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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Stallman vs Ken Brown 304

Posted by CmdrTaco from the throw-down-the-gloves dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has become the latest person to speak-out about Ken Brown's "independent" study of Linux, which accuses it of being a Minix/Unix rip-off. Stallman says Brown deliberately confused the Linux kernel vs the GNU project, although I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stallman vs Ken Brown More

Stallman vs Ken Brown

Comments Filter:

  • what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:51AM (#9302661)
    "The actual words I used were quoted correctly, but [author Kenneth Brown] deliberately confuses his terms, like 'Linux.' He confuses the Linux kernel, which I had nothing to do with, and the GNU OS project, which I launched," said Stallman, who characterized such mistakes as "deliberate."M

    I believe that Brown is probably far more knowledgeable about the differentiation between the kernel and the GNU project but for the masses it is certainly not something that most people know or care to know.

    Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone. The whole GNU/Linux bullshit doesn't help a bit either. Anyone not in the know is going to say, hmm, GNU/Linux, all one thing.

    It was certainly FUD but what MS funded "study" isn't?

    • Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:04AM (#9302768)
      In defense of TFA, it never once mentions "GNU/Linux". I think it does a fairly decent job of making the point that the GNU system and the Linux kernel are two separate things, without having to explicitly hand-hold the reader.

      And about MS funding "studies": the ones that aren't FUD are the ones that we never hear about. I will bet my reputation as an AC that Microsoft has paid independent researchers to conduct a test, and thrown out the results when they didn't get what they wanted. It's not a conspiracy, it's just forum-shopping. In the spirit of bad Slashdot analogies, it's like getting a second opinion from a different doctor.

      • Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:09AM (#9302805)
        I wasn't specifically quoting the use of GNU/Linux in the article. I was making the point that RMS insists we use that to describe Linux and the tools generally used with it.

        RMS insists that GNU/Linux be used when talking about Linux in general (not just the kernel). People are just starting to see Linux and they see the GNU in front. They will immediately believe they are one in the same. Remember... Most people are under the MS-influence. "Microsoft Windows" is what they know and understand. They are likely going to extrapolate that to "GNU Linux".

      • Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:43AM (#9303110) Homepage Journal

        It's not a conspiracy, it's just forum-shopping.

        It is deceptive. Essentially, they want it to appear to be a scholarly work because of the credibility they believe that will lend to the report. It is a deceptive advertising practice since it does not meet the standards of a scholarly work. A good clue is that the people interviewed seem to feel misrepresented.

      • How does Richard Stallman say "GNU/Linux" when he speaks? I always wonder if he says "guh-new OVER linux" or he says "guh-new DIVIDED BY linux." I think he intended it to mean "GNU + Linux" but that's not how it looks on paper, or in his diatribe.

        Kidding aside, this seems to be his only topic of conversation now. He's the legless veteran on the front porch, bemoaning the fates of battles fought long ago, and not budging or even listening to the greater conversation. He is just as divisive as the GNU/

    • Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cbr2702 ( 750255 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:08AM (#9302793) Homepage
      Usually arguments about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" are nearly pointless, but in this case they matter. Linus wrote most of Linux-the-kernel but not most of Linux-the-operating-system. Brown takes advantage of most people thinking of "Linux" as Linux-the-operating-system to make people think that Linux couldn't possibly have written "Linux" in six months. This is a prime example of equivocation [c2.com].

      • Out of curiosity, and never having seen Minix -- what does that OS use for the non-kernel functionality? Original code, Berkeley Unix code, GNU?
        • It uses a mix of original code and various public-domain and open-source packages. When Minix was first released, BSD code was just beginning to be open-sourced. There weren't many GNU utilities available at the time, either, and most of them were (by design) too memory-hungry to fit into the 64K code+64K data space required by Minix 1.x.

      • Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by njcoder ( 657816 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:04AM (#9303385)
        Just to play devil's advocate. There have been other kernel projects that have taken a lot longer than six months to create. Don't have to look past Stallman's own house to find one, The HURD.

        At the end of six months Linus had a functional kernel. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing even really that great compared to other existing kernels. It was from the support of other developers that it was able to become better.

