"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
.. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You
are an idiot.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-02 11:40, Joel wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
.. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You
are an idiot.
Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from scratch".
"Concepts" != "code", *doofus*.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-02 14:05, Joel wrote:
"Concepts" != "code", *doofus*.
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You >>>>> are an idiot.
Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from scratch". >>>
So if I write a novel about a Canadian secret agent with a "sanction to
kill"...
...Ian Fleming's estate won't come around?
Yeah. It's your new language, your new creation. Just asThey completely copied VMS, dude!
Windows NT's core components are, they are obviously going to emulate
what another comparable OS has done, this is of course why it's so
easy to have literal interoperability with the OSes, I'm using
Forte Agent under Linux without a VM of Windows, not only VMS but Unix
isn't so different from NT. This is why I used to be a Winblows
fanboy, myself, when I came to COLA. I liked having Windows 10 and 11
on my current machine, at first, but time marches on, and Linux
rescues one from bloat damnation.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
They completely copied VMS, dude!"Concepts" != "code", *doofus*.I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You >>>>>>> are an idiot.
Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from scratch". >>>>>
So if I write a novel about a Canadian secret agent with a "sanction to >>>> kill"...
...Ian Fleming's estate won't come around?
Yeah. It's your new language, your new creation. Just as
Windows NT's core components are, they are obviously going to emulate
what another comparable OS has done, this is of course why it's so
easy to have literal interoperability with the OSes, I'm using
Forte Agent under Linux without a VM of Windows, not only VMS but Unix
isn't so different from NT. This is why I used to be a Winblows
fanboy, myself, when I came to COLA. I liked having Windows 10 and 11
on my current machine, at first, but time marches on, and Linux
rescues one from bloat damnation.
That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude! >>>>
That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT. >>>>
And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
They copied VMS.
They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
That is not building a program "from scratch".
"Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
.. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did.
You
are an idiot.
On 2025-01-02 11:40, Joel wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:apfhljtmag32kqlvrc29fc7i95n163ka33@4ax.com...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Why is it even important which kernel Apple uses?
They didn't build it from scratch, like Winblows NT did.
You think Windows NT was written totally from scratch? LMAO..
.. some 'elite' you are turning out to be.
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You
are an idiot.
Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from scratch".
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-02 14:05, Joel wrote:
I don't think Windows NT 3.x began from scratch, I *know* it did. You >>>>> are an idiot.
Reusing concepts from VMS means it wasn't really written "from
scratch".
"Concepts" != "code", *doofus*.
So if I write a novel about a Canadian secret agent with a "sanction to >>kill"...
...Ian Fleming's estate won't come around?
Yeah. It's your new language, your new creation. Just as
Windows NT's core components are
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude! >>>>
That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows
NT.
And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
They copied VMS.
They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
That is not building a program "from scratch".
"Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude! >>>>>>
That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
They copied VMS.
They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
That is not building a program "from scratch".
"Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
It is not.
As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals
of Windows NT are to VMS.
'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'
<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly
following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation
threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS &
MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
$50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'
This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright asSorry, but now you're an expert on IP law?
such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
simply created something that had some association with an existing, competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
same thing, no.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Sorry, but now you're an expert on IP law?They completely copied VMS [to generate Windows NT in the 1990s], dude!
That's a fact. Unix is completely different from both VMS and Windows NT.
And interoperability was in no way a part of why they did it.
None of that contradicts my point, doofus.
They copied VMS.
They hired the guy who wrote VMS...
...he he just copied what he'd previously done, wholesale.
That is not building a program "from scratch".
"Copied what [was] previously done, wholesale" is nonsense.
It is not.
As anyone who had actually looked at precisely how similar the internals >>>> of Windows NT are to VMS.
'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork >>>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'
<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
'The similarities to VMS almost created a problem for Microsoft. Shortly >>>> following the release of Windows NT 3.1, Digital Equipment Corporation >>>> threatened litigation against Microsoft over similarities between VMS & >>>> MICA and NT. The matter was settled out of court for something around
$50 million (around $106 million in 2023)'
This is the thing, though - if they had actually violated copyright as
such, it would've been a lot more than 50 million. I wouldn't have
even settled it, if I were Gates. They didn't copy anything, they
simply created something that had some association with an existing,
competitor's product. Is it similar, we could agree it is, but the
same thing, no.
Yeah, I am, because I'm the one who would settle such a matter, going forward, and hiring Cutler to do something like he'd done before isn't
a copyright violation.
Your argument was that it was built "from scratch".
It clearly wasn't.
So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that itYes:
may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of another.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Yes:Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch".
It clearly wasn't.
So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it
may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This
gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to
put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of
another.
Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH". >>
Words have meanings.
