IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - CP/M

This is a discussion on IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - CP/M ; Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

  1. IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm
    Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter
    egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been
    copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that seems to support
    that feeling. See below.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Mr Emmanuel Roche


    Contributor
    Andy Johnson-Laird

    Date Joined
    June 1977

    Job Description
    I was an independent consultant (the joining and departing dates are
    therefore just an approximation) who worked closely with DRI and was
    also a personal friend of Gary Kildall's.
    My company's specialty was tailoring CP/M-80 and CP/M-86 to work on
    OEM equipment--helping them bootstrap themselves into the PC
    revolution.

    Accomplishments
    I was the author of one of the more detailed books on tailoring CP/
    M-80 to new hardware, the Programmer's Guide To CP/M-80, published by
    Osborne McGraw-Hill. It sold about 90,000 copies and Osborne McGraw-
    Hill was so inexperienced with publishing software source code that
    they allowed me to distribute the example source in the book (which
    was about 22,000 lines of code).

    I was also engaged by DRI in 1981 to write the CP/M-86 BIOS for the
    then unannounced IBM PC. I was also the first person to point out to
    Gary Kildall the copied API calls in Tim Paterson's 86-DOS/QDOS. It
    did this several months before starting work on the IBM PC--and during
    that project I pointed out to Gary the name of a Microsoft employee on
    the PC-DOS boot sector--namely, Bob O'Rear.

    My company also produced the first non-infringing IBM PC ROM BIOS.

    Date Left
    January 1985


  2. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:33:45 -0700, roche182 wrote:

    ....
    > I was also engaged by DRI in 1981 to write the CP/M-86 BIOS for the
    > then unannounced IBM PC. I was also the first person to point out to
    > Gary Kildall the copied API calls in Tim Paterson's 86-DOS/QDOS. It
    > did this several months before starting work on the IBM PC--and during
    > that project I pointed out to Gary the name of a Microsoft employee on
    > the PC-DOS boot sector--namely, Bob O'Rear.
    >
    > My company also produced the first non-infringing IBM PC ROM BIOS.
    >
    > Date Left
    > January 1985


    Good that I cleaned the boot sectors in the last z80pack distribution!

    HAL9000: user umunk logged out.
    HAL9000: end of transmission.

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


  3. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"



    roche182@laposte.net wrote:
    > Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm
    > Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter
    > egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been
    > copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that seems to support
    > that feeling. See below.
    >
    > Yours Sincerely,
    > Mr Emmanuel Roche
    >
    >
    > Contributor
    > Andy Johnson-Laird
    >
    > Date Joined
    > June 1977
    >
    > Job Description
    > I was an independent consultant (the joining and departing dates are
    > therefore just an approximation) who worked closely with DRI and was
    > also a personal friend of Gary Kildall's.




    >
    > My company also produced the first non-infringing IBM PC ROM BIOS.
    >
    > Date Left
    > January 1985
    >


    Hello Emmanuel,

    This is interesting but it would be useful to know its origin.

    Jeffrey W. Shook

  4. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    I don't think this supports your contention in any way.

    There is no argument that Tim Patterson copied many aspects of BOTH the
    user interface and API of CP/M. At the time (and arguably today), this
    is legal, and none of either the user interface or the API was secret.
    What Tim did not copy, I feel confident, is the actual CODE (source or
    object) that implements the user interface and API.


    roche182@laposte.net wrote:
    > Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm
    > Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter
    > egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been
    > copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that seems to support
    > that feeling. See below.
    >
    > Yours Sincerely,
    > Mr Emmanuel Roche
    >
    >
    > Contributor
    > Andy Johnson-Laird
    >
    > Date Joined
    > June 1977
    >
    > Job Description
    > I was an independent consultant (the joining and departing dates are
    > therefore just an approximation) who worked closely with DRI and was
    > also a personal friend of Gary Kildall's.
    > My company's specialty was tailoring CP/M-80 and CP/M-86 to work on
    > OEM equipment--helping them bootstrap themselves into the PC
    > revolution.
    >
    > Accomplishments
    > I was the author of one of the more detailed books on tailoring CP/
    > M-80 to new hardware, the Programmer's Guide To CP/M-80, published by
    > Osborne McGraw-Hill. It sold about 90,000 copies and Osborne McGraw-
    > Hill was so inexperienced with publishing software source code that
    > they allowed me to distribute the example source in the book (which
    > was about 22,000 lines of code).
    >
    > I was also engaged by DRI in 1981 to write the CP/M-86 BIOS for the
    > then unannounced IBM PC. I was also the first person to point out to
    > Gary Kildall the copied API calls in Tim Paterson's 86-DOS/QDOS. It
    > did this several months before starting work on the IBM PC--and during
    > that project I pointed out to Gary the name of a Microsoft employee on
    > the PC-DOS boot sector--namely, Bob O'Rear.
    >
    > My company also produced the first non-infringing IBM PC ROM BIOS.
    >
    > Date Left
    > January 1985
    >


  5. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:27:05 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:

    > I don't think this supports your contention in any way.
    >
    > There is no argument that Tim Patterson copied many aspects of BOTH the
    > user interface and API of CP/M. At the time (and arguably today), this
    > is legal, and none of either the user interface or the API was secret.
    > What Tim did not copy, I feel confident, is the actual CODE (source or
    > object) that implements the user interface and API.


