Linus Defends Proprietary File Formats [Updated] 665
Simon (S2) writes "Torvalds launched a blast against OpenOffice.org, and defended Microsoft's right to keep its binary Office formats proprietary. 'I'm happy with somebody writing a free replacement for Microsoft Office. But I'm not fine with them writing a free replacement just by reverse engineering the proprietary formats,' said the Linux founder. 'Microsoft has its own reasons for keeping them proprietary, and I can't argue with that.'
At the heart of Torvalds' decision to refrain from using Bitmover's BitKeeper source code management tool last week, a day after BitKeeper decided to drop its limited functionality free client, is a dispute between BitKeeper developer Larry McVoy and Samba developer Andrew 'Tridge' Tridgell. It has subsequently emerged that Tridgell was working on a clean room reverse engineered implementation of McVoy's proprietary software, and Torvalds has come down on the side of his friend McVoy." Update: 04/13 17:24 GMT by T : As reader Daniel Callahan points out, this is a goof. "The Register article made up the Torvalds quote. The article offers the quote
and then continues: 'Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up. But what Torvalds really
did say this weekend is only slightly less bizarre.'"
Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Informative)
The only addition is the false quote from Linus, I think it is pretty unforgivable that CowboyNeal would put a deliberately false quote in the blurb of a story, but its not surprising given that slashdot editors really don't appear to give a flying fuck any more (even after I sent an email to the "on duty editor" after seeing this in the "mysterious future").
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, editors need to keep tabs, but asshat submitters need to shape up as well.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, /. .. I rely on you people!
Go back to Pipedot. (Score:5, Funny)
it's misleading stories like this that make me want to switch my homepage from /. to Foxnews. At least there I KNOW every article is a slanted half-truth.
It's called /. because the / is slanted, just like the news. If you want straight news without a pro-commons slant, go to Pipedot.
My God, That Explains Everything! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More baseless FoxNews bashing from liberals (Score:4, Interesting)
Start here. [mediamatters.org]
Some choice selections:
Shall I go on?
Re:More baseless FoxNews bashing from liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Media Research Center. [mediaresearch.org] Look, now the bias horserace is neck-and-neck!
Fox's "bias" is usually shown to exist because they don't automatically assume that Republicans are inherently evil. Also, it's worth noting that at least part of your examples come from editorial opinion-type shows. Holding Fox as a whole responsible for bias in an opinion show is silly. I'd say "stupid", but that would make me biased.
Re:More baseless FoxNews bashing from liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. About the only thing sillier than that would be an obviously biased network calling itself "fair and balanced" every 3 minutes through those viciously conservative opinion shows. Oh wait...
(Sorry, everyone besides Fox's Fanboys knows their biased. What angers so many is that they constantly claim not to be what they obviously are, and that indicates a level of arrogance that many find distasteful.)
Re:More baseless FoxNews bashing from liberals (Score:3, Interesting)
Careful with those quotation marks, your bias is showing. As I write this, the front page of Media Matters has articles about MSNBC, ABC & CBS. However, I can find no mention of Fox News on your MRC link. Is the FNC exempt from this "liberal media" moniker?
Also, it's worth noting that at least part of your examples come from editorial opinion-type shows. Holding Fox as a whole responsible for bias in an opinion
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason that PBS and NPR historically must struggle to survive, while the Dr. Phils of the world turn into megamillionaires. There just aren't enough smart people to go around, and the dumb ones multiply faster than the smart ones to boot.
So congratulations, stupids, you're extinguishing your best hope for long-term survival. Who wants their kids to get physics degrees, when everybody else's kids are becoming latte-slurping pinheads
with MBAs?
At least you can take solace in the probability that when the end comes, you'll probably all be - statistically speaking - too stupid to realize it.
"Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!"
More Decent Submitters, then (Score:4, Insightful)
Then submit unasshatted stuff yourself. You have the opportunity to fix something that annoys you, so do so.
