Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" (Microsoft FUD Goes Thud)

www.groklaw.com ^ | Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT | Pamela Jones

[shadowman99]

Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction"

Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT

Well, friends, we've won the Alexis de Tocqueville FUD war.

It's official. In the face of a united community's repudiation of Ken Brown's "Samizdat" attack on Linus and Linux, Microsoft told the Wall St. Journal's reporter, Lee Gomes, the report wasn't helpful, leading Gomes to end his report, "Recent attacks on Linux come from dubious source", like this:

"With growing numbers of businesses turning to Linux, its pros and cons are fair game for debate. But cynically manufacturing confusion isn't debating. Even Microsoft didn't like the way this report turned out, though it indirectly helped subsidize it. A company spokesman called the study, 'an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best technology for our customers.'"

That is the cherry on top that dooms the report to the junk bin. I doubt that it enhances a "think tank's" reputation to be called an "unhelpful" "dubious source".

Do you think they'll put that quotation up on their web site?

I wish to commend Microsoft for repudiating this "study", which they were at least indirectly responsible for. No. Really. There is no need to be cynical today, although I'm sure we can all admit to plenty of subsidiary reactions, including a definite reaction to claiming "the best technology". But this is a day to just rejoice and let a few things slide for now.

I have a further suggestion for Microsoft, since they followed my advice about repudiating Samizdat: learn to play nice with others, distance yourself from SCO, drop what we believe are your patent-pool attack plans on GNU/Linux, actuallly work on providing the best technology instead, and you may find your company has a future after all. It's the Information Age now, you know. The old ham-fisted, muscle techniques will have to go, because they don't work in broad daylight, and that is exactly where you are.

I'm only kidding about them following my advice -- I have no knowledge that they followed or even knew about my previous suggestion. We've had a huge upsurge in trolls since I began highlighting the AdTI story, so maybe they did, but that isn't proof positive. If I were AdTI, I'd put out a press release, but I'm not, so I'll acknowledge it's only suggestive. They could be AdTI operatives, or SCO's, after all. Still, it was good advice. And so is this.

You can read Gomes' story on the Wall Street Journal, if you have a sub, on page B1 (or search for Gomes off the home page), or via Google, which directs you to the AP, which has picked up the story.

So, as weird as it feels, we can now add Microsoft to our list of those offering rebuttals to Samizdat.

Don't forget, SCO has another teleconference Tuesday.

  

Groklaw © Copyright 2003, 2004 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.

Comments are owned by the individual posters.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

[shadowman99]

But of course Golden Eagle is still going to prove to us that Linus stole code from Minix and used it in Linux. Right?

[shadowman99]

Summon the penguins!

[D-fendr]

Assuming the AP use makes it ok to post:

