Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Microsoft

Linus Not The Father Of Linux, According to Report 867

MrIrwin writes "According to this article on Yahoo, Linus is not the real father of Linux and Open source software is really just code nicked from other sources. " Groklaw has done a dissection of the press release. It's a press release by the Alexis de Toqueville Institution, who gets funding from MSFT, as well as believes that US IT troubles are because of free software. Oh, and terrorism works better because of open source, and the "Star Wars" program was a good idea.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Not The Father Of Linux, According to Report

Comments Filter:
  • by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:39AM (#9172629) Journal
    .....and seeing as how they have such close ties to MS, perhaps they could run a study as to how Microsoft came to be born.
  • Shenanigans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:39AM (#9172630)
    the "Star Wars" program was a good idea.
    Is that the one where they destroy all copies of Episode 1 and 2 by firing lasers from satellites orbiting Earth? I still think that's a good idea.

    TFA also mentions that Kenneth Brown (braindead author of the book about the study) interviewed RMS, but I fail to see any references to GNU/Linux in the write-up. I call shenanigans. Is it April 1st?

    And finally, cheers to Hemos. There five times as many links in the editorial insert than there are in the actual submission. Someone buy this man a beer.
  • by SocietyoftheFist ( 316444 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:41AM (#9172655)
    Acutal out loud laughter. I don't think that I need any more proof that Microsoft feels very threatened when I see puff pieces like this.
  • "New Study" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:42AM (#9172658)
    Let's face it, if you're funding one of the thousands of "new studies" going on, you can always make the result turn in your favor. If it's not, throw that study away and have someone else do it.

    There are so many studies on the same topics that the public never hears about, what good is the information in the few that the media choose to cover?

  • AdTI: -1 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xipe66 ( 587528 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:43AM (#9172666) Homepage Journal
    They're obviously trolling. Don't feed.
  • Strawman.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:44AM (#9172674) Journal
    Interesting how the whole report seems to be one big straw-man argument.
    (i.e. claiming the other is saying something they're not, and then showing that it is false)

    Their straw-man seems to be the idea (which noone, of course, has claimed) that Linux somehow was created in a vacuum.

    From there they proceed to show how Linux was (*shock*) a clone of Unix!
    (Probably leaving out the fact that there are literally dozens of them.)

  • Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:45AM (#9172693) Homepage Journal
    The Yahoo! article ends with a mention about this guy's (from AdTI) upcoming book. It sounds to me as if his claims are nothing more than a publicity stunt, generating interest in his book.
  • by glMatrixMode ( 631669 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:46AM (#9172703)
    >Linus Not The Father Of Linux

    of course. by the way :
    War Is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
  • by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:48AM (#9172729) Journal
    I was reffereing to the fact that Paul Allen and Bill Gates started Microsoft porting Basic interpreters from a "borrowed" open source base.
  • Twisting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by XMyth ( 266414 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:49AM (#9172735) Homepage
    Seeing how he interviewed Stallman, Ritchie and others, he will probably try and twist their words to defend his argument by saying all Linus did was copy an existing Unix clone to build a functioning kernel and other people contributed everything else. Which is essentially common knowledge anyways...I don't see how that detracts from the credit he should get for his ongoing work on Linux.
  • De Tocqueville (Score:5, Insightful)

    by colmore ( 56499 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:51AM (#9172768) Journal
    De Tocqueville was a late French Enlightenment writer who traveled America and wrote in praise of American civil society, as opposed to French (which after having just gone throught the first revolution, and the dictatorship of Napolean, was looking pretty shitty.)

    Anyway, it's way too early in the morning for me to pull out a page reference, but one of the major themes in his _Democracy in America_ is that American society functions well due to the large number of volunteer organizations that Americans joined in, fire departments, sewing circles, sports clubs, free publications and that sort of thing. These things raise community awareness, and allow the democratic process to work, since he believed that it would fall apart if all democracy was was everyone voting their own pocketbook.

    Anyway, I'd say the Free Software movement in America is certainly a continuation of that civic spirit.
  • by tburt11 ( 517910 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#9172773)
    Notice that this story is currently rated a 1.3 with 49 votes counted. On a scale of 1 to 5. Not many people get fooled by this drivel. But unfortunately, some people use this to support their arguments that MS is good, and Linux is bad.
  • Mods? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slycer9 ( 264565 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#9172777) Journal
    Mod story -1 Troll.

    Jesus Christ, posted on the front page of /. for chrissakes.

    Next story::
    Tinfoil hats, snazzy wardrobe accessory or anti-M$oft mind-control device?

    Or::
    Bill Gates wants to control your fridge with NT4.0.

    [/rant]
  • hmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#9172786)
    why was star wars a bad idea? it was a factor that led to the fall of the soviet union.
  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:54AM (#9172790) Homepage
    I've wondered aloud why Microsoft had pulled the rug out from underneath SCO, and now it's obvious. They're going to start using these idiots, and probably others, to spread the same stupid message.

    Get used to it, folks, it's not going to get any better anytime soon. That's good news, too, since the credibility of this sort of stuff has been mostly destroyed by Darl's loud mouth.
  • Obvious problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tonythepony ( 716819 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:54AM (#9172799)
    While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt.

    Here's one immediate problem with the way this guy thinks - the two groups of programmers he mentions are not mutually exclusive as he implies. One can speak out about the problems with IP rights and still be respectful and careful about not violating them.
  • Re:What a farce. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:55AM (#9172802) Journal
    The article lost all credibility when they used the word, "invent" to describe the process by which software is created.

    Software is developed, not invented. This is also one of the main reasons that the patent world is all screwed up.

