More Responses to de Tocqueville Hatchet Job 435
akahige writes "Fresh from the debunking of the 'Linus couldn't possibly have written an OS without ripping someone off' book published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Tanenbaum has published an email he got from the consultant hired to do the code comparison between MINIX and Linux. Among other juicy comments, 'pay no attention to this man.' (There was no stolen code, either.) In related matters, ESR was apparently sent a pre-release excerpt of the book which he completely eviscerates with his usual zeal. Another story on NewsForge." See our previous stories if you're coming to this late.
'pay no attention to this man' (Score:4, Funny)
"Pay no attentioned to the man behind the curtain..."
Re:'pay no attention to this man' (Score:5, Funny)
Also on Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the singular omissions Brown of AdTI is making here? One might think that he was acting with a reckless disregard for the truth [expertlaw.com], which counts as evidence of "actual malice." Not that that should be surprising to us, as those on SCO's side of things have been known for defaming people before (see my sig or journal), but it might be a basis for a lawsuit, even though Linus is likely a "public figure"
Calm down and move along... (Score:5, Insightful)
I refuse to do that. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already a number of IP related attacks--Microsoft's "Shared Source" for one is calculated to give some of the benefits of having the source available, while crippling the ability of anyone who might want to use it in GPL'd software. There are also issues with patented standards, like Microsoft's XML patents. To be fair, this cuts both ways, I seem to remember someone (Lucky Green?) patenting using DRM to control the use of "pirated" software, after a Microsoft speaker claimed to have not thought of doing that. Indeed, on might theoretically patent something and make the *only* way to use that patent to incorporate the GPL'd software one provides. This is certainly somewhat more coercive than the GPL usually is (since generally, if you don't like it, you can write your own damned code instead of taking mine), but it is yet another way to advance the public interest via IP law.
Back to the point, we're looking at a well-funded character assasination attempt here. And if we're not, it sure as hell looks that way. I'm certainly not convinced that we should be ignoring this, since they're working on convincing the types who don't read Slashdot, and who aren't likely to see all the facts contrary to this insipid book.
I mean, I'm just waiting for Lyons of Forbes (a scolecophagous scorbutical scoundrel [byliner.com], in my biased opinion), or Enderle to write some poorly-researched prattle about what this "proves." Then, only to turn and complain about the questioning of their reputations, in spite of their being known more for quoting press releases than for doing independent research... And no, calling a company to confirm that it believes its own press releases is hardly Pulizer material.
But you're right. This isn't new. Lyons wrote an insipid character-assasination piece against PJ, defaming her with spurious allegations and incredibly weak associations to some random troll he quoted off the Internet. Enderle has called those who oppose SCO "terrorists," the crime being pointing out to the media that he has no credibility and talks out his ass half the time. Oh, and some people alledgedly sent him hatemail. That's not right, but it's nothing new, and his article goes far beyond mere hatemail, especially when he invited it with his flamebait writings, painting so many with the same brush, doing worse than the things he accuses others of, in my biased judgement.
And my favorite, the one enshrined in my slashdot journal, is where SCO set out fake signs to defame the people picketing them--ones claiming to support communism and whatnot. The Groklaw article on that is linked in my journal [slashdot.org], and it even has nice pictures, so you can read them for yourself.
So no, I have no intention of ignoring this campaign to malign us all. It's not likely to stop on its own. I would hope that anyone with standing to sue would at least consider doing so. I don't think this should be left to stand, even if I find it to be in the credit of Linus and the others that they are not litigious.
Re:I refuse to do that. (Score:3, Informative)
One of the trolls referred to by ESR - The "Pizduk" known as Nikolay Bezroukov was trolling on a similar assignment as early as the beginning of 2002 (obviously being flamed to charcoal by ESR in 1998 did not teach him a lesson). He tried to get my opinion on some of his scribbling, but he did not quite like what he got. At the time he was trying to compare Open Source to Intelligencia as pre
ESR got a copy?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ESR got a copy?! (Score:2)
In which case it would be more like asking Steve Jobs to do said review.
Re:ESR got a copy?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ESR got a copy?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. Personally, I have to give him this one. The book is his manifesto on open source software. It's not like the discussion was about the poor quality of judging at last years Ninepins World Championship Tournament (damn those Norwegian judges!).
