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

[Bush2000]

You: "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." Oops.

That was a separate thread -- and you took that sentence out of context. I wasn't talking about the kernel, itself. I was referring to the code components that Torvalds needed to get the kernel running; namely, compilers, etc. Torvalds mentioned these components in his original newsgroup posting:

"I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work."

So, yeah, he did borrow code to get Linux running. But not in the kernel.

Brown's book depended on there being copied code, and Brown was in denial when none was found.

So far, all you've quoted is Tanenbaum's interpretation of Brown's book -- not Brown, himself.

Yes, you've been clearly parroting Brown. Yet his own researcher, the supposedly wronged person and the world's foremost UNIX historian have all called his work complete BS.

That's an outright lie.

[Bush2000]

Even if true. It is not illegal, or against copyright laws. Its like saying that I cannot read a book to learn how to write.

It's not a question of legality. It's a question of attributing the source of your work.

[N3WBI3]

And where in the first usenet post was proper attribution not given? He mentioned that is needed GNU and the Minix libraries to run. the fact is he wrote the Kernel its so structurally different than Minix that there is no way it was used in any other way than an inspiration.

Look lets put it on the line, fine something (fully quoted and in context, and preferabbly linked) where Linus or anyone on this board said he did this in a box? Of course UNIX and its POSIX standards were the inspiration, just like apple was the inspiration for windows (to a much lesser degree or windows might be somewhat more secure)..

[N3WBI3]

That was a separate thread -- and you took that sentence out of context. I wasn't talking about the kernel, itself. I was referring to the code components that Torvalds needed to get the kernel running; namely, compilers, etc. Torvalds mentioned these components in his original newsgroup posting:

"I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work."

So, yeah, he did borrow code to get Linux running. But not in the kernel.

So which is it is your complaint about non proper attribution (he admitted porting gcc and bash, never claimed to write them). Or is it that he copied code, you're all over the place...

[myself6]

So, what you are saying is that...

If I ever write a book I will have to write a supplemental book that lists all the books I have ever read so that I am sure to attribute those who taught me how to write. I must also ensure not to have my writing style influenced by any of the authors that I happened to like and read allot of.

[antiRepublicrat]

That was a separate thread -- and you took that sentence out of context. I wasn't talking about the kernel, itself. I was referring to the code components that Torvalds needed to get the kernel running; namely, compilers, etc.

Nice try. The context of that thread, and of this one, and your comment is whether Linus could have written the kernel alone in that time. Instead of gracefully admitting your theft claim was wrong, you try to change the argument into something not one knowledgeable Linux person would ever claim -- that alone Linus wrote anything more than the initial Linux kernel. We know he ported various utilities (which in itself was actually a pretty good job) to make the kernel usable, but Brown's assumption and your claim were that Linus stole code for the kernel.

So far, all you've quoted is Tanenbaum's interpretation of Brown's book -- not Brown, himself.

I was going on the researcher's email where he got the code comparison contract from Brown, and Brown freaked and went into denial when he found no stolen code. Knowing what went on behind the book's publication is much more revealing about Brown's intent that the book itself could be. Read the email and the supporting data.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, he did find similarities! You're right! NOT! He found code that predates MINIX and Linux that is part of ANSI standard libraries, code necessary to be POSIX compliant, and two almost similar lines required to correctly implement the file system. Obviously this isn't smoking gun stuff since Brown freaked.

That's an outright lie.

First realize that you've been supporting brown the whole time, supporting his claims. After that, time to get up to date on the available information:

• Peter H. Salus, author of the seminal work on UNIX history, A Quarter Century of UNIX, and world's foremost UNIX historian says it's a lie.
• Andrew Tanenbaum, computer professor and author of MINIX, which Brown claims Linus stole from, says that "Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about."
• Alexey Toptygin, the man Brown hired to find MINIX code in Linux, stated that he found nothing after a two-way code comparison, and said to "pay no attention to this man; to the best of my knowledge he is talking out of his ass.". Sad when your own researcher says that.

Where's the lie?

