Slashdot Mirror
Linus Not The Father Of Linux, According to Report
MrIrwin writes "According to this article on Yahoo, Linus is not the real father of Linux and Open source software is really just code nicked from other sources. " Groklaw has done a dissection of the press release. It's a press release by the Alexis de Toqueville Institution, who gets funding from MSFT, as well as believes that US IT troubles are because of free software. Oh, and terrorism works better because of open source, and the "Star Wars" program was a good idea.
Read to the bottom of the article:
Brown's study is part a book he is writing on open source software and operating systems. Excerpts from the book will be published at www.adti.net on May 20, 2004.
That says it all. Inflammatory statements preceding the release of a new book. This latest FUD is nothing more than a book promotion in the guise of a press release.
Trolling is a art,
These guys are nuts. And SDI was/is a good idea. Unless they're talking about the movies, which, IMO, aren't really that great. I mean, the first one was fun, but I could have lived without the others.
And talk about awful? Don't even get me started on the books. Crap, utter crap to a one, with the possible exception of Zahn's original trilogy.
And Microsoft sucks.
Don't stop there. Maybe they could do a study on how obvious bias from independent studies ruin the credibility of legitimate independent studies everywhere. Please excuse the bad grammar in the preceding tongue-twister sentence.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
And related to the article, perhaps they can also shed light on the "questionable beginnings" of MS Windows.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
By the way,Darl is becoming more and more like that paperboy from Better off dead. "I - want - my - 2 dollars!!!". I wonder if he will meet a similar fate in the end?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character (and extend it to slander if the author is making oral statements publicly).
This is not only obviously false (and easilly provable), it is likely that it can be shown that anyone purporting to write a book on the subject (free software) should have had enough brain cells to rub together to do a modicum of background research that conclusively demonstrates what they are saying is false (groklaw for starters, fsf, eff, etc.).
Any profits from this libelous publication should go to the injured parties: Linus, whose professional reputation has been viciously besmirched.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think it's far more likely that open source coded is in closed source software. Since open souce, by defintion, is open for all to see, wouldn't companies have lawsuits (SCO excluded) over their stolen code? Since nobody can see the code to closed software, I think it's far more likely that open source code has been taken to be used in closed source software (since nobody that isn't involved in the project will be able to see it).
I am genuinely impressed at the 'water off a ducks back' attitude that guys like Linus have to this kind of BS - just let it roll off, and let the strength of the product sell itself, regardless of the nonsense going on around it.
But surely they should be entitled to sue for libel or slander or whatever it is.. everyone knows that Linus coded the original kernel way back in the day. Why can't these companies understand this?
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. (from Wikipedia)
I happen to like the headline of this story from The Register: Alien puppet Linus swiped Linux from SCO, says balanced study. Trust the Reg to put this story in the proper context.
Of course, what REALLY burns me is the line that says For almost thirty years, programmers have tried to build a Unix-like system and couldn't, somehow suggesting that UNIX is like the the tinfoil hat version of the pyramids of Egypt--some mysterious advanced technology that no one understands and couldn't possibly replicate.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
QDOS, while a ground-up rewrite, and while having some differences, was very clearly heavily influenced by CP/M, to the point that most CP/M programs could be ported without major changes (with about as many, indeed, as you'd expect between SysV and GNU/Linux.)
It's all kind of bizarre really, isn't it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
then they laugh at you
then they attack you --> (you are here)
then you win.
M. Ghandi
This "study" which is about as credible as a plagarized term paper proves it.
Linux is Microsoft's latest, last, and to date, MOST DANGEROUS competitor. NONE of Microsoft's classic tactics can defeat it, as:
1. Linux is cheaper (how do you get cheaper than free
?).
2. Linux is regarded to be as good if not better in quality and functionality.
3. Linux cannot be bought.
4. Linux cannot be "embraced, extended, extinguished" because of the GPL license.
So, what MS has tried to do over the years is slander it. Which, even they have admitted hasn't worked.
I'm abut this cynical... I think that MS backed SCaldera merely so the could try to make the "Linux has higher TCO" argument fly... Then, when Darl proved to be his own worst enemy, they've pulled the plug and now are back to slander.
This piece is out and out slander and defamation against Linus Torvalds. This "institute" which I won't name because they are slandering yet another great name by using it needs to be sued.
