Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3467 comp.unix.sysv386:9377
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!att!fang!tarpit!bilver!bill
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz Operation settles Lotus lawsuit
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.161701.19221@bilver.uucp>
Date: 25 Jun 91 16:17:01 GMT
References: <1991Jun22.223038.4257@weyrich.UUCP> <1991Jun24.074048.8539@ITcorp.com>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 31

In article <1991Jun24.074048.8539@ITcorp.com> geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>In article <1991Jun22.223038.4257@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP
>(Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
>
>> I would love to see MS try that -- MS-DOS itself started out as a clone of
>> DR's popular [at the time] CP/M operating system. But of course, DR can't
>> complain too loudly itself, as CP/M is very reminiscent of DEC's RSX
>> (and perhaps other earlier DEC operating systems).
>
>This claim is rather weak, to say the least.  Even a cursory
>comparison of DOS V1 with CP/M would show that it's not a clone.  A
>bit of investigation into the history would support this conclusion.

But you did not mention the history.   DOS is a decendanct of CPM.

When Seattle Computer Products introduced their 8086 based S-100 system
board they supported it with a derivative of CPM.  

Later when IBM approached Microsoft they took the Seattle Computer Products
OS (sometimes called QDOS - Quick 'n' Dirty Operating System) and re-worked
and renamed it PC-DOS.

A decendant of CPM would be appropriate - that is why it appeared to be
"clone-like".

I remember when SCP release that board and thinking it would be "neat" to
have, but stayed with my Z80 based CCS system.

-- 
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: ...!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : bill@bilver.UUCP