It must be true I read/heard it in the news!

[Brian Densmore]

-----Original Message-----
> From: Garrett Goebel
> 

>> I used to run a 32 bit version of DOS that had all/most of the 
>> capabilities of cmd.exe and command.com. 
> Someone at AdTI was recently ranting that Linux has all the capabilities
> of Minix. Does that mean it must be derived from it?
It's a reasonable assumption when a company has been proven guilty on multiple occasions
of stealing other peoples copyrighted works and distributing them as their own.

>> What has happened is M$ 
>> has added some utility programs that are accessible to this new 
>> "shell". If you look at the actual code that lies underneath it's 
>> still the old DOS code. 
> I've never had the opportunity to look at the source for MSDOS and CMD.exe. Have you? 
It's called reverse engineering, and yes I have done some small bit in that area.

> Show me the offending lines of code. Or is this an unsupportable claim along the lines
> of our friends at SCO?
There are numerous authors who have done the good service to publish some of this.
May I recommend any of the "Unauthorized Windows" series by Andrew Schulman. Especially 
Unauthorized Windows 95 Developer's Resource Kit, IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. Copyright 1994
ISBN 1-56884-305-4
LOCCC# 94-72739

> Even if some code were reused, that is neither here nor there. -It doesn't transform a usermode
> shell into an operating system. You seem grudgingly willing to grant that CMD is a new shell,
> but unwilling to recognize that it is not an operating system.
I can agree with that it is no longer an OS by and of itself. It is possible to take all the
components and strip out the UI though. Micro$oft was at least smart enough to separate the code
that handle the UI and the hardware. In most cases. ;')

>> Even Windows 286 (do you remember Windows 
>> 286, I do) launched a "Virtual DOS Machine". 
> CMD.exe does _not_ launch a "Virtual DOS Machine". It will run on non-x86 platforms without a
> virtual machine. DOS can't do that...
Ok, I see how you're using it here. Yes, you're right here.

> CMD.EXE is a shell that executes as a native process. 
CMd.exe executes as a window it does not have direct access to the hardware. A shell would have
direct access to the hardware. There is a difference.

>> Don't believe everything M$ tells you about their technology. 
>> They are pathological liars. 
> Don't you think that is a bit harsh. Sure there's stacker, but not everyone at Microsoft works
> in Sales and Marketing ;) -They actually have some very good engineers, developers, and 
> researchers. And I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them don't deserve this blanket libel.
I was referring to the Company, not the employees. I'm sure there are plenty of fine people 
working at M$. There's also more than just the famous Stacker case.

>> NT wasn't a "complete" rewrite of 
>> Windows. There is DOS code in there. Windows 9x still does one 
>> DOS hardware call. Windows 95 also took control of the hardware 
> Windows 9x is not NT. ...
>  but it isn't derived from DOS/Win16. If anything it's derived from VMS. 
Ok for NT3.5 and even 4.0 , but over the years they've added some Windows 9x code to 
NT. That's not to say you could find DOS in there. All I was saying is that it's nothing
new under the Sun. Nothing in the Windows 9x/NT/... that hasn't been around for years
and years and isn't a *wow what a far cry from old DOS* kind of thing.

>  CMD.exe isn't an operating system. 
Granted, I don't recall saying it was.
DOS is more than just command.com. 

> You won't find CMD.EXE on 95 or 98 because they are not self-hosting operating systems. I.e.,
> they run on top of DOS. 
Not true. Windows hasn't run "on top of DOS" since before Windows286. 

One thing we agree, it's time to move on. All I was trying to say initially is
 that it isn't a mind-altering/life-altering event that there is more features in
the command/cmd "shell". They have done that because administrators had been adding in
third party utilities to do those tasks. So in typical M$ fashion they 
bought/begged/borrowed/stole what they needed to kill that little market.

You probably still disagree with my perspective. That's ok, because we can agree to disagree.

Brian