Corporatism != Free Market
Well the 5 year study is still far better than the M$ commercial having 1 IT guy run the entire IT department because he now has one windows 2003 server replacing many win2k boxes. Then he claims to have saved the company $$$. At the same time M$ goes about saying they help create IT jobs. Wait... your 2003 server allows 1 person to run the IT department.
Free software does help terrorists... but it's also true that the Internet helps terrorists, cell phones help terrorists, etc.
And all of these things also help to fight terrorism as well. They are just tools.
A concrete example: Satellite phones were tremendously useful to folks like Bin Laden hanging out in remote regions. But (famously) they were also a tremendous vulnerability, due to the fact that the user broadcasts his location.
Free software is not precisely analogous. But it is true that many government agencies have made great use of it. For many serious applications, it is much more flexible and easy to work with than Windows. And it's much cheaper to operate than many closed source alternatives (i.e., those available from IBM and Sun).
Another one of De Toqueville's major themes was that it was America's being steeped in Christianity that helped keep it free. He made extensive reference to the vast number of churches and the moral character they instilled in Americans. De Toqueville was of the same opinion as John Adams. Basically that American government could only work with a moral people.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
LOL.
You have to agree it's funny. Microsoft is paying money so that The Register will call the company "Beast Central".
Marketing people: If you do something that gets your company called "Beast Central", you have failed.
At first reading I saw this as a deplorable move to sway public opinion against Linus, Linux, and other open source providers. After a few moments of thought, however, I see that this may be the forefront of a larger, even more deplorable, endeavor. Consider the following quote:
-----
"The report," according to Gregory Fossedal, a Tocqueville senior fellow, "raises important questions...While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights..."
-----
Could this be a movement to undermine Linus' right to release Linux under GNU/GPL? Could this even be the beginning of legal research to undermine GNU/GPL itself?
If enough lawyers and businessmen can be swayed to believe that Linux itself is a product of UNIX then, though a convoluted interpretation of patent law and prior art, is it possible to invalidate GPL as it applies to programs written to conform to POSIX standards? Can the publishing rights for POSIX compliant programs then be assigned to the creators of the POSIX standards or the organizations that have implemented them first: ie. Bell Labs, AT&T, and UNIX?
Consider that MS didn't invent HTML, TCP, SMTP, or other common standardized protocols yet they seem to have an enormous amount of intellectual property assigned to them which prevents other people from producing software which competes with them in those arenas on the MS platform. I don't know the nature of the POSIX organization, where it's funded, or how cohesive it is with respect to legal and business support. However it does seem possible that malicious lawyers could argue that *NIX type operating systems, patented by corporate entities, are the first major implmentation of POSIX standards and that any products which come afterwards are an infringement of those intellectual property rights. This then leads to the arena of the status and age of the patents and how willing the original patent holders would be in funding the legal endeavor to pursue this track.
It sounds far-fetched but we all know that this similar roundabout claim of intellectual property has been pursued by SCO. With MS grasping for straws to slow the advance of Linux it could be a legal filibuster to sandtrap Linux. MS and their allies can afford enormous teams of lawyers that can turn out legal briefs by the thousands and the stories of their rapid acceleration of patent submission have also become popularly known. With enough patent filings and a popularly accepted, however untrue, argument about the nature and origin of Linux and its right to be distributed under GPL it might be their strategy to legally discourage organizations from adopting it.
With enough legal clout it is conceivable that, if the legal community could assign POSIX standards and *NIX operating systems as prior art preceding Linux, that they could force Linus to legally accept being bought out by the major operating system vendors who could choose to shelf it or turn its direction into nonproductive, bloating development.
The 100 mpg carburetor may be tin-foil but this situation is certainly real.
Consider this analogy: intellectual property is like a liquid beverage. It's everywhere and everyone has some. One day a large corporation patents lemonade. A week later a local company begins producing lemonade and giving it away for free charging only for the cost of distribution and the container (a cup, glass, mug, whatever). A month later the large corporation claims that its lemonade patent incorporates the property of any similar beverage based on lemons and sends a team of lawyers to shut down the local lemonade company. In this analogy software is a beverage. POSIX is a lemon based beverage. The large corporations would be those who made *NIX type operating systems and the local distributor would be Linux.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Copyright and patent monopolies are outrageous, and I don't think I should lie about it because alot of business folks don't want to have their dainty little ears hurt. In fact, they are the ones who should be the most offended by it, beacuse if anything - they are NOT free market.
