Communist-capitalist

[Qfwfq]

Or even CPM (remember CPM?) as an early competitior to DOS.

Odd. I remember CPM (or MPM) being on Z80 machines around '80 and it was practically the system on Z80 machines. I was using MS-Basic on it and I can't remember DOS even being on the horizon till the days of the IBM compatibles.

 

As far as I know IBM sold DOS off to Uncle Bill when they developed the better OS/2 but UB somehow managed to have the better on IBM compatible machines, presumably leveraging by means of the usual tight compatibility problems between apps and OS. IBM's mistake must have been that of not having enough apps produced for OS/2 to make it a viable choice.

 

It doesn't tell me it was Uncle Bill's merit if computing came to the reach of everybody, I still think it would have happened without him but better, especially once compatibility matters were worked out. Open software would be much more open without Uncle Bill's contribution and this is an example of individual profit interests going to the disadvantage of consumers instead of being an incentive for improvement.

[Fishteacher73]

The Microsoft discussion could belong in another thread, but iot does relate to the discussion going on here as well. Many argue about how Gates operated in the PC market. This is SOP in any industry...Does Ford or Chevy just lay out the development plans for each to look at? No. Do they design cars that have interchangeable parts? No. This is the way captialism works. It does not always produce the best product, but the best marketer and buisnessman wins.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

The difference between Jobs and Gates and the paths their respective companies took isn't a measure of the difference between Communism and Capitalism.

 

The difference between those two ideologies is the MODEL of the nature of humanity implied beneath the surface.

 

All of the rest is built upon that. If that model is invalid, then so is the ideology.

 

If the model of human nature that lies beneath our own individual actions (we all have a model, even though it might seem built upon cliches) has no fallacies then we could live in an anarchy. But if you put one person into the mix who comes up with one belief based upon a fallacy - and - if that one person is glib and gifted with good communications skills, he/she can talk others into the same point of view. The fallacy spreads and that will lead to the downfall of the system.

 

An example of such an idea would be, "Unlce Bill has more stuff than he needs. I need some of that stuff. He wont even miss it. You need some of that stuff too. Let's act on it." Very simple, very deadly.

 

The practicality of me having to worry about all such possible scenarios popping up all over is about 5 orders of magnitude too stressful. Hence, I want something in place that allows me to be safe from insane actions. Laws become necessary. Rules. Lines in the sand. I don't have time to maintain that kind of eternal vigilance. I have work to do.

[Qfwfq]

Yes,it does relate to the discussion going on here as well.

Does Ford or Chevy just lay out the development plans for each to look at? No. Do they design cars that have interchangeable parts?

It isn't nearly the same problem for the auto purchaser, because the car is, more or less, one product that you choose. The purpouse of buying a car is the car itself, not the spare parts, the accessories or optionals.

 

Aside from an optional or two and temporarily, you can almost always find the brunt for cars of various makes and models and your choice of car is hardly influenced by these. If Mercedes spares cost a lot more than Ford spares, that's something you can and should consider when you choose one or the other and it is very much in line with the value for money of the car itself anyway. You have no reason to choose one car because it supports the spares that you're interested in and the other doesn't. Which spares you buy are totally and essentially consequent to the choice of car and this is no problem.

 

For PCs OSes and apps the matter is totally different because they are quite separate products and the purpouse of the first two is essentially the third. The computer and OS are next to useless except for running programs on them and not quite everybody writes their own programs. Not all app vendors can make a version for every OS and I can assure you it isn't easy and cheap to do. This can be a pain in the arse for the end user, having a different machine for different apps isn't the most seamless thing for use and even multibooting doesn't solve the problem. Workarounds aren't trouble-free and imply more expense. There would be a real advantage to the end user, and even more to independent app programmers and vendors, if there was an easy independence between apps and OSes.

 

The only businessman who has effectively had an advantage by avoiding such independence has been Uncle Bill.

This is the way captialism works. It does not always produce the best product, but the best marketer and buisnessman wins.

Conclusion: Capitalism isn't always the system that gives the best to society. The effect of open competition can and does fail. That's what happened with Uncle Bill and I still don't hold that it was him that brought the PC to the layperson.

[Biochemist]

As far as I know IBM sold DOS off to Uncle Bill when they developed the better OS/2

Actually, IBM never owned DOS. They selected DOS as the OS for their new PC becasue they did not have an OS for a machine that size. IBM could just as easily have picked CPM. Rumor has it that the CPM guy (I forgot his name) did not answer his phone that day.

...IBM's mistake must have been that of not having enough apps produced for OS/2 to make it a viable choice.