Re:ESR got a copy?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, ESR seems to be responding to the critisism of his past rants and couter-productive behaviour. This one, though perhaps self-serving at times, is measured and based on facts. AdTI's strategy of provoking a senseless flamewar with the OSS community is backfiring. If they had of made a more convincing argument, they may have gotten somewhere, but as it is, any of the
Soko
There's no doubt about it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:4, Insightful)
Linus says that didn't happen. Fine, but he could be lying. Now _Andy_ says it didn't happen, and they both have no problems with each other.
So the book is utterly pointless. There's no needle, no copying, nothing -- and BOTH sides have stated that!
Andy is a hero (well, a bit of a hero!) for coming out, being talkative and laying these issues to rest.
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:5, Interesting)
From the funniest movie of all time [imdb.com]:
Linux's design is obsolete. But as obsolete designs go, it's doing quite well.
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lot harder to get decent performance out of a microkernel, so Linus wasn't wrong to build Linux as a monolithic kernel, and Andy's criticisms of that aspect of its design were over the top.
But Minix' performance problems were due more to its goal as a teaching system than the fact that it was a microkernel, so Linus was wrong to so vehemently attack microkernels... and he's wrong to continue doing so today.
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at where we are heading now on the hardware side, NUMA, Async Processors, and Multi-core processors all have interesting side-effects when you look at micro vs monolithic kernels. When one looks at Sun's "FireMan" next-gen TCP/IP stack, it has elements of a microkernel personality siting on top of the Sun kernel. OSX/darwin's development also seems to favor moving to a pure microkernel arch in the future as Power5 and Power6 are developed. Imagine if the Quartz layer was simplified down to another microkernel running on the base Niwrad kernel.
I guess what I'm saying is that you have two different worldviews represented in that flamefest between Andy and Linus. Andy's itch to scratch was theoretical, Linus's proved to be practical. Both are valid and both are important to this young science, so don't be so quick to judge the good doctor for being honest about his student's work.
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's no doubt about it (Score:5, Informative)
Clearing Up Some Misconceptions
I would like to close by clearing up a few misconceptions and also correcting a couple of errors. First, I REALLY am not angry with Linus. HONEST. He's not angry with me either. I am not some kind of "sore loser" who feels he has been eclipsed by Linus. MINIX was only a kind of fun hobby for me. I am a professor. I teach and do research and write books and go to conferences and do things professors do. I like my job and my students and my university. If you want to get a masters there, see my home page for information. I wrote MINIX because I wanted my students to have hands-on experience playing with an operating system.
After AT&T forbade teaching from John Lions book, I decided to write a UNIX-like system for my students to play with. Since I had already written two books at this point, one on computer architecture and one on computer networks, it seemed reasonable to describe the system in a new book on operating systems, which is what I did. I was not trying to replace GNU/HURD or Berkeley UNIX. Heaven knows, I have said this enough times. I just wanted to show my students and other students how you could write a UNIX-like system using modern technology.
A lot of other people wanted a free production UNIX with lots of bells and whistles and wanted to convert MINIX into that. I was dragged along in the maelstrom for a while, but when Linux came along, I was actually relieved that I could go back to professoring. I never really applied for the position of King of the Hackers and didn't want the job when it was offered. Linus seems to be doing excellent work and I wish him much success in the future.
While writing MINIX was fun, I don't really regard it as the most important thing I have ever done. It was more of a distraction than anything else. The most important thing I have done is produce a number of incredibly good students, especially Ph.D. students. See my home page for the list. They have done great things. I am as proud as a mother hen. To the extent that Linus can be counted as my student, I'm proud of him, too. Professors like it when their students go on to greater glory. I have also written over 100 published research papers and 14 books which have been translated into about 20 languages. As a result I have become a Fellow of the IEEE, a Fellow of the ACM, and won numerous other awards. For me, these are the things that really count. If MINIX had become a big 'commercial' success I wouldn't have had the time to do all this academic stuff that I am actually more interested in.
Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:4, Insightful)
A note to email users - it's very easy to make a bad impression with informal writing style!
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the BSD TCP/IP stack was released under the BSD licence and that MS provides the proper acknowledgements in their documents, this is a red herring. Thus, ESR's concluding sentence does not follow, although it may be correct for other reasons.
