• [^] # Re: C'est bien, en effet

    Posté par . En réponse à la dépêche Des licences "Shared Source" de Microsoft.... Évalué à 1.

    Vole ? Ca reste a prouver, le reglement a l'amiable pourrait l'etre pour plein de raisons, genre piquer les ingenieurs a DEC, etc...

    VMS doesn't have different OS personalities, as NT does, but its kernel and Executive subsystems are clear predecessors to NT's. Digital developers wrote the VMS kernel almost entirely in VAX assembly language. To be portable across different CPU architectures, Microsoft developers wrote NT's kernel almost entirely in C. In developing NT, these designers rewrote VMS in C, cleaning up, tuning, tweaking, and adding some new functionality and capabilities as they went. This statement is in danger of trivializing their efforts; after all, the designers built a new API (i.e., Win32), a new file system (i.e., NTFS), and a new graphical interface subsystem and administrative environment while maintaining backward compatibility with DOS, OS/2, POSIX, and Win16. Nevertheless, the migration of VMS internals to NT was so thorough that within a few weeks of NT's release, Digital engineers noticed the striking similarities.

    Ils n'ont pas vole le code, les auteurs de NT etaient les auteurs de VMS, ils ont donc logiquement repris les memes concepts et architecture, mais ils ont reecrit le code de 0, vu qu'un des 2 est en assembleur et l'autre en C c'est evident, et ce n'est pas illegal.