21 Oct
2023
21 Oct
'23
5:27 a.m.
This might be interesting to some. It is a piece of a longer conversation
between Dave Plummer and Dave Cutler (RSX11, VMS, WinNT)
https://youtu.be/9K3eMzF6x28?feature=shared
21 Oct
21 Oct
6:36 a.m.
I consistently hear from folks the same about Bill Gates pushing for volume over anything
else with Xenix. I wonder to what degree that sort of paradigm shift lead to what we see
today with "app stores" and cheap little apps being peddled a dime a dozen. Must
be a viable enough business model if people keep doing it, but it makes me die inside.
There's also the fact though that as the barrier to entry goes down, well, more folks
enter the playing field.
Also I gotta appreciate that Dave Cutler's Bill Gates impersonation is consistent
with other folks mocking over the years. He's probably got a pretty thick skin by
this point (although the financial success probably helps).
Thanks for the share, there are a few other videos linked there from I assume the same
interview, I quite enjoyed them, especially the anecdote of Steve Ballmer's last
ditch effort Denny's breakfast to bring Dave on board.
Something this brings back to mind that I always wonder about with Microsoft and their OS
choices: So they went with Windows NT for their kernel, scraped the Windows environment
off the top of DOS and dolloped it on top. Has there been any explanation over the years
why they also decided to keep the MSDOS CLI interface? It's not like the NT kernel
couldn't handle simple stuff like a UNIX-y shell, tools like grep and sed, etc. and
Microsoft had code in Xenix they probably could've considered using for that. Was it
not wanting to have any licensing questions by avoiding anything that smelled like Xenix
at all? Or was the consumer base at the time that invested in the MSDOS environment that
handing them a Bourne shell with some ubiquitous UNIX tools would've just been
unworkable? Feels like a lost opportunity, they could've had their kernel and their
desktop environment and still given folks a more robust CLI. Instead stuff like UWIN,
Cygwin, etc. had to come along and fill the void. That was something I was hoping
he'd talk about when I clicked, but I didn't catch anything particular about the
CLI choice.
- Matt G.
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, October 20th, 2023 at 4:27 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <fariborz.t(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
This might be interesting to some. It is a piece of a
longer conversation between Dave Plummer and Dave Cutler (RSX11, VMS, WinNT)
https://youtu.be/9K3eMzF6x28?feature=shared
6:53 a.m.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
Something this brings back to mind that I always
wonder about with
Microsoft and their OS choices: So they went with Windows NT for their
kernel, scraped the Windows environment off the top of DOS and dolloped
it on top. Has there been any explanation over the years why they also
decided to keep the MSDOS CLI interface? It's not like the NT kernel
couldn't handle simple stuff like a UNIX-y shell, tools like grep and
sed, etc. and Microsoft had code in Xenix they probably could've
considered using for that. Was it not wanting to have any licensing
questions by avoiding anything that smelled like Xenix at all? Or was
the consumer base at the time that invested in the MSDOS environment
that handing them a Bourne shell with some ubiquitous UNIX tools
would've just been unworkable? Feels like a lost opportunity, they
could've had their kernel and their desktop environment and still given
folks a more robust CLI. Instead stuff like UWIN, Cygwin, etc. had to
come along and fill the void. That was something I was hoping he'd talk
about when I clicked, but I didn't catch anything particular about the
CLI choice.
They actually inherited the CLI from OS/2, didn't they?
-uso.
7:04 a.m.
Both of them were heavily influenced by DOS. Many of the same commands and
switches from DOS still work today, and pre-powershell scripting is DOS
batch files with lots of extensions added.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 6:52 PM Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
Something this brings back to mind that I always
wonder about with
Microsoft and their OS choices: So they went with Windows NT for their
kernel, scraped the Windows environment off the top of DOS and dolloped
it on top. Has there been any explanation over the years why they also
decided to keep the MSDOS CLI interface? It's not like the NT kernel
couldn't handle simple stuff like a UNIX-y shell, tools like grep and
sed, etc. and Microsoft had code in Xenix they probably could've
considered using for that. Was it not wanting to have any licensing
questions by avoiding anything that smelled like Xenix at all? Or was
the consumer base at the time that invested in the MSDOS environment
that handing them a Bourne shell with some ubiquitous UNIX tools
would've just been unworkable? Feels like a lost opportunity, they
could've had their kernel and their desktop environment and still given
folks a more robust CLI. Instead stuff like UWIN, Cygwin, etc. had to
come along and fill the void. That was something I was hoping he'd talk
about when I clicked, but I didn't catch anything particular about the
CLI choice.