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Proprietary software companies could pirate the entire GNU/FSF/Linux/OSS library, charge $500/copy for it, never credit, employ, or even acknowledge the original authors, and the burden of proof would lie with some high school kid who can't even afford to have a consultation session with an IP lawyer--much less be t
Re:MSFT DOS stolen from CP/M? (Score:3, Informative)
While it is true that one can say Bill had no obligation to inform Seattle of the value of their own product, his behavior in crossing out all the "lease" language in the contract and substituting "buy" and then informing Seattle that they could still "have
Re:Does anybody else find ESR's writing style odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any further ideas?
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, consider that Brown refused to answer a direct question on who was funding his 'research'.
It is also known that Microsoft has funded AdTI in the past.
Given that, it does not seem to me that simple idiocy would suffice as an explanation. Unless Red Hat or someone sponsored the research.
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:4, Funny)
I am curious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, I think that once MS was exposed as a funder of AdTI, they probably cut Brown off dry. I don't think they like their sock puppets exposed like that.
My money is on SCO as the funder.
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hand behind the Hatchet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sun.
It's too direct for Microsoft (and too bungled too). Their FUD engine is well greased and is quite honestly self-perceived to be too above this troll trash to be implicated. Not that there aren't moneys from Allen being moved around on the side, but that's not official Microsoft policy. Granted, Microsoft has admitted [nwfusion.com]
to funding Tocqueville but there's a missing beneficiary.
Sun, on the other hand, is fighting for their life though it's receiving little coverage. Linux has decimated Sun's sales, and their missteps with Java have only frustrated efforts to find a solution - any solution. Perhaps some of the settlement money from Microsoft went here instead of directly to Sun?
Consider: Who does having Linux portrayed as stolen property push the Linux base to?
- FreeBSD/OpenBSD/netBSD? Not at all. If it was impossible for Linux to create Linux and therefore Linux is TheftWare, the *BSDs are next in line for accusations and implications.
- SCO? This fossil? The same fossil one of their largest investors (and slush fund source) says should be canned? The fossil that litigation targets like Daimler Chrysler have confessed to not have used for nearly a decade? Doubtful.
- Apple? A more interesting theory, but OS/X != Intel *NIX.
- Microsoft? They're not at all in position to capture the Intel *NIX market. Convert to XP? How?
Solaris, on the other hand, presents an inviting candidate for migration should the F/OSS *NIX's need a commercial home.
*scoove*
Code obfuscation (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who has the book know what the ADTI's claim on code obfuscation was and why the issue was even mentioned?
Re:Code obfuscation (Score:3, Interesting)
One possible argument being made by the ADTI is that Linus intentionally reverse-engineered the source code to some other Unix, tidied it up, and published it as his own Linux... possibly re-obfuscating it himself afterwards to make the deed difficult to discover.
It's a fun idea but bears zero relation to reality.
Re:Code obfuscation (Score:3, Informative)
Uh..
What would be the point of "reverse engineering" when Linus could just, you know, read Tanenbaum's textbook on operating system design and use that as a basis for how to design a UNIX operating system? Since that would be (1) easier (2) lega
Copy of email, /. effect (Score:3, Informative)
"Around the middle of April, I was contacted by a friend of mine who asked me if I wanted to do some code analysis on a consultancy basis for his boss, Ken Brown. I ended up doing about 10 hours of work, comparing early versions of Linux and Minix, looking for copied code.
My results are here. To summarize, my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied one way or the other. (I realize that Minix predates Linux, but I did the comparison bidirectionally for the sake of objectivity).
While I was working on this in my spare time, Ken kept pestering me to hurry up and finish. He told me he had a paper awaiting publication, and that my analysis was the las bit of data he needed. I sent the final results (which are, exactly as given to Ken Brown, at the above URL) to him on May 17th.
When I called him to ask if he had any questions about the analysis methods or results, and to ask if he would like to have it repeated with other source comparison tools, I was in for a bit of a shock. Apparently, Ken was expecting me to find gobs of copied source code. He spent most of the conversation trying to convince me that I must have made a mistake, since it was clearly impossible for one person to write an OS and 'code theft' had to have occured.
So, I guess what I want to say is, pay no attention to this man; to the best of my knowledge he is talking out of his ass. I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused you by participating (however indirectly) in Ken's pet project.
Please feel free to reproduce this email and the contents of my analysis webpage."
--Alexey Toptygin
Andy Tanenbaum, 20 May 2004
Re:Copy of email, /. effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copy of email, /. effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copy of email, /. effect (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Copy of email, /. effect (Score:3, Funny)
Do you think anyone obtaining his services wants a good, impartial report? Well, a good one probably, but definitely not an impartial one.
