Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M

This is a discussion on Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M ; Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813 >"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no >individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, >for instance. By a universal law, indeed, whatever, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 120

Thread: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

  1. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813
    >"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no
    >individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land,
    >for instance. By a universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or
    >movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the
    >moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the
    >property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is
    >given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an
    >idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural
    >right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any
    >one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the
    >action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may
    >exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is
    >divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the
    >receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."




  2. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Joe Forster/STA* wrote on Sat, 08-11-01 14:17:
    >this is not an extension of the notion of "stealing", rather an
    >indication that the notion of "property" needs to be rethought.


    Copying a complete book costs more than buying the book, if available.
    Copying that same book as, say, PDF is virtually free. But in the first
    case a small part of the price is passed on to the author, in the
    second he'll get nothing.
    I am a great fan of the shareware principle, but according to most
    authors it just does not work, for reasons that are unfathomable to me,
    but then that's the way I was brought up.
    Someone dedicating his full time to programming ought to be able to
    earn a living by it, at least as long as there are enough users wanting
    to have and use his output.
    (Thinking it their right and due to be paid, preferably by the state,
    even if noone likes or wants their output, is the view of many self
    declared artists. That is a view I do not agree with, obviously.)


  3. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Oct 31, 8:20*pm, Charles Richmond wrote:
    > Joel Koltner wrote:
    > > "Alex Buell" wrote in message
    > >news:20081031085253.46c966cc@lithium.local.net...
    > >> As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.

    >
    > > He wrote it long before he had billions, and even if that weren't the case,
    > > stealing from someone with billions vs. stealing from someone with verylittle
    > > is still stealing -- it shouldn't be done, even if in one case it hurtsthe
    > > guy less than another.

    >
    > > In general I'm not about to defend Bill Gates or his business practices-- *
    > > some are reprehensible -- but in this particular case his letter and its point
    > > is entirely reasonable.

    >
    > Prior to the "unbundling" court decision against IBM, software
    > was bundled with the system that used it. Software was *not*
    > considered a product all on its own. Gates should have considered
    > this and avoided the "high handed" tone of his flaming letter.
    > Software *was* once free, and it is *not* unusual for the
    > computer community to have some residual feeling about this.
    >
    > As someone else pointed out, Mi$uck BASIC probably *gained*
    > more than it lost because of this "piracy".
    >
    > --
    > +----------------------------------------------------------------+
    > | * Charles and Francis Richmond * * richmond at plano dot net * |
    > +----------------------------------------------------------------+


    Was MITS Altair Disk BASIC the same as
    what somebody referred to as Extended BASIC?
    It went beyond the 8K BASIC, right?

    I tinkered with Random Access disk functions
    a bunch but kept having problems with the
    random access block size stuff.

    It LOOKED like a programmer could define
    a block size different from standard.

    Was that actually working right back then and
    in the later versions for CP/M or MSDOS?


  4. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Bill Buckels wrote:

    > "Tom Lake" wrote in message
    > news:gea24h$vcl$1@news.albasani.net...


    >>It's interesting to note that most people think of BASIC as an interpretive
    >>language since that was the way BASIC was implemented on small computers in
    >>the '70s and '80s. The original BASIC, though, was a true compiler.


    The distinction between compilers and interpreters isn't that strict.

    As was explained to me once by a CS PhD student, true compilers
    are rare. That is, ones that generate machine code from every
    statement. Most compilers use library calls for many things,
    especially I/O, which makes them less than pure. (Formatted
    I/O routines might interpret format descriptors, but even without
    that calling library routines is enough not to be a true compiler.


    (snip)

    > Well you get my point about "most people". Depends on the people I guess and
    > if you are a hobbyist or a developer. It's a great big world out there. Most
    > computer users these days aren't even aware that BASIC exists. Most that
    > care too are more likely to use a compiler and VB.NET I think.

    (snip)

    > I might have agreed with you in the 1980's but like me the old fart
    > interpreted BASIC programmers are in the minority and lurk in forums like
    > this one.


    Many BASIC systems were not interpreters, but incremental compilers.
    That is, the input BASIC statements were tokenized, and the tokenized
    text interpreted. Among other advantages is better error checking,
    and faster run-time.

    -- glen


  5. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    In article <1ebf4bfd-d846-46a0-abb2-efb9ebc84006@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
    Greegor wrote:


    >I tinkered with Random Access disk functions
    >a bunch but kept having problems with the
    >random access block size stuff.
    >
    >It LOOKED like a programmer could define
    >a block size different from standard.
    >
    >Was that actually working right back then and
    >in the later versions for CP/M or MSDOS?