        I am not trying to downplay what Linus did because not everyone could do it. Just saying there were other kernels out there including bsd. Without the contributions of other developers I don't think the linux kernel would be where it is today. Now with others contributing to it, it does make sense to keep a good log of where the code comes from. A little bit of hassle to prevent bigger hassles down the line.

        To say he must have copied the code is a bit unfair. The best way to describe it is the way other scientific projects grow. Bill Joy said in an interview "At Berkeley, we had the model that software is the result of your research. The university tradition is that when you do research, you publish. ...... But the fundamental principle in my mind is that people get to see the results of other people's work in a way that they can stand on shoulders rather than on toes."

    • Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone.

      You got it wrong. Stallman very much realizes that most people get it wrong. And that's all the more reason to correct them.

      Also, keep in mind that a lot of users are unaware of the GNU Project's involvement. He's trying to reach them also.

    • Say what may you all, but I for one is very happy about Kenneth Brown's book. He has once again given an opportunity for Open Source and other org's to come together and fight this FUD... it not only helps to educate people once again with reality but it also helps to re-affirm our beliefs in this way of life... thanks Ken!

  • Typical Stallman (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:52AM (#9302673) Homepage Journal
    Brown's worst crime is confusing "Linux" with "GNU/Linux" ;-)

    • Re:Typical Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)

      by N1KO ( 13435 ) <nico.bonada@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:06AM (#9302775)
      Brown's argument is that no single person could have written a Unix clone in six months. In this case it's necessary to point out that Linux is just a kernel, not the entire thing. All the other utilities and programs were available from GNU at the time.

      • Re:Typical Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tony-A ( 29931 )
        Brown's argument is that no single person could have written a Unix clone in six months.

        Brown wouldn't be able to. But that's hardly the same as no one can.
        It's been done before and will most likely be done again. It's not that big a deal. I've written an OS (not Unix, early OS/360) and I'm nowhere near the league of these big guns.

    • Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:07AM (#9302787)
      I can't believe I'm reading comments complaining about Stallman's use of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, when this whole Brown debacle highlights how important it is to differentiate between the GNU system and the Linux kernel.

      Typical Slashdot reaction to a post about Stallman without understanding a single thing the man says.

      • Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:13AM (#9302822)
        Typical Slashdot reaction to a post about Stallman without understanding a single thing the man says.
        Interestingly enough, it's also a "typical Slashdot reaction" to assume that the thousands of registered users and countless lurking ACs here all share the same opinion. Sit and meditate on that one, grasshopper.

        I frequently disagree with what Stallman says, but I don't have a fraction of his dedication, either. So I usually keep my mouth shut.

  • And another thing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:52AM (#9302674) Journal
    Does this whole thing seem to be unfolding like a cheesy daytime soap opera to anyone else besides me?

    Is Ken Brown pregnant with Linus' love child?
    *Dun Dun Dun*

    How does it end? Tune in next week!

  • Wise man say... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BurritoJ ( 75275 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:53AM (#9302678)
    Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

  • Just publish the report already! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CodeMaster ( 28069 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:57AM (#9302705)
    I'm just dying to see this so called "academic study" of the history of Linux and the Open Source community get to see the light of day, and get tarnished so badly by everyone.

    Mr. Brown is up for the ride of his life (probably the last one as I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously after his paper gets out).

    Stop being afraid of reviews and books - the truth will let itself be seen...

    (sorry for the karma whoring - this just drives me nuts!)

    • Re:Just publish the report already! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:11AM (#9302810)

      Mr. Brown is up for the ride of his life (probably the last one as I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously after his paper gets out)

      What are the odds that the paper will in fact be published? Couldn't this whole exercise just be a means of stirring up the pot? I can easily imagine a quiet statement along the lines of "the article was not published due to $RANDOM_REASON" coming out in the near future. But the FUD and talk remain fresh in the minds of the public.

      (wraps tin-foil tighter)

    • Stop being afraid of reviews and books - the truth will let itself be seen...

      It's at public forums like Slashdot where the truth is revealed, in reaction to the anger and other emotions people exhibit when encountering information that starkly contrasts what they believe.

      Remember when Microsoft used stock photos for the "I used to be a Mac fan, but I'm better now" ads? It was a Slashdot reader, using Slashdot forums, that pointed out that the photo they used was stock.