I'm afraid there is no shortage of fields in which this guy is a self-pronounced researcher.
Just look at the dang AdTI homepage: Economics, Taxation, Education, Technology, Defense..
Hey, the guy has a bachelor's degree in Litterature -doesn't that automatically qualify him as an expert on
Like it or not, Linux owes a lot to MINIX (Score:4, Interesting)
I know there is a tendancy here to deify Linus, and he deserves so much credit, but Linux overall owes a lot to MINIX. I worked with MINIX back around 1989 and Hendricks should be given a lot of credit for helping to get the whole open source movement rolling.
TWR
Re:Like it or not, Linux owes a lot to MINIX (Score:4, Insightful)
It is quite well known that Linus started developing Linux on Minix, before it was self-hosting. I don't see anybody saying otherwise.
However, the issue is copy-pasting of source code from Minix, not whether Minix was helpful to the development of Linux or not.
Re:Like it or not, Linux owes a lot to MINIX (Score:5, Informative)
The real question here is if Linus stole AT's code from MINIX, which both the creator of MINIX and an independant auditor both say he didn't.
Ken Brown will always be welcomed by Bush admin (Score:5, Funny)
Great Leader: "That's not possible. Your analysis must be wrong. Do it again, and this time, tell me what I want to hear!"
WMD? (Score:5, Funny)
That's a relief. (Score:5, Funny)
I was just getting ready to send out cheques to SCO and Andy Tanenbaum for $699 each.
Re:That's a relief. (Score:3, Funny)
Bill G.
minor flaws in ESR's message? (Score:5, Insightful)
Context and interfaces are everything; unless it has been packaged into a library specifically intended to move, moving software between projects is more like an organ transplant, with utmost care needed to resect vessels and nerves. The kind of massive theft you are implying is not just contingently rare, it is necessarily rare because it is next to impossible.
Then 5 paragraphs down,
That a piece of code came from a proprietary vendor is no guarantee that it originated there. Proprietary outfits lift code from elsewhere all the time.
Sort of contradictory, no? To paraphrase, First he says it's very hard to lift code from elsewhere. Then he says, But some people do it all the time.
Re:minor flaws in ESR's message? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:minor flaws in ESR's message? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think I'll ever understand some people's problem with GPL'ed code. I've seen a number of bitch sessions about "but we don't want to release it". Tough shit, you chose to use GPL'ed code so play by the rules. You don't like the rules, don't use the code. It's not like this license sneaks up on you in the night. During design and implementation someone made a conscious descision about where to get code from. If that choice bites you in the ass, you have no one to blame but that guy.
Re:minor flaws in ESR's message? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
copy of comparison analysis (Score:5, Informative)
comparison analysis:
The raw comparison files are very large, but mostly full of false positives. This is due to the way SIM handles lists of constants and SIM's inability to distinguish between function calls and certain elements of syntax.
Only 4 actual similarities were found. They are excerpted in whole, with reference to the respective source files, and discussed. Since the similar code sections are fairly invariant over all versions of minix and linux compared, excerpts will be taken from linux-0.96c and minix-1.2.
1. in linux, include/linux/ctype.h:
[code sipped]
in minix, include/ctype.h:
[code snipped]
These are the 'character type' macros. They predate both minix and linux, and are a part of the majority of C libraries. They are specified in the ANSI C standard (ANSI X3.159-1989), and arereferred to in most C textbooks (i.e. "C++ How to Program" H. M. Deitel, P. J. Deitel --2nd ed. ISBN 0-13-528910-6).
2. in linux, include/linux/stat.h:
[code snipped]
in minix, h/stat.h:
[code snipped]
Both the names and values of these constants are specified by the POSIX standard.
3. in linux, in fs/read_write.c:
[code snipped]
in minix, in fs/open.c
[code snipped]
The behavior of the lseek system call is specified by POSIX. Since it is so simple, practically all implementations will be highly similar.
4. in linux, in fs/minix/inode.c: in minix, in fs/super.c This operation is required in order to correctly mount the minix filesystem. All implementations would need this or equivalent code.
Since, out of thousand of lines of code, only 4 small segments were found to be similar, and since in each case the similarity was required by external factors (the C standard, the POSIX standard, the minix filesystem format), it is highly unlikely that any source code was copied either from minix to linux or vice-versa.
