 ` John Cowan
2016-07-01 22:27 ` Jacob Ritorto
2016-07-01 22:54 ` Jacob Goense
2016-07-01 23:44 ` John Cowan
2016-07-02 0:08 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 1:09 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-02 2:59 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02 3:27 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2016-07-02 23:21 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01 23:49 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02 1:12 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 4:37 ` SZIGETI Szabolcs
2016-07-02 9:53 ` Brantley Coile
2016-07-01 13:47 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01 15:13 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 15:25 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-02 15:32 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 19:46 ` Nemo
2016-07-03 1:18 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-03 13:33 ` Nemo
2016-07-01 17:39 ` John Cowan
2016-07-02 15:17 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-03 22:07 ` Derek Fawcus
2016-07-02 23:32 ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs Peter Jeremy
2016-06-30 15:52 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 20:47 ` Lawrence Stewart
[not found] <mailman.19.1467287486.30583.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
2016-06-30 13:15 ` David
2016-06-30 13:18 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 13:39 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 13:44 Noel Chiappa
2016-06-30 14:28 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 19:23 ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 17:17 Nelson H. F. Beebe
2016-07-01 9:32 ` Brantley Coile
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAOkr1zVpR-LaNMgenNf6sGFVyREOQBeXiSa5Sc+uUoq5qD6F=A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=rochkind@basepath.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).