Recent attacks on Linux come from dubious source By LEE GOMES The Associated Press 6/14/04 9:29 AM The Wall Street Journal There was a time when computer-industry marketing battles were fought over who had the best technology. But these are litigious times, so if you want to keep customers away from a competing product, just infer they might get sued for using it. Consider a recent study about Linux from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank that, in addition to general pieces about Beltway topics, has a track record for attacking Linux, the free software. An earlier institute study, for example, suggested Linux's openness made it a boon to terrorists. Most security experts say the opposite: that open review makes software stronger and thus safer. It probably won't come as a big surprise that one of the institute's funders is Microsoft, now locked in an epic battle with Linux. How much the company gives the institute is unknown, as neither party will tell us. Microsoft says, though, it doesn't underwrite specific institute reports. An institute study issued last month ups the ante in Linux criticism. It tries to prove that Linux's Linus Torvalds has always been contemptuous of intellectual-property laws, starting with the very birth of Linux. The implication: Since Linux is tainted, potential users may one day find themselves in court. How well does the draft study do in making its case? Not well at all -- so much so that even Microsoft has distanced itself from it. The report argues that complex operating systems take years to develop, and then questions how a 21-year-old college student could have created one in just a few months, as it says Mr. Torvalds did back in 1991. The answer it provides: He must have stolen from Minix, an operating system popular in colleges. Kenneth Brown, the institute's president, argues his case largely by pointing to what he insists are inconsistencies in the way Mr. Torvalds and others have described the birth of Linux. Sometimes, he says, they'll say it was created "from scratch"; other times, they'll say it was "based on" Minix. Another researcher might have tried to clear up such trivial inconsistencies by sitting down with Mr. Torvalds. Mr. Brown, though, says he never actually talked to the subject of his study. If he had, he might have learned that the Minix-Linux connection has never been a secret. The very name "Linux" was a combination of "Minix" and "Linus," and Mr. Torvalds has always freely admitted to starting with Minix, in the sense of looking at it and deciding he could do better. Most people would call that "innovation," not theft. If Mr. Torvalds did steal Minix code for Linux, he would have been stealing it from Andrew Tannenbaum, Minix's author. But both Mr. Tannenbaum and his publishing company have said in recent days that Mr. Torvalds did nothing remotely improper. "Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about" is how Mr. Tannenbaum phrased it. What's more, the very first Linux was not some inexplicably superhuman programming feat but a tiny first draft that barely worked. Linux grew to what it is today only after years of work by a global army of volunteers. For his research, Mr. Brown hired a University of Maryland, College Park, student, Alexey Toptygin, to run software that could find matches between Minix and the early Linux. But there were none. We know this not because it is in the study -- Mr. Brown conspicuously omits mention of that. Instead, Mr. Toptygin, appalled by the way Mr. Brown was ignoring the evidence, posted his work online. (He also refused his paycheck.) Which gets us to the biggest problem with this attack: If Mr. Torvalds had the larcenous heart of a software pirate, it would be very simple to prove. Linux, you'll recall, is totally open. All that purloined code would be sitting there, buck naked, for both terrorists and Linux bashers to see. Mr. Brown, though, hasn't a single example. With the absence of such evidence, reasonable people will be forgiven for assuming that Linux folks are as scrupulous about intellectual-property issues as they have always said they were. For those like Mr. Brown who insist otherwise, the phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. I asked Mr. Brown why we should believe him rather than Prof. Tannenbaum -- who, incidentally, is no fan of Linux. "There are just too many conflicting interviews and facts," Mr. Brown replied. "When those guys get their stories straight, maybe we can make some progress." Mr. Brown says he never maintained it was impossible for Mr. Torvalds to have written Linux, just "highly unlikely." And he calls Mr. Toptygin "a great kid," albeit "a little caught up in the fanaticism of the Linux movement, which is cool with me." With growing numbers of businesses turning to Linux, its pros and cons are fair game for debate. But cynically manufacturing confusion isn't debating. Even Microsoft didn't like the way this report turned out, though it indirectly helped subsidize it. A company spokesman called the study, "an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best technology for our customers." Copyright 2004 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

[Spaulding]

Your comments sound vaguely cultish. Linux has achieved notoriety largely as a remedy to Gates wealth. Linux was not created, it was ported. Even a "clean room" port of Unix is hardly a creation. I don't hold the X86 instruction set against AMD, which has done a good job of copying.

Lets learn a little about operating systems. Unix/Linux is not a "kernel". It is all the utilities, many with cute names such as awk, and grep, and sed and... Some years ago I led a team of programmers several of whom were fresh out of school, and thus comfortable with Unix. I purchased "Unix", Berkeley 4.2 in this case, from a company which ported it to run on top of Digital's VMS, which happens to be the foundation for Windows NT. (Both the VMS and NT architecture teams were headed by the same man, Dave Cutler.) The kernel was VMS. The Unix on VMS (called Eunace) was actually a bit faster for most applications than native Unix, because the VMS file system was then superior to the Unix file system. We had to pay a Berkeley Unix license fee, though the kernel was VMS. I'm not sure Linus has done much different. He copied the functionality of a decade old operating system.

More than you wanted to know, probably, but, Unix came from Bell Labs, and was adopted by computer scientists, especially those at Berkeley (which I attended).

The attacks on the University of Wisconsin report questioning the security of Linux are misplaced. The Wisconsin panel is absolutely correct. Linux is largely old technology, but there is a whole lot of it. Depending upon some good comrade to test every logical path through a component (would that it were designed with components) is foolish. A fresh approach to operating systems is needed, and Microsoft is leading, with the Open Source community following.

The attacks on this Free (something) foundation are also misplaced. Unix was a football being sold from company-to-company for some years. SCO was one of the few alternative sources to DEC, IBM, SUN, and HP, who had all bought the expensive, original source licenses from ATT. None of them saw a good business in supporting Unix or providing the infrastructure for licensing it. None of them made money from selling operating systems anyway (Well, perhaps IBM makes money from VM/MVS). They support their own "supported" versions of Linux so that they can sell hardware and service.