    If it only would be that, but in reality it's even worse because there are
    facts speaking against that anything was stolen. As we all know Gary
    Kildall put the sources of CP/M 1.0 into the public domain, because
    development was done with public funds. Because we want to talk about
    facts lets have a short look at what he made public:

    -- cut out of bdos.plm written by Gary Kildall --

    /* THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK FORMAT IS SHOWN BELOW:

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    / 1 BY / 8 BY / 3 BY / 1 BY /2BY/1 BY/ 16 BY /
    /FILETYPE/ NAME / EXT / REEL NO/XXX/RCNT/DM0 .. DM15/
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    FILETYPE : 0E5H IF AVAILABLE (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    NAME : 8 CHARACTER PRIMARY NAME
    EXT : 3 CHARACTER EXTENT
    COM IMPLIES COMMAND TYPE
    (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    REEL NO : 'REEL NUMBER' FIRST REEL IS 0, SECOND IS 1,
    AND SO FORTH UNTIL 255.
    XXX : UNUSED FOR NOW
    RCNT : RECORD COUNT IN FILE (0 TO 127)
    DM0 ... : DISK ALLOCATION MAP. 255 IF NOT ALLOCATED,
    DM15 OTHERWISE IT POINTS TO ALLOCATED DISK BLOCK

    THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK IS FOLLOWED BY ONE BYTE OF
    INFORMATION WHICH GIVES THE NEXT RECORD TO BE READ
    OR WRITTEN IN AN OPENED FILE. THIS INFORMATION
    IS NOT A PART OF THE DIRECTORY. EACH READ OR WRITE
    WILL INCREMENT THIS RECORD COUNT.

    */

    -- end of cut out of bdos.plm --

    Does this look familiar too you? It should, that is the famous FCB
    definition with explanations how it works, put into the public domain by
    the author in 1975. If anyone would put this data definition into any
    other OS as just another application interface to access the filesystem,
    so what? One cannot steal from public domain stuff like above, one can use
    it LEGALLY. The same source has the BIOS and BDOS interface, all nicely
    documented and out into the open, usable by anyone who would bother to
    mess with it. Ever looked into any of the CP/M / MP/M alteration guides?
    There all the OS interfaces are much better explained than in the source
    sniped above. There was no need to steal anything because the parts that
    have been used where right there to pick up by anyone.

    So it has to be the mythical boot sector, eh? Lets see, DRI distributed
    CP/M 2 only on 8" SD disks and only for the Intel MDS-800. The
    MDS-800 boot sector (sources public available) assembles into 4FH bytes
    code. The 8" SD disks had 128 bytes/sectors, the machine used a single
    boot sector. So DRI had 31H byes left to encode some sort of super secret
    message. Lets imagine that they intentionally left some bytes in the
    unused space instead of wiping it out. (Anyone got a readable original
    CP/M 2.2 disk and could provide a dump of the first sector?). To get that
    secret message onto the boot sector of a PC-DOS 1.0 disk, someone really
    stupid would have to copy the whole 128 byte sector to the 512 byte sector
    of that PC-DOS 1.0 disk, err, at what position exactly? Well, whatever
    this stupid person would try, all that can be accomplished with this is
    making the IBM PC clown crash, no usable x86 code WITH IBM PC BIOS CALLS
    in the MDS-800 boot sector, go figure.

    Well, that are the facts, which you might not like, but I can't help it.

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


  6. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:09:54 +0200, Udo Munk
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:27:05 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think this supports your contention in any way.
    >>
    >> There is no argument that Tim Patterson copied many aspects of BOTH the
    >> user interface and API of CP/M. At the time (and arguably today), this
    >> is legal, and none of either the user interface or the API was secret.
    >> What Tim did not copy, I feel confident, is the actual CODE (source or
    >> object) that implements the user interface and API.

