Hi Lee,

LA>WH>LA>    386HPFS was developed solely by IBM, after the breakup, Check it
LA>WH>LA>    out with a hex editor, you will see that the only copyright is by
LA>WH>LA>    IBM, whereas a lot of the Win/OS2 files still have joint
LA>WH>LA>    copyrights.

LA>WH>Another urban rumor bites the dust, I guess.  Makes the pricing
LA>WH>structure even stranger - but fortunately we're upgrading from Warp
LA>WH>Server Advanced.  In a loaded server environment it's worth the price
LA>WH>even at list.

LA>GW> I don't think Lee has it quite right. I remember Mary Moynaham
LA>  > (she worked on OS/2 file system drivers while OS/2 was still at
LA>  > Boca) saying that HPFS386 was written by MS in assembler, so there was
LA>  > very little they could do with it. She also said they were considering
LA>  > re-writing it in C to enable them to enhance it, and I suspect if LEE
is
LA>  > looking at a recent version this is why there is no MS copyright on it.
LA>  > If I can dig out archives from the period, (if I still have them, it
was
LA>  > several years ago) I'll check my recollections and post any
corrections.

LA>   George, what I posted was worked out in discussions with Dennis
LA>   Tonn about 9 months ago, and from IBM documentation, including an
LA>   interview with the then OS/2 chief architect (whose name I can't
LA>   recall).

As Mary was actually working on the source, I'll go with what she wrote.
It's just that, so far, I can't track down the archive to check it out
:-(.

LA>   I suspect what you will come up with is that HPFS was written by
LA>   MS, and the 386 extensions were started at MS and rewritten
LA>   entirely at IBM.

What you say here doesn't tally with the explicit statement you first
gave (in the first paragraph) that HPFS386 was totally developed by IBM.

LA>   If I get the chance, (and still have em), I'll post you some of
LA>   the messages from that thread...

LA>   In any case, even if it was a re-write job, the effect is still
LA>   the same: MS has no rights to 386, which explains why they don't
LA>   support it. It also probably explains why it works so well.

Yes indeed, the re-write was (I believe) primarily to add some features,
fix some bugs, and allow easier maintenance and as a side effect
removed any MS ownership of the code.

 supporting evidence.

George
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X Study the past, if you would divine the future.

--- Maximus/2 3.01
114/441
292/854