SCO kept trying to make a business out of selling and supporting Unix. I don't like practice of having the legal department a profit center, but it is common. That is one of the reasons for buying a marginally profitable technology. We'll see what the courts do, but SCO has a pretty good case, in my opinion. I can't guess how damages could be assessed. In a few years the Penguin will go the way of the Dodo. Meanwhile the court's treatment of software patents should interest all developers.

Unix has been a religion for as long as I can remember. They even have an Idol, the penguin. At computer conferences you could tell the Unix guys by their uniforms -long hair, tie-dye tee shirts, That there is still some of that sentiment shown by the ad homonym attacks, having nothing to do with computer science. Sort of like the emotion around Nixon, Bush, Gates, Reagan.

[Happy2BMe]

What operating system is on the laptops and desktops of world leaders?

I'm not in anyway defending Miker$oft, but this story talks about "working in the light of day."

Does Bush, Fox, Putin, all the EU leaders or the President of China use . . . Linux?

[MarkL]

Linux was not created, it was ported. Even a "clean room" port of Unix is hardly a creation. I don't hold the X86 instruction set against AMD, which has done a good job of copying.

I disagree with you here... Linux WAS created. It was not ported. For any software to be "ported," it needs to exist on some other system. The Linux kernel did not exists. Sure, the creation of Linux builds on ideas that others have used, but the code was new, hence NOT ported.

Lets learn a little about operating systems. Unix/Linux is not a "kernel". It is all the utilities, many with cute names such as awk, and grep, and sed and...

Which is why the "correct name" for what most people call "Linux" is "GNU/Linux." But most people simply leave off the "GNU" portion. Linux is the kernel, the core OS. This is "What Linus wrought." And since then, he certainly hasn't been alone. Technically, an OS is NOT the environment for working on the computer. It's the interface between hardware and software, nothing more. Is the file system the OS? No. It is important, but it's NOT absolutely required. How about those utilities you mention? Nope. The little add-ons are just a bonus. And what we recognize today as "distributions" of Linux are simply bonus add-ons. To ask "What is Linux?" is a pretty simple question. What part of the distribution can you NOT live without on a computer. The kernel, and that's really about it.

Mark

[searchandrecovery]

Unix/Linux is not a "kernel". It is all the utilities...

Er, Unix has a kernel (as well as utilities) - the book "The Design of the Unix Operating System" by Bach should shed some light.

[Izzy Dunne]

shown by the ad homonym attacks

LOL !

Attacks using words that sound the same, but mean different things?

Like "homonym", and "hominem"?

[TechJunkYard]

If Mr. Torvalds had the larcenous heart of a software pirate, it would be very simple to prove. Linux, you'll recall, is totally open. All that purloined code would be sitting there, buck naked, for both terrorists and Linux bashers to see.

Mr. Brown, though, hasn't a single example. With the absence of such evidence, reasonable people will be forgiven for assuming that Linux folks are as scrupulous about intellectual-property issues as they have always said they were. For those like Mr. Brown who insist otherwise, the phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

The only question in my mind is whether Ken Brown freelanced this one, as a self-assigned "extra-credit" project intended to pull his average up from his earlier bomb, or whether his customer sent this steak back to the kitchen because it just wasn't done right.

You know your anti-Linux FUD really stinks when Microsoft calls it "unhelpful".

[TechJunkYard]

The attacks on the University of Wisconsin report questioning the security of Linux are misplaced.

I'm unable to find this report. Please post a link.

Unix has been a religion for as long as I can remember. They even have an Idol, the penguin.

I think you're confused.

[HAL9000]

Unix/Linux is not a "kernel". It is all the utilities, many with cute names such as awk, and grep, and sed and...

Google search - "Linux is a kernel"

[shadowman99]

"Your comments sound vaguely cultish. Linux has achieved notoriety largely as a remedy to Gates wealth.

...Unix has been a religion for as long as I can remember. ...At computer conferences you could tell the Unix guys by their uniforms -long hair, tie-dye tee shirts..."

Do not presume to know what I look like. You don't know me. And if you are going to characterize my comments, you might be more specific than to say they are cultish. If I characterized everything you wrote as "lame" it doesn't serve a discussion very well.

"They even have an Idol, the penguin."

And this "Rock n Roll" music the kids have started to listen to leads to immoral dancing and kissing!

You can't be serious. I doubt there's anyone out there "worshiping" the tux logo, any more than Microsoft types idolize the Windows logo.

On the other hand, I can almost see some people who worship Microsoft, so maybe that last part is true.

