• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why wtf?

      Microsoft started as a UNIX-based programming company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

      Hell you see remnants of it in the reserved filename list.

      https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/naming-a-file?redirectedfrom=MSDN

      Devices in windows are not typically “files” like they are in unix/linux… So why CON, PRN, AUX, NUL, COM0, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM6, COM7, COM8, COM9, COM¹, COM², COM³, LPT0, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, LPT4, LPT5, LPT6, LPT7, LPT8, LPT9, LPT¹, LPT², and LPT³ are all reserved? Because they maintained compatibility with features businesses used at the time… and never deprecated the function.

      • WhyYesZoidberg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Started as”

        Yeah, no. Yes Xenix was a thing but it would be incorrect to say that it ever was their main product.

        I don’t think anyone has ever hinted on that NT has a unix code base except for some “borrowed” networking code from bsd.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          it would be incorrect to say that it ever was their main product.

          They made 3 full versions of it… It was not simply a one off product.

          While Xenix 2.0 was still based on Version 7 Unix,[30] version 3.0 was upgraded to a Unix System III code base,[12]: 9 [31][32] a 1984 Intel manual for Xenix 286 noted that the Xenix kernel had about 10,000 lines at this time.[10]: 1–7  It was followed by a System V R2 codebase in Xenix 5.0 (a.k.a. Xenix System V).[33]

          Also,

          Microsoft’s Chris Larson described MS-DOS 2.0’s Xenix compatibility as “the second most important feature”.[38] His company advertised DOS and Xenix together, describing MS-DOS 2.0 (its “single-user OS”) as sharing features and system calls with Xenix (“the multi-user, multi-tasking, Unix-derived operating system”), and promising easy porting between them.[39]

          So they were simultaneously created AND interoperable (from a program development perspective). This was a full fledged item.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hmm, I always thought MS was founded to steal/modify MS DOS. Interesting that they briefly did Unix stuff, but I still take issue with the way op phrased it. “Their Unix roots” makes it sound like they were heavily invested in Unix and carried that forward even into windows. I don’t know if they used any of that code in windows, but if they did you’d never know it by using dos or any windows version I’ve seen. Even despite both having command line interfaces, almost everything is different from Unix except the command “cd”, to my recollection.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Sounds like an ageist to me. As far as I knew, Microsoft’s first product was msdos but I guess I’m just too unintelligent and “young” (lol) to know better