    • Delayed for "rewrite". (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eddy ( 18759 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:30AM (#9302982) Homepage Journal

      It's being "rewritten", apparently. Was mentioned in an article a couple of days ago. Allegedly to add in Browns answer to the criticism he's recieved, and the news of Linus wanting more source history control in his tree.

      My guess is that it will lose all the debunked bullshit and instead consist of "Look, Linus Torvalds want better source history control in the Linux OS (confusing the kernel with the OS, again), therefore we were right all along no matter what we said! Based on this we draw the conclusion that so there! Greetz to Team McBride and Billy The Goatsex"

    • Beta reports? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 )
      What is this? I thought it was already published. Why would ANYONE respond publicly to a "beta report"? All they've done is give the author a list of stuff to fix. Next time, please let him officially publish his report before discrediting him - it will be more effective. He'll probably say no one objected, so they must agree with it. Just make it a policy not to comment on unofficial, unpublished reports.

      Don't help them beta test their FUD please.

  • RMS says "I told you so!" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:57AM (#9302715) Homepage
    I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two.

    This is a surprise? Hell, most of the people who work with FOSS on a daily basis can't agree on whether to use "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux" and whether that means an entire distro or just the kernel. What possible hope has a shill-for-hire layperson who can't be bothered to do research like Ken Brown got?

    • Re:RMS says "I told you so!" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Another point where this is a problem is when people say "Linux is too fragmented", because Red Hat is different from SuSE is different from Mandrake is different from Debian, etc.

      Linux is not an OS! It's a kernel. Red Hat is an OS, and so is Debian, and neither Debian nor Red Hat is fragmented. Sure, they're different, but then a 747 is not the same as an A300 and you don't hear anyone complain about that either. As long as you can switch reasonably easily from one Red Hat version to another, there is no
      • I'd be very much inclined to agree with you...

        What I'd say is slightly different -

        Linux is the kernel
        GNU is the operating system itself
        RedHat is the group that got it together to produce a product of GNU and Linux.

        Therefore saying 'RedHat' is fine, unless RedHat makes a non-GNU or non-Linux product. It describes the collection of GNU and Linux that the RedHat company makes.

        Debian produces a similar product, they use different parts in their final product, so it's 'Debian'

        So Debian is Debian, RedHat is

    • Honestly, the thing is, the poster is demonstrably wrong on that. Brown had spent quite a bit of time on several mailing lists, not to mention interviewing Stallman himself, and this distinction was explained to him slowly, clearly, and repeatedly. So he does know the difference, he just pretends not to because that's convenient for his FUD.

  • Will Brown Do The Right Thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peeping_Thomist ( 66678 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:59AM (#9302729)
    Is there any chance Brown will just scrap this misbegotten report? When you look at the critiques that have already been made, there's no way he can possibly revise the report to accommodate them. Maybe he should just not publish the report.
    • He'll publish.

      The point of the report is not to be correct, but to give MS (and others) something to point to and say "See? That there Linux thing is EEEEEVUL!"

      • He'll publish.

        I'm sure you're right, but the problem is that he's holding off publishing so that he can respond to the critics. But he CAN'T respond to the critics! So what's he going to do?

        Is the money from Microsoft really worth destroying his reputation?
        • "Is the money from Microsoft really worth destroying his reputation?"

          (Looks at cheque. Looks at any estimate of the current value of his reputation, after all the detailed postings about his complete incompetency)

          Yes, absolutely. If everyone is going to think you're an idiot, you might as well look like a rich one.
        • That should have a "... oh, right." at the end.

          Unless you believe Ken Brown and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution as a whole have a reputation as anything other than Libellous FUDmongers For Rent?

  • Pre-Release Copy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andrevan ( 621897 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:59AM (#9302738) Journal
    Cynicism Personified [facadecomputer.com] got a hold of a pre-release copy of it, and we posted some similar editorial.

    • Re:Pre-Release Copy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OldAndSlow ( 528779 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:26AM (#9302952)
      One of the points that Cynicism Personified makes it that Brown claims that the lack of scarcity of FOSS destroys its value. Here we have a classic case of confusing price and value.

