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.

[Bush2000]

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

Read #32. You have a ridiculously narrow interpretation of what "used" constitutes.

[Bush2000]

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

Think of it as taking out the garbage, Nick. Linux advocates let it pile up, they sprayed perfume all over it, but it still stinks to high heaven.

[Golden Eagle]

Here's the problem...these stupid Groklaw parent articles on FR. Is that not a forum itself? Why do we need links to another message board created as a new thread over here? Can these people not go over there and post to their hearts content without creating a duplicate here?

If they have some new breaking information, from a respectable source, then fine, but this is at least two Groklaw duplicates over here and how many threads on this already. This needs to go under one of the existing threads, if anywhere at all.

[shadowman99]

We're all driving around in cars that owe a fundamental design to Henry Ford. But if you disassemble your car, strike molds off of all the parts, and start selling copies, you will find out very quickly (from lawyers) that your car has unique (in a legal and a patent sense) parts.

That doesn't mean you can't go to school and study cars and learn how to design, build, or maintain a car. You will learn this skill by (gasp!) learning about existing cars. And you will learn that at the end of the day, there are only so many ways to design an oil pan.

Dittos for computer software and Operating Systems.

Computers do very few things when you boil it down. They take input, process it, and generate output.

Because Operating Systems often manage identical key tasks, they are going to have design similarities. Sometimes these similarities are known as "standards". Can you say that, boys and girls?

Unix inspired five or six independant clones prior to Linux. These clones are all based off of an open, public standard - Posix. While these Operating systems are similar because they follow a standard, that doesn't make any of these programmers into thieves.

Linus wrote his own code. He also followed stardards. Whether you feel like he's an inventor is your own choice. But if you want to suggest he didn't invent Linux, I'd like for you to consider this:

Henry Ford simply added an engine to a varient of a horse carriage, yet he is considered the "inventor" of the automobile.

[Bush2000]

We're all driving around in cars that owe a fundamental design to Henry Ford. But if you disassemble your car, strike molds off of all the parts, and start selling copies, you will find out very quickly (from lawyers) that your car has unique (in a legal and a patent sense) parts. That doesn't mean you can't go to school and study cars and learn how to design, build, or maintain a car. You will learn this skill by (gasp!) learning about existing cars. And you will learn that at the end of the day, there are only so many ways to design an oil pan. Dittos for computer software and Operating Systems.

Sure, as long as your side admits that using somebody else's work as a model doesn't constitute "invention". Read the posts on FR dealing with this issue. Many of the folks on your side can't admit that.

Unix inspired five or six independant clones prior to Linux. These clones are all based off of an open, public standard - Posix. While these Operating systems are similar because they follow a standard, that doesn't make any of these programmers into thieves.

And neither does it make them "inventors", which is the main issue here.

[Nick Danger]

Think of it as taking out the garbage, Nick.

Like I said... thugs.

[Nick Danger]

Here's the problem...these stupid Groklaw parent articles on FR. Is that not a forum itself? Why do we need links to another message board created as a new thread over here? Can these people not go over there and post to their hearts content without creating a duplicate here?

Behold the hypocrite!

[Golden Eagle]

IT Investor's Journal isn't exclusively a message board, it's a buisiness with paid analysts and has advertising and just so happens to take comments from readers. No different than Zdnet in that regard, get it straight next time.

[Leroy S. Mort]

Henry Ford simply added an engine to a varient of a horse carriage, yet he is considered the "inventor" of the automobile.

By whom? Benz, Daimler, and Duryea all preceded Ford. Ford was a copier who perfected the assembly line.

[Nick Danger]

get it straight next time.

Yeah, I get it perfectly. You can post anything you want, but if people post something you don't like, they shouldn't do that. Heh.

[Golden Eagle]

I don't ever create new threads that already exist on other message boards, and don't think it's considered good etiquette, either. You Linux hounds have no cares other than your own obviously.

[shadowman99]

You're hung up on the word "inventor"

So how about "creator". Linus created Linux.

Just as Van Gogh was a creator. Picasso was a creator. Yet they were preceeded by many other painters. Painters whom they studied. Painters whom they sometimes took ideas from and spun them into new ideas.

You deny the very idea of learning when you twist this whole tortured logic. Of couse Linus learned about Operating Systems by studying other examples. Linus did not invent most of the Unix-based standards upon which he based Linux. But he did create something unique.

Picasso and Van Gogh did not invent painting. They did invent new ways to paint. They were creators.

Linux is unique from Unix as "The Scream" is different from "Guernica". You won't find that by comparing Code A to Code B.

[Golden Eagle]

I have no problem with "create". I used it myself in the post above, regarding "creating a new thread".

You can "create" a copy of something.

You can't "invent" a copy of something.

That's all for me, probably out for a few days. Happy Memorial Day, and God Bless Our Troops.

[Nick Danger]

You Linux hounds have no cares other than your own obviously.

We're capitalists, what do you expect? Lacky imperialist running dogs, every one of us. Not like you Microsoft Wives, who do everything for the collective. But we think ours is the better way. Woof.

[TechJunkYard]

Linus created Linux. Just as Van Gogh was a creator. Picasso was a creator.

Programming is an art form.

[Bush2000]

Like I said... thugs.

Yeah, Linux advocates certainly were thugs in taking down AdTI's website.

[Bush2000]

You're hung up on the word "inventor"

Yeah, silly me. Probably because it's the premise underlying Brown's article. And, since neither you or Torvalds can defend the title of "inventor" (as pointed out in this thread), the point is moot.

[Bush2000]

We're capitalists, what do you expect?

Nah. Capitalists don't work as slaves for China.

[shadowman99]

No, the point of this thread, if you would RTFA, is that Ken Brown hired a guy to find where Linus copied Minux code, and when the guy couldn't find such code, Brown carried on anyways.

[ShadowAce]

Capitalists don't work as slaves for China.

Hmmm. That so? You're sure about that?

Remind me again who got the Windows source code for free?