If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing grapes, and then called it a free makket property right because people could buy and sell shares of that monopoly - most right minded business people would see it for what it is - another bullshit government regulation that inteferes with free markets, and in the long run hurts business and consumer alike. Well it is even more so with 'intellectual' 'property'. It is not property at all, it is a fraud at best, and destroyes lifes and culture to say the least.
It's a simple scam: Make up a false straw man claim by substituting the word "inventor" for "developer," "creator," or "father." Then point out that the victim didn't literally invent the item in question. If anybody calls you on it, look blank and insist that "inventor" is essentially a synonym for the real word.
Wow, that is some really amazing FUD:
By this logic, MSWindows and MacOS were invented by Xerox. Notice how they do not speak about the fact that only the kernel was invented by Linus. They also leave out the fact that just because something can run Unix programs does not make it Unix and the fact that running Unix programs does not magically change the OS into Unix.This quote is fun, too:
Who cares if programmers have "open contempt" for "intellectual property"? Abiding by the law is not the same as agreeing with it. Since when does everybody have to believe that all laws are good? Is this a communist system where no dissent is allowed? I hope we still have the freedom to think and say what we want. They are trying to say "borrowing = stealing". Even copyright (as opposed to maritime) piracy is not theft.This article is really a work of art. The fact that someone could say this about Linux and not the BSDs, which are genetic unices, blows my mind. Then again, the BSDs have already cleared themselves in court.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
6. If Windows NT was really based on the source of VMS, M$ would have definitely been sued. And they haven't AFAIK. Instead, M$ had just been done with the OS/2 cooperation debacle, and it's pretty probable that they took quite a bit of code from that to get them started on NT.
AFAIK, they were sued, and they lost, which is why DEC was allowed to modify NT to run on Alpha systems, and to distribute it themselves. It wasn't an outright theft, but code that migrated into NT with several coders that had come from VMS development.
are all ripoffs of "the first car" and therefore we shouldn't drive them because they are illegal, and so on.
Seriously, if he actually claims it was stolen, he needs to be sued. I hope it happens. It's a unix like system, that's it. there's really only a few basic ways to make an operating system work, they all mimic themselves more than they are different. Well, I guess so anyway. You click on stuff it goes do something, or you type commands it goes do something. I know that is simplistic, but really, you got your two ways to go about things with a computer.
You can also see the anti free software forces of e-vile are getting desperate. the end users consumers (joe business community I mean more specifically) are at the crossroads of admiting that tools are for working in your *regular business*, that working and business is not "just" the tool. That's the major difference between closed source and propietary/for sale and open source/freely distributable and free.
What that does to the software "industry" is up for grabs now, but I can speculate that tool costs are dropping fast,all the way to free, and anyone depending on just selling tools better think and rethink of another way to make full time money at that. USE the tools, improve the tools, do some work with the tools, but the tools in and of themselves are mostly free/cheap now and the trends are for that to continue. One of them there paradigm altering periods in history.
> I was reffereing to the fact that Paul Allen and Bill Gates started Microsoft porting Basic interpreters from a "borrowed" open source base.
.Net authentication protocols, DRM.
.Net), possibly CodeWeavers (promoting MS Office on Linux, and ActiveX on the Internet), possibly Xandros and a couple of other Linux distributers (proprietary Linux admin tools, Qt-only desktop environment, promoting MS Office on Linux, etc.), possibly Macromedia (Flash), and who knows who else.
Why stop there? Almost every victory that Microsoft can claim has been achieved through dishonest, if not criminal means. Consider...
MICROSOFT DEFEATS DR-DOS BY:
- Fraud: Windows issues a warning about DR-DOS that MS knows is false.
- FUD: The DR-DOS evidence includes Microsoft memos planning the FUD campaign.
- Sabotage: Windows 95 has secret calls to prevent it from running on DR-DOS.
- Sabotage: MS purposely keeps DR-DOS out of the Windows Beta-test program (also documented by evidence).
MICROSOFT DEFEATS GEOWORKS BY:
- Sabotage: New MS-DOS release causes Geoworks to fail.
MICROSOFT DEFEATS WORDPERFECT BY:
- Fraud: MS publicly announces that OS/2 is the future direction.
- Sabotage: MS provides WordPerfect with faulty Windows APIs.