      Price is determined by the market. Value is not. Perhaps the most valuable thing on the planet is air -- without it you are dead in 5 minutes. But air is free.

      This particular lesson was taught to me by an SOB of a VP, but a shrewd businessman.

  • As flattering a photo of RMS as there'll ever be (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:02AM (#9302754)
    ...can be found here [linuxinsider.com] (it's inlined in the article). Not bad, for RMS. He kinda looks Jedi-ish. Or like a philosophical gnu ;)

  • Samizdat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Naked Chef ( 626614 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:04AM (#9302764)
    Nice title for the book... So the author's implication is that open source is also communist?

    Yeah, because doing something for the betterment of society without wanting to get rich off of it is just un-American...

    • Re:Samizdat? (Score:5, Informative)

      by psavo ( 162634 ) <psavo@iki.fi> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:32AM (#9302999) Homepage

      get lost, ignoramus.

      samizdat means 'selfpublishing', having nothing to do with communism. It was 'invented' in a communist country, but it's as well employed everywhere where an author can't get published.

    • Nice title for the book... So the author's implication is that open source is also communist?

      No, he just likes the way it looks like "Same-as-that". Hee, hee, get it?

    • Re:Samizdat? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:35AM (#9303036)
      'Yeah, because doing something for the betterment of society without wanting to get rich off of it is just un-American...'

      It's especially humorous (in a sad way) as one of Alexis de Tocqueville's (the French author, not the intitution) main, favorable points about the US was the rich fabric of volunteerism, community spirit, and neighbourliness.

    • Re:Samizdat? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) *
      The opposite, I suspect: Brown's implication is that his "report" is "samizdat" aimed at the oppressive power of"communist" Linux. (Remember that the original samizdat was underground anti-Communist writing in the USSR.) This is a favorite tactic of extremists, particularly those on the right wing: painting themselves as heroic rebels speaking the truth to power, even when in fact (as is clearly the case in M/i/c/r/o/s/o/f/t/ AdTI vs. Linux) they hold most of the cards. Cf. Christian fundamendalists in
    • Yeah, because doing something for the betterment of society without wanting to get rich off of it is just un-American...

      Umm, Generally I would say that statement is closer to true than false.

    • Actually, it's a reference to the fact that no reputable publisher would actually publish this tripe.

  • Root Mean Square (Score:3, Funny)

    by bobbabemagnet ( 247383 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:12AM (#9302815)
    Am I the only one that thinks of Root Mean Square when I see RMS? I mean, math is way less confusing than Stallman can be.

  • Ken will make loads of cash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:14AM (#9302829)
    Ken Brown will make lots of money from this book because of the massive free publicity.

    I hope the mainstream media's reviewers of this book are decent enough to mention that EVEN THE AUTHOR OF MINIX disagrees completely that Linux is a ripoff of Minix.

    *Sigh* but he'll make money anyway. Sucks that you can proclaim a big lie and make mad cash from it.

    • Re:Ken will make loads of cash (Score:5, Interesting)

      by peeping_Thomist ( 66678 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:18AM (#9302869)
      Ken Brown will make lots of money from this book because of the massive free publicity.

      I doubt it. It's being published through Booksurge.com, a vanity publisher.
    • Doesn't any of these apply. Seems you can't really make much money off a big lie if that big lie happens to be about somebody else and you get sued for it. I hate lawyers, but this sounds like a good time to call one.

      Problem is, that so much crap like this floats around, Linus et al are probably just used to ignoring it. Sometimes though I wish they'd step up and show that not all actions are without consequence.

  • Open source accountabilit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DuncanE ( 35734 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:18AM (#9302868) Homepage
    One thing that stood out to me in this article:

    "Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."

    Why?

    Why do open source projects have to prove this for each piece of code? Proprietary projects dont have to do this right? But open source projects always have the code available for the world to check over.

    Surely Linus should just accept any code and leave it up to any companys who own and IP it may infringe on to chase it up? Thats why we have patents, copyright etc right?

    I cant believe that the SCO lawsuit and MS FUD has lead to this... extra work for Linus.... he should be left to concentrate on producing kernel code not dealing IP issues.

    Fine, MS can continue to charge as much as they like for their OS, but from now on it should include the source code so we can check the codes "origins".
    • One thing that stood out to me in this article:

      "Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."

      This stood out to me too. Anyone else think that Brown is going to use this piece of information to say that Linus knew the process was flawed before, and that he needed to do this to clean it up? He didn't do it before Brown announced his book, so it must be direct result of that. So Linux was

    • Surely Linus should just accept any code and leave it up to any companys who own and IP it may infringe on to chase it up? Thats why we have patents, copyright etc right?
      It's generally better to avoid being sued. However, there will almost certainly be more Linux IP lawsuits, and with the certification system, when the suit comes along, Linus can at least say that he's made a big effort to prevent IP infringement, which should win some sympathy from the court.

    • "...Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."

      Why? [...] Proprietary projects dont have to do this right?

      Are you kidding me? Of course they have to. What matters is the license of the original code, not the project it's being copied into. If the license of the original code allows it, it's fine. If not, then you can't copy it, whether you're working on an open source project or not.

      But open source projects always have the c

      • Hmmm...

        But if Im a Microsoft OS coder and I contribute some code to the NT Kernel no one will know if I stole it from somewhere. Microsoft doesn't verify each of its coders contributions yeah?

      • Re:Open source accountabilit (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Com'on you haven't been long in software industry (long) as it seems, or your working for a very exemplary employer.

        Believe my I worked some years in software development for a variety of midsize firms. In all of them we occasionally stole code from here and there. Sometimes from competitors, where some renegade brought a copy of the repository, sometimes example code without actually having a license, or we even integrated GNU-code, nobody ever discovered, how should they ever notice?

        The urge is just so

      • Re:Open source accountabilit (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If you think commercial code is in any way clean, you have never worked on commercial code.

        The code monkey is going to copy any code they have access to in order to get their job done.

        I can guarantee you that plagarisim in commercial code is hundreds or thousands of times higher than in open-source. For the simple reason that it is hidden.

        I'm posting anonymously because I have done it too, at two different companies, with code from an earlier employer. I have also written oss and I did NOT plagarize that

      • Re:Open source accountabilit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:51AM (#9304003) Homepage
        Are you kidding me? Of course they have to.


        Ummm ... are you saying that closed source/commercial developers need to provide a note from mommy that we did in fact write the code when we insert it? Where would this be?

        I've been doing this stuff for 10 years, and I've never had to demonstrate that I didn't steal the code from some unlicensed place.

        There isn't someone in our legal department who occasionally comes along and insists I check my algorithms for IP infringement or anything like that.

        While it's harder to detect in closed source, I'd be awful surprised if software houses routinely audited their own code to make sure they know where it comes from.

        Quite frankly, I don't see how it is any different for OSS stuff -- more transparency is all you really get.

        As far as your asertion that closed source shops need to (or do) know the original attribution of all lines of code ... not hardly.

  • The whole point was to "clone" unix (Score:3, Informative)

    by katorga ( 623930 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:20AM (#9302880)
    What is the big deal here? From my reading of the history of Linux and the statements of Torvalds, the entire point of linux was to reverse engineer Unix so that Torvalds could have an affordable personal unix.

    That was also the point behind the development of Minix as well.

    Bear in mind that at the time Unix licenses cost many thousands of dollars.
    • Torvolds wrote Linux so that he, and everybody else, could have an affordable Unix like operating system they could actually use.

      Tannenbaum wrote Minix so that his students (and Apprentice-Hall customers) could have an affordable Unix like operating system they could learn from.

      Big difference.

  • Consistent (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hardgeus ( 6813 )
    Ahh, in this world of uncertainty at least you can count on good old Stallman to filter EVERY SINGLE THING that ever happens through the Linux vs. GNU/Linux argument.
    • Can you name ONE SINGLE THING that RMS has predicted years before it happen, that had gone wrong?

      Did he not say before that the Linux generalization term will confuse and will be used by the proprietary companies to muddy their not so just arguments against the GNU/Linux OS?

      Did he not say before that patents are an Evil Thing(tm)?

      Did he not forsee the abuse the BSD license will get from uncrupulous coporate entities, producing the GPL?

      Tell me, mister wise guy, where RMS has said something wrong about wh
    • Which is a valid comparison to make when responding to someone's FUD where GNU and Linux are badly mixed. It is GNU + Linux anyway.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:32AM (#9303754)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • OK, last week we all learned that Brown is ignorant and his book is, at best, FUD. Then we got to learn it again, when Andy Tanenbaum spoke up, and we got some comments for Linus too. Now we get to learn it again from RMS.

    I don't care if the Pope speaks out about this book -- we've beaten this dead horse enough.

  • Boggles The Mind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsd4me ( 759597 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:22AM (#9302900)

    The thing that boggles my mind about all of this is that it seems like Brown thinks or wants to convince others that Linux ``magically'' appeared in a robust form.

    I started using Linux in December 1991 with version 0.11. Stable and mature aren't quite the words I would use for that version, especially when you consider that I had to reinstall it about twice a day and it didn't even have login or a proper shutdown command.

    • I second that. I first got into Linux back in the day with an old Slackware version that I found one nite on a BBS I used to frequent.

      I seem to recall it taking me nearly three weeks of downloading, RTFMing, asking questions and other such things before I could get it installed. And then it was only moderately useful at that point.

      My next foray into Linux wasnt until the Red Hat 5.x group (5.2 being my first return to Linux). That was only marginally better, but at least it had the benefit of a decent

    • Re:Boggles The Mind (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:38AM (#9303838)
      To me, the really boggling thing is that Ken Brown says that Linux must have been stolen from Minix because one man couldn't do it, yet overlooks the fact that Minix was a one man show.

      I'm sorry but Ken Brown is a dirtbag.

      • Re:Boggles The Mind (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MrCreosote ( 34188 )
        '..Linux must have been stolen from Minix..'

        I wonder if Ken Brown actually stopped to consider what the original purpose of Minix was?

        It was to *TEACH*SOMEONE*HOW*AN*OPERATING*SYSTEM*WORKS*!!!

        How can you accuse someone of using a teaching tool to understand the principles, and then using those principles in their own work, of 'stealing ideas'?

        You might as well accuse everyone who ever went to school or university of stealing the ideas from their teachers or professors.

        I think I will write a paper ex

  • Irrelevant tripe... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:24AM (#9302917) Homepage Journal
    although I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two.

    So why does it matter?

    Why should we even bother reading such FUD if we already know the author doesn't posses the capability to make a reasoned argument? And whose fault is it if we get mad at what they say?

    It is pieces like this which say far more about Microsoft than they do about Linux. This is as bad as people criticizing Microsoft carte-blanche with no rationale whatsoever.

    I suppose these articles are useful as flame-fodder, but they do very little toward actually providing enlightment concerning the issues facing both Windows and Linux.

  • Interesting new followup on Tanenbaum's page (Score:5, Interesting)

    by colinleroy ( 592025 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:24AM (#9302919) Homepage
    A. Tanenbaum has recently posted an email he received. Interesting stuff, in which you'll discover the way K. Brown does his analysis.
    stuff here [cs.vu.nl]

  • When I first saw this title... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:25AM (#9302930)
    ... I thought it was going to be a WWF match. I could only imagine what the commentary would sound like with interviews from their sponsors/trainers.

  • Creative Perspective (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sciop101 ( 583286 )
    "Software is a creative work (RMS agrees), the disposition of which rightfully belongs in the hands of the creator or their employer (RMS turns red and starts screaming, because useful creations like a home improvement TV show, how-to book, or software program, morally belong to the collective). I believe the decision to donate code for the public good is an altruistic act, not a moral imperative, and a choice deserving admiration, not expectation."
    • http://findu.com

    Another software writer's perspective o

  • Confusion (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kevin7kal ( 698673 )
    It is clear that Brown is doing one of two things. Trying to dumb things down for the non-*nix savvy, or trying to propigate negative opinions for the pervayours of Open Source. Both will cause problems for the Open Source community. People who read dumbed down versions of any subject, will end up more confused than if they read a detailed version but can only digest a few sentences or paragraphs. Having someone who is propigating misinformation about a subject, again underminds the proper understandin

  • What I truly wish: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:34AM (#9303029) Journal
    I wish that Linus, Tannenbaum and the whole damn FSF crew would finally go see a lawyer and sue these people for libel. Given that both Tannenbaum and Linus agree on this point they might even be able to subpoena Alexis de Fuckville's mail correspendence with repsect to Microsoft.

    I pray for this, in all honesty.

  • Ken Brown is an Intellectual Property Pirate! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by corporatemutantninja ( 533295 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:00AM (#9303332)
    New flash: Ken Brown didn't invent his book! He may have "written" it but he didn't invent it! It's simply impossible that somebody could invent a new language and a new vocabulary in the 6 months it took him to write that book.

    Want proof? In the entire review copy there isn't A SINGLE WORD that hasn't been used by other writers, sometimes writing on the VERY SAME TOPICS that Ken Brown writes on.

    By the way, I'm trying to be "Insightful" more than "Funny"....

  • Astroturf de Tocqueville Institute (Score:5, Informative)

    by x1048576 ( 268000 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:21AM (#9303616) Homepage
    As part of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement [philipmorrisusa.com] Philip Morris (PM) agreed to release millions of documents about their operations. These detail how ADTI was hired by PM to conduct a public relations campaign against the Clinton health plan in 1994. ADTI provided PM with regular progress reports to prove that PM was getting value for its money, so they also let us see how these campaigns are conducted.

    The Clinton plan included an increase in taxes on cigarettes from 24c per pack to 99c. Understandably, PM was not in favour of this, so a Philip Morris executive suggested an astroturf campaign [unsw.edu.au], writing to one of his people:

    Having just read the Washington Post with a series of provocative articles about Canada cutting taxes, CBO estimating higher costs AND job loss from the Clinton plan and then our old favourite, former president current homebuilder, Jimmy Carter explaining why higher taxes will help tobacco farmers, it occurred to me that we ought to turn a few of our better letter writers loose to blitz the targeted states with letters to the editor about Clinton, Carter and Canada...
    If you want some astroturfing done, who you gonna call? The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute [unsw.edu.au]:
    David N & I think the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute is perfect for this kind of thing. We are working with them on a proposal.
    And here is their proposal [unsw.edu.au]:

    Our three key executives, Cesar Conda, Bruce Bartlett and myself, will run this campaign and we will devote the full energies of our operation and its consultants to this task. We plan to activate our key Advisory Board Members, including Jack Kemp, Robert Kasten, Dick Armey, Michael Boskin and others to mount a public awareness campaign immediately (see enclosed list of Center on Regulation and Economic Growth participants).

    As you can see from our press in recent months, we are in a position to deliver. We would like to request $60,000, or $30,000 a month, to implement this program.

    And over the next two months ADTI ran a PR campaign against the Clinton plan. For the benefit of PM they documented all their activities. All the details are here [unsw.edu.au].

  • Poorly written article (Score:5, Funny)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:26AM (#9303670)
    I thought my writing and grammar were bad.

    Wow.

    Lisa Stapleton should consider a night course or two if she continues to write professionally.

    Steve

  • "He couldn't have done this work..." (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @03:46PM (#9307983) Journal
    What makes me laugh out loud is the faulty assumption that Linus could not have accomplished the job independently, due to his inexperience.

    I once wrote a paper in a College English course that my professor put on the rounds with the other department teachers, as an example of some outstanding work by his students. Several of the professors leveled accusations of plagiarism against me, due to my 'inexperience' I could not have possibly created such work.

    These people did not take into account that I was 28 years old at the time (I am 40 now), had been writing my whole life in and out of structured courses, and had ample time to develop my own abilities for critical thinking and composition. I ended up having to persuade them I did not plagiarise the work.

    It is interesting to me that in a professional setting no one's word has weight unless 'Doctor' precedes their name, and the burden of proof does not lay with the accusers.
    • It is interesting to me that in a professional setting no one's word has weight unless 'Doctor' precedes their name, and the burden of proof does not lay with the accusers.

      People who teach at universities are well aquainted with the phenomenon of the student who has plagiarized, but whose plagiarism cannot be conclusively demonstrated. In those cases, the faculty are forced to grade the work as though they didn't know that the student who wrote it was a plagiarist. We grit our teeth and give the grade t

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close