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.

[Golden Eagle]

Show me the code

Sorry, I wasn't in Finland 20 years ago trying to clone US software, were you?

[shadowman99]

1) The year was 1991, which by my math was not 20 years ago. An expert like you should be more precise.
2) You're the one who claims to know better than Alexey Toptygin, who was hired by Brown to do the code comparision. The proof is up to you!
3) What follows is Linus' famous first post to USENET concerning Linux. Note the bold part.
4) Go compare code now! See you later! When you prove us all wrong you can get rich in Utah! Go away now! Buh-Bye!

---

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
Keywords: 386, preliminary version
Message-ID: <1991Oct5.054106.4647@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 55


Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers? Are you without a nice project and just dying to cut your teeth on a OS you can try to modify for your needs? Are you finding it frustrating when everything works on minix? No more all- nighters to get a nifty program working? Then this post might be just for you :-)

As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers. It has finally reached the stage where it's even usable (though may not be depending on what you want), and I am willing to put out the sources for wider distribution. It is just version 0.02 (+1 (very small) patch already), but I've successfully run bash/gcc/gnu-make/gnu-sed/compress etc under it.

Sources for this pet project of mine can be found at nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) in the directory /pub/OS/Linux. The directory also contains some README-file and a couple of binaries to work under linux (bash, update and gcc, what more can you ask for :-). Full kernel source is provided, as no minix code has been used. Library sources are only partially free, so that cannot be distributed currently. The system is able to compile "as-is" and has been known to work. Heh. Sources to the binaries (bash and gcc) can be found at the same place in /pub/gnu.

ALERT! WARNING! NOTE! These sources still need minix-386 to be compiled (and gcc-1.40, possibly 1.37.1, haven't tested), and you need minix to set it up if you want to run it, so it is not yet a standalone system for those of you without minix. I'm working on it. You also need to be something of a hacker to set it up (?), so for those hoping for an alternative to minix-386, please ignore me. It is currently meant for hackers interested in operating systems and 386's with access to minix.

The system needs an AT-compatible harddisk (IDE is fine) and EGA/VGA. If you are still interested, please ftp the README/RELNOTES, and/or mail me for additional info.

I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.

I'm also interested in hearing from anybody who has written any of the utilities/library functions for minix. If your efforts are freely distributable (under copyright or even public domain), I'd like to hear from you, so I can add them to the system. I'm using Earl Chews estdio right now (thanks for a nice and working system Earl), and similar works will be very wellcome. Your (C)'s will of course be left intact. Drop me a line if you are willing to let me use your code.

Linus

PS. to PHIL NELSON! I'm unable to get through to you, and keep getting "forward error - strawberry unknown domain" or something.

[Golden Eagle]

I should have been more precise, these discussions are just so lame. The author is simply stating as in the original press clipping that Linus Torvalds did not 'invent' Linux, which after first saying it came from Santa Claus, Torvalds himself later admitted and I linked above. That is all there is to it. I did not, whatever's this author's name is did not, Bush2000, none of us said that code was stolen, and if the author had said that Torvalds would have sued him because there's no proof now, if there ever was any.

Can you not admit that Torvalds did not "invent" Linux, even though he admits it himself? If you can admit it, then good, and I have nothing else to say about the matter. If you can't, take it up with Torvalds, who admits he didn't.

One more post is all we should have to have between one another this fine evening, AFAIC.

[shadowman99]

Linus did not invent computers.
Linus did not invent the concepts underlying operating system fundamentals.
Linus did not invent UNIX. He simply observed UNIX (and obviously Minix) systems and wrote a work-alike kernel.
Linus did not invent an operating system, only a kernel. His kernel his useless without an OS.
Linus did not invent CSH, BASH, or any other command shell clone with UNIX commands.
Linus did not invent the UNIX file system.
Linus did not invent the gcc libaries used to compile code so it can run or a system with Linux.

Linus did invent his own code. Ken Brown says he didn't. And by defending Ken Brown's work, that's what you are saying as well.

Everyone here is pretty sick of your Clinton-style double speak, so I'm telling you where to look for the code, and one method you might use for comparing the two codebases.

If you choose to stick to your guns, then you better do your homework. Find where Linus stole the source code. As I said, there's a buttload of money for you in Utah if you can do it. Otherwise, be a man and admit you were wrong. Or be quiet.

[shadowman99]

"I never said that Torvalds physically copied MINIX code."

Liar. And as I challenged Golden Eagle, show me the code.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1139164/posts?page=426#426

Some Notes on the "Who wrote Linux" Kerfuffle, Release 1.2
Posted by Bush2000 to antiRepublicrat
On News/Activism 05/27/2004 10:46:53 AM CDT #426 of 456

(antirepublicrat) "Linus wrote it himself, the owner of the supposedly copied code claims Linus wrote it himself. End of case."

(Bush2000) With one hand on the keyboard and the other hand sifting through somebody else's code.