MICROSOFT DEFEATS OS/2 BY:
- Fraud: Microsoft pretends to support OS/2, then abandons it.
- FUD: Microsoft pays people to disparage OS/2 in posts in forums, letters to the editor, etc.
- Suspected Theft: Microsoft is believed to have borrowed OS/2 IP to use in Windows 3.1.
- Suspected Sabotage: Microsoft is believed to have provided less than their best code for OS/2.
MICROSOFT DEFEATS AMIPRO BY:
- Sabotage: Windows 95 causes AmiPro function-keys to break.
MICROSOFT DEFEATS NETSCAPE BY:
- Contract Interference: Microsoft pays sites to stop using Netscape (thus "cutting off Netscape's air supply").
- Extortion: Microsoft threatens VARs who preload Netscape.
- Extortion: Microsoft threatens Apple with the cancellation of MS Office for the Mac, unless Apple drops Netscape.
MICROSOFT ATTEMPTS TO DEFEAT JAVA BY:
- Sabotage: Microsoft tries to "kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted [J++] Java market."
- Fraud: Microsoft memo shows plan to keep quiet about the incompatibilities so that J++ users will unintentionally create Windows-only code.
AND NOW MICROSOFT IS ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT LINUX BY:
- Fud: Obviously.
- Fraud: False claims, planted by partners like Toqueville.
- Legal Attacks: Microsoft funded the SCO attack.
- Patents: Future.
- Legislation: DRM, etc.
- Proprietary Internet Protocols: MS Multimedia formats,
- Secret Hardware Protocols: Working with partners like NVidia (closed source drivers), ATI (closed source drivers), and AMD (the unpublished memory-access fix).
- Locking-in Linux: Working with partners like NVidia and ATI (closed source drivers), possibly Trolltech (the proprietary version of Qt, Qt support for
- Infiltration: MS plants joining Open Source projects to cause interference, wearing out the leaders through constant complaining, driving away other developers by acting like jerks, pushing the project in bad directions, etc.
- Infiltration: MS plants joining Open Source projects and pretending to be die-hard supporters, then pushing for overly-tight licensing, convincing others to add special restrictions that limit the software's use (possible examples: DotGNU, XFree86), using LGPL for what should be BSD (CodeWeaver's Wine), using GPL for what should be LGPL (MySQL), and so on.
AND JUST GENERAL DESTRUCTION...
*Ahem* I hate to spoil that nice thought, but Hemos appears to have taken all of those links from my (rejected) submission last night, and then forgot the media transparency link on where they get their funding. The rest appear to be exactly the same ones I submitted...
Speaking of which, here's an other good source of links to information.
Oh, and here's my other post from Groklaw, concerning what I think they're up to by throwing out inane nonsense like this press release:
Doesn't it seem odd to you that MS is stooping such silly tactics? Are they admitting that they have no real convincing argument to make for windows so they compare a mainframe to a PC? And funding these so called "thinktanks", what's the point? Are they ashamed to defend windows themselves?
It looks like they have completely thrown in the towel and are just grasping at straws. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.
evil is as evil does
true about microsoft, the fact that a lot of microsoft's code is pieces of everyone else's work, and the fact microsoft's name wasnt even thought up by gates or anyone involved.
not to mention dos wasnt even bill gates' creation.. only thing gates created was basic.
and even that is shady.
sounds like someone's jealous and upset that someone actually made something, and it's better.
prolly the fact that torvalds is a college graduate, and gates is just a junior high graduate.
That's on the same level as the Party in 1984 claiming to have invented the steam engine. The Ministry of Truth lives on at MS. I wonder how long before they either a) quietly remove that particular lie, or b) claim that its *obvious* that they meant the first programming language for the Altair, not the first programming language ever. On a side note, I wonder how long it is before someone posts the inevitable "Slashdot slams on MS and the groupthink supports it" post.
Another prime quote from their time-lie: "1997: Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4.0 gives users an unparalleled Internet client solution" Its marketing-speak gibberish running head long against reality. Wot the hell is an "Internet client solution"? I also like the breathless descriptive assumption that the world was just waiting for MS to provide this unparalleled Internet client solution becuase until then no one was actually able to use the net, it was just a vast wasteland until they came along and made it available to the masses.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I've been watching this just like everyone else.
And although I do not understand it to it's fullest extent, all I can say is, hold on it's going to be a bumpy ride.