    >
    >If it only would be that, but in reality it's even worse because there are
    >facts speaking against that anything was stolen. As we all know Gary
    >Kildall put the sources of CP/M 1.0 into the public domain, because
    >development was done with public funds. Because we want to talk about
    >facts lets have a short look at what he made public:
    >
    >-- cut out of bdos.plm written by Gary Kildall --
    >
    > /* THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK FORMAT IS SHOWN BELOW:
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > / 1 BY / 8 BY / 3 BY / 1 BY /2BY/1 BY/ 16 BY /
    > /FILETYPE/ NAME / EXT / REEL NO/XXX/RCNT/DM0 .. DM15/
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > FILETYPE : 0E5H IF AVAILABLE (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > NAME : 8 CHARACTER PRIMARY NAME
    > EXT : 3 CHARACTER EXTENT
    > COM IMPLIES COMMAND TYPE
    > (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > REEL NO : 'REEL NUMBER' FIRST REEL IS 0, SECOND IS 1,
    > AND SO FORTH UNTIL 255.
    > XXX : UNUSED FOR NOW
    > RCNT : RECORD COUNT IN FILE (0 TO 127)
    > DM0 ... : DISK ALLOCATION MAP. 255 IF NOT ALLOCATED,
    > DM15 OTHERWISE IT POINTS TO ALLOCATED DISK BLOCK
    >
    > THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK IS FOLLOWED BY ONE BYTE OF
    > INFORMATION WHICH GIVES THE NEXT RECORD TO BE READ
    > OR WRITTEN IN AN OPENED FILE. THIS INFORMATION
    > IS NOT A PART OF THE DIRECTORY. EACH READ OR WRITE
    > WILL INCREMENT THIS RECORD COUNT.
    >
    > */
    >
    >-- end of cut out of bdos.plm --
    >
    >Does this look familiar too you? It should, that is the famous FCB
    >definition with explanations how it works, put into the public domain by
    >the author in 1975. If anyone would put this data definition into any
    >other OS as just another application interface to access the filesystem,
    >so what? One cannot steal from public domain stuff like above, one can use
    >it LEGALLY. The same source has the BIOS and BDOS interface, all nicely
    >documented and out into the open, usable by anyone who would bother to
    >mess with it. Ever looked into any of the CP/M / MP/M alteration guides?
    >There all the OS interfaces are much better explained than in the source
    >sniped above. There was no need to steal anything because the parts that
    >have been used where right there to pick up by anyone.


    The whole point of publishing the FCB was so people could write code
    to use the OS.

    >So it has to be the mythical boot sector, eh? Lets see, DRI distributed
    >CP/M 2 only on 8" SD disks and only for the Intel MDS-800. The
    >MDS-800 boot sector (sources public available) assembles into 4FH bytes
    >code. The 8" SD disks had 128 bytes/sectors, the machine used a single
    >boot sector. So DRI had 31H byes left to encode some sort of super secret
    >message. Lets imagine that they intentionally left some bytes in the
    >unused space instead of wiping it out. (Anyone got a readable original
    >CP/M 2.2 disk and could provide a dump of the first sector?). To get that


    I do and did... it's zero filled. My first BIOS was for CP/M2.2 and
    was a move from MDS800 to NS* hardware with 765 softsector FDC.
    I retained the original disk write protected of course.

    >secret message onto the boot sector of a PC-DOS 1.0 disk, someone really
    >stupid would have to copy the whole 128 byte sector to the 512 byte sector
    >of that PC-DOS 1.0 disk, err, at what position exactly? Well, whatever
    >this stupid person would try, all that can be accomplished with this is
    >making the IBM PC clown crash, no usable x86 code WITH IBM PC BIOS CALLS
    >in the MDS-800 boot sector, go figure.
    >
    >Well, that are the facts, which you might not like, but I can't help it.


    No easter egg, possible source stolen from the then widely available
    reconstituted asm sources. whats known is and what not isn't and may
    never.

    Allison

    >Udo Munk



  7. Re: Copyright, was: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    *Barry Watzman* wrote on Mon, 07-10-08 07:27:
    >At the time (and arguably today), this is legal, and none of either the
    >user interface or the API was secret.


    For myself the logic of what lawyers consider valuable and what not
    escapes me anyway. This is part of the description of a webdesign I
    have just placed into the public domain

    http://axel.berger-odenthal.de/work/Sudel/Webdesign.htm

    and I think the basic sentiment applies to any coding of whatever:

    As long as lawyers are stupid enough to consider a cheap quartz watch looking a
    little similar to a Rolex (anyone here know what that's supposed to look like?
    I don't!) an illegal forgery but not another watch that faithfully copies and
    emulates everything that is supposed to make a Rolex so valuable but looks
    entirely different, the follwing note is unfortunately necessary:

    All the techniques employed on this site, that took me and the people I copied
    from, most importantly HREF="http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/sidepages/jello-piefecta-cle
    an.html">John Gallant and Holly Bergevin, HREF="http://uwmike.com/articles/2005/05/04/jello-liquid-layout/">Mike
    Purvis, and Andrew
    Krespanis
    , days to think up, write and troubleshoot, are openly published
    and placed in the public domain by them and me.

    Anyone willing is free to use and modify them in his or her own projects at
    will, a reference would be nice but is not compulsory.

