Perdu, si tu lis le lien numero 2 tu as la reponse :
1) To put a TCP/IP stack in NT
2) To adapt the sockets user-mode API for NT
#1 was solved by licensing code from a company called Spider Systems
It was recognized that using Spider's stack was a temporary measure, because nobody really wanted a stack that depended on STREAMS and its associated overhead. So, a short time after this, work was begun on a new version of TCP/IP, written entirely by Microsoft.
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix.
Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.
Bref, ils ont eu pendant 2 ans une stack achetee chez qq'un, qui il se trouve etait originaire de BSD, mais MS n'a jamais pris la stack BSD lui-meme.
[^] # Re: Ben ca alors !
Posté par pasBill pasGates . En réponse au journal BBC World : Documentaire sur les logiciels libres. Évalué à 1.
1) To put a TCP/IP stack in NT
2) To adapt the sockets user-mode API for NT
#1 was solved by licensing code from a company called Spider Systems
It was recognized that using Spider's stack was a temporary measure, because nobody really wanted a stack that depended on STREAMS and its associated overhead. So, a short time after this, work was begun on a new version of TCP/IP, written entirely by Microsoft.
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix.
Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.
Bref, ils ont eu pendant 2 ans une stack achetee chez qq'un, qui il se trouve etait originaire de BSD, mais MS n'a jamais pris la stack BSD lui-meme.