Re:More Decent Submitters, then (Score:4, Funny)
Re:More Decent Submitters, then (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Interesting)
So what do I recommend? Nothing, really. The editors, if they wish, could work a lot harder to verify the summaries, and Slashdot would be somewhat more valuable. Or they can continue to do what they do and trust their readers to figure it out. If they do, I'll keep doing what I do, and treating each Slashdot article with a serious grain of salt until I read the original source. Which is OK with me; I get what I pay for.
Sad that in this case it comes from an actual quote from The Register, a reputable news source. They made it easy to take the quote out of context, and that's bad writing. I'd expect to see this from J. Random Blogger and repeated on Slashdot, and I'm disappointed to see it in The Register.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. They did it for effect, it's a question of style.
I don't think it's fair to require that writers do all kinds of things to avoid their writing being "easy to take out of context". Good writing usually isn't easy to take out of context, sure, but I think journalists ought to be allowed to pull the sort of things that the Register pulled here.
At some point you have to just force someone to accept responsibility for what's being resyndicated and RTFA in its entirety.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think Slashdot is above that kind of behavior.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
So I slap the wrist of The Register for screwing up, and further for putting the retraction AFTER the advertisement (though I don't know if that was deliberate or not.) Both Slashdot and the poster also screwed up, but The Reg is the one who really blew it, IMHO.
Would I love it if Slashdot took responsibility? Sure. But I'm not going to expect it, so I live with it. I haven't got any "force" to apply except voting with my feet, and I like Slashdot too much (warts and all) to do that.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Informative)
Yes you are. I was editing a book some years ago and the author was apparently taking delight at quoting grammatical mistakes his non-English speaking subjects made, which I thought a cheap shot. Looking up some reputable texts on journalism supported my view that minor errors can be silently corrected in quotes unless it's from a published text, and this is common practice. Actually listen to what someone says in an interview and compare with a written article -- you won't see the "ums" and false starts that almost everyone makes, unless they're trying to make the subject look like an idiot. Of course, trying to make any sense of what GWB says off the cuff may require more than that.
Both Slashdot and the poster also screwed up, but The Reg is the one who really blew it, IMHO.
I don't know if you're a regular reader of the Reg, but pisstakes are a feature of their writing. Their logo is a vulture; their slogan is "Biting the hand that feeds IT". They don't post lies but they sometimes do sex things up a bit. The poster is obviously a troll, he knew what he was doing. However, there is no excuse at all for Cowboy Neal. The "we just made that quote up" is prominently in the third paragraph. CN is just lazy and sloppy, like they all seem to be now. They collect a salary for editing this, they should be ashamed. But they're not -- I've sent several messages to him via the editor's address on similar issues, and they all bounce, he doesn't even want to know when he fucks up.
Lets have a vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
BitKeeper
Samba
That was great!
Now, who has devoted more time, energy and resources to community development of software?
BitMovers
The Samba Team
You know, I think you really have this thing down by now. Last one:
Who would you rather be stuck in an elevator with?
Larry McVoy
Andy Tridgell
Wow! 100%
I'm sure glad that Andy did raise his hand in class and ask to go to the potty in Professor Bill Gates' class. And I have to wonder how many Samba installations are cooking on the machines of BitKeeper employees.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and thanks to the wonders of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
This story should be yanked now.
Re:Yes, and thanks to the wonders of Google (Score:3, Insightful)
While the blurb and quote are false, the headline actually isn't. Linus' stance in against Tridge is essentially him defending proprietary formats against reverse engineering.
The headline is not false (Score:5, Insightful)
The proprietary file format in question is that of BitKeeper; Tridge reverse-engineered it so that people can have access to their own data when BitMover pulls the plug on the free-as-in-beer BitKeeper (which hadn't happened yet at the time he did it, but which was inevitable as Larry kept changing the license and threatening people with losing their rights to use the software). Linus sided with Larry, despite the fact that Linux, GNU, Samba, and everything else we run has had to rely on reverse engineering of proprietary formats, devices, and protocols since forever just to function.
