Man AdTI Hired to Compare Minix/Linux Found No Copied Code (SCO vs. IBM/Linux thread)

Groklaw ^ | Thursday, May 27 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT | Pamela Jones

[shadowman99]

Man AdTI Hired to Compare Minix/Linux Found No Copied Code
Thursday, May 27 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT
Andrew Tanenbaum has published the most remarkable email from the man hired by Ken Brown to do a line-by-line comparison of Minix and Linux, Alexey Toptygin, who summarizes his findings and posts them on the Internet: "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." When he turned in his work, he had a conversation with Brown: "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. . . " Eric Raymond has also answered Ken Brown's Samizdat. Another very detailed response here, on Newsforge, by Jem Matzan. I'll end your suspense. No, they didn't like it. Matzan: "In the history of publishing there has never been a less scrupulous work than this book. It's a stinging insult to real books and genuine authors everywhere, harming the credibility of all of us who write for a living." Raymond publishes his email to AdTI, who inexplicably (unless the book is an elaborate troll) and foolishly sent him a copy to review: "Judging by these excerpts, this book is a disaster. Many of the claimed facts are bogus, the logic is shoddy, some of the people you claim to have used as important sources have already blasted you for inaccuracy, and at the end of the day you will have earned nothing but ridicule for it. . . . "The problems start in the abstract. Software is not composed of interchangeable parts that can be hodded from one project to another like a load of bricks. 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. . . . "Your account of the legal disclosure history of the Unix source code is seriously wrong. Persons authorized by AT&T did, in fact, frequently ship source tapes which contained no copyright notices — I know, because I still have some of that source code. . . . "I began reading the excerpts skeptical of the widespread conspiracy theory that this book is a paid hatchet job commissioned by Microsoft. Now I find this theory much more credible. I can't imagine how anyone would want their names on a disgrace like this unless they were getting paid extremely well for undergoing the humiliation. . . . "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. Torvalds was operating within an established tradition with well-developed expectations. "'Is it possible that building a Unix operating system really only takes a few months —and, oh by the way, you don't even need the source code to do it?' Yes, it is possible, because there are published interface standards. I might have done it myself if it had occurred to me to try — in fact, I have sometimes wondered why it didn't occur to me. "As for whether it was possible to produce Linux in the amount of time involved — it is never wise to assume that genius programmers cannot do something because the incompetent or mediocre cannot. Especially when, as in Linus's case, the genius already has a clear interface description and a mental model of what he needs to accomplish. . . . "You propose that the absence of credits to developing countries might be evidence of some sinister memory-hole effect. The true explanation is much simpler: developing countries don't have Internet. There is a straight-up geographical correlation between contributions to open-source projects and Internet penetration." There is a great deal more, and I encourage you to visit all four sites, to get the complete picture. Honestly, how incompetent must you be to think attacking Linus Torvalds' integrity is a good strategy? He is loved and admired internationally by folks who do understand the code, unlike Mr. Brown, and everyone knows such a man would never knowlingly steal anyone's code, period. Nobody else would either. It's not the FOSS way.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

[shadowman99]

SCO's (and Microsoft's) latest attack has no clothes. Sorry Bush2000, I know you had your hopes up.

[shadowman99]

Please ping your lists. Thanks.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the post and the ping.

I'll look at earlier posts and throw some names up here.

[sam_paine]

Bush2k is still here?! Bless his heart.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not many commented on this thread and it seems relevant:

SCO's Suit: A Match Made in Redmond?

[ShadowAce]

Tech SCO Ping

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ndx

[Bush2000]

I never said that Torvalds physically copied MINIX code. But he most certainly took the ideas directly from MINIX and incorporated them into his code. He didn't invent the ideas. He stood on the shoulders of giants, and then had the audacity to name Linux after himself.

[inflation]

Please name 3 original OS concepts that Microsoft invented.

[Nick Danger]

he most certainly took the ideas directly from MINIX and incorporated them into his code.

The author of MINIX says that isn't true... that the design philosophies (microkernel vs monolithic) are very different. So whom are we to believe: you, or the guy who wrote MINIX?

This is just more code-stealing FUD from the Microsoft Corporation. If you're not employed by them, why are you here selling it? This guy Brown has no credibility. He has zero background in the field, and the very people he hired, interviewed, and quoted in the book are denouncing him. This book is trash, crap, and FUD, bought and paid for by a company that finally found a competitor it can't buy, bully, copy or steal.

The only good thing about this latest piece of under-the-table sleazy BS from Microsoft is that it will be over more quickly that the last one. With Bumsteer running so late, maybe they ought to devote more resources to product development and cut back on the BS artists who slime their competitors.

[antiRepublicrat]

and then had the audacity to name Linux after himself.

Still repeating that old hash when the evidence contradicts? Remember, "Linux" was his working name. It was to be publically known as "Freax" since he thought "Linux" was too egotistical, but a friend of his used "Linux" when setting the space for the first posting to the net.

You repeat your lie even after I've already told you the truth. Outrageous from most, but expected from you. You've been defending the Brown work the whole time, and even now after its shown we were right in predicting it was a baseless hatchet job with an agenda. You supported his claim that Linux must have had stolen code because it's apparently impossible to write an OS in three months. From you:

Brown is suggesting that it is highly unlikely that Torvalds did it without consulting Unix sources.

First, Torvalds couldn't have consulted UNIX sources because he didn't have the code. He did have as an example how MINIX was built. Admittedly. No conspiracy for you and Brown, no theft, no lack of attribution since his first message stated the Minix heritage.

Tanenbaum took well over a year to write the Minix kernel. And yet we're supposed to believe that Torvalds wrote the Linux kernel in a few months. Uh uh. Sorry. Doesn't wash.

Yes, he wrote it all by himself. No one has ever called into question whether he designed the behavior and file structures because it is admittedly from MINIX. You are either arguing a point of contention that doesn't exist or you are claiming code theft.

It doesn't take a technical literate to tell that Torvalds couldn't write the Linux kernel in 3 months.

Couldn't write. As in not capable of coming up with the code to punch into the editor by himself. The only alternative i can see is stolen code.

Torvalds has denied that he used any sources to write Linux. This just isn't credible, given the brief amount of time that it took to generate that much code.

No, he admitted that his model was MINIX, but all the code is his own, confirmed by Tanenbaum and now Brown's own researcher!

And the kicker!

There's simply no way that he generated that amount of code in that short of a time period without borrowing code from other sources.

If you're the programmer you state you are, you know "Borrowed" in programming means taking it from one place and putting it in another place, and can be copyright infringement. As above, it is now proven that the code was 100% his.

Weaseling won't work. You claimed the code was copied and supported Brown's claim of the same. You let your love for Microsoft and hatred of Linux suck you into believing Brown's hack job.

Now if you're saying only that it was stolen in the sense that Torvalds learned how OSs work and learned how programming works, then you can make the same claim for almost every piece of software ever written, but I don't see you going after Microsoft of course.

[antiRepublicrat]

I know Linus Torvalds doesn't like lawsuits, especially since he admitted he had grounds to sue SCO over its current actions and stated that's not his thing.

But PLEASE let Linus sue for libel over this book.

[Golden Eagle]

We're talking 20+ years ago over in Amsterdam and Helsinki. They'll never know for sure if he ever used any Minix code at all, but either way Linux is hardly an indpendent piece of work, Torvalds will be the first to tell you this.

"I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do" - Linus Benedict Torvalds

[adam_az]

"I'm basically a deconstructionist who removes quotes from context, and subject from object." -Golden Eagle

[shadowman99]

Fine, Mr. Know-it-All. You go download a historical Linux source and compare it to the source from Minux 1, and show us the code. You know so much more than anyone else, prove it!

All of the code is out there. We're not comparing Unix to anything closed source. There's nothing hidden. All you need to do is look at Linux 1.0 or earlier, and Minux 1.

I'll even give you a hint, Mr. Windows. You might try using GREP to search for similarities in the files.

Otherwise, go drink yourself a nice tall glass of STFU.

[Golden Eagle]

"I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word," Torvalds said, to describe his role in Linux.

Looks pretty on-point to me.

[Petronski]

LOL

I guess the astroturf crowd will be down to 'look and feel.' LOL

[Petronski]

BOLROFLOL

[Golden Eagle]

As I have said repeatedly, we're talking 20+ years ago over in Amsterdam and Helsinki. We'll probably never know for sure if he ever used any Unix or Minix code at all, but either way Linux is hardly an independent piece of work, Torvalds will be the first to tell you this. To deny it is to deny the real American ingenuity that was used to develop Unix in the first place.

[shadowman99]

Not good enough. I just gave you links to the code.

Show me the code, little man!