"Lets learn a little about operating systems. Unix/Linux is not a "kernel". It is all the utilities, many with cute names such as awk, and grep, and sed and..."

If you're going to try to cast yourself as my teacher, you'd better get your ducks in a row. Linux IS just a kernel. That's all. Linus Torvolds has not contributed code to any of the utils you mentioned. All of the is part of the GNU Project, headed by Richard Stallman.

You would have made a better point by saying Linux is of no value by itself, that it must be married to these other components to form an operating system. But that's not what you said.

"Unix/Linux is not a "kernel"

Don't confuse Unix with Linux. They are not the same thing.

"Some years ago I led a team of programmers several of whom were fresh out of school, and thus comfortable with Unix. I purchased "Unix", Berkeley 4.2 in this case..."

Do not confuse BSD with Unix. They are not the same thing. What you refer to would be commonly known as BSD 4.2(Berkeley Software Distribution). "Berkeley Unix" is less common, but still not incorrect. Not the same as Unix Sys V.

"We had to pay a Berkeley Unix license fee, though the kernel was VMS. "

I'm at a loss to understand why you paid a license fee, or why is matters to the discussion at hand. But in any case, both of those codebases are open source. Perhaps VMS wasn't at the time. It's more likely you were paying a license to AT&T, because BSD at one point contained AT&T code.

"I'm not sure Linus has done much different. He copied the functionality of a decade old operating system."

Which still is not the same as copying code from Minix. And that is the discussion. AdTI said Linus must have copied code from Minix. And that has turned out to be such a blatent lie that even Microsoft wants to put some distance from the whole thing. I think Linus could sue some major ass.

"We'll see what the courts do, but SCO has a pretty good case, in my opinion."

Don't bet on it.

"Meanwhile the court's treatment of software patents should interest all developers."

SCO has not raised the issue of software patents. SCO is primarily focused on copyright infrigement and contract violation.

IBM has filed a countersuit against SCO that accuses them of violating 4 IBM patents. The suit names every SCO software product. If you want to see some patent fireworks, that's where it's at. You only get to see that fight if SCO lives long enough, which isn't looking good.

[B Knotts]

You can't be serious. I doubt there's anyone out there "worshiping" the tux logo, any more than Microsoft types idolize the Windows logo.

On the other hand, I can almost see some people who worship Microsoft, so maybe that last part is true.

[B Knotts]

Oops...forgot to <i> the quoted part.

[Golden Eagle]

But of course Golden Eagle is still going to prove to us that Linus stole code from Minix and used it in Linux. Right?

Wrong, I never claimed that and you know it, your link is to your request for me to do that but not to me claiming that I would. Total BS, then you have the nerve to call me out but not even ping me.

Concerning the accusation made by Ken Brown that Minix was used to create Linux, he's only going on what Eric Raymond said in his book about open source software 'Cathedral and Bazaar'. Quote:

"Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try to write Linux from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minix, a tiny Unix-like operating system for PC clones. Eventually all the Minix code went away or was completely rewritten -- but while it was there, it provided scaffolding for the infant that would eventually become Linux"

Torvalds has since admitted he didn't "invent" Linux, which was Brown's original claim, therefore IMO all this protesting is nothing but unncessary whining.

[ShadowAce]

...he's only going on what Eric Raymond said ...

So now paid research is done by third-party hearsay? Don't even try to defend him anymore. Even Microsoft is backing away from this load of garbage.

[Golden Eagle]

Linux IS just a kernel. That's all.

Then you need a better way to distinguish the complete packages sold by Red Hat etc. If they are not "Linux", then they need to be formally referred to at all times as "GNU/Linux", "GPL Unix", "Foreign Crap Unix", or whatever else you want to call it besides "Linux". But right now, to most people, when they install a complete Red Hat CD, they are installing "Linux". So, what name do you suggest that you will now be using from now on?

[Golden Eagle]

So now paid research is done by third-party hearsay?

Since the reports came out Torvalds has had to admit he didn't invent Linux, is that first party enough for you or not?

[ShadowAce]

what name do you suggest that you will now be using from now on?

How about the distro name? Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, etc. That's the way most Linux professionals refer to them.

[ShadowAce]

Since the reports came out Torvalds has had to admit he didn't invent Linux,...

Did Stephen King "invent" The Shining? Did Tom Clancy "invent" The Hunt for Red October?

He wrote it. From scratch. Using ideas gleaned from book.

Quit flogging this stupidly dead horse.