    Oh well...
  • by Bravo_Two_Zero ( 516479 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:00AM (#9172857)
    I'm sure I'm not the only one to read more deeply into atdi.com. Lots of links don't work, and I haven't tried the Wayback to read them. But, most of the headlines seemed to be positioned pro-Microsoft, going well back into the 1990s. So, what should we expect? I can't comment on whether they are careful, reasoned analyses without reading them, but I certainly see the slant.

    I really like the last puff piece they promoted: are MCSEs good? 87-percent of HR mananger are aware of the program. 55-percent feel that an MCSE is more successful than a college grad. I guess it depends on how you define successful. Either way, it doesn't seem to point to the real truth about MCSEs, which is that the only valuable measure of their potential in your workplace is their experience.

    Also, I'd like to find out more about the board members and their affiliations. That would be most helpful. The funny thing is to read the mission statement about "omnicurious journalism" and keeping alive certain liberal ideas. Yeah, lots of "liberal" ideas about business involve taking it in the /dev/null dispenser from a particular major corporation.
  • by gadders ( 73754 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:00AM (#9172860)
    The Starwars program WAS a good idea. It was the threat of this, plus continued spending on defence, that convinced Gorbachev that Russia could never afford to "win" the Cold War and encouraged him to start Glasnost etc.
  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:03AM (#9172878) Homepage
    people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix.

    I guess he's saying this to contrast the way Microsoft unscrupulously imitated CPM/DOS, Lotus 1,2,3, Macintosh, WordPerfect, Stac . . .
  • by Surazal ( 729 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:03AM (#9172880) Homepage Journal
    Ya know, I have doubts to this story, since A) I've never heard of it, and B) it looks like a bad attempt at humor. "Insightful", my posterior.
  • Ok, I'll bite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:05AM (#9172893) Homepage
    <sarcasm>the "Star Wars" program was a good idea</sarcasm>

    _Star Wars_ was a good idea. The same way successive U boat campaigns against the British were a good idea, the same way Sherman's march to the sea was a good idea. IOW, hit them in the wallet or flatten their production capability. Because of the great debate on Star Wars and the intransigence of the Reagan administration on the issue, the Sovs had to take it as something plausible, and thus we were able to force them to divert funds and resources to a possible chimera.

    It doesn't matter whether you think Star Wars can work now or not, it's been almost 20 years since it was first proposed, so the reality now has no bearing on then. For what it was used to accomplish, Star Wars was a great idea.

  • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:05AM (#9172896) Homepage
    Any profits from this libelous publication should go to the injured parties: Linus, whose professional reputation has been viciously besmirched.

    You are assuming that there is a direct profit. This is a wrong assumption. The book and the report are least likely to break even. The profit will come from several well known companies (not just MSFT) which finance this institution and will not appear on the books as a product of this "research"

  • Uh huh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:07AM (#9172913)
    And Honda cars are a 'stolen product' because they have steering wheels and gearshifts just like Fords.
  • by karevoll ( 630350 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:09AM (#9172931) Homepage

    Hehe, its really funny seeing a post like this parents getting modded +5 interesting, and not +5 funny..

    The first paragraph is obviously read by the moderators, whilst the second (which is twice the size) are just beeing skimmed, and not read with a critically mind. (Noticed this username and post-record?) Nice work :)

    But yeah, the parent is right about that FUD isn't a serious threat to Linux, and it probably never has been.. An OS survives by being good, not by how its being received by other competitors in the market

  • by tooloftheoligarchy ( 557158 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:09AM (#9172934)

    I have to say, the whole of this so-called "Institute" is starting to look pretty damned suspicious. Certainly, the world is not wanting for fools, and they do tend to organize into groups, but adti, with its history of poorly-produced, error-ridden, false & inflammatory "studies", really has all the markings of a couple of guys in their basement, making shit up, and then playing on the news media's tendency to spew out whatever is fed to them.

    For example, their staff page [adti.net] lists a dozen or so people, including a "webmaster". Try clicking around the site, and notice that:

    1. It's ugly
    2. A lot of it is broken
    3. A lot of it is unfinished
    4. The parts that are finished are rife with spelling and grammatical errors

    So the best conclusion you could draw about their "webmaster" (assuming he exists) is that he is about as smart and competent as Ken Brown, the "President" of adti. I'm appalled that Yahoo! parroted this press release as legitimate news -- I think they are being suckered.

    P.S. Groklaw rocks. Happy Birthday Groklaw [slashdot.org]

  • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:09AM (#9172940)
    Linux started out as a Minix clone. Though it is more than that now, it's roots lie much closer to Andy Tannenbaum than they do to the Finn.

    There is nothing to "admit." Linus wrote Linux as a i386 replacement for MINIX (which only ran on 80286 machines) because he wanted a UNIX he could use and play with on his hardware. He wrote the entire thing from scratch ... not using a single line of Tannenbaum's available, but not open source or free, source code.

    Anyone looking at the old Tannenbaum book (which has the source code to MINIX in it) and the early Linux kernel code can easily tell they were written independently of each other. Anyone, that is, without an anti-free software agenda and ax to grind...

    Calling Linux a MINIX clone is about as accurate as calling Linux an AT&T Sys V or generic UNIX clone ... that is to say, partially true, but also not really correct, and an overall mischaracterization of the effort (an OS written completely from scratch, not copied from another) and the goal (a usable, free UNIX-clone, not a usable, free, specific-UNIX-implimentation clone).
  • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:14AM (#9172988)
    You are assuming that there is a direct profit. This is a wrong assumption. The book and the report are least likely to break even. The profit will come from several well known companies (not just MSFT) which finance this institution and will not appear on the books as a product of this "research"

    That is quite likely true. Nevertheless, financially bankrupting the author for his libellous actions would discourage others from throwing themselves on the grenade for MSFT and friends...which is exactly how the law is intended to function in these cases.

