| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 105:22:48 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,647 |
"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.