They actually inherited the CLI from OS/2, didn't they?
-uso.
8:29 a.m.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, Jim Geist wrote:
Both of them were heavily influenced by DOS. Many of
the same commands
and switches from DOS still work today, and pre-powershell scripting is
DOS batch files with lots of extensions added.
Wasn't the DOS interface influenced by CP/M?
-- Dave
8:27 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:37 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
I wonder to what degree that sort of paradigm shift lead to what we see
today with "app stores" and cheap little
apps being peddled a dime a
dozen. Must be a viable enough business model if people keep doing it, but
it makes me die inside.
Book publishers made similar complaints about the mass-market paperback
when Robert de Graaf introduced them to the U.S. market in 1939, just in
time for World War II. They cost about an eighth of the price of the same
book in hard covers and they sold like crazy — 1.5 million in the first
year alone. Yes, the quality was crap (those early paperbacks are
collectibles now because most of them have fallen apart), but the words
sold books to a huge untapped market who would never have bought a book
before.
Bought any hardbacks lately?
Was it not wanting to have any licensing questions by avoiding anything
that smelled like Xenix at all? Or was the consumer
base at the time that
invested in the MSDOS environment that handing them a Bourne shell with
some ubiquitous UNIX tools would've just been unworkable?
I think both of those are pretty likely explanations. Another possibility
is that the idea was just out of the box for them. DOS was for one market
and Xenix was for another.
12:27 p.m.
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 16:27:40 -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
This might be interesting to some. It is a piece of a
longer conversation
between Dave Plummer and Dave Cutler (RSX11, VMS, WinNT)
https://youtu.be/9K3eMzF6x28?feature=shared
This really doesn't seem to have much to do with Xenix. Yes, he
mentions it briefly, talking about licensing, but that seems to be
all.
FWIW, Xenix preceded DOS as a Microsoft operating system. From my
personal timeline:
6 September 1980: At Euromicro 80, a conference in London, I heard a
presentation about Xenix from a Microsoft person
whose name I no longer recall. It was supposed to
have been from Bill Gates, but he had a last-minute
cancellation.
December 1980: I bought a pair of S-100 boards and an operating
system called 86-DOS from an obscure company in
Washington state, USA. I spoke on the phone to a
Tim Paterson, who assured me that 86-DOS had a
bright future. The rest is, of course, history.
June 1981: Byte magazine carried an article from Microsoft
about Xenix. This was presumably written no later
than May 1981.
August 1981: IBM released the PC.
I've done a bit of searching and found this link:
https://computeradsfromthepast.substack.com/p/microsofts-xenix which
tells me that Microsoft (really their SCO) licensed 7th Edition Unix
in 1978 and brought out a product 2 years later. That seems
plausible.
Does anybody have a programme for Euromicro 80?
More of my recollections at
http://www.lemis.com/grog/diary-sep1980.php#21
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php
1:11 p.m.
Date & event of 1980 Xenix release.
<https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2021-April/023688.html>
Xenix was a version of AT&T UNIX, ported and packaged by Microsoft.
It was first offered for sale to the public in the August 25, 1980 issue of
Computerworld.
Source:
<http://seefigure1.com/2014/04/15/xenixtime.html>
On 21 Oct 2023, at 17:27, Greg 'groggy'
Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
I've done a bit of searching and found this link:
https://computeradsfromthepast.substack.com/p/microsofts-xenix which
tells me that Microsoft (really their SCO) licensed 7th Edition Unix
in 1978 and brought out a product 2 years later. That seems
plausible.
--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
22 Oct
22 Oct
12:21 a.m.
On 2023-10-20 19:27, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
This might be interesting to some. It is a piece of a
longer
conversation between Dave Plummer and Dave Cutler (RSX11, VMS, WinNT)
https://youtu.be/9K3eMzF6x28?feature=shared
<https://youtu.be/9K3eMzF6x28?feature=shared>
Is this the full 3-hour interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi1Lq79mLeE ?
S.
201
days inactive
202
days old
8 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Dave Horsfall -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Jim Geist -
John Cowan -
segaloco -
Skip Tavakkolian -
steve jenkin -
Steve Nickolas -
Stuff Received