Well, IBM was too late with OS/2. By then, DOS had too big of a foothold in terms of application breadth. IBM was obligated to run DOS on top of OS/2 in order to retain access to all of the older DOS applications. The machines really weren't big enough (10-30Mhz, 64-128k memory) to run that thick of a stack. In reality it was IBM that created the monster. Or the Great Satan, as I prefer to think of it.

Open software would be much more open without Uncle Bill's contribution and this is an example of individual profit interests going to the disadvantage of consumers instead of being an incentive for improvement.

Maybe, but I don't think there were any examples of open software by 1990 (or very few). The early UNIX variants (as released from ATT) had sort of an open flavor but there was no real open source organization to release a common version of a broadly modified source. There is no doubt that open source wil help now, but even thie linux contributors have had a hard time depolying a user interface that can get tractions with developers. The higher level the service (OS, Presentation, application) the more difficult it is to get open source to work in the market.

[Qfwfq]

Neither of us had the history quite exact, I didn't presume to and I easily found these:

 

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html

http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html

 

Apparently Uncle Bill didn't buy DOS from IBM but from somebody else, IBM made it's mistake but, most of all Uncle Bill terminated what IBM had meant to be a lasting cooperation and had been banking on. It was for Uncle Bill's advantage that more apps weren't converted for OS/2 and people got stuck with the DOS/Windoze combo and sequels.

 

IBM certainly did not select DOS as the OS for their new PC, they just decided to find a contractor, what is now called outsourcing, with all the hazards it poses in exchange for a few management advantages. I don't find it surprising if Digital said no, I'm quite sure their business interest was already in developping the larger VAX machines, CPM was already becoming VMS, they even must have been working on DECNET while ARPANET hadn't quite yet become Internet and TCP/IP wasn't yet so established as a universal standard.

 

IBM was obligated to run DOS on top of OS/2 in order to retain access to all of the older DOS applications. The machines really weren't big enough (10-30Mhz, 64-128k memory) to run that thick of a stack.

I don't think IBM would have been developping an OS for which its machines were inadequate. At least, I don't think they would have except for one detail... it was Uncle Bill they were doing it with initially!!! And look at the advantage he got from the failure of OS/2.

 

Maybe, but I don't think there were any examples of open software by 1990 (or very few).

One: Open software doesn't mean the same thing as open source or as free software.

 

Two: I don't find the chronology to be essentially against my point, but I can see that you don't seem to distinguish the technical undergrowth and it wouldn't make sense to go into it in this thread. Whether the OSF had started before or after isn't the point at all. Anyway it started in 1988. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/computers/data/m0050844.html

 

Open Software Foundation

Software house created in 1988 by several major industry players (including Bull, DEC, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Philips) to engineer a standard operating system and user interface for the UNIX platform. The OSF joined with X/Open to form The Open Group 1996.

BTW, it was them that had the idea of COM, which Uncle Bill promptly monopolized.

 

There is no doubt that open source wil help now, but even thie linux contributors have had a hard time depolying a user interface that can get tractions with developers.

Yes, open source would also be a help, although it wasn't my full point at all, but it would be more of a help along with other questions of compatibility had it not been for the deliberate compatibility obstacles set by Uncle Bill and I, as a developer, see the user interface matter as being somewhat consequential.

 

The higher level the service (OS, Presentation, application) the more difficult it is to get open source to work in the market.

:) :xx: :xx:

[Biochemist]

thanks for the history links, Q. These are pretty interesting.

...IBM certainly did not select DOS as the OS for their new PC, they just decided to find a contractor, what is now called outsourcing, with all the hazards it poses in exchange for a few management advantages.

This was just for speed-to-market. IBM still didn't think the PC market would take off, and they weren't really worried about the OS on the box yet.

I don't find it surprising if Digital said no, I'm quite sure their business interest was already in developping the larger VAX machines, CPM was already becoming VMS, they even must have been working on DECNET while ARPANET hadn't quite yet become Internet and TCP/IP wasn't yet so established as a universal standard.

Digital Research and DEC are not related companies. VMS was already in existence in the early '80s. DEC actually took the PC market more seriously, but only for businesses. Ken Olsen (CEO of DEC) famously thought that no consumer would ever want a PC, but he relased the DEC rainbow in 1982 (as I recall) with, among other things, VT terminal emulation as a selection from the boot screen. Cleary a busness-oriented machine.

I don't think IBM would have been developping an OS for which its machines were inadequate. At least, I don't think they would have except for one detail... it was Uncle Bill they were doing it with initially!!! And look at the advantage he got from the failure of OS/2.