    I would frankly nail the libellous sons-of-bitches to the wall, profit or no.
  • I love the Linux Mainframe comparison, they compare Linux on an IBM mainframe to Windows 2003 Server on a dual Xenon server. Then cite the Linux machine as having a higher TCO becuase of the cost of the mainframe, the power bill, the maintenance contract, etc.

    Or how about the Windows vs. Linux report that does not put a cost on the security breaches and malware attacks on Windows systems?
  • Re:Mods? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kju ( 327 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:17AM (#9173018)
    Of course this needs to be on the front page of slashdot. Why you ask? Because now you know about this bullshit story and book, and be prepared, when someone (like a stupid executive) aproaches you with that FUD and you already know whats in the book and can explain that its nonsense.

    You should always be informed about the moves of your opposites.
  • Re:De Tocqueville (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:21AM (#9173066)
    I agree with your take on De Tocqueville and that it is taking his name in vain to associate it with the conservative/big business shill institute. I am not sure that I'd say that the Free Software movement is as much about volunteerism though as I'd like. Definitely the Open Source movement, and other efforts like the Creative Commons project are about volunteerism and the idea of contributing to the commons for both selfish and common benefit. The Free Software movement, unfortunately, seems to alienate more conservative audiences with its association with RMS and others who seem more interesting in subverting the entire existance of closed source software and intellectual property in general.


    This concept scares away potential conservative allies - I know that people like the FSF probably don't care since they have a "with-us-or-against-us" sort of attitude that denies the middle ground. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure the ideological connections being drawn here fit - this condemnation of Linux and Linus as a person is despicable and I hope to God these people take a massive public beating over making these kinds of rhetoric-filled accusations.

  • by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:23AM (#9173089) Homepage Journal
    I have experienced, on many occasions, the burn of a scrutinous pedant seeking to demerit my efforts. In this particular case K. Brown is deliberately misunderstanding Linus' "invention of Linux". Linus has never claimed to be the father of open source nor has he ever claimed to be the father of the POSIX standards upon which *NIX-like operating systems are built. As Linux has achieved a mild popularity those in the public who are not familiar with the history of computing have begun to associate Linus with the invention of *NIX-like operating systems since they only know of one: Linux. They have associated Linus with the inception of open source software because they are ignorant of the origins of software and only know of one open source arena: Linux.

    Linus is being attacked because of common perception built upon a basis of ignorance. This is a common tactic used to discredit and undermine support for anyone who stands at the forefront of a collection of ideas which challenges the established financially successful, and often monopolistic, "powers-that-be".

    If this even bothers Linux, if he even takes more than a few moments out of his day to be concerned with it, then I can empathize with him. For his sake I hope he takes the higher road: ignore it and concentrate on what he does best.
  • Re:What a farce. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cshark ( 673578 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:23AM (#9173095)

    To karma whore for a little and quote the article

    While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt."

    But just because you think software patents are evil doesn't mean that you're breaking the rules with your stuff. It just means that you have an idology, and possibly a big mouth. Open source code depends on people obeying the rules on IP. Saying that linux is an unlicensed or "stolen" dirivitive work based on Unix is an awfully big claim to make without showing a line of code. I think this guy is either an idiot, or trying to capitalize on the mess with SCO. Obviously there are people that read this stuff.

  • Don't get mad (Score:2, Insightful)

    This is top-level flamebait. Everything they have said has been debunked. For example, Bruce Schneier in his paper about Microsoft Windows creating a computer monoculture which makes it easier for crackers and terrorist to exploit. Linus himself has said, "Show us offending code, and we will take it out", in response to claims that Linux contains plagiaristic works. What has happened is nothing, nobody has come forward with proof. The people making these claims have never come forth with any evidence to support their claims.

    Now that I have made that statement. I wish to make another.

    By getting angry with these people, you only draw more attention to their claims. When people make hasty generalizations out of anger their arguments are shot down fast. So by arguing with them, you are giving them more power.

    I say to all of you who read this, "Ignore them, they will go away". They haven't claimed any truths and they don't have any evidence to support any of it.
  • by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:25AM (#9173117)
    Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character (and extend it to slander if the author is making oral statements publicly).

    If you RTFA, you'll see there's a whole lot of conditionals in there. AdTI might be a bunch of idiot sheep, but I bet they have a halfway competent legal department that would make them stop short of anything that could get them sued. And we don't know the sources. I mean, I could go find a bunch of conspiracy mags and websites and use them as a source to write a press release that says "Surgeon General might be controlling minds with flu shots". Heck, I have my "sources". And I didn't make any accusations, just threw the idea out there. I'm pretty sure the surgeon general can't sue me for that. (The government can throw me in Guantanamo Bay, but that's different).

    What Linus _should_ do is write a well-thought-out rebuttal and get it into the major news outlets to let everyone know how ridiculous these claims are. This is one of the few times when something ridiculous does merit a response. If it was from some wacko on Usenet, sure, ignore it, no one will care. But rebutting their claim and providing solid proof will help publically discredit this istitute, which is exactly what is needed.

  • Re:De Tocqueville (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kmmatthews ( 779425 ) <krism@mailsnare.net> on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:25AM (#9173118) Homepage Journal
    > Anyway, I'd say the Free Software movement in America is certainly a continuation of that civic spirit.

    I'd say that such a spirit is gone in America, and lost on Americans. [Yes, I'm "American," or, at least, I was born and live here.]

    Now it's all: "the world owes me," and "driving my .5 mpg SUV at 90 mph is PATRIOTIC," and "richard simmons is such a STUD."

