[antiRepublicrat]

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

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.

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.

Did you read the article?

Ken kept pestering me to hurry up and finish. He told me he had a paper awaiting publication, and that my analysis was the last bit of data he needed. ... my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied one way or the other. ... 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.

Brown's book depended on there being copied code, and Brown was in denial when none was found. His idea wasn't that someone couldn't write an OS in three months without having a model to go on as you've changed your story to, but that it couldn't be done without stealing code because no one apparently could type in that much original code. The base of his book, and of your arguments, fell out from under him.

I've been very clear in my posts.

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.

[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.