    There must have been different block sizes in CP/M because
    it could handle DSDD 8" diskettes, holding 1.2 MB.

    I remember that my copy of CP/M 2.2 came with a handy manual
    which, amongst other things, had sample code so that you could
    write a driver for a hard drive and incorporate it into the OS.
    With only 64K RAM, of course, there was no room for wastage.

    CBASIC was an excellent structured BASIC for CP/M (and later
    CB80 and CB86 bridged it into the DOS world). IMHO, we are
    still paying for the compromises implicit in 4K BASIC-in-ROM
    implementations.


    --
    happy
    Jonathan Berry and Erika http://members.shaw.ca/berry5868/fun.htm


  6. Copying is like wrong parking

    Joe Forster/STA schrieb:
    > Digital information is quite different from physical objects because
    > it's incredibly easy to duplicate. But, damn, that's the point of
    > digital information! If the person/company who created it enjoys the
    > advantages of being able to duplicate, for virtually nothing (!),


    I totally agree. Copying Information is very, very cheap today. I
    remember when the Level3-CED of Microsoft-Service said something like
    "selling windows means 99% profit" or in other words, by creating
    propietary standards one creates artificial scarcity to the whole
    purpose of increasing his personal wealth. And all this only works as
    this person gets personally protection by the same society which he
    leeches from.
    So his accomplishment is not "creating something better" because there
    are several better free solutions available, but modifying freely
    available standards until he can use copyright protection to leech others.

    Legal, illegal, moral, immoral, you name it...

    Btw, if you want a very advanced look into copyright/left - how to live
    in a world where information is directly translated into real objects -
    future I suggest you look into

    http://www.accelerando.org/book/

    Christian Brandt

  7. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Charles Richmond" wrote in message
    news:gegee2$kr3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > Gates should have considered
    > this and avoided the "high handed" tone of his flaming letter.


    Reasonable point.

    > Software *was* once free, and it is *not* unusual for the
    > computer community to have some residual feeling about this.


    OK, but I think it's clear *today* that overall we're better off with hardware
    and software being "unbundled" (and software companies being allowed to charge
    for their works). There are millions of people who'd suddenly be unemployed
    if it was decided that intellectual property did not have some of the same
    legal protections as physical property does (including unauthorized
    reproduction being illegal). I agree that intellectual and physical property
    are not identical, however -- certainly the punishment for stealing $10,000
    cash from an indvidual should be a lot more severe than duplicating a piece of
    $10,000 software --, and it is a somewhat gray area (if I purchase a DVD, I
    absolutely should be able to transfer it to my PC, my iPod, etc., despite what
    the MPAA may desire). As time goes on there'll be plenty of struggles to
    clarify IP law, and I certainly hope that those on the side of "reasonable
    use" will be able to ward off the commercial interests who often push quite
    heavily for highly-restrictive use.

    > As someone else pointed out, Mi$uck BASIC probably *gained*
    > more than it lost because of this "piracy".


    Possible, or at least it probably happened faster than if there had been some
    way to prevent piracy altogether.
    ---Joel



  8. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:24:42 GMT, Joel Koltner wrote:

    > "Charles Richmond" wrote in message
    >
    >> As someone else pointed out, Mi$uck BASIC probably *gained*
    >> more than it lost because of this "piracy".

    >
    > Possible, or at least it probably happened faster than if there had been
    > some way to prevent piracy altogether.


    I have an essay somewhere (not written by me) that claims that Microsoft
    unofficially encouraged piracy, and lists a few numbers that seem to support
    the idea.

    --
    No more precious energy coming down your tube, idiots!

  9. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    When I managed some retail computer stores in the 1980's,
    lots of people would come in and get an in person
    and detailed demonstration but then buy it mail order.

    The stupid part was that our price was cheaper than mail order!

    I had a person call up who said that they had
    an application that needed to print on three part
    forms, and were having trouble finding a printer that
    would work. They promised that if I had a printer
    that could print on it, they would buy it from me.
    They brought their form in, I tested it in a
    high end Okidata and it printed just fine.

    When I called to close the sale they said they
    bought it mailorder.

    They actually paid more than my local retail price.

    (People were in such a strong mindset that
    mail order is cheaper that some didn't even check.)

    Please forgive me but if somebody could
    do that, I suspect they ripped off the
    expensive software as well.

    My point is that if people can get something
    cheaper or free they will, with no regard to
    any promise made or ethical concern.

    It's not about right or wrong.
    It's about "Can they get away with it?".

    And when it gets to be extremely common,
    even the people who try to be ethical will
    at some point feel foolish about being the
    lonely few.