    Errr.....
  • by hysteresis ( 773559 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:33AM (#9173202)
    It doesnt matter now. The Open Source movement is too great. You cant stop it.
  • Re:Murky FUD (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nevets ( 39138 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:40AM (#9173264) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure the author of the article really understands what Linux is and what Linux is not.

    When those corporations begin to loose money to smaller groups who out perform, then those corporations pay for studies that skew the truth and spread FUD.

    I think you answered your own question.
  • ... most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability), comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well.

    Right, just like it could be immensely valueable "intellectual property" if you were to be able to get away with selling thousands of pirated copies of Microsoft Software.

    People who want to be able to what they want with GPL source code with no strings attached seem to be forgetting that other people wrote that code, and that they categorically do _NOT_ have permission to release any of it without the permission of the copyright holder(s). As for why derivative works should also be subject to the GPL, it's because said works would certainly still contain a lot of code that was written by those original copyright holders, and even though you have the right to do with your own code as you please, that doesn't include the right to do what you want with other people's code, even if that code is required in order for your own code to be useful

    People like these need to get a clue.... it's called "Copyright", and it's a good thing.

  • by joyof ( 702747 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:44AM (#9173300)
    An OS survives by being good, not by how its being received by other competitors in the market

    The brutal irony, of course, is that most of the people reading this realize that windows is not a particularly good operating system. Nor has windows survived on its virtues as an operating system.

    It is easy to see that windows has 'succeeded' for reasons other than being a good operating system. It is difficult to realize that linux could 'fail' for reasons not related to its value as an OS. There are forces at work beyond a single user's choice of 'good' and 'bad'. I think this is an important point to consider.

    At the same time, this is the classic struggle of the virtuous vs. the mighty. My vote lies always with the virtuous.

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:45AM (#9173320) Homepage Journal
    There is an overwhelmingly arrogant attitude in the US IT industry that no one else could possibly do what we do on a daily basis without corporate backing and millions of dollars in funding. The view seems to be that when a programmer enters the industry he is magically transformed and can suddenly poop out thousands of lines of error free code a day, despite the fact that before he joined the company he was apparently a worthless programmer and a worthless human being. It is this arrogance, not open source, that will be the downfall of the US IT Industry.

    I have been on several projects where millions of dollars have been spent to force exceptionally complex solutions into very simple jobs, often because someone thought the project would look cool on their resume. And most of the time those projects run years late and way over budget and the company won't kill the project because "The IT Guys said this is the way we have to do it."

    This guy is obviously just another IT guy who thinks he's better than everyone else when in reality he just sucks.

  • Re:What a farce. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Giant Panda ( 779279 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:48AM (#9173348) Journal
    Yes. This is sort of like saying one architect stole a building design from another because it has four sides and a roof.
  • by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:48AM (#9173356) Homepage
    um.. DOS was written from scratch by Tim Paterson. it was originally called qdos, which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System." MS bought the rights to it and renamed it MS-DOS. It looks similiar to cp/m but its an entirely different OS. look here http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson 04_10_98.htm

    I think that is entirely the point. Linux was also written from scratch[1] but based upon UNIX design and philosophy[2]. It (Linux) looks similar to UNIX but it's an entirely different OS.

    The analogy is entirely apt. Microsoft got its big break by selling a CP/M knockoff. Linux is a UNIX knockoff. So what? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    Perhaps somebody should release a whitepaper: "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS". Could equally well follow that up with "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-Windows".

    [1] Pedant Points: Linus says that the early (never distributed) versions of Linux contained Minix code but all that code was removed before the first ever public release.

    [2] More Pedant Points: Some people might say Linux was based on Minix design, but Linus early on said he wanted to follow POSIX specs. So Linux is more correctly a POSIX wannabe.

  • Re:What a farce. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:51AM (#9173385)
    But just because you think software patents are evil doesn't mean that you're breaking the rules with your stuff. It just means that you have an idology, and possibly a big mouth.

    Sorry, that doesn't work in today's bold new black and white America.

    Pseudo-Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    Thought Police: "You support the speech of terrorists, therefore you support terrorists, therefore you are a terrorist. I will now read you your rights. Okay, that's done, now it's off to jail indefinitely."
  • by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:52AM (#9173389) Homepage Journal
    What Linus _should_ do is write a well-thought-out rebuttal and get it into the major news outlets to let everyone know how ridiculous these claims are.

    I don't think Linus should bother. As it is, everyone who matters can see how ridiculous that is. If Linus places a rebuttal in major news outlets, it'll give credibility to these people (or at least more public controversy, as they will post a response themselves, then Linus will have to reply, and this will continue to go on fueling publicity for Brown's book). They WANT people to take them seriously and reply. They're powerless if we don't.

    Really...I'd just rather see Linus's usual witty replies in a board somewhere, definitely not in a major news outlet. It won't give them fuel to their campaign and I'll be able to laugh, perhaps as much as I laughed after reading their press release.

  • by LightStruk ( 228264 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:53AM (#9173396)
    If you actually wrote software, then you would know that that creating software and the process of invention are (often) one and the same. Perhaps you are implying that because programmers make use of tools and shared libraries written by other programmers, that their creations are somehow merely cobbled together components that happen to work well. Programmers are NOT assembly line workers, nor does software write itself. Where a problem appeared unsolvable, a software "developer" has invented the solution.

    Here's another angle. Chip design these days is usually done completely in a description language like VHDL or Verilog. The engineer does not lay out the transistors by hand. Hence, the engineer's creation is literally software cum hardware. You would have us believe that just because the electrical engineer has produced something he can touch that he is an "inventor" while the software engineer is merely a "developer".