SCO is not as dumb as you think, actually after reading this article I'm convinced they are a lot smarter than we all thought.
During discussions with a friend we tried to figure out SCO's plan.
After deciding that they must be taking pointers from MS, and watching their tactics from the past, we decided to apply MS thinking to SCO's actions. And the outcome is scary.
While not printed in stone, it is now painfully obvious what is going on.
For SCO to win, just like MS does, all they have to do is make a case in U.S. courts (Important point there), that states that Linux is a Unix imitation.
This study is part of that.
Also while we sit around laughing at SCO for losing their funding, and getting beat up left and right, it makes it all the better for them. They would then have more and more damages to sue for.
What makes this even more obvious is the fact that they don't give a shit about Unix, they haven't developed it to compete any more. It's merely there, being owned.
While I love Linux, and wish SCO would just frikken die already. I think it would be foolish not to look at how MS has won in the past, and apply that to SCO now. Evil or not, it HAS worked. And will continue to work, especially with the courts we have in place now.
Don't be fooled one bit by SCO looking stupid.
DeifieD
And then they sue you for some sort of false representation, defamation, or fraud. That, and you really couldn't state that they are the parent in court, lest you purjure yourself. There are too many complexities that would result from doing this sort of thing, and whoever does do it would land themselves a number of years in jail.
The judge would probably throw the case out of court once adequate proof of the true parent is obtained.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
Don't Have Sex?
the command prompt is just the equivalent of a shell.
.BAT file. The result was very interesting. IIRC the program would terminate allowing the .BAT file to continue, and the command would get executed when the .BAT file had terminated. But I even think that depended on which DOS version you used.
Obviously you can't imagine what kind of a mess DOS really was. COMMAND.COM was not just a program running on top of the kernel. There actually was an undocumented system call, that would send a command line to be executed by the running instance of COMMAND.COM. I once tried writing a program to use that call and used it from within a
What kind of "design" can explain that behavioure? Of course it would work differently if you used a different shell. Multiple alternatives for COMMAND.COM existed, none of them were messing with the kernel in the same way though. COMMAND.COM was really tied to a particular kernel version unlike the alternatives.
The kernel contained a system call which you might consider as the equivalent of the readline library. COMMAND.COM actually didn't implement the very limited line editing on it's own. The system call did that. I once wrote a TSR program to replace the system call with a version with command line history and other goodies. Of course my TSR would fail if you started windows and opened two DOS windows because my code wasn't reentrant. I ended up just detecting if another instance was running and fall back to the original input routine in that case. I could have done better if I could have reliably allocated some memory. But memory management with DOS was a pain, and windows on top and DOS programs in those made everything worse. I would have believed two DOS windows would be seperated with each getting their own memory, but no. My TSR utility loaded before Windows was started would be shared, the BIOS data segment and interrupt vectors OTOH would not.
Actually using the underlying DOS for two DOS windows really doesn't seem like a good idea when the underlying system is inherently single tasking. You could argue that TSR programs was a bad idea to begin with, and I would agree with you, but sometimes they were the only way to do a specific task under DOS. And any normal DOS system would have at least a handful of those.
Imagine how much better the world would have been today if IBM had been willing to spend those extra 64KB of RAM it would have required to run a real UNIX instead of MSDOS.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
So MS is scared shitless. It knows it has many enemies but believed it had them under control. Linux is removing that control. Linux is turning up in the strangest places. Sony has now several real products on the market with linux inside, not some tiny upstart company hoping to sell a few thousand products world wide but Sony the giant who makes nearly everything. This is not good if you are MS and want the world to think Computers == Windows.
The more linux is out there the more OS might become like diesel vs gas vs petrol. A choice based on your needs. MS doesn't want you to have a choice. People with choice might expect all kind of weird things. Performance. Reliabilty. Security.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...yet they have no problem with 'hijacking' a man's wallet and life for 18+ years should she want to keep it and he not.
Yes, feminists are kings of the double standard. In fact, I would go as far to say that the feminist movement has destroyed a good part of our society as a result of their lobbying and highly-skewed advocacy. I truly don't care if the homemaker in a family is a man or a woman, but I care wholeheartedly that "homemaker" be respected as a full-time profession requiring not only hard work but real skill, too. The destruction of homemaker by the feminists as a widely-respected profession in the USA has led us to the double-income absentee-parents fucking-brat-kids miserable world we live in today.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
And neither, apparantly, are you.