Re:copy of comparison analysis (Score:3, Informative)
Mirror of the comparison report [xenoveritas.org].
And of course MS funds it (Score:5, Interesting)
From here [mediatransparency.org]
Great way to start the day. (Score:3)
Just a question, though, are some of the changelogs ESR mentions available for easy download? The kernel changelogs are easy to find, but what about the changelogs for emacs, Gnome, gzip/gunzip, and all of the other GNU software? If they really want to keep crying "source theft!", it would help to have those handy.
Just another 2 cents.
The sad part (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare to the thriving business of fortune telling or psycics (or evangelists), or of convinced political partisans. Debunking is happening continuously, but it doesn't even make a dent in these charlatans pocketbooks, as their marks do not hear about it anyway. They just aren't consumers of the kind of media that will publish anything critical of their chosen belief.
Libel? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if it's truly false, and the author has been told by several independent sources before the publication, and he still publishes it, how is that not libel?
Re:The sad part (Score:5, Informative)
The more pain this causes ADTI, the lower their future credibility sinks, the number of people whose long-term memories record ADTI as the bunch of corporate whores they are... the more damage is done to their prospects of seeking future funding. Even from Microsoft, it won't make sense to pour more money into ADTI if they are widely considered a joke.
Better yet, if ADTI suffers, the public scandal will help deter other "think tanks" from attacking free software when Microsoft or other proprietary vendors come knocking with "research" dollars.
Free Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the controversy that existed over "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie. The novel was proclaimed as blashphemous to Islam, and a fatwah death sentence was pronounced on the author. Of course, the book sold out as fast as they could print copies. A student friend of mine at the time was proudly showing off his brand new hard copy edition he just bought, even though he could hardly afford his next meal. (He considered this a real prize, as they were selling so fast, it was hard to find a copy anywhere) So I started reading. It was an awful, improbable piece of literature, that undoubtably would have sold no more than a few thousand copies if not for the controversy.
I also remember a story about a US art dealer who was tasked with unloading several thousand prints of a sitting nude from an obsure french painter nobody had heard of. So he displayed the original painting in the front of the store, secretly paid some children a few coins to stand and gawk at it, while calling up the leader of the then equivalent of the "moral majority" with an anonymous tip. He got himself arrested for displaying indecent material, and beat the rap in a high profile trial. Of course the prints all sold out quickly, and the original painting fetched a sizable fortune at auction.
Lit Crit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll grant you, Rushdie probably sold a lot of books because of the fatwah. On the other hand, he was forced to live in seclusion, couldn't go anywhere without body-guards, watched his marriage break up, etc. He's often stated that if it was merely to sell books, it "wasn't worth it."
Personally, I heard about "The Satanic Verses" before the fatwah, and had it on my reading list (though I didn't buy a copy 'til it was in paperback). I loved it and think it's great. Yes, some of it is "improbable," there is a whole genre called magic realism that deals in the improbable.
Moreover, his creditials were established well before "Verses." His novel "Midnight's Children" won Britian's premiere literary award, The Booker Prize, in 1981, seven years before "Verses" was published.
Emacs as complex as early Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm a happy emacs user, so I'm not emacs-bashing, but damn. Maybe it is a little bloated :)
Microsoft and Legal BSD code (Score:5, Insightful)
From ESR's journal: The point is this: Microsoft (legally) took BSD code, and the only way we know about it is through behavioural analysis.
I call Bullshit:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/2/15/71552/7 795/98#98 [kuro5hin.org]
To quote the poster for those of you too lazy to click:
So how can I be so sure about that Microsoft is using BSD licensed code? Well, the BSD license(s) require that the copyright holder is credited in documentation provided with binary distributions of the code. In their release notes for their Windows XP operating system [microsoft.com], Microsoft credits a bunch of well-known copyright holders of open source products. It contains credits not only to the University of California at Berkeley, but also companies such as Hewlett-Packard and to individuals such as Luigi Rizzo and Phil Karn.
ESR, If you're going to be a proper advocate for free source, please be correct about the information you post. Otherwise, you're not much better than Tocqueville in that regard.
I call *your* bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The only way to tell that the TCP stack is one of the portions used is through behavorial analysis.