    I have lots of complaints about how Microsoft
    treats customers but I can also understand
    why they do all of the hyper paranoid
    ""Genuine Advantage"" validation crap.

    But I'm confused, haven't Gates and Microsoft
    dropped their copyright claim on Altair BASIC?

  10. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Joel Koltner" wrote in message
    news:OlHPk.237299$4p1.198283@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
    > .... I agree that intellectual and physical property are not identical,
    > however -- certainly the punishment for stealing $10,000 cash from an
    > indvidual should be a lot more severe than duplicating a piece of $10,000
    > software --, and it is a somewhat gray area



    First of all, it's not "gray" at all. The owner of the intellectual property
    may license the property under any terms he desires. That his terms are
    silly or impractical is immaterial.. if the terms are that bad, no one will
    buy a license.

    Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods" than
    stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO difference!).

    --
    Michael C. Mattias
    Tal Systems Inc.
    Racine WI
    mmattias@talsystems.com










  11. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:27:59 -0500, "Bill Buckels"
    wrote:

    >In the movie, Gates gets the contract for Altair BASIC and meets Ed Roberts
    >who is a little sceptical it seems because Gates is just a kid. Gates
    >holes-up in a fleabag motel (apartment?)somewhere down-there and writes
    >Altair BASIC.


    Ed Roberts was a career Air Force officer. Gates, a snotty-nosed kid
    (& spoiled rich kid) who refused to follow orders. You do the math...

    The Sundowner was a so-so motel along Route 66, northeast of
    downtown Albuquerque, and the area has sort of gone down hill
    over the years since . It was still there a few years ago, last time I
    looked.

    Basic was already written, mostly, for the 8008, and the 8080 version
    was punched to paper tape when Gates got to town. Hadn't been
    run, though. Gates had to write a loader to get it into the Altair.
    Work continues at the motel, just a couple blocks from MITS

    Bill

  12. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:12:37 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
    wrote:

    >In general I'm not about to defend Bill Gates or his business practices --
    >some are reprehensible -- but in this particular case his letter and its point
    >is entirely reasonable.


    No, it isn't. He was already a thief by the time he wrote that.

    Curious thing is how thieves and robbers tend to think alike,
    and not notice that honest people who are paying attention
    catch on to their game almost immediately. In Gates' case,
    knowing how easy it was to steal, he figured maybe he could
    scare people like himself off by coming on like that.

    If rich people and companies couldn't buy their way out of criminal
    activity with SETTLEMENTS, there would be a lot more evidence
    out where the public could sift through it. Rob a gas station, you'll
    do time. Steal billions, and buy your way out. What a system!

    You listening, Augie Busch IV? 'Taint no Statute on Manslaughter!

    Bill

  13. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:20:42 -0600, "Bill Buckels"
    wrote:

    >Shareware is, as far as I am concerned, to Commercial Software as Sport
    >Fishing is to Commercial Fishing.


    Well then, sometimes you are wrong.

    Go look up Centerstage Ticketing, and/or Wintix.

    I just bought this guy's software, for a thousand bucks.

    Not because I NEED his help getting it up, but because
    he deserves to be paid for what he's written. You can either
    buy a support contract, X hours per year, or pay-per-incident.

    Nobody has to pay him anything, because he lets anyone
    who wants to, use it 'gratis'. I couldn't find anybody who uses
    it, and HASN'T paid him for it. It's simply THAT GOOD.

    The so-called ''commercial software'' I replaced was not only total
    crap, but that company, through bad practices, infected us with a
    nasty root-kit virus.

    Maybe you're in the wrong line of work?

    Bill

  14. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:45:15 -0600, Michael Mattias wrote:

    > Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods"
    > than stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO
    > difference!).


    As already said there *is* a difference. In the first case the victim
    has $10,000 less in the second case the victim has $0 less.

    The second isn't even "stealing" but "making an unauthorized copy".

    Ciao,
    Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

  15. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > Was MITS Altair Disk BASIC the same as
    > what somebody referred to as Extended BASIC?
    > It went beyond the 8K BASIC, right?


    Extended BASIC was available in paper tape,
    cassette and disk versions. Only the disk version
    had random file capability. The cassette version
    could load and save arrays to tape.

    Tom Lake

  16. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" wrote in message
    news:6n9bs4Fk8mutU4@mid.uni-berlin.de...
    > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:45:15 -0600, Michael Mattias wrote:
    >
    >> Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods"
    >> than stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO
    >> difference!).

    >
    > As already said there *is* a difference. In the first case the victim
    > has $10,000 less in the second case the victim has $0 less.
    >
    > The second isn't even "stealing" but "making an unauthorized copy".