Re:The headline is not false (Score:5, Insightful)
Enlighten me here... Linus focuses on Linux. He doesn't work on Samba, WINE, or anything else that attempts to emulate something else in order to function. He doesn't really even reverse engineer (to my knowledge) any specific flavor of Unix. He just works on improving Linux.
The heart of this conflict is the idea of using reverse engineering to ride on the research and development of an industry player who has chosen to remain proprietary in order to compete with that entity. Granted, defending against this is really the domain of patents, but I think I understand where Linus is coming from here by defending Larry.
To answer to your examples - Samba was needed to get interoperation with the product of a company that exerts an effective monopoly. Reverse engineering of existing device drivers has been done in order to interoperate with those drivers, not compete with those driver makers.
BitKeeper has no monopoly. It may in fact be THE best of breed implementation, but that's irrelevant. Samba had to be done. A reverse-engineering of the BitKeeper protocol just to save time on developing a good approach using OSS is an endeavor with questionable ethical status and really isn't necessary. Also, reverse engineering BitKeeper just so people can access the data is obviated by the fact that they can (someone correct me here if I'm wrong as I haven't tried this myself) use CVS instead to access that data. BitKeeper doesn't need to be reverse engineered to get to the data. Right?
Now, please tell me how Linus is acting inconsistently?
In short, I would say that reverse engineering something in order to interoperate with it is a completely different ethical matter than trying to reverse engineer something in order to effectively clone it then compete with it. Saying that Linus' position is "inconsistent" because he does not approve of all uses of reverse engineering does not show an appreciation of the fact that not all uses of reverse engineering are ethically equivalent (just as not all uses of firearms, chemicals, matches, etc. are ethically equivalent).
If one of the goals of OSS is to effectively steal the R&D of industry players, then it will receive the fate it would so richly deserve. But, if the goals of OSS include making established non-novel technologies widely available to everyone (e.g. Linux), or even promoting new R&D to create new novel technologies (e.g. BitTorrent), it will thrive and be better than what could possibly be achieved in a proprietary environment.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, I did the same thing. Appearently they just don't care.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:3, Funny)
Eh, it's all in the comments. (Score:3, Interesting)
But still, I come here for the comments.
Subscription money doesn't go to the commenters, it goes to the editors---who don't even bother to edit. Why send
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
In this reframing: Linus has clearly come down against reverse-engineering. TFA is further correct in pointing out that this is inconsistent with what Linux, OpenOffice, gcc, and a bunch of other open source projects are all about.
So, Linus is inconsistent and chose to side with his friend over his principles in this case. I can understand that even if I don't agree with it. Even Linus is entitled to make mistakes now and then
Regards,
Ross
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they have to be based entirely on reverse-engineering to qualify as being reverse-engineered? How about if they qualify as benefitting from reverse engineering? I don't differentiate between those two levels of reverse engineering. I also think that reverse engineering is good for competition and the markets in which you and I make economic decisions.
Tridgell reverse engineered something that already had a capable and popular client on Linux,
You and Linus appear to have a problem with that, but for the life of me, I can't see what it might be. Reverse engineering a duplicate of a working existing product is legal, ethical, and highly beneficial to free markets (whether open or closed source).
as someone said in the last story, Tridgells main reason was to circumvent the license for Bitkeeper.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but why else would he put the time and effort into such a project? He wanted an open-source alternative to a closed-source tool that he didn't want to have to use. So he reverse-engineered an implementation of the client to achieve that goal.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Also seems pretty ethical and completely legal.
Regards,
Ross
How else do you get device drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personnaly don't have much respect for the reverse engineer
If you do not respect reverse engineers, then you do not respect the people who bring you the documentation necessary to add support for new hardware in operating systems published by entities other than Microsoft Corporation and Apple Computer Inc. Why do you want GNU/Linux and *BSD to have poor hardware support?
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't heard Tridge's exact words on the subject, but what little I have heard suggests that he didn't particularly care about Bitkeeper's great features and he wasn't trying to write a replacement for the entire Bitkeeper system. He was just writing a replacement for the non-OSS Bitkeeper client - and purely so he and/or others could interact with other developers on Linux kernel development without being several technological steps behind.
The fact that the non-OSS Bitkeeper client had a morally repugnant license was probably a major reason that Tridge thought this a worthwhile project.
Everything I've heard so far indicates that Tridge was doing nothing more than the OpenOffice.org and /or Abiword developers do in reverse-engineering a closed file format, thus enabling people to access their own goddamn data if they cannot (for whatever reason) use the "usual" software. For example, if you're running Linux on PPC hardware, you can't run Microsoft Office and so you can't access information locked up in Microsoft Word documents from that platform - or at least you can't without the open-source applications that have (mostly) reverse-engineered that file format.
And if you're a Linux kernel hacker and you want to develop on an equal footing with other kernel developers, but you happen to occasionally hack on source-control software too - well, you're not allowed to use the free Bitkeeper client. A roughly equivalent opensource client is your only option.
Well, aside from convincing Linus to stop using Bitkeeper :). And as that's now happened (or is in the process of happening), I think you'll find that Tridge has absolutely no interest in continuing development of his OSS bitkeeper-ish client.
I think you don't really understand why people do reverse engineering, nor what a slow and painful process it can be. People don't reverse-engineer stuff to get a cheap thrill. Writing software using your own file formats and/or your own networking protocols and/or accessing your own bits of hardware is much more fun and interesting (and productive) than reverse-engineering someone else's.
But often it can be of enormous benefit to the wider community to be able to open and modify that Microsoft Word document, or use that interesting piece of hardware, or view those Sorenson Quicktime videos, with free and open-source software. And the reverse engineers are the wonderful people who make it possible for us to do this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Informative)
No. This has nothing to do with what Open Source is all about. GCC wasn't created by examining the bytecode output of an Intel compiler. Most open-source "clone" projects are based on available documentation and end-user appearance, not examination of binary data.
Linus is in favor of implementing available standards in a free and open manner. He is not in favor of reverse-engineering someone elses implementation against their wishes.
There is no inconsistency to be found.
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct, but there are many open source projects that rely on reverse-engineering to duplicate the features of another system, which is why I said, "...a bunch of other open source projects..." and didn't claim the value for open source as a whole.
GCC wasn't created by examining the bytecode output of an Intel compiler.
True, but several of the optimizations that used to be found only in commercial compilers were figured out through a reverse-engineering process.
[Linus] is not in favor of reverse-engineering someone elses implementation against their wishes.
1) When would anyone ever be in favor of someone else reverse-engineering their work?
2) Linus is inconsistent with his principles.
3) Linus is inconsistent with current law and the current ethics surrounding reverse engineering.
4) Linus is going after the wrong guy. He should be acknowledging that his decision to go with BitKeeper was always at odds with much of the Linux development community and was bound to eventually blow up in his face. Which it has.
As it turns out, all of these things are okay. Linus seems to have some very good skills that, along with the work of other kernel developers, benefit millions of people every day. This doesn't mean that he should be infallible or that anyone should take his advice when he speaks outside his area of expertise. As for the ill-fated decision to go with BitKeeper, there was value, but there is now cost.
Regards,
Ross
Nope (Score:3, Informative)
Proprietary software developers also engage in reverse engineering. It's completely legal if done in a way that complies with the license (Tridge, th
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot's new slogan: "News for the Naive. Stuff that's made up." (attributed to slashdot editors as reported on slashdot)
Re:Dupe and a lie (Score:2)
The only reason VA pays these idiots is to keep them from getting jobs doing actual work where they might harm someone. Sort of like the NHL.
Misleading headline... RTFA editors! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up.
Well, thanks for another misleading headline Slashdot! While I applaud your recent efforts to fix crappy editorial comments and duplicate removal you still are showing that you refuse to even read the articles that users submit. Now on to the rest of the article...
You know Linux is a clone of Unix because Linus couldn't run Unix on his 386 machine. He wasn't pleased that he couldn't do something and he worked around it. Why can't someone be displeased with other proprietary systems and create workarounds for them?
I'm preaching to the choir here but reverse engineering is a Good Thing for all communities. There is absolutely no reason that we should not support working around what others have obfusticated to make money for themselves.
Linux wouldn't have nearly the same capacity in the Windows world we live in if it wasn't for Samba. Yeah, there is NFS for Windows and various other file sharing protocols that could have been used but Samba makes it easy for anyone to fit their Unix clone right into their pre-existing Windows network without much trouble.
The free client was costing Bitmover $500,000 a year, explains McVoy. "At that point we started looking at what it would be like to discontinue the free BK.
So? It's obvious that the pay-for client offered nothing worth what you were asking if the free client can do the job. Either price properly or make the pay-for product much better. I'm not talking about crippleware or nagware. I'm talking about creating a much more superior product that entices people to buy rather than hobble along with what the free version offers.
Plenty of companies out there have been doing it just fine by basing their business model on Linux. Why can't McVoy find the same happy existence?
"What Larry is not fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what he did. Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: 'You can compete with me, but you can't do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete honestly. Don't compete by looking at my solution.'
They are competing honestly. They are doing it in a clean lab. They aren't trying to steal your code and use it themselves but they are trying to take a great idea and make it better. Welcome to the real world. Crying doesn't do anything but piss people off. Do something to your own software that will make it stay one+ steps ahead of the reverse engineered competition.
Headline is OK; quote is not (Score:5, Funny)
I say "almost made up" because it's got a grain of truth. The original quote is:
"Larry is perfectly fine with somebody writing a free replacement...What Larry is not fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what he did."
The made-up quote has the same gist, even if it's critically wrong in (a) the file format, and (b) the fact that Linus is talking about somebody else's beliefs, not his own. This gist, however, is clear that Linus believes roughly the same thing:
"It says: 'Get off my coat-tails, you free-loader'. And I can't really argue against that."
So I'd say the score is:
Headline: 1 point (for being accurate)
Summary: -2 points (for repeating a false quote without the retraction)
Submitter's final score: STFU
Slashdot: -2 point (for not verifying the quote)
Slashdot: +1 point (for the retraction on the front page)
Slashdot: +.5 point (for posting an article that's kind of interesting with an accurate headline despite a bad summary and bad editing)
Slashdot's final score: try to do better next time
Register: -2 points (for making up the quote)
Register: -1 point (for putting the retraction after the advertisement)
Register's final score: Really stupid, but they're usually reliable, so I'll let them off with a warning.
Re:Misleading headline... RTFA editors! (Score:5, Insightful)
No they're not. They're attempting to figure out how the binary behaves under all applicaple conditions, and then produce their own code that mimics that behavior. What you're describing is decompiling.
Again - no it's not. Copyright has nothing to do with actual functionality. You're confusing copyright with patents.
If you have a problem with the morality of this process, you may want to take a hard look at the IT industry. Reverse engineering has played a key role in the advancement of technology. Numerous times.
Re:Misleading headline... RTFA editors! (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, the x86 clones that are the most popular deployment platform for linux wouldn't exist at all if Compaq hadn't reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS.
Erm (Score:3, Informative)
Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up.
Sheesh.
Saving Throw... (Score:5, Funny)
Linus did NOT say that, RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
Linus never said that. From the fucking article [theregister.co.uk]:
"Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up."
Please don't put words in Linus' mouth. That's very sleazy, Mr. Andrew Orlowsk [badpress.net].
Also from the fucking article:
So is Linus going to come down hard on other efforts to create a free and open alternative to a proprietary product - say, for example, a UNIX(TM)-like operating system?
Does the author understand that this is a different situation? Linus did not reverse engineer Unix.
Re:Linus did NOT say that, RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
Clean room reverse engeneering (Score:3, Informative)
With no possibility of copyright violation. However, it could still be patent-contaminated.
Re:interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
There was no free tool to access the portions of the revision metadata that Tridge wanted (the CVS gateway exported a lot, but not everything).
Larry and Linus _did_ offer him the means to export that data in a neutral format ... but only by accepting the license and using the non-free BK tool. (Linus had written some scripts that used bk to do the export, and Larry had offered to make it a standard feature
Re:Linus did NOT say that, RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
But he did eventually get the POSIX specs, and made Linux conform with the specs.
As an interesting piece of history, here's the post [li.org] which got the ball rolling.
Re:Linus did NOT say that, RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Linus didn't snoop out undocumented proprietary formats in order to figure out how to make Linux compatible with Unix operating systems. He simply built a free operating system that conformed to the published and open Posix standards. If he had examined Solaris binaries to figure out how to make Linux a binary compatible Solaris clone, that would have been reverse engineering. Implementing a published standard is not reverse engineering.
Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Linus' opinion here. I don't think there's anything wrong with reverse engineering, as long as you don't steal trade secrets or perform some other such corporate espionage tactic to facilitate the reverse engineering. That doesn't make Linus a hypocrite, though. It just means that he's not in line with the predominate opinion in the open source world (which anyone who follows Linus' opinions already knew anyway).
Re:Linus did NOT say that, RTFA! (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep hearing this. The reverse engineering effort was done without using a copy of BitKeeper (but using files it produced, of course). As far as I can tell this means all the people saying the reverse-engineering is somehow stealing BitKeeper's id
I feel the the opposite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you get upset... (Score:5, Informative)
Were the submitter and editor confused, or are one or both intentionally trying to provoke a reaction by providing an inaccurate summary? At least the Register article has a clear "No, he really didn't say that" line. The
Interoperability? (Score:2)
Re:Interoperability? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you get interoperability without reverse-engineering?
Pick any or all of the above. Granted, RE can often be a hell of a lot faster and/or accurate.
Re:Interoperability? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ermmm.. how do you think reverse engineering works? There's buttloads of trial and metric shedloads of error.
You are correct that RE often involves trial and error. RE -> TE.
You are incorrect that TE often involves reverse engineering. TE !-> RE.
For example, you might know that the application only accepts certain types of data. One of the first trials would be sending different data types, and monitoring resulting successes and failures. There is no need to take the software apart in any way
RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
Lovely (Score:5, Insightful)
Reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
No content here, please move along (Score:2)
This points out Linus' inconsistency very well (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:This points out Linus' inconsistency very well (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish the article had spent a bit more time justifying the analogy, as you have done. The way it's written, it seems to conflate three things:
Perhaps people with more experience in writing software can correct me, but it seems like these are three distinct, inequivolent things. From what I know Linux is an example of #1; Samba, Gaim, and Open Office are examples of #1 and #2. I guess what McVoy is claiming is that Tridge is doing #3, while Bruce seems to be claiming it's actually #2. It would seem Linus can only consistently object to #3. Can one draw a clear, unambiguous division?
Re:This points out Linus' inconsistency very well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This points out Linus' inconsistency very well (Score:4, Informative)
Jeremy.
Grow up. (Score:5, Interesting)
GG (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally unforgivable! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up.
It doesn't matter how well the quote summarizes Linus' position. The Register makes it very clear that the quote is not really Linus' by denying it right afterward. Slashdot should too.
This is worst kind of out-of-context quoting I've seen in here quite a while, in a story at least. Both the submitter and CowboyNeal should apologise.
Linus never was a representative (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really care. He's a kernel engineer and as long as his kernel continues to kick ass, I'll use his software. In the same way, I don't use GNU's silly excuse for a kernel, but think a lot of their politics is insightful and their userspace software unrivalled.
Re:Linus never was a representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Ethics are hard to nail down, but Linus clearly believes that if someone gives you a gift, you don't bend them over and ram them up the rear for their generosity, even if it's perfectly legal for you to do so.
Linus also seems to believe that Tridge did the Linux community a disservice by forcing this issue when there was no open source alternative to take the place of BK.
"Captain, the ship is taking on water after the crew detonated a large explosive device in the engine room".
"Why did they do that?"
"Because they weren't american made engines"
"Well, I guess it's all right that we're sinking then, at least we don't have those damn russian engines to worry about anymore".
Brought to you by Microsoft! (Score:5, Funny)
I cant believe how dumb you guys are... (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot, the Weekly World News of tech journalism.
Re:I cant believe how dumb you guys are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. I can understand if the editors don't read an article about some guy who creates a walking robot in Japan, but really, how could they post something, anything about Linus without even taking a glance at the article?
Torvalds' Philosophy Is Consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is about reverse engineering? (Score:3, Informative)
If McVoy thinks that reverse-engineering is so 'dishonest', then why did he offer to give free tools to a worldwide project whose primary focus is to reverse-engineering an entire OS?
I'm assuming the "project" in question is the Linux kernel. Well, I'm sorry, but Linux isn't about reverse-engineering an entire OS. Which OS do they mean, anyway? Unix or Windows? In either case, they're wrong. The Linux kernel is not developed by reverse engineering some other operating system. With the exception of a couple device drivers that were designed by reverse engineering their Windows counterparts, it's completely original development. Sure, it has Unix-like behavior, but that isn't gleaned by reverse engineering.
Sounds to me like the article author has a overly broad definition of "reverse engineering".
I'm not fine wirh it (Score:3, Insightful)
Register is playing with our emotions! (Score:5, Funny)
Register Ed #2: But if the quote is fake, we can't post it!
Register Ed #1: We'll just state that it's a fake quote, right after the quote. Do you think Slashdot readers or editors actually read _complete_ articles!
Both: MUAHAHAHAAAH FOOOLS!!!
Hey Slashdot, when did you stop hosting kid porn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is
How the Register gets away with what they did is amazing. They make up an entirely fake quote, attribute it to Linus and then say, almost parenthetically, "we just made that up, he didn't really say it".
Think about it. How would like it if somebody did to you what they just did to Linus?
Shame on you Register!
Proprietary File Formats = BAD (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm working on a Digital Archiving project for a government agency. And what we have determined thusfar is that proprietary file formats are -very bad- for long term preservation.
Now, you may ask, who cares about long term preservation? To which I would respond, clearly you are not a fan of history- or at least, good history. Innocuous documents end up being primary sources! People find new uses for and interest in old documents!
Still you seeem doubtful. Fine. But, should Microsoft disappear (unlikely as it may seem) or otherwise leave us with a bunch of proprietarily-formatted files that we cant read save through- shudder- emulation of something like Windows XP, a lot of people will be unhappy. And a lot of data may not be fully recoverable.
You may say that if such things really bother people, then they should only purchase software using open standards. I sort of agree. But we are dealing with a field in which -certain- companies are convicted monopolists, so....
Proprietary formats are still the bane of my existence.
Open Source is not for everyone... (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line is that open source may one day cover all possible software need for every person, but it will come out of academia, non-profit organizations, and hobbyists. Software companies will not be the primary drive behind open source. I think Stallman has known this for a long time. And if you _do_ have, or plan to start, a software company, there is nothing wrong with keeping some parts of your code proprietary. Alternatively, just don't start a software company.
Re:Open Source is not for everyone... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe just don't start a software company that sells software instead of programming labor (i.e. contracting).
Comment from earlier Slashdot goof-ups. (Score:3, Insightful)
(This was a response to another terrible article, but reusing it saves time and energy. Dupes are a way of life on Slashdot.)
Fake Quotes Erode Trust (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong about printing a fake quote, and then admitting it's a fake?
Everything!
It's not nearly as clever as the author thinks, it's not terribly funny nor very illuminative of the issue, and it imposes a burden on the person falsely quoted.
But most of all, it erodes the trust in the publisher. Most of us have limited time, so we need to be able to assume that the publisher of a serious site tries to quote accurately. A reasonable number of mistakes are unavoidable, but unless the site is intended to be a humor site, the content must be trustworthy.
When a publisher deliberately publishes a fake quote, it doesn't help to say, "Ha-ha! Just kidding!" or "RTFA". The trust is weakened already.
What a boo-boo!
Don't you just hate it... (Score:5, Funny)
And then it turns out they were totally right, and not only does she leave you, she ends up giving you VD.
reading and writing are not the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Writing is another matter. It's not so critical. It matters only if your peers require a particular data format.
And we have our Wookie on SCOXE's CC Day (Score:4, Funny)
Reverse engineering has a strong, proud tradition. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing dishonest about looking at how someone else did something and using their ideas. If Larry Mcvoy has a problem with that, he can take the low road and apply for software patents.
Come on, mods (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus (Score:4, Insightful)
He also has a proven track record of sound common sense.
This does _not_ however imbue him with infalibility.
We have two issues, and a side point, here:
(1) is reverse engineering wrong, HELL NO, it is the basis of most human scientific progress, in fact, you do the research, publish the paper and wait for collaborators to reverse engineer aka confirm your results.
(2) are Corporations unconditionally entitled to develop, or incompatibly extend, data formats or protocols and then claim them as patents, trade-secrets, or Intellectual Property, or semble to claim Copyright protection for them HELL NO.
The side issue is, was Andrew Trigel morally entitled to take the view he did.
So, if you try to extend an existing format or protocol, if you document it it is a _derived_work_ and your publication is infringing, unless it is fair use, so the M$ Kerberos extension fails.
To have a trade secret you must keep the secret.
Reverse Engineering is legal almost everywhere.
To protect against Reverse Engineering you need a patent.
If you are a monopoly, so M$ is, and Bitmover is not, different rules apply. Sherman & Mann, acts; see existing settlement(s) and the compliance process in the US and EU.
So, if the EU requires M$ to disclose its Office Formats, for example, then that will mean that they are in the public domain and can be used anywhere, whether Linus likes it or not.
All the above, simply restate the law.
Now, as a matter of opinion, I believe Andrew was: (a) fully within his rights, and (b) the resulting furore was a consequence of Linus lack of legal and commercial accumen in accepting Larry's licence with its in-built poison pill
He should have demanded that the 'free-licence' was irrevokable and that the BK source was in escrow before confering the benefits on Bitmover.
If you work in a large company, and made that sort of mistake, you would be be big trouble.
Ban Articles from The Register! (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, this is why The Register is a dangerous source for news. NO half-decent news source would ever -- and I mean *ever* -- make up a quote from someone and then go on to say they made it up...
This stuff works (Score:3)
But nevertheless, that was how I wrote the submission and, of course, it was accepted. Kids, it's journalism. You can twist the truth in any way you want, you just need some excuse later. If you don't flat-out lie, you will be fine. And since it's Slashdot, you can probably flat-out lie, it's not like editors care.
P.S. I think this is unethical and won't do it again. There is a million other Slashdot users though.
What a bunch of hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not a saint, watching the slashdot fanboys work themselves into a lather because people are pointing out that Linus is wrong, and badly wrong, is very disapointing.
I thought you people were better than the microsofties wetting themselves over Bill Gates.
But I was wrong.
However good on the editors for being brave enough to join in the well deserved booting Linus is getting over this.
Re:RTFA - "we just made that quote up" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a sensational bull crap that... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linus is no ordinary fool. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I followed the link, I realized why that quote sounded so familiar: it's the false quote from the Reg article that I read yesterday.
So, not only is Linus no ordinary fool, but we can strike the ordinary: Linus is no fool.