If Brown was lying can't Linus sue for slander? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Brown was lying can't Linus sue for slander? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, is it false? Yes. Malicious? That's harder to prove, but could be. Damages? There's the rub. Unless this work damages Linus somehow -- he gets thrown in prison because of allegations in the book, or loses his job (which may I remind you is with a group [osdl.org] that is undoubtedly aware of Brown's blatant disregard for the truth), neither of which is likely -- damages would be pretty hard to prove. Especially if sales and usage of Linux continue to climb.
So I think the best course of action is just to refute the FUD everywhere it rears its pointed little head. If Linus were to sue for libel the most likely result would be to make two sets of lawyers richer.
Of course I could be wrong. John Henry Faulk [utexas.edu] sued AWARE for libel and effectively ended blacklisting in this country. Something similar might come out of a lawsuit against AdTI, but really only Linus could decide if it's worth the effort.
This all sounds like FUD campaign to me (Score:3, Interesting)
No OS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No OS (Score:4, Funny)
This book: Much about nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, the garage sales in the very upper-crusty 'burbs around Redmond make for great places to pick up fairly new tech books for cheap, and now's the season!
The Interesting Bits (Score:4, Interesting)
Mostly true, but not intirely. Freesource hackers seem all be against stealing proprietary code but I seem to remember stallman endorsing music "piracy" during one of his speeches.
You claim that "To date no other product comes to life in this way", presenting Linux as a unique event that requires exceptional explanations. This is wrong. Many other open-source projects of the order of complexity of the early Linux kernel predated it; the BSD Unixes, for example, or the Emacs editor.
Wow. Stallman never ceases to impress me. I knew that gcc was as large and complex as linux but I never realized that emacs was too.
Torvalds's ambiguity about "GNU/Linux" in 2001 was not complicated; he dislikes the term rather strongly but was at the time reluctant to get into a political scrap with Stallman, whom he personally dislikes. The dislike has since hardened and become sufficiently public that I am not betraying a confidence by writing this.
Sad that they don't get along. Linus is such a happy go lucky guy that it seems out of character for him to dislike anything.
Ken Brown really doing a social study? (Score:4, Funny)
There is no way he could have thought the book could have been taken seriously, after all. Unless he's one of those incomptetent people who have no idea how incomptetent they really are (witness WB's Superstar "reality" garbage).
Re:Ken Brown really doing a social study? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, time to trot out one of my favorite links:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessment [apa.org] - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
An entertaining read.
The text of the original request sent to Alexey (Score:4, Funny)
Butt !??!!!? (Score:4, Funny)
No comment (Score:4, Interesting)
If you must say something then how about "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."
John.
Re:No comment (Score:3, Interesting)
If what you said were true, politics would be about policy, not about innuendo and symbolism. Most people do not have time to critically evaluate most political claims. Just saying something publicly enough (especially with some ideological color added) means that some people will believe it.
If anything shouldn't be dignified with a response, I agree it's this ridiculous claim that Linus stole Linux from Tannenbaum. Unfortunately
So bad it's suspicious (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this book, along with the press surrounding it, will do a lot to defuse the FUD that Microsoft and SCO have spread. The vague "Linux may infringe something" claims will be clarified in people's minds to "Linux might have copied Minix". And then they can be countered, because the owner and author of Minix has said that Linux didn't copy it. If anyone knows, it would be him. So now people's vague ideas will be that the "Linux may infringe something" claim turned out to be false. (Of course, the logic here is flawed; just because Linux doesn't infringe on Minix doesn't mean that it couldn't infringe on something else; but people don't think that way, or they wouldn't buy FUD in the first place).
Microsoft has been good at producing FUD. SCO has even been reasonably good at it (although revealing particular lines of non-infringing Linux code was a mistake there). But this has a serious lack of uncertainty. It gives the impression that, in order to worry about Linux's IP, you'd have to ignore all information remotely relevant, from every possible source, including the ones supposedly wronged. This is like accusing someone of murdering someone who is still alive and willing to testify for the defense. So I think that Microsoft didn't sponsor this, or at least didn't sign off on the result; SCO probably didn't either (although they've messed up worse in the past). I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be someone like Sun, though. They could benefit from Linux looking bad, or from Linux looking good. For that matter, they could really use a justification for their former coldness to Linux, while allowing them to become enlightened about it (considering that they're using it now).