    Try "making an unauthorized copy" of one of my pieces of copyright software
    and we'll see what it's called.

    You can deal with your priest, minister, rabbi or imam on the moral issues
    involved.

    On the secular side, my file is already open for reporting piracy and one
    more letter makes no difference to me and you can deal with the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation. I'm told it's not fun. I was glad to hear it.


    --
    Michael C. Mattias
    Tal Systems Inc.
    Racine WI
    mmattias@talsystems.com









  17. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > > When you work for a company, the company will become the owner of what
    > > you create and they will license it as they desire.

    >
    > This is a completely different issue.


    Not quite. People, except for the self-employed, work for companies
    and are forced into contracts that take away their rights for their
    intellectual property. So, even if you in theory have the rights for
    what you created, in practice the company licenses it and you have no
    power to change that license. Now, who steals (?) from whom: the
    company from you by taking your rights away (have you been paid enough
    for that? have you retained _some_ of the rights?) or the user
    directly from the company and indirectly from you by creating a not
    allowed (by whom?) copy of a material that was originally (!) your
    intellectual property?

    If a friend of mine creates an unlicensed copy or downloads a pirate
    copy of the software I wrote, he may get punished because it's not
    "my" software anymore but that of the company I work for. In theory,
    even if _I_ created that unlicensed copy, he'll get in trouble. Do I
    have any power over the use of my own creation? No, I don't.

    We have no lawyers in our family and proud of that.

  18. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Joe Forster/STA" wrote in message
    news:dcb3a34c-2562-4de2-b263-94777b39d29e@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
    > People, except for the self-employed, work for companies
    > and are forced into contracts that take away their rights for their
    > intellectual property.


    No, you are not "forced" The twelveth amendment prohibits slavery or
    involuntary servitude except for punishment of a crime if which you have
    been convicted via due process. You can say no to the job, or quit it.

    >So, even if you in theory have the rights for what you created


    This is not a valid theory. Ownership inures to the party specified in the
    agreement which results in the creation of the intellectual property. In the
    absence of an agreement to the contrary, in an employer/employee situation
    ownership inures to he who pays... the employer.

    You take the paycheck, the employer owns your work. Sounds fair to me.

    Disclaimer: I *am* self employed. Nobody ever paid me a so much as a dime to
    develop any of my copyright products.

    Yes, I have come up with some "clunkers." You remember "TraveLog?" No?
    Well,. no one else does, either.

    MCM
















  19. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > You take the paycheck, the employer owns your work. Sounds fair to me.

    Then the user pays for the product. The company takes the check, the
    user owns my/their work. Sounds fair to me.

    Ohhh... But, when it comes to software or digital media, the user
    doesn't _own_ the product, only gets the right to use it (not
    duplicate, not reverse-engineer, not create a derivative thereof etc.
    etc.)? Sounds unfair to me.

    Also, try changing a contract to your own advantage. What percentage
    of (potential) work places will allow you to do that? If only a few,
    you don't have an alternative: again, in theory you're not forced but
    in practice you actually are. (Yes, unless you're self-employed. What
    percentage of workers are self-employed: minority or majority?)

  20. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:17:56 -0600, Michael Mattias wrote:

    > "Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" wrote in message
    > news:6n9bs4Fk8mutU4@mid.uni-berlin.de...
    >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:45:15 -0600, Michael Mattias wrote:
    >>
    >>> Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard
    >>> goods" than stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO
    >>> difference!).

    >>
    >> As already said there *is* a difference. In the first case the victim
    >> has $10,000 less in the second case the victim has $0 less.
    >>
    >> The second isn't even "stealing" but "making an unauthorized copy".

    >
    > Try "making an unauthorized copy" of one of my pieces of copyright
    > software and we'll see what it's called.


    Not "stealing".

    > You can deal with your priest, minister, rabbi or imam on the moral
    > issues involved.


    I don't make unauthorized copies of your software → no moral issues.

    > On the secular side, my file is already open for reporting piracy and
    > one more letter makes no difference to me and you can deal with the
    > Federal Bureau of Investigation.


    Reporting "piracy"? Another term that doesn't apply to unauthorized
    copying. Unless you commit it within international waters, maybe. ;-)

    That term is even stronger than "stealing" because "piracy" usually
    involves kidnapping or forcing people at gun point to leave a ship. And
    that is IMHO really *much* worse than making a digital copy without
    threatening someones health or even life.

    And I don't think I'd have to deal with the FBI. Their jurisdiction is
    limited.

    Ciao,
    Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast