If UNIX is the Father of Linux then who is the Mother Windows? Is Linux a mix breed?

I don't understand the question.

Linux is an OS which has no GUI. There are applications that run on Linux and will provide you with a GUI, but they are not Linux specific.

CP/M

ok

Vms + 1 == wnt

I don't know who the mother of Windows is, but I could hazard a guess that the father is either Rube Goldberg or Obama.

I thought Microsoft was a spin of company of IBM. And that DOS was the mother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS

No, Microsoft got a sweetheart-deal contract to provide the operating system for the original IBM PC, which they called "PC-DOS," but which they also had the right to sell separately as "MS-DOS." IBM probably didn't expect that their BIOS would be reverse-engineered, or that, if it was, the result would be accepted by the industry or by the court. But it was, and the eventual glut of "clone" competitors eventually prompted IBM to exit the personal-computer business as being unprofitable.

Years later, when Apple produced the Macintosh with its GUI that made everything else look sick, Microsoft shamelessly copied it to produce Windows, which initially ran on top of MS-DOS. The same system was later grafted upon (and integrated into) the Windows NT kernel, upon which all subsequent Windows-branded implementations were based.

So, "Mother Windows" is: "a crude knock-off of Apple." (Which was for the most part inspired by Xerox PARC.)

---

Linux, on the other hand, was an altogether-original work insofar as the kernel was concerned, based on the spirit but not the actual implementation of Unix. The tools that were used to build it came from GNU, as did many of the user-land utilities that were used with it. The user-facing implementation was POSIX-compatible, which enabled many Unix-based utilities (including XWindows) to be ported more-or-less directly to it. Linux is also unique in the fact that, while Linus Torvalds started the ball rolling from his iced-in dorm room, hundreds and then thousands of people have had their part in rolling the ball ever since then.

In 1980, Microsoft purchased QDOS from Tim Patterson of Seattle Computers. QDOS is Quick and Dirty Operating System according to Patterson. This was Pattersons first experience with operating systems. He stated at the time the way he did it was to use the operating system currently produced by Digital Research and its manual to modify the system. CP/M was the predominant operating system at the time for personal computers. Digital Research was a company created/owned by Gary Kildall and his wife. Both the CP/M operating system and manual were copyrighted by Digital Research. Digital Research sued Microsoft and IBM over this and an out of court settlement was reached.

Kildall was a brilliant programmer, had a doctorate in computer science or related field, was a teacher of computer science for the US Navy, was also a teacher at several universities in the West (Washington State and California), had previously worked at Intel and also founded his own company, Digital Research. Kildall passed away in 1994 as a result of an accident.

Harold Evans wrote a book called "They Made America Great", published by Little Brown which gives detailed information on Kildalls accomplishments. Very interesting reading. Evans was sued by Patterson because in the book he basically stated that Patterson copied much of his OS from CP/M. Patterson sued for defamation and in a court decision the presiding judge said "truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation" so Pattersons case was dismissed.

The link below has a brief review of this situation including the lawsuit. So I would have to agree with the post above by AnanthaP

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07...suit_resolved/

mediocrity

The BIOS was not reverse engineered. It was published. When you purchased an IBM XT in 1984 it came with 2 binders holding the user manual. One of the manuals had the complete BIOS listing in assembly for the BIOS.

jlinkels

... which meant that a "clean room version" of the BIOS had to be created – by people who could swear that they'd never seen those listings, and who could develop a functional equivalent based on descriptions alone. (Which they did, and of course considerably improved it.)

By the time they'd done this, though, I rather think that IBM was already beginning to reconsider the PC business. I think they'd originally thought of it as an extension or follow-on to the DisplayWriter business (which directly competed with Wang). Over time, they developed OS/2 jointly with Microsoft, which they continue to use in ATMs and so-forth. IBM basically left the PC business behind and stuck to what they always did (and do) best. I think they were right to do so.

IBM was first going to offer the exclusive bundling rights of a putative OS to Gary Kidall but apparently he was too busy with some personal work (watching a game) to meet the IBM executives. So Mr. Bill Gates got it and no one really remembers Gary Kidall.

On a slightly related note, what do you all think of Larry Ellison choosing to cheer his team at the Americas Cup and not appearing for a scheduled key note address at the recent Oracle World. Will he also go into oblivion one day for choosing personally satisfying events over a business call?

OK

I think what he meant is to ask who is the mother of linux, if unix is the father.