This whole conversation started with a statement to the effect of "once you establish paternity" you're screwed. After about ten or twenty minutes of checking, I was unable to locate a single state where, in order to be listed as the father of a child on the birth certificate, you didn't have to either:
If you kept it in your pants, you know that you didn't father any children, and would therefore not be likely to sign something saying you did, addressing point 1. Keeping it in your pants will also take care of point 2 quite easily. Ergo, my father's advice stands. You were foolish to doubt him.
And the notion that someone could be 'hijacked' into paternity, without either signing something (even by mistake) or with a court mandate, is patently ludicrous, and I challenge you to provide an example of it happening, if you can. Until then, this is just bitter-man misogyny.
I'll be waiting for your reply.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Anyhow, the Disinfopedia wiki keeps track of organizations such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. It is a wiki, so anyone can add information about them (including you).
We need a Linux Truth website, one that dispells the myths, exagerations, and lies that Microsoft spews about Linux and has fallacious research done on that does not have enough details to be replicated. Because they do not release the details of the conditions to have someone replicate the results, it is not a valid scientific research.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
People have been doing the "kids these days" rant for millenia. I grew up in the 50's and 60's when few women worked outside the home, and I don't recall kids being perfect then, either. Where to do you think all those long-haired, hippie, student radicals came from?
I suspect that if you actually try to match the reliability, throughput, and dependability of Linux on a mainframe with Microsoft on Intel that the cost of the mainframe will be substantially lower.
More relevant would be the TCO of Linux on a junker to Windows on a dual Xeon.
People have been doing the "kids these days" rant for millenia.
This isn't a "kids these days" rant. Huge numbers of people are working harder than ever before, yet they are in more debt than ever before. The boom of credit counseling and unsecured loan companies (paycheck loans, etc.) are good evidence. Just among what I hear from friends and family, I know of several people who are filing for bankruptcy and other people who are in tens of thousands of dollars of unsecured debt, and my family is all solidly middle and upper income people. Simply earning more money is not the cure to all this...people need to quit wasting money on status luxuries like expensive cell phone plans and those shitty looking aftermarket wheels on their cars (I hope that fashion trend dies fast). The people among my friends and family who live modestly and within their means are all in very good financial health regarding debt levels and savings, and, guess what, they are also the happiest.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
"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."
I think the whole point of this was to get out the adjective "but controversial". The adjective was repeated verbatim in the Yahoo article without a quote attribution. That means that everyone who read it on Yahoo thinks that the reporter is making that characterization.
I think MS has a new strategy, one borrowed from the Bush administration: In the run-up to the Iraq war Bush and his cronies would answer every question about Iraq using the words 'war on terrorism' and 'september 11th'. Even though they never once claimed that Iraq was involved in 9-11, just from word association 53% of Americans believe Hussein was personally involved in it and 44% believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
I think MS wants to put this word-association strategy to work for itself. By getting attack dog think-tanks to put out press releases connecting Linux with words like 'controversial' or 'unscrupulous' in the first paragraph, MS would be able to damage Linux's credibility without having to put forth an actual argument. If they can get their blurbs read often enough, it might even stick.
The first thing I read that amused me was:
:) Consider it a lesson learned on my part. Although it's not as easy as 'she names him, he goes broke' but more like 'she names him, he fails to be vigilant in defending his interests, he goes broke later on.' Wouldn't you agree?
"I mean, it's mostly my fault -- 'Fill out the form, dumb-ass!'
The rest of the article was, well, enlightening (not that you minded a quick shill for your magazine, right?) but it sounds like there are *some* remedies for guys that are wrongly accused. Since you know more about this than me, you might answer me this: are there counter-suits filed by the claimants when it's so easy to demonstrate an error on the part of the state? Sounds like an open-and-shut case to me that a lawyer would love to jump on. Do counter-suits happen, and if not, why?
Also, since you have some connection with the magazine, what did DCSS AD Leora Gershenzon (the article misspells her name) suggest wrongly accused deadbeat dads do? The article rather abruptly shifted away from her interview. In my experience, that means the author didn't want to tell the whole story, so what's the rest of the story?
But thanks for the example - I guess when I made my second post, I should have thought more about California. Despite what their webpage says (filling out a paternity form is the official method mentioned) it shouldn't surprise me that California is that screwed up.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.