Early Linux (Score:3, Informative)
My co-workers at the time I got involved with Linux were fond of saying, 'What in the world is that, it looks like crap'. To which I would say...'You don't understand, it's free.' It took a lot of hacking about to get it to run and it took hours and hours just to get simple things to work. That is not the case with 'stolen' goods. It's easy to take modern Linux for granted.
Microsoft paying someone to lie? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft on the other hand has worked hard to put out a stable, secure OS that they came up with from the start and did not copy any line of code or UI ideas from anyone. Microsofts pledge of using only their own code goes back to the day they sold IBM the rights to their own hand coded DOS operating system. Microsoft worked for years developing this version of DOS for IBM and it was all original work unlike the trash the Linus has hobbled together and unleashed on the world.
Microsoft is now going after Apple for the iPod design that Steve Jobs stole from them and is going to put those rip offs at Apple out of business once and for all.
Bill Gates is the most original thinker and fairest person in the world. He goes out of his way to help companies that compete with him and even agrees unfair license agreements foisted on him by computer manufactures.
Not only that.....but the....I.....think.....uh.. Doctor, Doctor....I think the drugs are wearing off, can I have another shot?
One man writes an OS . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course one man can write an OS. Then, afterwards, thousands of volunteers worldwide can make it a GOOD os.
"All hackers condemn IP theft?" (Score:3, Interesting)
The term "intellectual property" is vague (here, ESR means copyrights, rather than trademarks or patents), and the term "theft" doesn't apply particularly well. The wordier statement "all hackers condemn the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works, with the exception of fair and personal use" is somewhat more accurate, though probably still not true. Even better would be "all hackers condemn plagiarism," which is really what putting your name on someone else's code is. Plagiarism is a matter of honor, not law, and is somewhat more likely to be something that all hackers -- a pretty big and diverse group -- might condemn.
I know at least one hacker (ahem, a libertarian, even) who condemns copyrights and patents altogether and would probably describe ESR's assertion as nonsensical or undefined.
Condeming IP theft, Eric says, "is what distinguishes [hackers] from the cracker/phreak subculture." Nonsense. Destructive intent is what distinguishes crackers from hackers. Denial-of-service attacks and website vandalism have nothing to do with so-called "IP theft."
For the record, all hackers also don't use the hacker logo [catb.org], any more than all hackers channel Greek gods [catb.org]. Eric would do well to describe his own opinions and let me describe my own.
Re:Sorry but (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this strongly resembles the process I've seen when an Open Source project dissects a tricky bug. Everybody posts their opinion and analysis on it, and eventually, someone figures out the exact answer and the problem is solved. Kind of like scientists figuring something out too.
Of course, something like this is so fuzzy that there isn't really 'a solution'. But the process is still similar.
Re:Sorry but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry but (Score:5, Funny)
I do, thou dost, he/she/it doth, we do, you do, they do. Geeze, if you're going to troll, at least try to troll grammatically...
Re:slashdotted alread? mirror please (Score:2, Interesting)
posted almost at the same tiem as your post.
Re:slashdotted alread? mirror please (Score:4, Informative)
But the lameness filter refused several attempts with varied formatting and ecode. Executive summary: out of tens of thousands of lines in Minix and pre-1.0 Linux, there were four similar sections:
Re:How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How long... (Score:4, Funny)
Mods? Parent Troll and Offtopic (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a slam at ESR that at least in this case is unjustified.
ESR's response to the report was reasonable and logical, and his boasts about himself weren't boasts as much as they were supports of his credibility to make the statements about the report he made.
His comment about publishing his change logs is very valid. With a complete, open audit trail, the ethics of OSS developers is usually on display for the world. This is in great contrast to proprietary software, which just based on lawsuits alone we can estimate has frequent theft of code from others.
His statement about being able to write it himself is reasonable. I'm no rocket ship (to quote Butthead), but even I could write a kernel if I had the drive. Using Tanenbaum's own books on computer architecture, as well as other books and examples. It's not magic. The magic comes much later in the tuning and improvement. Even then, that magic is really just very smart people getting involved.
On top of all that, parent poster personally has zero credibility ( Anonymous Coward ).
Re:ESR contradicts himself (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ESR contradicts himself (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I read the article, he's saying that massive code theft is rare and next to impossible for open source developers, because the nature of OSS makes it very hard to conceal such theft; but that closed source developers (i.e., proprietary software companies) can and do steal code frequently, because it's so hard to prove they did it.