    Or perhaps you mean that the pot that cooks AND drains pasta is an invention, and Bayesian spam filtering is just a bunch of 1s and 0s.
  • by DaveCBio ( 659840 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:53AM (#9173403)
    An article like this posted on /. will get these people far more publcity than a simple Yahoo press release alone.
  • by Handyman ( 97520 ) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:53AM (#9173404) Homepage Journal
    Boy, that's a lousy article:

    1. Since when did NT stand for "Network Technology" instead of "New Technology"?

    2. It calls Windows 3.1 "the second OS with a GUI" (after the Mac), as if 3.1 was the first version of windows ever.

    3. I quote:

    Windows 3.1 was still based on MS-DOS because it was really just a front end. All it did was pass commands to MS-DOS which then passed commands to the kernel.

    Excuse me? What is this "MS-DOS" thing that passes things to "the kernel"? The only thing I can think of is that he might mean the MS-DOS prompt. This sounds as if Windows 3.1 did everything by simulating typing on the DOS prompt (i.e., "pass commands to MS-DOS") and letting the DOS prompt pass things on to "the kernel". My take on this: the kernel is actually what "MS-DOS" really is -- the command prompt is just the equivalent of a shell. I have no clue what separation between "MS-DOS" and "the kernel" this guy had in mind.

    4. Since when did Windows 98SE stand for "Special Edition" instead of "Second Edition"?

    5. Since when was Windows ME a bugfix release for the Y2K problem? I quote: The Y2K (Year 2000) problem was discovered and fixed with the release of Windows ME (Millennium Edition). This is actually funny, so it might be intended as a joke, but I don't think it is.

    6. If Windows NT was really based on the source of VMS, M$ would have definitely been sued. And they haven't AFAIK. Instead, M$ had just been done with the OS/2 cooperation debacle, and it's pretty probable that they took quite a bit of code from that to get them started on NT.

    There's more I could say, but I think this enough.

  • Re:Ok, I'll bite (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:54AM (#9173412)
    And - given that many, if not most scenarios, have a nucelar device being snuck to the target, instead of fired by ICBM, is continuing to pour hundreds of millions into interceptor research a good idea?

    In that case, perhaps we should standdown our armed forces and increase funding to local and state police forces. All they have to do is stop and search all trucks and cars driven by swarthy-looking men and we'll be perfectly safe.

  • by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:56AM (#9173438)
    Well, yeah, Unix was obviosly an integral part of the Linux story. As was the development of timesharing for CTSS. Not to mention the discoverry of electricity, fire and so on back to the protoplasmic globule.

    If this is the best controversy this idiot can come up with to promote his book, he's in deep shit and needs to get a real job.

  • by Felinoid ( 16872 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:57AM (#9173447) Homepage Journal
    Odds are when the book hits the shelfs you won't see ANY of this in the actual book.
    He's doing this to hype it.

    I mean if he actually did print this stuff in detail there are already a number of security experts who'd trash his butt.

    In the end however this book belongs with such greats as Madonas sex book, OJs "I didn't do it" book and the Green Card spam lawyers book on e-commerce.

    If his book did actually contain thies suggestions then I think some of the chapers in the book are
    Security by obscurity: Sticking your head in the ground.
    Back doors: Pretend they don't exist.
    Ignore the man behind the curtan: If he's selling something he's honnest if he has nothing to gain by lying then he's lying.

    And of course
    Buy everything: If it's free it sucks if it's for sale it's good. Now my kid sister sells a program just like the free one you can get from the top rated security experts.
    Only hers is better becouse she's selling it.

    For a "hippy like" community we are pritty paranoid.

    You would be too if you were told you aren't allowed to know what is happening on YOUR OWN COMPUTER.
    The very software your trusting to do your taxes and run your home yet your not trusted with the terrable secret of how it works?

    I'm going to trust you over someone who gives away the code for free and let's me see how it works.

    You know what? You want you trust the "Space robots" and stand at the top of the stairs while I'll do the Hampster Dance.
  • by pjkundert ( 597719 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:03AM (#9173490) Homepage
    Your post begins with some promise, pointing out the dubious intellectual heritage of key AdTI fellows, but then... somehow makes the leap into generalisations about conservatives?

    Not to belabour an obvious point, but... Not everyone who is stupid is a conservative, and not every conservative is stupid. You aren't helping your cause (whatever that is), by picking up some limp hack, and shaking him about as an example of the "Evil Neocon".

    In an attempt to paint all conservatives with the AdTI brush, you have made the same error that AdTI makes -- taking a shallow understanding of a concept, and make inflamatory generalisations about a group.

    As both a conservative and a supporter of software Libre, I find your persistent rantings both tiring, and comical. Surely all "liberals" can't be as shallow as you are? If you are going to continue searching for examples of "Neocon" evil, at least try to come up with some examples worthy of disdain, instead of derision.
  • by sweede ( 563231 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:12AM (#9173562)
    6. its written in that history of Windows that was posted on slashdot long ago that microsoft hired a bunch of the VMS kernel devs to work on the OS/2 joint project between IBM and MS. then when that fell through they used what they had to make NT.

    Seeing how these guys wrote VMS, you can safely assume that many of the same ideas that VMS had, NT had too.
  • Re:Ok, I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:15AM (#9173587)
    I don't disagree this was the ultimate affect, but was this the intention going in? Not likely, Reagan was being way oversold on the threat posed by the Soviets by his security advisors. It's even said that as the wall was coming down they told him it was a trick. Post-collapse analysis of the intelligance of the time read like a fantasy.

