Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Andy Tanenbaum on 'Who Wrote Linux' 668

Andy Tanenbaum writes "Ken Brown has just released a book on open source code. In it, he claims (1) to have interviewed me, and (2) that Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux. I think Brown is batting .500, which is not bad for an amateur (for people other than Americans, Japanese, and Cubans, this is an obscure reference to baseball). Since I am one of the principals in this matter, I thought it might be useful for me to put my 2 eurocents' worth into the hopper. If you were weren't hacking much code in the 1980s, you might learn something." Tanenbaum's description of the interview process with Brown is classic. See also Slashdot's original story and Linus' reply.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Andy Tanenbaum on 'Who Wrote Linux'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @09:58AM (#9203428)
    hmm, shall i listen to gowen's opinion, some guy I've never heard of or Andrew Tanenbaum, UNIX god.
  • by madprof ( 4723 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @09:59AM (#9203442)
    Poor old Ken Brown must be wondering how wise it was to have made that particular trip now!
    Curious that someone would spend all that cash and yet have done so little research. Smells of hidden agendas, or no-so-hidden agendas perhaps?
    The best part has to be: "But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up." :-)

  • by xyote ( 598794 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:02AM (#9203473)
    Andrew Tanenbaum discovers slashdot effect. Adti disputes it, citing that others discovered it first and that Tannenbaum just copied it.
  • Start with a premise, do little or no research, and declare conclusions. When the truth is pointed out, get indignant.

    Granted, I haven't read the book in question, but this was a very enlightening article. I especially loved the comment that insinuates that Linus could have done a better job if he HAD stolen the code, than he did.

  • by Wizard of OS ( 111213 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:10AM (#9203559)
    And the fun thing is that that server is in the Netherlands, where today (thursday) is a nation-wide holiday.

    I think I can hear the faint cursing of a VU system administrator somewhere ...
  • "It was the dawn of the third age of mankind. Ten years after the Earth-Minbari war,

    "the Babylon project was a dream given form

    "Its goal: to prevent another war by creating a place where humans and aliens could work out their differences peacefully.

    "It's a port-of-call, home away from home for diplomats, hustlers, entrepreneurs, and wanderers.

    "Humans and aliens wrapped in two million five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal, all alone in the night.

    "It can be a dangerous place, but it's our last, best hope for peace.

    "This is the story of the last of the Babylon stations. The year is 2258.

    "The name of the place is Babylon5."

    "Oh, and GNU Hurd was just released."

  • AdTI (Score:3, Funny)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:13AM (#9203595) Homepage Journal
    I think it says something that the link to "Accomplishments" at the AdTI website is broken... (see here [adti.net])
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:13AM (#9203596)
    I was the one who created Linux, and as I was on my way to cash in with ol' IBM I had the code hidden in a Wendies bag so no thief would steal it. But that rascal Linus was a starving pro-communist student at the time and he robbed me of my Cheese Burger, Fries, and my rights to the Linux empire.

    That's the truth, I swear it.
  • by Phekko ( 619272 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:14AM (#9203606)
    SCO wrote it. From scratch. Now cough up that $699!
  • by byolinux ( 535260 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:16AM (#9203619) Journal
    Well, we've still got 96 years of the 21st Century left, so it's likely that the Hurd will be finished long before then.

    I am seriously looking forward to the Hurd, just as much as most people are looking forward to Duke Nukem forever. Difference is, Hurd is not vapourware, it's just an awfully large project and it'll be awfully welcome when it's complete.
  • by byolinux ( 535260 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:19AM (#9203645) Journal
    Dutch people get every Thursday as holiday?

    No wonder they're so happy!
  • by stanmann ( 602645 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:21AM (#9203660) Journal
    1. Interface
    2. Yes
    3. Yes
    4. Yes
    5a. Because
    5b. 1. Bugs
    2.Bug fixes
    3. Features
    6. No. Because
    7. Because there are only 6 Billion people on earth and only 1-10% of them write OSs/Software.
    You're welcome.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:24AM (#9203690)
    Treating the micro v. monolithic debate as a solved problem ("microkernels win!") is as idiotic as suggesting that object orientation is the ideal solution to all programming problems.

    ...because obviously object oriented programming is adds a terrible amount of overhead to any program without adding substantial usability to the code, especially as it's implemented today.

    It's a shame so much work has gone into writing OO languges when all that would could've gone to improving C. </joke>
  • The BSD kernel used on top is not really a kernel in the truest sense. Instead, it's another microkernel server that provides an interface from the programs to the other servers. This design turned out to be quite sensible. It allowed the OS to "skin" its interface with programs on the fly, without inheriting a lot of the faults of the previously monolithic kernels. Thus Apple was able to run OS 9 programs in an OS 9 kernel "server", and then run ultramodern Unix/Cocoa apps in the BSD kernel "server". All without locking up the machine via OS 9's memory problems and poor system drivers.