[Golden Eagle]

I'm not as radical as you seem to think, I agree with most all of your stuff there. I haven't seen where this guy Brown says Torvalds "stole" code, like you said he did, nor have I seen that accusation any where in the respected press. Is there a link somewhere to this book or is it only for sale? Where does this Brown guy say code was "stolen". My only point is it was based on good ole American Unix, if you get that point you get mine.

[shadowman99]

Ping. Let's discredit these trolls right now.

[Knitebane]

I should have been more precise, these discussions are just so lame.

It's not the discussions that are lame.

[Golden Eagle]

Look I'm signing off for the holiday weekend here in a sec. Where does Brown say that Torvalds "stole" Linux. I haven't seen that anywhere. I see lots of people saying he didn't steal it, i.e. copy exact syntax, but I haven't seen where this guy Brown or anyone else said exact code was copied. If you find it, anywhere, let me know. Thx.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You are doing great.

From your post #22:

__________________________________________________________________

Sources for this pet project of mine can be found at nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) in the directory /pub/OS/Linux. The directory also contains some README-file and a couple of binaries to work under linux (bash, update and gcc, what more can you ask for :-). Full kernel source is provided, as no minix code has been used. Library sources are only partially free, so that cannot be distributed currently. The system is able to compile "as-is" and has been known to work. Heh. Sources to the binaries (bash and gcc) can be found at the same place in /pub/gnu.

That would seem to knock down any arguments that Linus used Minix code.

[Bush2000]

Liar. And as I challenged Golden Eagle, show me the code.

You obviously don't understand the difference between copying and adaptation.

[Bush2000]

Linus did invent his own code.

If you can call reading somebody else's code, sucking out all of their ideas, and writing your own version.

[Bush2000]

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?

Except the filesystem and other common data structures, which is tooth and nail MINIX.

[shadowman99]

Except the filesystem and other common data structures, which is tooth and nail MINIX Posix, an open family of standards.

[Bush2000]

You don't seem to get this. Torvalds had the MINIX sources. No, he didn't take the source code, copy them over to a "LINUX" folder, change all of the copyright notices, and call it a day. That's what Torvalds means when he says he didn't "use" the MINIX sources. But he most certainly extracted the concepts embodied in those sources -- and couldn't have produced his own kernel without that information. Torvalds is not an inventor. He's an adapter. And, if you've been paying attention to what he says, you'd realize that...

Unix, he said, did provide ideas: "Linux has always credited Unix. There has never been any question about the fact that Linux was very open about taking a lot of good ideas from Unix." "I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word," Torvalds said, to describe his role in Linux.

[Bush2000]

Except the filesystem and other common data structures, which is tooth and nail MINIX Posix, an open family of standards.

Phew. For a second there, I thought you were trying to split hairs over where he borrowed ideas from. MINIX, Posix, it really doesn't matter. Torvalds ain't the "inventor" of Linux.

[Southack]

So did MS hire Christopher Corrado of AT&TW/WIPRO/Merril or not?

[Bush2000]

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're actually trying to sell the BS that Torvalds had no choice but name the code after himself?!? Oh, puh-lease. Hilarious. Talk about ridiculous lies.

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

Another lie. Read what Tanenbaum says...

"Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book [Operating Systems: Design and Implementation"], was running Minix and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book)."

Now read the Wiki page on MINIX:

Minix was written by Andrew Tanenbaum from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands as an appendix or example in the book "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation", ISBN 0-13-637331-3. An abridged 12000 lines of source code of the kernel, memory manager, and file system is printed in the book; it is mostly written in C.

So, you see, you've been caught in a lie. Torvalds had the book and, thus, he had 12000 lines of MINIX source code. Not remarkably, his kernel incorporates concepts from this source code, such as the filesystem, source tree, etc.

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.

Great, we're making progress: You finally admit that Torvalds isn't the inventor of Linux. And it only took you several dozen posts to admit it. Congratulations.

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.

He couldn't have written his kernel without getting help; that is, consulting other implementations, such as MINIX.

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

Fine, so he's merely a MINIX parasite.

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.

I've been very clear about saying that he wrote the code. See #8. Invent another strawman.

Weaseling won't work. You claimed the code was copied and supported Brown's claim of the same.

WTF about #8 don't you understand?!?

"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."

You let your love for Microsoft and hatred of Linux suck you into believing Brown's hack job.

This has nothing to do with Microsoft. Stop changing the subject.

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.

Again, stay on topic. The reason this is an issue is that you clowns basically canonized Torvalds as some kind of can-do-no-wrong saint, who "invented" Linux from his college dorm. We now know this isn't true. Torvalds consulted the MINIX book and had a significant amount of kernel source code at his disposal.

[Bush2000]

So did MS hire Christopher Corrado of AT&TW/WIPRO/Merril or not?

Did Keyser Soze exist or not?

[Nick Danger]

Torvalds ain't the "inventor" of Linux.

Do you have a point here? Let us stipulate for argument's sake that you and the other Microsoft Wives have destroyed the personal reputation of one Linus Torvalds and left him in a steaming pile on the wharf, as any good professional thugs might.

OK, now what? What does this have to do with anything?