    But the looks and graphical design of these pages, those bits that any third
    grade pupil could draw up in half an hour given a pencil and a packet of
    crayons, is probably copyrighted by Junge
    Liberale Deutschland
    and any infringements thereof may well be prosecuted
    by them.

    I strongly advise asking them before copying any of these graphicical elements
    into your own designs.

    --
    Tschö wa
    Axel


  8. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Oct 10, 8:07 am, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:09:54 +0200, Udo Munk
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:27:05 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:

    >
    > >> I don't think this supports your contention in any way.

    >
    > >> There is no argument that Tim Patterson copied many aspects of BOTH the
    > >> user interface and API of CP/M. At the time (and arguably today), this
    > >> is legal, and none of either the user interface or the API was secret.
    > >> What Tim did not copy, I feel confident, is the actual CODE (source or
    > >> object) that implements the user interface and API.

    >
    > >If it only would be that, but in reality it's even worse because there are
    > >facts speaking against that anything was stolen. As we all know Gary
    > >Kildall put the sources of CP/M 1.0 into the public domain, because
    > >development was done with public funds. Because we want to talk about
    > >facts lets have a short look at what he made public:

    >
    > >-- cut out of bdos.plm written by Gary Kildall --

    >
    > > /* THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK FORMAT IS SHOWN BELOW:

    >
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > > / 1 BY / 8 BY / 3 BY / 1 BY /2BY/1 BY/ 16 BY /
    > > /FILETYPE/ NAME / EXT / REEL NO/XXX/RCNT/DM0 .. DM15/
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------

    >
    > > FILETYPE : 0E5H IF AVAILABLE (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > > NAME : 8 CHARACTER PRIMARY NAME
    > > EXT : 3 CHARACTER EXTENT
    > > COM IMPLIES COMMAND TYPE
    > > (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > > REEL NO : 'REEL NUMBER' FIRST REEL IS 0, SECOND IS 1,
    > > AND SO FORTH UNTIL 255.
    > > XXX : UNUSED FOR NOW
    > > RCNT : RECORD COUNT IN FILE (0 TO 127)
    > > DM0 ... : DISK ALLOCATION MAP. 255 IF NOT ALLOCATED,
    > > DM15 OTHERWISE IT POINTS TO ALLOCATED DISK BLOCK

    >
    > > THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK IS FOLLOWED BY ONE BYTE OF
    > > INFORMATION WHICH GIVES THE NEXT RECORD TO BE READ
    > > OR WRITTEN IN AN OPENED FILE. THIS INFORMATION
    > > IS NOT A PART OF THE DIRECTORY. EACH READ OR WRITE
    > > WILL INCREMENT THIS RECORD COUNT.

    >
    > > */

    >
    > >-- end of cut out of bdos.plm --

    >
    > >Does this look familiar too you? It should, that is the famous FCB
    > >definition with explanations how it works, put into the public domain by
    > >the author in 1975. If anyone would put this data definition into any
    > >other OS as just another application interface to access the filesystem,
    > >so what? One cannot steal from public domain stuff like above, one can use
    > >it LEGALLY. The same source has the BIOS and BDOS interface, all nicely
    > >documented and out into the open, usable by anyone who would bother to
    > >mess with it. Ever looked into any of the CP/M / MP/M alteration guides?
    > >There all the OS interfaces are much better explained than in the source
    > >sniped above. There was no need to steal anything because the parts that
    > >have been used where right there to pick up by anyone.

    >
    > The whole point of publishing the FCB was so people could write code
    > to use the OS.
    >
    > >So it has to be the mythical boot sector, eh? Lets see, DRI distributed
    > >CP/M 2 only on 8" SD disks and only for the Intel MDS-800. The
    > >MDS-800 boot sector (sources public available) assembles into 4FH bytes
    > >code. The 8" SD disks had 128 bytes/sectors, the machine used a single
    > >boot sector. So DRI had 31H byes left to encode some sort of super secret
    > >message. Lets imagine that they intentionally left some bytes in the
    > >unused space instead of wiping it out. (Anyone got a readable original
    > >CP/M 2.2 disk and could provide a dump of the first sector?). To get that

    >
    > I do and did... it's zero filled. My first BIOS was for CP/M2.2 and
    > was a move from MDS800 to NS* hardware with 765 softsector FDC.
    > I retained the original disk write protected of course.
    >
    > >secret message onto the boot sector of a PC-DOS 1.0 disk, someone really
    > >stupid would have to copy the whole 128 byte sector to the 512 byte sector
    > >of that PC-DOS 1.0 disk, err, at what position exactly? Well, whatever
    > >this stupid person would try, all that can be accomplished with this is
    > >making the IBM PC clown crash, no usable x86 code WITH IBM PC BIOS CALLS
    > >in the MDS-800 boot sector, go figure.

