From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 11:28:01 MDT
[rhinoceros]
You may have heard about a recent "study" by the Tocqueville Institute (AdTI) claiming, more or less, that Linux is a patchwork of stolen software. Tocqueville Institute is the same "think tank" which published a study claiming that the use of open souce software invites terrorist attacks, a couple of years ago.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040517002423242
<quote>
>>Popular but controversial 'open source' computer software, generally contributed on a volunteer basis, is often taken or adapted from material owned by other companies and individuals, a study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution finds....
>>Among other points, the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds' claim to be the inventor of Linux.
<snip>
>>Brown suggests the invention of Unix is an integral part of the Linux story commenting, "It is clear that people's exceptional interest in the Unix operating system made Unix one of the most licensed, imitated, and stolen products in the history of computer science." Brown writes, "Over the years, many have envied the startling and pervasive success of Unix. For almost thirty years, programmers have tried and failed to successfully build a Unix-like system and couldn't. To this day, we have a serious attribution problem in software development because people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix."
<end quote>
Linus Torvalds replied here in his familiar style.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/44851.htm
<quote>
>>OK, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
<snip>
>>Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.
>>I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.
>>Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them?
<end quote>
[rhinoceros]
I found even more interesting a reply by Prof. Tanenbaum, who created Minix, an educational Unix-like operating system, many years ago. In fact, the Minix usenet newsgroup was where Linux spawned from, in the midst of heated debates between Linus and Tanenbaum.
A. Tanenbaum: Some Notes on the "Who wrote Linux"
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
<begin quote>
The history of UNIX and its various children and grandchildren has been in the news recently as a result of a book from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Since I was involved in part of this history, I feel I have an obligation to set the record straight and correct some extremely serious errors. But first some background information.
Ken Brown, President of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, contacted me in early March. He said he was writing a book on the history of UNIX and would like to interview me. Since I have written 15 books and have been involved in the history of UNIX in several ways, I said I was willing to help out. I have been interviewed by many people for many reasons over the years, and have been on Dutch and US TV and radio and in various newspapers and magazines, so I didn't think too much about it.
Brown flew over to Amsterdam to interview me on 23 March 2004. Apparently I was the only reason for his coming to Europe. The interview got off to a shaky start, roughly paraphrased as follows:
AST: "What's the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution?"
KB: We do public policy work
AST: A think tank, like the Rand Corporation?
KB: Sort of
AST: What does it do?
KB: Issue reports and books
AST: Who funds it?
KB: We have multiple funding sources
AST: Is SCO one of them? Is this about the SCO lawsuit?
KB: We have multiple funding sources
AST: Is Microsoft one of them?
KB: We have multiple funding sources
He was extremely evasive about why he was there and who was funding him. He just kept saying he was just writing a book about the history of UNIX. I asked him what he thought of Peter Salus' book, A Quarter Century of UNIX. He'd never heard of it! I mean, if you are writing a book on the history of UNIX and flying 3000 miles to interview some guy about the subject, wouldn't it make sense to at least go to amazon.com and type "history unix" in the search box, in which case Salus' book is the first hit? For $28 (and free shipping if you play your cards right) you could learn an awful lot about the material and not get any jet lag. As I soon learned, Brown is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I was already suspicious. As a long-time author, I know it makes sense to at least be aware of what the competition is. He didn't bother.
<snip>
My conclusion is that Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I also have grave questions about his methodology. After he talked to me, he prowled the university halls buttonholing random students and asking them questions. Not exactly primary sources.
The six people I know of who (re)wrote UNIX all did it independently and nobody stole anything from anyone. Brown's remark that people have tried and failed for 30 years to build UNIX-like systems is patent nonsense. Six different people did it independently of one another. In science it is considered important to credit people for their ideas, and I think Linus has done this far less than he should have. Ken and Dennis are the real heros here. But Linus' sloppiness about attribution is no reason to assert that Linus didn't write Linux. He didn't write CTSS and he didn't write MULTICS and didn't write UNIX and he didn't write MINIX, but he did write Linux. I think Brown owes a number of us an apology.
<snip>
Linus and Me
Some of you may find it odd that I am defending Linus here. After all, he and I had a fairly public "debate" some years back. My primary concern here is trying to get the truth out and not blame everything on some teenage girl from the back hills of West Virginia. Also, Linus and I are not "enemies" or anything like that. I met him once and he seemed like a nice friendly, smart guy. My only regret is that he didn't develop Linux based on the microkernel technology of MINIX. With all the security problems Windows has now, it is increasingly obvious to everyone that tiny microkernels, like that of MINIX, are a better base for operating systems than huge monolithic systems. Linux has been the victim of fewer attacks than Windows because (1) it actually is more secure, but also (2) most attackers think hitting Windows offers a bigger bang for the buck so Windows simply gets attacked more. As I did 20 years ago, I still fervently believe that the only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it
small. Fight Features.
<end quote>
[rhinoceros]
There was also a follow-up note by Tanenbaum with some more interesting stuff. I'll only paste a funny remark.
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/followup/
<quote>
Suffice it to say, there is a great deal to criticize in the book. I am sure that will happen when it is published. I may even help out. One small nugget though. Brown calculates that due to the creation of Linux, Prentice Hall sold 500 fewer copies of my book, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation, which at $100 [sic] per book cost them almost $1 million. Reminds me of the kind of arithmetic used on the NASDAQ prior to March 2000. If Brown can't multiply small positive integers correctly, how much faith can we have in the rest of his reporting?
<end quote>
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2004 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=30341> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 11:28:46 MDT