Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 00:34:38 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "kevin godfrey" <kevin@ticktockman.com>, <freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Actual Microsoft Question (Was: Re: Microsoft Bashers) Message-ID: <009301c11e4a$3f560620$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <3B6C9E8B.8AA7DAEF@ticktockman.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't think that Microsoft has ever publically stated that it WAS part of Windows, much less the reasoning behind it. The reason that we all know that it was part of Windows is because the UCB Copyright is part of several command-line utilities, and is included in the winsock header files in the Microsoft C compiler. We presume that Windows is compiled using Microsoft's compiler products. Also, apparently in one of the early BSD TCP/IP stacks there was some bug that was later fixed that was duplicated in the Windows code. I have seen postings from people claiming to have viewed the actual source code to the older Windows (keep in mind that Windows source code is now available to large site licensees as well as to certain academic institutions) who say that there's little to no BSD code in the Windows TCP/IP stack. But I think these postings are red herrings because while you would of course expect that over time as a code distribution diverged that less and less BSD code would be present, Microsoft certainly had to start from somewhere. Remember also that the AT&T UNIX TCP/IP stack was taken directly from BSD. When Microsoft went to write TCP/IP in Windows, they certainly would have looked at an existing IP implementation to see how it was done. It would have been a serious problem if they had selected some decompiled commercial implementation (like FTP Software's) and even if they had selected something like AT&T UNIX which they most certainly have a source license for. Besides that most commercial implementations of the time were based on BSD anyway. The safest source implementation of TCP/IP at the time was BSD because of the nonrestrictive license and since it was used as the root of most competitive TCP/IP implementations, if you studied it you would be studying all of the rest of them. It seems to me that the expense of "clean rooming" the BSD TCP/IP code just so you could say that your product _wasn't_ built around BSD TCP/IP would have been totally unwarranted. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of kevin godfrey >Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:17 PM >To: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Actual Microsoft Question (Was: Re: Microsoft Bashers) > > >On a somewhat relevant tangent... More of a newbie history question... can >someone explain or point me in the right direction to a book or webpage that >explains how the BSD TCP/IP stack became part of Windows? > >I'm curious to know that history. > >Thanks! > >p.s. - Let the NT admin go... he's not going to bite the hand that feeds him, >and we know we don't bash. > >joel2a@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> rofl >> I did not even post that for trolling or flame bait. >> A whole zoo needs to be built for the peanut gallery! >> But since someone said I was trolling, come to think of it, a troll could >> get fat around here! lol >> >> At 01:39 AM 8/5/01 +0200, you wrote: >> >This thread is really very uninteresting. Please, guys, be so >> >kind, and let it die. >> > > >-- >kevin > >"plastic fruit for a starving nation" > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?009301c11e4a$3f560620$1401a8c0>