[antiRepublicrat]

You can't seem to get this through your thick cranium. Borrowed means he sucked up the concepts and adapted them for his own use in Linux. It doesn't mean he copied the code:

"Borrowed" concepts, fine. But you said "borrowed code" which means copied, stole. Keep up the backtracking Bush. That plus if you'd read the article, you'd know that Brown assumed there would be copied code in Linux and counted on it for support of his book. Copied code was to be the centerpiece of his argument. Notice how he went into denial when he found out there was none.

But minus the support for the central theme in his book he published anyway. Really honest, huh?

Dude, you're unstable. Seek counseling.

You're trying to say that because you never used the word "stole" you didn't claim he stole. But you've used every other word in the book to say the same thing.

[Bush2000]

"Borrowed" concepts, fine. But you said "borrowed code" which means copied, stole.

I'd like you to show me where I said "borrowed code" [hint: I didn't].

But minus the support for the central theme in his book he published anyway. Really honest, huh?

No, the central theme in his book is that Torvalds could not have written a kernel in 3-4 months without consulting some kind of reference model such as MINIX. And, given the evidence that I pointed out above -- that (1) Torvalds had Tannenbaum's book, (2) the book contained 12000 lines of code from the MINIX kernel, and (3) Tanenbaum found that Torvalds had borrowed many concepts from MINIX (filesystem, etc) -- Brown is correct.

You're trying to say that because you never used the word "stole" you didn't claim he stole. But you've used every other word in the book to say the same thing.

If you're upset because I didn't use the word "stole", that's your problem. I've been very clear in my posts.