    It's entirely possible, to my mind likely, that Reagan intended to build what he said he intended to build and won the Cold War by unintended effect. He still deserves credit, but to do down in history as a master strategist?

  • Its not invention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:36AM (#9173795) Homepage
    There is a creative process involved with writing software, but its no more invention than the act of writing music is called "inventing music".

    Music is "composed".
    Software is "developed".

    There's nothing "inventable" about software.

    Unless you think Hayden should have took out a patent on the "Symphony"

    "Collection of music that is played by many musicians such that music is broken into theme, counterpart, resolution in 1 to multiple parts. Music is group together to form a sound picture which is then used to inspire both performer and audience. It includes the following elements:
    1) White pages with black dots on them to represent exact musical score
    2) Wood or metal instrument which is plucked or blown to create sound
    3) Sound in claim #2 is used in accordance with claim #1 to produce sound that has coherence
    4) Each musician has a slightly different copy of the music
    5) The claims in #4 when performed in exact time increments produces sound variations that are impossible with a single instrument.
    6) Additional performer (known as conductor) will stand and wave arms
    7) Said conductor in claim 6 will wave arms in unique motion depending on type of time in part 5 above such that there is a distinct way of waving arms according to number of beat in measure
    8) As music is broken into movements, time may be taken to give audience a rest. Audience may leave to get drinks in the lobby at this time.

  • by WNight ( 23683 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:42AM (#9173849) Homepage
    To fight this, simply name Brad Pitt (or better yet, Britney Spears) as the father of your next baby. Don't bother informing them or asking them for child support, until two years have passed.

    See how quickly the law gets changed. Laws like that are only laws as long as they don't hurt anyone rich.
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:59AM (#9173986)
    MSDOS was built upon the a 3rd-party package called QDOS which Bill had quickly purchased when the IBM-PC contract fell into his lap.

    Windows was a reaction to the first MacIntosh. Bill wanted top copy and embrace the PC graphic interface market. Apple is not blameless in hijacking Xerox Parc technology and employees in this regard.

    Other groupls wrote the first graphical word processor (Xerox), spreadsheet (Visicalc), slideshow program (Harvard), and so on. MicroSoft perfected them and integrated them fairly well.

    NT was developed by Digital Equipment Corp emigrees to MicroSoft. Lets just say that if Daryl McBride worked for DEC, he'd have stronger case of matching code :-)
  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:01PM (#9174004) Homepage Journal
    Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character

    Nope. When the he is inevitably asked about this during the course of an interview, he should just call these guys a bunch of crack smokers.

    Worked last time.
  • Offensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trashme ( 670522 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `elbbirt'> on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:27PM (#9174236)
    What I find most offensive is how the press release attatches the names of Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie, and Andrew Tanenbaum to their crazy study. It is done in such a devious way, from the press release:
    Brown's account is based on extensive interviews with more than two dozen leading technologists including Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie, and Andrew Tanenbaum.
    Nowhere does it say that RMS, Ritchie, or Tanenbaum agreed with or endorsed the conclusions in the report. They merely happened to get interviewed, but it is very easy for the casual observer to take the next step and connect the interviewee's opinions with the findings in this farce of a report.
  • The truth is.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrHex ( 142347 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:28PM (#9174243) Journal
    majority of corporations, which are run by people, are slow to wakeup to the realization that most of us /.ers know. In time, the truth will be self-evident, and is becoming so for more and more. As this quote says.

    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
    Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

    I believe it's only a matter of time. It doesn't mean we're complacent, we still have to continue our efforts at debunking the FUD.
  • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:48PM (#9174410)
    Linus was an intern at Bell Labs during his time developing the Linux Kernel. A lot of (early) kernel code has a striking resemblance to old AT&T unix kernel code.

    FUD FUD and more FUD.

    Or, more siccinctly: nonsense.

    The only "resemblence" Linux bears to old AT&T unix code is that which also, coincidentally, bears a resemblence to FreeBSD code: i.e. that which is either in the public domain, released under the FreeBSD license, and/or published in common textbooks. The only other resemblences are those which impliment published standards (such as header file constant declarations).

    And that "resemblence" didn't enter the code base until months (and in most cases, years) after Linux's initial release.

    No coincidences, no suspicious anomolies, to anyone who does even a modicum of research and, yet again, one who doesn't have a specfic, anti-free software agenda, spin and FUD they are trying to disseminate.
  • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:50PM (#9174429) Journal
    Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character (and extend it to slander if the author is making oral statements publicly).

    This is a private organization, as far as I can see, that relies on donations (e.g. the ones from Microsoft...). Granted, they don't seem to be a 501 (c)(3), but I suspect they would still call or consider themselves some kind of charity for media purposes.

    Now then, if you see my other post [slashdot.org], you'll see that I think that they want us to react strongly so that they can portray us in a negative light, and "Linus sues charity" is probably just the sort of headline they would like. Who, you might ask, would be crazy enough to give a headline like that? I can name at least two such people, Enderle and Lyons, both of whom should be familiar to anyone who has followed SCO vs. IBM ...

    That's not to say, however, that he wouldn't be right to. Of course, we pretty well have to wait until they say more than they did in that blurb. It may be recklessly false, but they haven't published very much of a statement to base a lawsuit on just yet, IMHO. Apparently, they plan to publish a book soon, however, and that might have more substance (e.g. more lies), were Linus considering suing over it... My suspicions, as above, are that they're using this to get free publicity to hype their book, since curious folks would have to buy the book to read it, generating royalties for them...
  • by JaxWeb ( 715417 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @01:14PM (#9174677) Homepage Journal
    "- Locking-in Linux: Working with partners like NVidia and ATI (closed source drivers), possibly Trolltech (the proprietary version of Qt, Qt support for .Net), possibly CodeWeavers (promoting MS Office on Linux, and ActiveX on the Internet), possibly Xandros and a couple of other Linux distributers (proprietary Linux admin tools, Qt-only desktop environment, promoting MS Office on Linux, etc.), possibly Macromedia (Flash), and who knows who else."