    >
    > >Well, that are the facts, which you might not like, but I can't help it.

    >
    > No easter egg, possible source stolen from the then widely available
    > reconstituted asm sources. whats known is and what not isn't and may
    > never.
    >
    > Allison
    >
    >
    >
    > >Udo Munk- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I think it is more likely that someone reused a disk and didn't format
    it properly than it is that they copied someone elses source,
    including random text, from another disk.

    Bill H


  9. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    Hello Udo,

    On Oct 9, 2:09 pm, Udo Munk wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:27:05 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:
    > > I don't think this supports your contention in any way.

    >
    > > There is no argument that Tim Patterson copied many aspects of BOTH the
    > > user interface and API of CP/M. At the time (and arguably today), this
    > > is legal, and none of either the user interface or the API was secret.
    > > What Tim did not copy, I feel confident, is the actual CODE (source or
    > > object) that implements the user interface and API.

    >

    http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Docs/86_dos_prog.pdf

    http://www.patersontech.com/dos/Softalk/Softalk.html
    - this mentions-
    "
    "I got to know Rod Brock of Seattle Computer when he came into the
    store periodically. We were selling his boards. Eventually he asked me
    to consult for Seattle Computer.

    "They were having problems with a 16K static memory board for the
    S-100," Paterson continues. "Rod Brock hired me in June 1978, at fifty
    dollars a day, to make the board work. I left the retail computer
    store at that time." After a few weeks of consulting, he was made a
    salaried employee of Seattle Computer.

    In his computer science classes, Paterson had become interested in
    operating systems, as well as hardware and compilers. After receiving
    his bachelor of science degree in June '78, he attended graduate
    courses off and on for about another year. But he gradually lost
    interest. "I thought they were too oriented towards theory and not
    what I needed."

    At Seattle Computer he at first worked on several projects--
    redesigning an S-100 memory board, which led to two new memory board
    designs. Things changed when he attended a local seminar on the Intel
    8086 chip in late July 1978.

    "I gained the respect of Rod Brock and made suggestions. I thought
    doing something with the 8086 would be neat and Brock gave it the go-
    ahead.

    "The first design of the 8086 CPU card was finished by the end of
    January. We had a prototype by May 1979. We built three boards, but
    didn't wire them all up. There were both layout and design errors, but
    we got two prototypes working."

    Rainy Day Computer. Seattle Computer was toying with the idea of
    eventually building its own computer, thus the CPU card project. They
    wanted to diversify, but had no firm business plan.

    Once a prototype of the 8086 CPU was up and running, Seattle was
    approached by Digital Research to see if it could get CP/M to run on
    it. Microsoft, which had moved to the Seattle area in January 1979,
    wanted to see if some of its programs would work, too. At the end of
    May 1979, Paterson went to Microsoft to work with Bob O'Rear there. In
    a week or so, Paterson cranked out all 32K of Microsoft's Basic onto
    the 8086.

    "That's pretty remarkable," says Paterson. "Microsoft already had
    developed several good utilities, like a cross-assembler for use with
    the PDP-10. There were a few bugs, but basically the CPU worked and
    the development tools worked."

    At the 1979 National Computer Conference in New York, Seattle Computer
    was the guest of Microsoft and Lifeboat. They showed off standalone
    Basic-86, then the only software for the 8086. Seattle Computer
    started shipping the product with its CPU card in November, primarily
    to software developers.

    In April 1980, Paterson began work on an operating system.

    "We needed an operating system at Seattle Computer for our own
    computers and I wanted to do one. So we decided to go for it.

    "I was waiting for Digital to come out with CP/M-86. I thought they
    would have it real soon. If they had beat me I wouldn't have taken the
    trouble.

    "I had always wanted to write my own operating system. I've always
    hated CP/M and thought I could do it a lot better."

    Fast and Grimy. In the spring of 1980, Paterson started working on
    what would become MS-DOS. By July, he had finished roughly 50 percent
    of the operating system and called it QDOS 0.10 (for quick and dirty).
    He quickly found a bug and it became QDOS 0.11.

    "Step one was to write down what CP/M-80 did. Step two was to design a
    file system that was fast and efficient."

    One of the significant differences between MS-DOS and CP/M-86, when it
    finally appeared, was the file management system. CP/M usually
    provides a window to no more than 16K or 32K. With MS-DOS, the entire
    file is available. Paterson created QDOS's file management module
    using the same method found in standalone Basic-86.

    "I'm into bottom-up programming. You know that you're going to need
    certain functions later in the program. I build tools on which to make
    the next layer.