It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Yes:Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch". >>>>>>
It clearly wasn't.
So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it >>>>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This >>>>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to >>>>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of >>>>> another.
Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM SCRATCH".
Words have meanings.
It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
It's not.
There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
And that was not done "from scratch".
OK, nerd ...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D. Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch. You are wrong.
It's not.
There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
And that was not done "from scratch".
OK, nerd ...
Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make
an operating system happen.
You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
No, I don't. I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, butCopying.
nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
On 2025-01-03 18:01, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:Copying.
[Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D.
Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch. You are wrong.
It's not.
There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
And that was not done "from scratch".
OK, nerd ...
Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to make >>> an operating system happen.
You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
No, I don't. I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
It's been documented.
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-03 18:01, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:Copying.
[Windows NT 3.x] didn't use the same code [as its designer D.
Cutler had used in VMS], it is from scratch. You are wrong.
It's not.
There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
And that was not done "from scratch".
OK, nerd ...
Seriously, you think that the actual coding is all that you need to
make
an operating system happen.
You just set down, open up a coding editor and start writing?
No, I don't. I think there'd be flowcharts, yada yada, but
nevertheless, Windows did not come about by copying anything else,
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
It's been documented.
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort. Cutler used ~some~ similar CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems. Otherwise there is little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.
I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3. You have to change the BIOS from SRM
to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Windows did not come about by copying anything else,Copying.
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
It's been documented.
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
In what way is it incorrect?
'The I/O Manager
Windows NT has a very distinctive and unique I/O manager. Actually, it's
not quite unique, because it the same as the VMS manager. Unlike many
other systems, VMS and NT I/O is packet based and asynchronous. To
communicate with the outside world, a programme asks the kernel to send
some information to a device, and potentially return the reply. This is
when the kernel uses the I/O manager.'
'Memory management
As mentioned above, NT, VMS and even RSX-11M, VMS's predecessor, split
the memory in two - half for the kernel and half for the user. However,
the similarities go deeper than this.
As RSX-11M was expected to work on such a small machine (the PDP-11),
its memory management was very efficient and sophisticated. One of the
ideas that it, and VMS, used were `working sets'; every process had one.
What a working set did was define the upper and lower limit of the
amount of physical memory allocatable to that process. This system
ensures that one process using large amounts of memory will not squash
other, smaller processes into smaller and smaller amounts of memory.
Windows NT's memory manager also uses working sets, along with all the
other optimizations, algorithms and methods used by RSX-11M to get the
most out a computer's memory, no matter how small.'
<https://everything2.com/title/The+similarities+between+VMS+and+Windows+NT> >>
It goes on to describe many more ways that NT copied VMS:
Kernel and Executive subsytem
Interrupt handling
I/O in general
Scheduling
And this:
'Conclusion
Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
with it.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-03 22:23, paranoia wrote:
On 1/3/2025 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
Windows didn't "copy" anything of the sort. Cutler used ~some~ similar >>> CLI/CMD features and the hierarchical file systems. Otherwise there is >>> little in common between ntoskrnl and the OpenVMS kernel.
I have Windows 2000RC2 AXP running on an AlphaServer DS10 that also
boots Tru64 5.1B and OpenVMS 8.3. You have to change the BIOS from SRM >>> to AlphaBIOS to run Windows.
You should do a little more research.
Your use of "copy" is the problem.
In article <apfmnjd4fvfrn3afsdk3udg07dpskn2ls1@4ax.com>
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
This thread needs to die, as it's very repetitive and super boring.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT >>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians >>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100 >>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
worth it.
On 1/5/25 10:47 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-05 18:27, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
Windows NT
and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing >>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
technicians
and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking >>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to >>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to >>>>>> $100
million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their >>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose, >>>>> with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Yes:Your argument was that it [Windows NT 3.x] was built "from scratch". >>>>>>
It clearly wasn't.
So it used *actual code* from VMS? Because that's the point, that it >>>>> may have emulated it in a variety of ways doesn't make it a copy. This >>>>> gets into the "I invented the GUI" argument, where Winblows stole
Apple's design that they'd rightfully obtained, or some idiocy, no,
there's a certain logic to the GUI interface that any OS would have to >>>>> put together, likewise the guts of an OS are likely to emulate such of >>>>> another.
Doing things exactly like VMW did them means it wasn't coded "FROM
SCRATCH".
Words have meanings.
It didn't use the same code, it is from scratch. You are wrong.
It's not.
There's more to an OS than just DOING the code.
There is coming up with all the CONCEPTS of its operation.
And that was not done "from scratch".