  • by Dr. Smeegee ( 41653 ) * on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:33AM (#9203766) Homepage Journal

    1. Describe the components of an operating system, besides the central component, the kernel.

    The Klaspil, the Frammistat and the Peramulator (sometimes called the "Virtual McGuggehupphe Valve). The Kaspil formats tuples for processing by the Frammistat, tuples are sorted, tagged and valued by the Perambulator.

    2. What do programmers usually develop first, the compiler or the kernel?

    Acne. Lots, usually.

    3. Does this sequence impact the OS at all?

    Probably

    4. What's more complicated, the kernel or the compiler?

    Girls

    5. Why does operating system development take as long as it does?

    Why is a duck?

    What are the three key things in operating system development that take the longest to perfect?

    Obsolecense, threading and nice icons.

    6. Do you need operating systems familiarity to write a kernel? Yes / no? Elaborate please.

    Yes. No.

    7. In your opinion, why aren't there more operating systems on the market?

    Terrorism.

  • Whoa... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:37AM (#9203821)
    This is the first time I've seen an article where more of the comments are copies of the /.'d article or mirror links than actual comments...
  • My view... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:40AM (#9203861)
    Linus: Be serious, saying that the Linux inventors are Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus shows me and the world how inmature you're and obviously puts more fuel to the doubt many of us are having now. An answer like that says to me that there is a more obscure history than we know and is a tipical defensive reaction when you done something wrong.

    I'm convinced that Linux sucks and is now dead, more when his *creator* answer to such allegations on this child way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:40AM (#9203862)
    "Hidden agenda" being amsterdam's coffeeshops and whorehouses, no doubt.

    Not that theres anything WRONG with that. Im just saying that any excuse to go to amsterdam is a good one.

    What a great city.
  • by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:46AM (#9203918) Journal
    Windows is a special 3rd type of kernel, called a "three ring clusterfuck".
  • by GeekDork ( 194851 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:47AM (#9203925)

    Great. In principle, this is the "please write an article so that I just have to put my name over it" strategy from the "The Way of the Weasel" Dilbert book.

  • by Boing ( 111813 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @10:58AM (#9204008)
    Do we really want every response to this to be written by a Linux fanboy?

    You're new here, aren't you?

  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @11:19AM (#9204248)
    Oh yeah, bring up the atomic bomb when you want to make apolitical engineers not look like dangerous schmucks.
  • Re:OS X (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @11:24AM (#9204309)
    Ah, but clearly the benchmarking procedure is wrong, because it shows something from Apple in a bad light.
  • by hey ( 83763 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @11:26AM (#9204336) Journal
    If you do a Google search for MINUX, it says:
    Did you mean: LINUX
    I am sure that makes Tanenbaum happy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @11:31AM (#9204388)
    pointing at a humiliated Iraqi man's genitals

    How do you know he was humiliated - some men pay good money for that kind of treatment! :) I call it a freebie, myself.

  • by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @11:52AM (#9204641) Homepage Journal
    So Ken Brown is claiming that, because Linus didn't write Linux in a vacuum, but was exposed to Andy Tanenbaum's work on the subject, he doesn't really own it. In order to come to this view of history, Ken Brown exposed himself to Andy Tanenbaum's work on the subject. So is Linus isn't the originator of Linux, Ken Brown isn't the originator of his book.
  • by Decaff ( 42676 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:09PM (#9204895)
    Response from a certain well-known software company....

    1. Describe the components of an operating system, besides the central
    component, the kernel.

    Media player, browser, Word processor, Spreadsheet, database, demo games, Clippy, special virus/worm susceptibility modules.

    2. What do programmers usually develop first, the compiler or the kernel?
    Neither - you buy them off someone else and re-badge.

    3. Does this sequence impact the OS at all?
    Not if you have enough money.

    4. What's more complicated, the kernel or the compiler?
    The compiler, obviously. It as to cope with all the different versions of our OS.

    5. Why does operating system development take as long as it does? What are the three key things in operating system development that take the longest to perfect?
    The colours and shapes of the buttons and the start-up music takes a lot of time to design.
    (1) Thinking of the name ('XP' took a lot of effort). (2) Researching all the bits of other systems we want to copy. (3) Finding a rock group to perform at the launch.

    6. Do you need operating systems familiarity to write a kernel? Yes / no? Elaborate please.
    Not at all; its irrelevant. We have known for decades about how good operating systems should work, it hasn't stopped us providing BSODs.

    7. In your opinion, why aren't there more operating systems on the market?
    Nothing to do with us.... you didn't see us trying to sabotage DR-DOS. It was someone else who just looked like us.
  • by cosmo7 ( 325616 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:14PM (#9204969) Homepage
    Further you are comparing apples with oranges comparing a Mac to a PC

    I object to your comparison between apples and oranges and Macs and PCs. Equating apples compared to oranges with Macs compared to PCs is like comparing comparisons between euphemisms with comparisons between idioms.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:22PM (#9205078)
    Mr. Tanenbaum isn't a bitter lunatic. He's a professor.