It wasn't that the OS was undercapacity for the machine, it is that is was undercapacity for the users. I was installing large network systems in the early '90s, and it was very difficult to get a typical user load to perform on a PC, irrespective of which OS you selected. And invariably, users/businesses wanted to run applications that only existed in DOS, so you had to run multiple DOS machines concurrently. It was pretty slow.

...it would be more of a help along with other questions of compatibility had it not been for the deliberate compatibility obstacles set by Uncle Bill and I, as a developer, see the user interface matter as being somewhat consequential.

Agreed. And I think that MS still retards advances to this day.

[Qfwfq]

Digital Research and DEC are not related companies. VMS was already in existence in the early '80s.

I don't know what you mean by 'related', but in my early '80s VMS not only existed but was using DECNET as its standard networking protocol. Only in the later '80s some system administrators began to include internet as well. I remember that at first we were using the DECNET syntax for remote nodes and then we were told we should send e-mail with dns addresses but it wasn't the default. I was only a VMS user so I didn't know the ins and outs. More recently I read a book on TCP/IP that mentioned DECNET being the standard on VAX/VMS.

 

Although I don't know the exact ties between Digital Research and Digital Equipment, they do seem to be pals.

[Biochemist]

I don't know what you mean by 'related', but in my early '80s VMS not only existed but was using DECNET as its standard networking protocol. ..Although I don't know the exact ties between Digital Research and Digital Equipment, they do seem to be pals.

My point was that DEC and Digital Research were separate companies. There was no relationship between development of CP/M and VMS. VMS and DECNET were well estgbalished by the early '80's . DEC was actually pushing OSI communications protocols more than TCP/IP, althought they supported both. DEC thought, like may of us, that OSI would emerge as the victor in the standards war.

[lindagarrette]

This is the way captialism works. It does not always produce the best product, but the best marketer and buisnessman wins.

Good point. Marketing is probably the greatest determiner of product (or service) success. That's one of the primary forces of capitalism. When I visited communist countries some years ago, I was struck by the absense of brand names or proprietary signs. A store that sold shoes was called "SHOES." I think it's unfortunate that so much money goes into advertising to differenciate products like Pepsi and Coke when it could be used for more socially worthwhile purposes. That's only one of my gripes about capitalism. (I just watched the DVD movie "Supersize Me." which reinforces my opinion.)

[Qfwfq]

There was no relationship between development of CP/M and VMS.

I only meant they came out of the same cradle. I can hardly remember the CP/M command language but I believe it was an incipient lexical and syntactical basis, in the sense that if you abruptly switched from CP/M to VMS you would hardly have to change basic habits, you simply would have more possibilities. DOS is a bad copy of these, slightly twisted toward Posix in a couple of ways.

 

DEC was actually pushing OSI communications protocols more than TCP/IP, althought they supported both. DEC thought, like may of us, that OSI would emerge as the victor in the standards war.

The TCP/IP layers are just a simplification of the seven OSI layers APSTNDP. How much real difference is there anyway, between network and data-link? And how much should application presentation and session be the competence of the networking API anyway?

 

With TCP/IP you structure your program how you please and easily have it calling transport, which calls networking, basically. Physical is practically the metal and the chips.

[Qfwfq]

When I visited communist countries some years ago, I was struck by the absense of brand names or proprietary signs. A store that sold shoes was called "SHOES." I think it's unfortunate that so much money goes into advertising to differenciate products like Pepsi and Coke when it could be used for more socially worthwhile purposes.

Great point Linda! Especially if we consider the annoying idea of being brainwashed. There is actual social damage occuring. Look at how many girls get into the anorexia cycle, not to mention the Big Business of smoke. I see many social tolls of brainwashing around and the most aggressive methods were contrived by marketing research, things that dwarf the more traditional forms of propaganda.

 

I travelled Yugoslavia several times with my family in the early '70s and we sure noticed the difference. There was advertising there, but not nearly the same thing. I remember they had their own soft drink called Cocta and the not-so-many billboards around advertised it. My sister and I just had to try it, of course, no case of whether or not, it was just an advertisement for a pop we hadn't seen before. We tried it and we liked it and it became one of the things we looked forward to returning there for.

 

Hmmm... I wonder why it was one of the most advertised things then and there, and with a name like that, in perhaps the least inaccessible east bloc country of the cold war days. :)

[Biochemist]

The TCP/IP layers are just a simplification of the seven OSI layers APSTNDP. How much real difference is there anyway, between network and data-link? And how much should application presentation and session be the competence of the networking API anyway?

Switching to a new thread.