    Can anyone back that up?
  • by drfrog ( 145882 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @01:34PM (#9174863) Homepage
    i mean come on

    with a hammer i can build a shelter
    or i can crush your skull

    i could build a terrorist hide out
    or defend myself against intruders

    whatever the case...
    the hammer is not at fault, and blaming it is not logical

  • by txviking ( 768200 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @01:35PM (#9174869)
    Alexis de Toqueville would spin in his grave if he would know that an institude with his name is publishing a report slandering free (as in freedom) software. They should maybe study Alexis' book about the US democracy a little more !!!
  • by kitzilla ( 266382 ) <paperfrog@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday May 17, 2004 @01:44PM (#9174956) Homepage Journal
    I think we should all be careful about repeating the "fact" that Microsoft is a past donor to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. I've yet to find a primary reference to this relationship, which seems to exist primarily in the Open Source press. Of course, if anyone has a better reference, such as a financial statement ...

    But we really don't need a Microsoft link to demonstrate the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's grotesque ideological bias. While the think-tank positions itself as an independent, libertarian research group designed to "study, promote, and extend the principles of classical liberalism: political equality, civil liberty, and economic freedom," they function, more often than not, as a shill for Big Business and the far political right.

    AdTI is a fellow-traveler of neoconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and shadowy groups like the "Defenders of Property Rights," with whom they are aligned as part of an anti-Clean Air Act hit squad ironically misnamed the Cooler Heads Coalition [disinfopedia.org]. These are the folks who have been grinding out the industrialist propaganda which has allowed the Bush Administration to roll back environmental laws a couple of decades.

    The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute can always be counted upon for a convenient white paper discounting the risks of tobacco smoking [ucsf.edu] or in favor of vastly expensive weapons programs [fas.org] of dubious utility.

    It's tough to source the funding of private institutes, but the folks at Media Transparency have taken a stab at AdTI [mediatransparency.org]. Big sugar daddies include the Bradley Foundation [mediatransparency.org], which gives away millions each year to attack social programs and support the privatization of government services. There's also the John M. Olin Foundation [mediatransparency.org], which has lavishly funded a host of robber baron nonprofits over the years.

    So it's no surprise that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institiute -- which seems to exist to provide a moral compass for the richest and most powerful interests in the West -- should be seen to carry water for anti-Open Source reactionaries. What's bad for big business must be bad for the nation. Linux must be discredited before it causes more distress for the market planners at Microsoft.

    The only freedom being defended by groups like AdTI is the feedom to buy what the Establishment is selling. And at a price they decide.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @01:53PM (#9175043)
    Also:

    MICROSOFT DEFEATS STACKER (Disk Compression) BY:

    - Fraud: Microsoft incorporates the Stacker code, even the comments. MS lawyers drag out their defense of the suit against them until Stacker is bankrupt, then settle when the company has been forced out of business.
  • by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:01PM (#9175115)
    50 billion dollars sitting in the bank and the monopoly in one or too extremelly lucrative markets.
  • multics (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:02PM (#9175124)
    ... and of course all good ideas from multics where "stolen" by Dennis Richie to write his first Unix
  • by geoswan ( 316494 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:02PM (#9175134) Journal
    Linus is a very gracious guy. About five years ago he was one of the speakers at a trade show here in Toronto. He gave a brief talk to allow for a long question period. Many of the questions, including my own, contained elements of hero worship.

    I mentioned the disagreement he had with Tanenbaum, on kernel design. I quoted Tanenbaum's comment, that if Linus was one of his students, he would flunk him. And I asked him if Tanenbaum had ever apologized, or recanted.

    It was a perfect opportunity for Linus to play at a rivalry, dump on Tanenbaum, and so on.

    But he didn't do that. He gave a very gracious answer about where he expressed sympathy for Tanenbaum, who had put in years of work on Minix, feeling annoyed at people trying to use the minix newsgroups to discuss something else.

    So I wonder exactly what Tanenbaum said to the clowns writing this report? I've read some of Tanenbaum's books. He is a funny, entertaining writer. I'd really like to believe that he too was gracious, and that the Microsoft shills unfairly used juxtaposition to imply he had criticized Linus. I know he knows Linus didn't rip off any of his code.

  • Extraordinary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SeanAhern ( 25764 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#9175257) Journal
    Here we go again. This is almost as bad as the SCO mess, except with even less evidence (at least so far).

    I'm reminded of the famous quote from Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    Give me the facts before you expect me to give credence to your allegations.
  • by emilymildew ( 646109 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:18PM (#9175278) Homepage
    You find for me a method of birth control that doesn't fuck up my skin (allergic to spermicide), fuck up my body (hormones make me crazy), or fuck up my mind, and then we'll talk about how unfortunate it is for guys who are forced to pay for babies they didn't want to have.
  • by feidaykin ( 158035 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:21PM (#9175304) Journal
    This is easily one of the best posts I've ever read on Slashdot. Not only did you manage to site examples in which Microsoft has abused its monopoly position, you never once actually called them a monopoly, allowing the reader to come to that conclusion by reading the examples.

    Also, you didn't use the term "M$" and refrained from calling their employees "cockmasters" which, I must say, is somewhat of a rarity on Slashdot when discussing Microsoft. So bravo, AC. Excellent job. A lot of my Microsoft-loving acquaintances will find the URL to this post in their inbox very soon.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @02:59PM (#9175762)
    But everybody knows that if one person calling herself a feminist says something then all feminists agree with it 100% no matter how outrageous it is. Otherwise all those conservative commentators who write "Feminists claim X [where X=some outrageous claim]" would really have to write "One fringe feminist that I had to dig through stacks of publications to find claims X." And that's too many words for conservative commentators, so it must be the other way. Right?
  • by danila ( 69889 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @04:45PM (#9176951) Homepage
    If only it was that simple... But in real world, Soviet Union collapsed because of many systemic reasons. SDI was probably somewhere in the second or third hundred, when ranked by importance.
  • by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @04:58PM (#9177097)
    Actually, no one can AFFORD not to have a double-income household today.

    That isn't true. Not everyone _needs_ a perfect house in the suburbs with a thoroughbred mutt, a TV in every room, a cellphone for everyone, digital cable, broadband internet, an SUV with premium gas, brand-name cereal, designer clothes, 5000 watt 7-channel audio, etc. etc. etc.

    It is very possible to have a very good quality of life on one income, even a $40K/year income. In fact this just happens to be the median income in the USA. Saving for retirement would be hard, I know (but we have Social Security for that right? at least, that's where 7% of my income goes...), but just getting by pretty well month to month is perfectly doable.

    Kids who cry about not getting every PS2 game hot off the presses need to be put in their places, anyway. Spouses who cry about not getting every piece of every place setting for "their pattern" need to have a sock stuffed in their trap. Neighbors who think they are superior because of their Honda lawnmower are just assholes. This really isn't rocket science, folks.

  • open contempt... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dajak ( 662256 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:56PM (#9177648)
    Quote from this publication:

    "many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt."

    Since when is speaking with contempt of something wrong? Does that make you a "software pirate"? Let's see how these guys define "intellectual property" in a previous publication about intellectual property theft linked by Slashdot:

    "Today, intellectual property is not just patents, copyrights and trademarks, it is processes, techniques, methodology and talent; described by many experts as intellectual capital."

    This apparently means that:
    1. My talents are the property of my employer because the value of my talents is part of the capital valuation of the company on the market. If I leave that constitutes intellectual property theft.
    2. If intangible capital valuation on the market decreases because someone else is doing the same things better or cheaper than you that constitutes intellectual property theft (instead of competition).

    I do not know what they are trying to promote, but it surely is not freedom or competition. This conception of intellectual property is based on a fundamental misconception of the value of knowledge. It is also a great threat to freedom and world peace.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:08PM (#9177739)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:13PM (#9177795) Homepage

    but you are assuming that paternity must actually be established, through genetic testing or having the man's name listed as the father on the birth certificate. Reason Magazine had an article on this recently: "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch "deadbeat dads" ruins innocent men's lives" [reason.com]

  • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:38PM (#9178587)
    Economics are rarely so linear.

    A good example is copiers. IBM studied making photocopiers and decided that the market was too small, because even if EVERY person that used carbon paper switched to an IBM photocopier, they still wouldn't sell enough to make any dough. This, of course, left the door open for a little company called Xerox. The moral of the story is that if a product becomes cheaper, it can sometimes create demand where none existed before.

    How does this relate to IT? Well, perhaps by making IT departments cheaper to have, more businesses will choose to have one. Co-location may suddenly not be so cost-effective.

    I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't full of it, just that they are not necessarily being hypocritical in this case.

  • DNA testing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spineboy ( 22918 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:34PM (#9179031) Journal
    DNA testing should refute any spurious claims, and is admissable in every court today. If it's really not yours, and the claim is baseless, then you can sue her for damages,AND recoup the testing fees.
  • by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @06:20AM (#9181358)
    Steady on, mate. Seriously. Lots of those things are intrinsic with the software industry. You say microsoft purposely scuppered software because updates to their OS broke them?? How many times has updating a linux kernel stopped allsorts from running - that's clearly not a ploy by linus to topple the world, so why is it with microsoft? Nearly every single one of your points has been blown out of all proportion, or is missing some key points of context. It's propaganda, simple as that.

    Please post whatever you want, but when you pass off insanely unobjective rants as some sort of factual representation of the truth, you come off a jerk.

    To me, and anyone else objectively looking at what you've said, it looks like you have some serious issues with microsoft. OS Envy, if you will.

    Saying Microsoft somehow made nVidia not release source code for linux is just insane. nVidia are doing that because they spent money on the drivers, not because bill has bought them off. If you just think about your claims for more than two seconds, most of them debunk themselves. You have a pop at the whole OS/2 fiasco, but seeing as Microsoft were a major development partner with IBM, they have every right to use whatever code they develop on the project in their own software.

    Sabotage of java? Are you insane? Microsoft have had licensing issues with java, but you can blame sun for that just as much as microsoft. Portraying them to be an evil corporation for rathern inane business decisions shows how much you really want to believe in microsoft being bad.

    "Microsoft funded the SCO attack" - don't make me laugh! Microsoft have given SCO money in the past, for services. Saying they single-handedly used SCO as a puppet to attack Linux, which you are, shows your true motive.

    So, Windows '95 causes some function keys to break? Well, Linux causes my modems to stop working, so LINUX MUST BE TRYING TO DESTROY INTEL!

    Sensationalist, emotive rubbish. Anyone can make anything sound bad by cherrypicking information and emotive language. All you've shown is the depths people like you would go to, to cause a fuss.

    Next time, cite sources. Use facts, not what you heard someone talking about on IRC or slashdot. Form an argument, as opposed to listing gripes you've formed in your head over the years. Usually I keep quiet when I see people posting this stuff, but you seemed to be really believing what you've written.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...