    You may have trouble understanding this distinction-- it is, I admit, very fine-- but once you do understand many of his actions make much more sense :)
  • by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:28PM (#9205144) Homepage
    A chance to be funny! Or possibly insightful. Either way, yay me!

    1. Describe the components of an operating system, besides the central
    component, the kernel.
    The components of the operating system are as follows: The file browser, the kernelized window manager, the web browser, the media player, and the gaping remote exploit. As can be seen by this feature list, Microsoft Windows is the only true operating system on the market today.

    2. What do programmers usually develop first, the compiler or the
    kernel?
    Neither can be developed without access to a text editor, so invariably this is always written first. Unfortunately, once it is written, it needs to be compiled, and the compiler itself needs an operating system to run on. This "chicken and egg" problem wasn't solved until 2097, with the invention of time travel.

    [Seriously, this guy is wrong to assume that both have to be written in order to have a complete system. Theoretically, you could develop an x86 operating system entirely on an Apple Powerbook, and just copy the binaries over, so you don't need to develop a compiler to develop an operating system.]

    3. Does this sequence impact the OS at all?
    Yes. Writing the compiler first opens a gaping hole in the fabric of the universe, while writing the kernel first causes a plague of sabre-toothed cows. The trick is to write them both at the same time so that the cows are immediately sucked into the gaping hole.

    4. What's more complicated, the kernel or the compiler?
    "Complicated" means "something I know how to do." "Simple" means "something I don't know how to do, but I know the people who do and they're a bunch of nitwits so how hard can it be?" Given that criteria, I would have to say that both are braindead simple. Ask me again in a couple of years.

    5. Why does operating system development take as long as it does? What
    are the three key things in operating system development that take the
    longest to perfect?
    There are three rules that apply here. The first is Hofstadter's Law [wikipedia.org]: It always takes longer than you think, even if you've accounted for Hofstadter's Law.

    The second rule is the 90% rule: The first 90% of the project will take 90% of the time, and the last 10% will take the other 90% of the time.

    The last rule is called the "There's no way in hell we can add all the features the marketing department has already promised our customers, and they just added twenty more, and by the way three of them violate laws of physics" rule. Unfortunately, only the name of the rule has been passed down over the years, so nobody remembers what it was about.

    6. Do you need operating systems familiarity to write a kernel? Yes /
    no? Elaborate please.
    A basic familiarity with computers is helpful, but not strictly necessary. For example, when Dennis Ritchie wrote the compiler for the BCPL language, he didn't actually use a computer. He scrawled the whole thing on a ream of paper, and had his secretary transcribe it. Similarly, when Linus wrote the 0.1 kernel, he used a photocopier.

    7. In your opinion, why aren't there more operating systems on the
    market?
    Because it is not in the interests of the Freemasons to have more operating systems on the market. I can't say anything more about that in this forum, but it's absolutely true.

    [Geez. There's a difference between an "operating system" (which a decent grad student can whip out in a few months) and an operating system which can be marketed as competition to the OSes already on the market. Linux 1.0 was probably closer to the former than the latter.]
  • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:39PM (#9205306) Homepage Journal
    Answer: One more than it takes to change a light bulb.

    (Punchline: "That's a hardware problem.")
  • by while(1)fork() ( 704502 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @01:10PM (#9205727)
    Everybody knows that Bill Gates wrote Windows! Didn`t he?

    So why does Mr. Brown wonder that Linux wrote Linux?
  • by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @01:21PM (#9205898) Homepage Journal
    I personally prefer nanokernels. A nanokernel is a (kernel * 10^-9). It works out as being much smaller and faster, since a microkernel is only (kernel * 10^-6). Yeah, yeah? Let's see if Andy Tanenbaum can explain that one! Soon, Linux hackers will be jumping ship because they will be 1337 enough to write a PICOKERNEL!
  • by golgafrincham ( 774723 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @02:14PM (#9206655) Journal
    at last... hitler, linux and gpl in one sentence (post). congrats.
  • by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @02:51PM (#9207185)

    It's what makes pine work.

    /ducks, runs away
  • by JudgeDredd ( 561957 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:15PM (#9208297) Journal
    I think you may have misinterpreted his sentence structure. Let me put some brackets to clarify the logical structure:

    Further you are comparing apples with (oranges comparing a Mac to a PC)

    So, what we have is a comparison between (the fruit called an apple) and (the act of an orange comparing two other things). Clearly these things are, in fact, different! One is a fruit doing nothing and the other is an action by a fruit.
  • Well, it's just my opinion. However, allow me to pull out a cliché.
    "In 1965, Professor Challis A. Hall Jr. read the term paper Fred Smith had submitted for his Economics class. It described a delivery system using a hub topology. Hall graded it a C, because altough it was original, it would never work in the real world.
    A couple of years later, Smith founded Federal Express."

    All I'm saying is, considering where Linux is today, Tennenbaum's assertions that Linus "should have paid more attention in class" sounds to me like what Hall would say.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2004 @09:18PM (#9210706)
    Holy shit! *brain explodes*

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...