Microsoft Posts Source Code For MS-DOS and Word For Windows 224
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft, along with the Computer History Museum, has posted the source code for MS-DOS 1.1 and 2.0, and Word for Windows 1.1a. It's been a long time coming — DOS 2.0 was released for IBM PCs in 1983, and Word for Windows 1.1a came out in 1990. The museum, with Microsoft's consent, has made the code available for non-commercial use. They've also explained some of the history of this software's development: '[In August, 1980], IBM had already contracted with Microsoft to provide a BASIC interpreter for the PC, so they asked them to investigate also providing the operating system. Microsoft proposed licensing "86-DOS", which had been written by Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for their 8086-based computer kit because the 16-bit version of CP/M was late. When SCP signed the licensing deal [7] with Microsoft, they didn't know for sure who the computer manufacturer was. Paterson said "We all had our suspicions that it was IBM that Microsoft was dealing with, but we didn't know for sure." [1] He left SCP to work for Microsoft in 1981. "The first day on the job I walk through the door and 'Hey! It's IBM.'" Microsoft originally licensed 86-DOS in December 1980 for a flat fee of $25,000. By the next summer they recognized the importance of owning it and being able to license it to other companies making IBM-PC clones, so they purchased all rights for an additional $50,000.'"
Why are they posting old source code? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
Re:True to their genesis (Score:5, Interesting)
In the interests of truth, you are right; I left out their contributions to BASIC (I believe it was jointly developed at some point with Apple) and Bill Gates himself did some work on that groundbreaking program, but probably it was others who did most of the programming work with Gates being the bulldog who tried to drive payment for the program, which had gotten into the wild. There are some charming emails from Gates warning users about pirating BASIC circulating om the internet.
However, their huge success in relicensing seems to have driven their business plan after 1982.
Re:True to their genesis (Score:5, Interesting)
Their roots are in brokering deals. They bought some rights from Patterson and got them cheap by concealing their end customer (IBM). They then hired Patterson and tossed him another $50K for the remaining rights to distribute. $75K altogether. If Patterson had said "No thanks" to the employment offer and hung onto distribution rights, SCP might have done a better job building upon DOS and they'd be the rich people. Microsoft would have gone on to be one of many apps developers in a diverse DOS-based ecosystem.
Microsoft has always feared the independent developer. They have become adept in killing off potential competition or buying up expertise and burying it somewhere in the Redmond campus.
Tainting (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't even looking at this source code create a minefield for open source developers? If you look at the source code, Microsoft can scrutinize all your open-source contributions claiming that since you read Microsoft's source code, you can't suddenly forget everything you learned, so all your contributions to open-source software are tainted by your knowledge. It will be impossible to prove otherwise. This may mean that if you look at Microsoft's source code, you are barred for life from working on the Linux kernel or anything even remotely related to operating systems. It could even affect your ability to get a job.
Re:True to their genesis (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought everyone knew this. There was more history that I remember. When IBM first saw the code M$ had bought from SCP (it was first called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty Operating System), it had 8000 lines of assembly code, and IBM pulled out 6000 lines of bugs, then gave it back to M$. The only reason IBM was so generous was that they didn't want to get caught up in Sherman (Antitrust) Act problems, so they made M$ their beneficiary. Little did they know that their friend and partner would become their fiend and back-stabbing competitor. M$ got caught intentionally breaking their products when run on DrDOS, and had to not just buy "Doublespace" but all of Stac Electronics after M$ stole compression technology from Stac. There were a lot of other things that M$ did later on that gave them a bad name (screwing with IBM over OS/2, Killing Netscape by bundling IE) with Gates lying to the judge "oh noes, its unpossible to remove....(cross fingers), threatening to 'wack Dell' if they tried to offer any computer with Linux bundled instead of windblows, killing FoxPro (and FoxSoft), killing WordPerfect, killing dBase (and Ashton-Tate), killing CorelDraw, killing Borland", but these were early dirty tricks. Later they would move on to ruining standards bodies by rigging elections on their OOXML (a target standard even M$ can't hit), and trying to screw with hardware bootloaders to only accept M$ operating systems. The list goes on and on. There are real reasons why so many people in the industry want them dead. Their mission statement is "mendacium,
fallere furtum", and translates to "lie, cheat, steal".