    "When you're programming top-down, it's stepwise refining going from
    general actions to smaller actions. With my method there isn't a lot
    of diagramming. Bottom-up programming is definitely legitimate, it
    just doesn't get a lot of press."
    "
    --Note that in the above--
    "
    At the end of May 1979, Paterson went to Microsoft to work with Bob
    O'Rear there.
    "
    Some have said that Paterson was to work on Microsoft's Apple Softcard
    for CP/M, to which Microsoft had obtained OEM licensing for CP/M, and
    that License carried restrictions about reverse engineering, etc.
    That restriction would affect microsoft employees, among whom is Bob
    O'Rear. Thus, perhaps, the issue is not an 'Easter Egg' but this
    'smoking gun'.

    --also, this seems an odd comment--

    "I was waiting for Digital to come out with CP/M-86. I thought they
    would have it real soon. If they had beat me I wouldn't have taken the
    trouble."

    Odd, because DRI approached SCP to see if they could borrow a board to
    test CP/M-86 on, they didn't get one, but microsoft did, as Paterson
    says.

    -- this is odd also, from above,--
    "
    One of the significant differences between MS-DOS and CP/M-86, when it
    finally appeared, was the file management system. CP/M usually
    provides a window to no more than 16K or 32K. With MS-DOS, the entire
    file is available. Paterson created QDOS's file management module
    using the same method found in standalone Basic-86.
    "
    Now, CP/M deals with Extents of 16k, originally one disk directory fcb
    entry. The second 16 bytes of which are the Disk Map of Block Numbers
    of Storage.
    In the light of this the above makes some sense, each block had a size
    of 1k, originally.

    The file system of CP/M and CP/M-86 are the same, and based on cp/m-80
    verson 2.2.

    All FAT does is remove the Disk Map from the FCB and congregate those
    in a linked list in a separate area before the Disk Directory, and
    Paterson had access to the source to FAT.


    > If it only would be that, but in reality it's even worse because there are
    > facts speaking against that anything was stolen. As we all know Gary
    > Kildall put the sources of CP/M 1.0 into the public domain, because
    > development was done with public funds. Because we want to talk about
    > facts lets have a short look at what he made public:
    >

    I can't find collaboration of Gary placing it into the public domain.
    Nor that it was developed with public funds. So, is that notion an
    'urban legend'? I think the first printed notion I saw of it was an
    article quoting Adam Osborne. Gary wrote an article in DDJ detailing
    the advent of PL/M for Intel, and CP/M which followed. No mention is
    made in the article of his teaching at the Naval Academy, or his
    service in the Navy. He mentions his consulting to Intel for PL/M,
    first for the 4004 and 8008 and then the 8080. He wrote CP/M to
    showcase the idea that the 8080 microcontroller based microcomputer
    could act as a personal workstation for development. In the article
    he indicates that he failed to demonstrate that as being practical
    because input was by paper tape and output was teletype and storage
    back to paper tape. The edit, compile, debug cycle took too long with
    those peripherals, especially because of the paper tape I/O. When he
    saw the ibm floppy drive, he saw the answer to that problem of slow,
    awkward, storage. But that was well after Intel dismissed the notion
    of CP/M.

    Gary goes on to mention the first licensing of CP/M to Lawrence
    Livermore Laboratories in 1975. Is this the meaning behind the
    reference in bdos.plm, re:
    ?LLL V.3?

    /* FDOS LLL V.3 11/21/75
    CON DEVICE 3 IS TI SILENT 700.
    OCT IS READER DEVICE 3 OR 4. */
    3200H: DECLARE BOOT LITERALLY '0H';


    /* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S)

    COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
    JUNE, 1975

    */
    Now, I know this source is available on the old simtel archives in one
    place or another, but when was it placed there, I wonder.