OK, nerd ...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
Windows NT
and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the >>>>>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing >>>>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility. >>>>>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
technicians
and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking >>>>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to >>>>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to >>>>>>>> $100
million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their >>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose, >>>>>>> with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely >>>>> worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
anything, here.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their >>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose, >>>>>>>>> with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely >>>>>>> worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
anything, here.
The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
architecture from VMS.
It did.
It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endlessAgain: irrelevant.
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Windows did not come about by copying anything else,Copying.
doing the same thing as, sure, not copying.
It's been documented.
Windows copied much of its structure from VMS.
That's saying it incorrectly, face it.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Again: irrelevant.It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000. >>>>>>>>
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time. >>>>>
anything, here.
The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and >>>> architecture from VMS.
It did.
It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
one means you didn't like your chances in court.
BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up >>>>>>>>> their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to >>>>>>>>> lose,
with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business,
likely
worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
anything, here.
The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and >>architecture from VMS.
It did.
It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
On 2025-01-06 10:03, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:Again: irrelevant.
"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up >>>>>>>>>> their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to >>>>>>>>>> lose,
with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, >>>>>>>> likely
worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000. >>>>>>>
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
anything, here.
The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
architecture from VMS.
It did.
It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
one means you didn't like your chances in court.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Again: irrelevant.It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost"Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up >>>>>>>>>>> their
butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to >>>>>>>>>>> lose,
with it.
$100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, >>>>>>>>> likely
worth it.
In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000. >>>>>>>>
So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
Hardly a "token".
And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time. >>>>>
anything, here.
The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and >>>> architecture from VMS.
It did.
It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid >>one means you didn't like your chances in court.
BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Again: irrelevant.Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid >>>> one means you didn't like your chances in court.
BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?
It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?
It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.
Look.
Learn to admit when you're wrong.
Take that advice, yourself.
People who actually know about operating systems have pointed out...
...IN DETAIL...
...how Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* theCode isn't tangible, you idiot.
case.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Code isn't tangible, you idiot.Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's >>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
case.
Uh, it is.
And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Code isn't tangible, you idiot.Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's >>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible. >>>>>>
What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming >>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the >>>>> case.
Uh, it is.
No. It is not:
'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
adjective
perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
almost tangible.'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.
No. You really don't.
One hundred MILLION dollars.
They could afford it.And they could have afforded the lawyers more easily.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Code isn't tangible, you idiot.Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's >>>>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible. >>>>>>>>
What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming >>>>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the >>>>>>> case.
Uh, it is.
No. It is not:
'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
adjective
perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
almost tangible.'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
Good!
And you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't
be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Code isn't tangible, you idiot.Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible. >>>>>>>>>>
What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the >>>>>>>>> case.
Uh, it is.
No. It is not:
'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
adjective
perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was >>>>>> almost tangible.'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
Good!
And you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication
protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled
what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication >>>> protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled
what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context.
And yet, Microsoft paid $100 MILLION dollars to avoid a lawsuit.
And many people have described all the ways that NT copied VMS.
They wanted the suit to go away, they settled, it's not capitulation
to the suit's real claim, they could've defeated that.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>>>>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication >>>>>> protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled
what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context.
And yet, Microsoft paid $100 MILLION dollars to avoid a lawsuit.
And many people have described all the ways that NT copied VMS.
They wanted the suit to go away, they settled, it's not capitulation
to the suit's real claim, they could've defeated that.
I provided you with a source that says that structures from VMS were
copied almost verbatim.
And that is infringement? We can copyright abstract layouts?You're dragging the goalposts.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
You're dragging the goalposts.And yet, Microsoft paid $100 MILLION dollars to avoid a lawsuit.you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>>>>>>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication
protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled >>>>>>> what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context. >>>>>>
And many people have described all the ways that NT copied VMS.
They wanted the suit to go away, they settled, it's not capitulation >>>>> to the suit's real claim, they could've defeated that.
I provided you with a source that says that structures from VMS were
copied almost verbatim.
And that is infringement? We can copyright abstract layouts?
Whether or not it is "infringment", it was COPYING.
'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork
Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'
<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
'copied verbatim'
Got it yet? No?
Okay!
'Those similarities could fill a book. In fact, you can read sections of
VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures (Digital Press) as an accurate
description of NT internals simply by translating VMS terms to NT terms.
Table 1 lists a few VMS terms and their NT translations.'
<https://www.itprotoday.com/server-virtualization/windows-nt-and-vms-the-rest-of-the-story>
That last one was authored by:
"Mark Eugene Russinovich (born December 22, 1966) is a Spanish-born
American software engineer and author who serves as CTO of Microsoft Azure." >>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich>
But what would the guy who wrote a product to "manage, diagnose,
troubleshoot, and monitor a Microsoft Windows environment." know about
Windows NT.
LOL
Russinovich is *God*, first of all. Hail him, like Linus and Richard.
Great programmer for all time. But he's not suggesting that actual
VMS code was "copied" by MS, it's ideas, more abstract. It's not infringement.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
You're dragging the goalposts.They wanted the suit to go away, they settled, it's not capitulation >>>>>>> to the suit's real claim, they could've defeated that.And yet, Microsoft paid $100 MILLION dollars to avoid a lawsuit. >>>>>>>>you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>>>>>>>>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication
protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled >>>>>>>>> what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context. >>>>>>>>
And many people have described all the ways that NT copied VMS. >>>>>>>
I provided you with a source that says that structures from VMS were >>>>>> copied almost verbatim.
And that is infringement? We can copyright abstract layouts?
Whether or not it is "infringment", it was COPYING.
'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork >>>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'
<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
'copied verbatim'
Got it yet? No?
Okay!
'Those similarities could fill a book. In fact, you can read sections of >>>> VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures (Digital Press) as an accurate
description of NT internals simply by translating VMS terms to NT terms. >>>> Table 1 lists a few VMS terms and their NT translations.'
<https://www.itprotoday.com/server-virtualization/windows-nt-and-vms-the-rest-of-the-story>
That last one was authored by:
"Mark Eugene Russinovich (born December 22, 1966) is a Spanish-born
American software engineer and author who serves as CTO of Microsoft Azure."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich>
But what would the guy who wrote a product to "manage, diagnose,
troubleshoot, and monitor a Microsoft Windows environment." know about >>>> Windows NT.
LOL
Russinovich is *God*, first of all. Hail him, like Linus and Richard.
Great programmer for all time. But he's not suggesting that actual
VMS code was "copied" by MS, it's ideas, more abstract. It's not
infringement.
But the threshold was NEVER infringement, dickhead.
You claimed that nothing was "copied".
The IDEAS were copied.
VERBATIM.
How would infringement not be the threshold? Software patenting is discredited. DEC was just flaunting legal muscle, MS wisely got themBecause a legal standard isn't the measure of whether or not something
off their back.
On 2025-01-06 18:11, Joel wrote:
You claimed that nothing was "copied".
The IDEAS were copied.
VERBATIM.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
You're dragging the goalposts.They wanted the suit to go away, they settled, it's not capitulation >>>>>>> to the suit's real claim, they could've defeated that.And yet, Microsoft paid $100 MILLION dollars to avoid a lawsuit. >>>>>>>>you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't >>>>>>>>>>>> be "precisely identifed"?
They never were in this case.
You were present for this, were you?
You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication
protocols, etc....
...you think that all was written down?
You think that they just sat down and started coding?
Cutler knew how to approach the project, it's simple, it resembled >>>>>>>>> what he'd done before, but that's not *copying* in an IP context. >>>>>>>>
And many people have described all the ways that NT copied VMS. >>>>>>>
I provided you with a source that says that structures from VMS were >>>>>> copied almost verbatim.
And that is infringement? We can copyright abstract layouts?
Whether or not it is "infringment", it was COPYING.
'The similarities between VMS and NT are striking. The VMS Interrupt
Priority Level became the Interrupt Request Level in NT, the
Asynchronous System Trap became the Asynchronous Procedure Call, a Fork >>>> Procedure became the Deferred Procedure Call, while some other
terminology was copied verbatim.'
<https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-windows-nt-31>
'copied verbatim'
Got it yet? No?
Okay!
'Those similarities could fill a book. In fact, you can read sections of >>>> VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures (Digital Press) as an accurate
description of NT internals simply by translating VMS terms to NT terms. >>>> Table 1 lists a few VMS terms and their NT translations.'
<https://www.itprotoday.com/server-virtualization/windows-nt-and-vms-the-rest-of-the-story>
That last one was authored by:
"Mark Eugene Russinovich (born December 22, 1966) is a Spanish-born
American software engineer and author who serves as CTO of Microsoft Azure."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich>
But what would the guy who wrote a product to "manage, diagnose,
troubleshoot, and monitor a Microsoft Windows environment." know about >>>> Windows NT.
LOL
Russinovich is *God*, first of all. Hail him, like Linus and Richard.
Great programmer for all time. But he's not suggesting that actual
VMS code was "copied" by MS, it's ideas, more abstract. It's not
infringement.
But the threshold was NEVER infringement, dickhead.
You claimed that nothing was "copied".
The IDEAS were copied.
VERBATIM.
How would infringement not be the threshold? Software patenting is discredited. DEC was just flaunting legal muscle, MS wisely got them
off their back.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:25:28 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,582 |