[antiRepublicrat]

It's not a question of legality. It's a question of attributing the source of your work.

He did, all right there in the original email. He said he was re-making MINIX using his own code for the kernel. He said he ported GNU apps to work on his new kernel. Where's the lack of attribution? Maybe like Stallman, you're mad that people don't usually call it "GNU/Linux" which is the real name of the whole package (kernel+utilities).

[antiRepublicrat]

That was a separate thread -- and you took that sentence out of context.

BTW, I have to give you a little bit of credit. I expected you to say "I said I didn't say 'borrowed code' and all you were able to find was 'borrowing code.' See, I told you I didn't say 'borrowed code.'" The false "out of context" claim at least sounds a bit less like it's coming from an obstinate child.

[antiRepublicrat]

Now it appears Stallman is jumping into the fray.

With Stallman you have to be careful. When this liberal leftist hippie starts talking about all sorts of stuff and ideals, especially relating to commercial software, you need to learn to tune him out.

But what he does know is his organization, the definition of the free software movement, GNU and GPL. Basically, he says Brown is attempting to use popular confusion over definition of these things to further his goal by misstating them.

Another interesting find is that after all these people coming out to tell Brown he's a liar, they are reworking the report and it won't be released for a while yet. Instead of publishing a report that can stand on its own, Brown will try to incorporate responses to his detractors. I would love to see the difference between the advance copies and the final.

[TechJunkYard]

.. many Linux advocates here who believe..

Who are "they?" I'm really curious..

I have no idea. But they're "here" (on FR?) somewhere, and there are "many" of them.

Or maybe B2K is just confused.

[antiRepublicrat]

And now Dennis Ritchie,co-creator of MULTICS, co-creator of UNIX, creator of C (a derivative of B -- omigodhestoleit!), is in on it too. Turns out Brown's "extensive interviews" with him were just a short list of emailed questions. And Ritchie's answers were not very supportive of the book's premise.

The book claimed extensive interviews with Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie and Andrew Tanenbaum to support it. So let's look at the current scorecard:

• Stallman says Brown is trying to intentionally confuse people
• Ritchie says the interview wasn't exactly extensive, and his answers are neutral or contrary to the book's claims
• Tanenbaum said Brown's full of it.

Is there anyone with credibility who will support this book?

It's like interviewing Bush to write a total liberal trash piece on him. During the interview Bush may have told the author he's full of it, but the author claims on the book "Extensive interviews with President Bush!" so people will think the book has some element of truth in it.

[Nick Danger]

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

Yeah, ADTI's big-time $8.95-a-month Geocities site (I'm not kidding - look it up) got a little overloaded from all the PR they brought on themselves. Hell, just the Freepers clicking on the article link could've brought that thing to its knees. Hackers schmackers, the ADTI is a mail drop in a UPS store (somebody went and looked) with a Geocities web site. Some "institute."

Microsoft needs a better class of freinds. They are really hanging out with some sleazeballs these days. For $50 billion, they could've at least gotten an Institute that had a cubical in one of those "executive office suite" places. Instead they spring for one that has a mailbox in a UPS store. And a Geocities web site! LOL!

[Golden Eagle]

Microsoft needs a better class of freinds. They are really hanging out with some sleazeballs these days. For $50 billion, they could've at least gotten an Institute that had a cubical in one of those "executive office suite" places. Instead they spring for one that has a mailbox in a UPS store. And a Geocities web site! LOL!

This guy is advocating open source software (BSD license, not GPL), even being funded by the government, so he's commpletely opposed to Microsoft in many regards. Open source guys like him just don't have much money, I'm not surprised if he doesn't have an office or major website either, they just don't have a lot of income, nature of the beast obviously.

[Nick Danger]

Open source guys like him

Oh, stop it with the BS, my fine feathered friend. The fact that this outfit gets money from Microsoft is well-documented. It has been stated by Microsoft. The guy is a shill. He gets paid to be one. Microsoft pays lots of people to be shills. Hell, their employees have even caught posing as "ordinary users" on Internet forums while advancing the company line. At least this guy is out in the open about what he does.