RE: Hey old people

["Larry Seltzer" <larry () larryseltzer com>]

I know I already threw in the towel on this one, but just to be complete I
actually got a question in through Microsoft's PR to Mark Zbikowski about
the whole "origins of EXE" thing, and his response is: "EXE files were
present in DOS 1.0.  At the time I had ported a linker we licensed to DOS
and I designed the format and implemented the loader for it. My involvement
in DOS 1.x was limited to working on the linker and the program loader.
LINK.EXE and EXE2BIN.EXE were present in DOS 1.0."

Meet me at the local bar tonight and I'll buy you all a beer.

Larry Seltzer
eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
http://security.eweek.com/
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larryseltzer () ziffdavis com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Drsolly [mailto:drsollyp () drsolly com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:13 PM
To: Larry Seltzer
Cc: 'Nick FitzGerald'; funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [funsec] Hey old people

Given the evidence I've found, I think you should check your thinking that
the EXE format was new in Dos 2.0

By the way, I just did an Ebay check - you can buy 5150s fairly easily, and
quite cheaply (under $50). I think I'll treat myself to one, the one I have
was very heavily used, doesn't have the original floppy drives, power supply
or 8088 and is a bit moth-eaten.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Larry Seltzer wrote:

> OK, obviously I was wrong about something here, although I'm positive 
> that the EXE format in DOS 2.x was new. Perhaps they are different 
> format versions and I jumped to a conclusion
>
> Larry Seltzer
> eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> http://security.eweek.com/
> http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer
> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> larryseltzer () ziffdavis com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] 
> On Behalf Of Drsolly
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:28 PM
> To: Nick FitzGerald
> Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: RE: [funsec] Hey old people
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Drsolly wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Drsolly wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> > >
> > > > Larry Seltzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, that's right, and it was one of the reasons DOS 2.0 was
> important.
> > > > > You might have noticed that EXE files begin with 'MZ' (and the 
> > > > > DOS 2+ MCB chain uses M and Z as identifiers). These are 
> > > > > vanity marks for Mark Zbikowski, lead programmer on DOS 2.0, 
> > > > > but he wasn't even a Microsoft employee when DOS 1 was written.
> > > >
> > > > So presumably LINK.EXE also first appeared in DOS 2.0 (or a 
> > > > later version)?
> > >  
> > > Unfortunately, I no longer have my PC Dos 1.1 diskette.
> >  
> > And with PC Dos 1.1, you also got exe2bin.exe
> >
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~rvtol/pcdos110.html
>  
> And edlin. Ah, edlin. I actually used edlin. When I first got a PC, 
> 1983, I was used to using mainframes and minis like the PDP and Vax. 
> So I said, OK, where's the editor, where's the compiler, because with 
> mainframes and minis, you use what's there, no choice. So I used Edlin 
> and Basica for programming, and I used it for a full six weeks before 
> I realised that I could buy the IBM Professional Editor and the Microsoft
Fortran Compiiler.
> And let me tell you, you don't want to use edlin as an editor, and 
> Basic programs (in that old version of Basic) set like concrete within 
> a few weeks of writing them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.



_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.