From: ArarghMail608NOSPAM on
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:17:17 -0500,
ArarghMail608NOSPAM(a) wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2006 18:21:05 -0700, rhyde(a) wrote:
>>Dragontamer wrote:
>>> Actually, Microsoft bought VB from some other guy who innovated it.
>>First I'd heard that, but okay. Given Microsoft's history with BASIC,
>>this is not something I would have expected.
>First that I had heard of it also, However:

Actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't be real surprised if it turned
out that MS bought a DOS Basic compiler somewhere between QB3 and QB4,
based upon the internal changes between the two. Either that, or
completely rewrote it nearly from scratch. (If you run strings on
both, it shows what I mean) Another reason, the sources for the C
compiler runtime have been available since at least C6 (the earliest
that I have), but I was never able to obtain the sources for the Basic
runtime (QB4 or PDS). And, I did ask.
ArarghMail608 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->]
BCET Basic Compiler Page:

To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
From: rhyde on

ArarghMail608NOSPAM(a) wrote:
> First that I had heard of it also, However:

Cool, yet more proof that serious innovation usually occurs at the
hands of an individual rather than a large team.
Randy Hyde

From: Jim Carlock on
<ArarghMail608NOSPAM(a)> wrote:
> First that I had heard of it also, However:

Thanks for that link. He presented the following link. Did you
get up to the Bill Gates mug while reading the stuff there?

He's a goofy looking kid in the picture there.

Alot of the other links at the Cooper site seem to no longer

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

From: Dragontamer on

rhyde(a) wrote:
> Dragontamer wrote:
> > Hmm... It seems like you've got a very very different view of what
> > OSS is than I do. I'm beginning to think this all comes down to what
> > you think OSS development is.
> The bazaar side of the C&B.

That explains a lot.

Yeah, I agree. Bazaar tends to be more of a copy-machine
than an innovator. Innovation comes when a product starts as
a Cathedral.

I see no reason for an OSS project to be a Cathedral, or to
start as a Cathedral, etc. etc. I think that most, if not all, OSS
projects, have to start as a Cathedral for it to get anywhere.

Simple reason: If you want it done right, you gotta do it

> > Wait, so you think Freeware projects have a chance for innovation...
> I think that indivduals, working in isolation, have a much greater
> chance of creating innovative than the Bazaar model the OSS embraces.

That Eric Raymond embraces :-p

> > While paid OSS projects may not?
> "Paid" changes the dynamics. At that point people aren't doing it for
> love or ego. That's a *big* deal.

BTW: Gnu software is sold for quite a lot of money.

Just pointing it out. Course; it is also given away for free online :-p

> > > The whole "Cathedral vs. Bazaar" thing has gone down the toilet with
> > > respect to Linux. The bottom line is that *small projects* (as Linux
> > > was, in the early days) can be developed in a decentralized,
> > > "programming in the small", manner. But once the project gets large, as
> > > Linux is today, those techniques start to fail. The promise of the
> > > bazaar was that you would get quick updates to bugs and new features
> > > would be added rapidly. Gee, look how long it's taking to get *minor*
> > > revisions out of Linux these days. Definitely a cathedral, not a
> > > bazaar. And Linus (for good reasons) rules over the Linux development
> > > and totally controls the "mainstream" release. Hardly the
> > > decentralized model that Eric Raymond was preaching about.
> >
> > I thought the point of the Bazaar was that you can find many many
> > unofficial patches for your product; and the main guy who is
> > making it just ties it all together.
> Perhaps you should read Raymond's book.
> And read "A Second Look at the Cathedral and Bazaar", too.

Yeah, I'll re-read it. I only skimmed it the first time through. I'll
keep that link as well.