    > -- cut out of bdos.plm written by Gary Kildall --
    >
    > /* THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK FORMAT IS SHOWN BELOW:
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > / 1 BY / 8 BY / 3 BY / 1 BY /2BY/1 BY/ 16 BY /
    > /FILETYPE/ NAME / EXT / REEL NO/XXX/RCNT/DM0 .. DM15/
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > FILETYPE : 0E5H IF AVAILABLE (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > NAME : 8 CHARACTER PRIMARY NAME
    > EXT : 3 CHARACTER EXTENT
    > COM IMPLIES COMMAND TYPE
    > (OTHERWISE UNDEFINED NOW)
    > REEL NO : 'REEL NUMBER' FIRST REEL IS 0, SECOND IS 1,
    > AND SO FORTH UNTIL 255.
    > XXX : UNUSED FOR NOW
    > RCNT : RECORD COUNT IN FILE (0 TO 127)
    > DM0 ... : DISK ALLOCATION MAP. 255 IF NOT ALLOCATED,
    > DM15 OTHERWISE IT POINTS TO ALLOCATED DISK BLOCK
    >
    > THE FILE CONTROL BLOCK IS FOLLOWED BY ONE BYTE OF
    > INFORMATION WHICH GIVES THE NEXT RECORD TO BE READ
    > OR WRITTEN IN AN OPENED FILE. THIS INFORMATION
    > IS NOT A PART OF THE DIRECTORY. EACH READ OR WRITE
    > WILL INCREMENT THIS RECORD COUNT.
    >
    > */
    >
    > -- end of cut out of bdos.plm --
    >
    > Does this look familiar too you? It should, that is the famous FCB
    > definition with explanations how it works, put into the public domain by
    > the author in 1975. If anyone would put this data definition into any
    > other OS as just another application interface to access the filesystem,
    > so what? One cannot steal from public domain stuff like above, one can use
    > it LEGALLY. The same source has the BIOS and BDOS interface, all nicely
    > documented and out into the open, usable by anyone who would bother to
    > mess with it. Ever looked into any of the CP/M / MP/M alteration guides?
    > There all the OS interfaces are much better explained than in the source
    > sniped above. There was no need to steal anything because the parts that
    > have been used where right there to pick up by anyone.
    >
    > So it has to be the mythical boot sector, eh? Lets see, DRI distributed
    > CP/M 2 only on 8" SD disks and only for the Intel MDS-800. The
    > MDS-800 boot sector (sources public available) assembles into 4FH bytes
    > code. The 8" SD disks had 128 bytes/sectors, the machine used a single
    > boot sector. So DRI had 31H byes left to encode some sort of super secret
    > message. Lets imagine that they intentionally left some bytes in the
    > unused space instead of wiping it out. (Anyone got a readable original
    > CP/M 2.2 disk and could provide a dump of the first sector?). To get that
    > secret message onto the boot sector of a PC-DOS 1.0 disk, someone really
    > stupid would have to copy the whole 128 byte sector to the 512 byte sector
    > of that PC-DOS 1.0 disk, err, at what position exactly? Well, whatever
    > this stupid person would try, all that can be accomplished with this is
    > making the IBM PC clown crash, no usable x86 code WITH IBM PC BIOS CALLS
    > in the MDS-800 boot sector, go figure.
    >
    > Well, that are the facts, which you might not like, but I can't help it.
    >
    > Udo Munk
    > --
    > The real fun is building it and then using it...


    So, food for thought?

    Steve


  10. Re: Copyright




    Axel Berger wrote:

    >As long as lawyers are stupid enough to consider a cheap quartz watch looking a
    >little similar to a Rolex (anyone here know what that's supposed to look like?
    >I don't!) an illegal forgery but not another watch that faithfully copies and
    >emulates everything that is supposed to make a Rolex so valuable but looks
    >entirely different


    What's so stupid about that? One watchmaker makes a really good
    watch to compete with Rolex. That is a Good Thing. Another tries
    to fool people into thinking that a cheap watch is an expensive
    Rolex. Rolex protects its reputation. What's the problem?


  11. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    wrote in message
    news:1191749625.038754.78190@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
    > Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm
    > Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter
    > egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been
    > copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that seems to support
    > that feeling. See below.


    OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise
    without the humor?

    Tom Lake


  12. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    Hello, Steve!

    Very good discussion.

    Too bad I am in England and cannot have a look to my references.

    Regarding LLL: Never forget that it is dated 1975, and we all know
    that Gary Kildall had already PL/M running in 1972/3 (I gave the exact
    dates in one of my messages).

    That's 2 to 3 years span. A lot can happen in 2 years.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Mr Emmanuel Roche



  13. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:39 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:

    > OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise
    > without the humor?
    >
    > Tom Lake


    No, with the humor. This IBM PC came with an OS cloned from CP/M 2 and
    later the machine also was cloned it self by other manufacturers. The
    whole machine and the OS just was a joke, no one would do such a bad
    design intentionally. And how much did we laugh about the joke, that no
    one ever would need the whole 640KB memory. Very funny when you run Z80H
    machines twice as fast than that IBM machine and with AM90xx math
    processor and 1MB memory and then someone tells jokes like that ;-) And
    because this was so funny the machine is called an IBM Clown, pun intended
    (clone).

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


  14. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:07:28 +0000, no.spam wrote:

    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:09:54 +0200, Udo Munk
    > wrote:

    ....
    >>sniped above. There was no need to steal anything because the parts that
    >>have been used where right there to pick up by anyone.

    >
    > The whole point of publishing the FCB was so people could write code to
    > use the OS.


    That is the risk you take when writing OS code. You have to publish the
    application interface so that one can write applications for the thing.
    The application interface always is good enough to create a clone OS with
    the same application interface. This has been done a lot to CP/M, DOS,
    UNIX and other OS's as well. No sources of the original needed.

    ....
    >>message. Lets imagine that they intentionally left some bytes in the
    >>unused space instead of wiping it out. (Anyone got a readable original
    >>CP/M 2.2 disk and could provide a dump of the first sector?). To get
    >>that

    >
    > I do and did... it's zero filled. My first BIOS was for CP/M2.2 and was
    > a move from MDS800 to NS* hardware with 765 softsector FDC. I retained
    > the original disk write protected of course.


    That's what I thought, but I don't have original disks and drives to read
    them anymore, I just kept the files, good enough for what I need. So
    whatever is on boot sectors of PC-DOS and MS-DOS disk, it won't be from
    the CP/M 2 distribution disks.

    >>Well, that are the facts, which you might not like, but I can't help it.

    >
    > No easter egg, possible source stolen from the then widely available
    > reconstituted asm sources. whats known is and what not isn't and may
    > never.


    Yep. But the whole CP/M kernel was a few KB only. People have cloned much
    more complex systems, like UNIX, without looking at the original sources.
    I would not have bothered to look at the sources and trying to understand
    them for doing a clone, wast of time. Just get the API documentation,
    hack along for a while and be done. It is a huge difference if you invent
    a whole OS, design the thing, or if you just reprogram what others have
    designed.

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


  15. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    roche182@laposte.net wrote:

    (snip)

    > Regarding LLL: Never forget that it is dated 1975, and we all know
    > that Gary Kildall had already PL/M running in 1972/3 (I gave the exact
    > dates in one of my messages).


    For the 8008? I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.

    -- glen


  16. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    "glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    news:uIOdnf1N2pxQHZPanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > roche182@laposte.net wrote:
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    >> Regarding LLL: Never forget that it is dated 1975, and we all know
    >> that Gary Kildall had already PL/M running in 1972/3 (I gave the exact
    >> dates in one of my messages).

    >
    > For the 8008? I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >
    > -- glen
    >

    A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    had been announced yet.

    Don



  17. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:58:26 +0000, Donald Harris wrote:

    >
    > "glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    > news:uIOdnf1N2pxQHZPanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >> roche182@laposte.net wrote:
    >>
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >>> Regarding LLL: Never forget that it is dated 1975, and we all know
    >>> that Gary Kildall had already PL/M running in 1972/3 (I gave the exact
    >>> dates in one of my messages).

    >>
    >> For the 8008? I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>
    >> -- glen
    >>

    > A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    > had been announced yet.
    >
    > Don


    They were using emulated 8080 on host systems, the 8080 PL/M operators
    manual mentions the INTERP/80 cross-emulator. I really would love to see
    the sources for that thing.

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


  18. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    Donald Harris wrote:

    (I wrote)
    >> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.


    > A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    > had been announced yet.


    The Altair 8800 was announced in the January 1975 Popular
    Electronics, which, as usual came out in December 1974.
    (I remember mailing away for the PC board plans just before
    we went away for christmas.)

    I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.

    -- glen


  19. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    "glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > Donald Harris wrote:
    >
    > (I wrote)
    >>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.

    >
    >> A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    >> had been announced yet.

    >
    > The Altair 8800 was announced in the January 1975 Popular
    > Electronics, which, as usual came out in December 1974.
    > (I remember mailing away for the PC board plans just before
    > we went away for christmas.)
    >
    > I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    > that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.
    >
    > -- glen
    >

    We received our copy from Intel of the original "Preliminary Release"
    documentation dated March 1974, and several samples of the P8080 in ceramic
    package with gold leads by mid to late summer of that same year. It took
    time to take in the power that this new technology provided, and with
    Intel's release of the MDS system (of which we were of the first to
    receive), it followed in short order that a common bus structure would be
    agreed upon (originally announced in the January 1975 issue of Poplar
    Electronics), credited to Ed Roberts and cohort Bill Yates, later to be
    known as the S-100 bus.



  20. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    "Thomas "Todd" Fischer" wrote in message
    news:13gtjanm0nqtha4@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Thomas "Todd" Fischer" wrote in message
    > news:13gtigo60hepl3e@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >> "glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >> news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>
    >>> (I wrote)
    >>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>
    >>>> A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    >>>> had been announced yet.

    (snip)

    > Note 2: Timesharing gets little mention these days, but back then, a
    > teletype or dumb terminal with printer, an acoustic coupler and a rather
    > expensive dialup account bought you time on a DEC PDP-11 or better. And,
    > if you were lucky, you had access to compilers, Inventory Management
    > software, and many other pre-written business and utility programs at your
    > disposal at no additional charge.
    >

    (snip)

    -A reply from the back porch step (I wish I knew the original German phrase
    for this!)-

    Most casual readers will assume that in the first days of microcomputer
    development there was easy access to mainframe computer resources in the
    evolution of Operating System development. That was not the case in the
    larger context. The significance of using teleprocessing resources in the
    early development of software seems to be neglected in modern research,
    analysis, and comparison of technique used in developing the evolving O/S
    movements. In those formulative years, a telephone connection, terminal
    device, and an account with viable development resources made a huge
    difference in ability to access those resources and the ability to further
    render a workable computing environment.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast