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.
.....and seeing as how they have such close ties to MS, perhaps they could run a study as to how Microsoft came to be born.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
TFA also mentions that Kenneth Brown (braindead author of the book about the study) interviewed RMS, but I fail to see any references to GNU/Linux in the write-up. I call shenanigans. Is it April 1st?
And finally, cheers to Hemos. There five times as many links in the editorial insert than there are in the actual submission. Someone buy this man a beer.
"No... I am your father!"
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,
Thou shalt be excommunicated from the church of *nix!
-Imidazole2
Acutal out loud laughter. I don't think that I need any more proof that Microsoft feels very threatened when I see puff pieces like this.
There are so many studies on the same topics that the public never hears about, what good is the information in the few that the media choose to cover?
Yeah, and Gates is not the father of the BSOD.
Nothing disturbs me more than blind loyalism towards some unrealistic and over-idealistic notion of one's nationality.
Isn't Darl McBride the true father of Linux? This is why he wants his $699. Effective immediately, Linux will be renamed to Darlsux.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They're obviously trolling. Don't feed.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Interesting how the whole report seems to be one big straw-man argument.
(i.e. claiming the other is saying something they're not, and then showing that it is false)
Their straw-man seems to be the idea (which noone, of course, has claimed) that Linux somehow was created in a vacuum.
From there they proceed to show how Linux was (*shock*) a clone of Unix!
(Probably leaving out the fact that there are literally dozens of them.)
The Yahoo! article ends with a mention about this guy's (from AdTI) upcoming book. It sounds to me as if his claims are nothing more than a publicity stunt, generating interest in his book.
and the "Star Wars" program was a good idea
...but not the "Christmas on Endor" version.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
As far as I can tell, the true father of Linux is in fact Al Gore. He invented it shortly after his fledgling idea of a net-inter caught on and became what we know now as the internet. It was originally called Alix, but had to be renamed due to copyright issues involving a book about wonderland....
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
De Tocqueville was a late French Enlightenment writer who traveled America and wrote in praise of American civil society, as opposed to French (which after having just gone throught the first revolution, and the dictatorship of Napolean, was looking pretty shitty.)
Anyway, it's way too early in the morning for me to pull out a page reference, but one of the major themes in his _Democracy in America_ is that American society functions well due to the large number of volunteer organizations that Americans joined in, fire departments, sewing circles, sports clubs, free publications and that sort of thing. These things raise community awareness, and allow the democratic process to work, since he believed that it would fall apart if all democracy was was everyone voting their own pocketbook.
Anyway, I'd say the Free Software movement in America is certainly a continuation of that civic spirit.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Mod story -1 Troll.
/. for chrissakes.
Jesus Christ, posted on the front page of
Next story::
Tinfoil hats, snazzy wardrobe accessory or anti-M$oft mind-control device?
Or::
Bill Gates wants to control your fridge with NT4.0.
[/rant]
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
I've wondered aloud why Microsoft had pulled the rug out from underneath SCO, and now it's obvious. They're going to start using these idiots, and probably others, to spread the same stupid message.
Get used to it, folks, it's not going to get any better anytime soon. That's good news, too, since the credibility of this sort of stuff has been mostly destroyed by Darl's loud mouth.
Do you have ESP?
While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt.
Here's one immediate problem with the way this guy thinks - the two groups of programmers he mentions are not mutually exclusive as he implies. One can speak out about the problems with IP rights and still be respectful and careful about not violating them.
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
tells it like it is....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
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).
And since Lemma 1.7 says "no communist is worth his own weight in dog excrement," it naturally follows that Linux must have originated elsewhere.
I propose one of the following:
I think you'll see the logic in all of this immediately.
After many interviews with astronauts and rocket scientists, I have determined that the moon is probably made of cheese.
I tell all in my soon-to-be-released book.
Find out how NASA lied!
Excerpts to be published on my website.
(Note: This is not a shameless self-promotion gimmick. It's not. Really.)
um.. DOS was written from scratch by Tim Paterson. it was originally called qdos, which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System." MS bought the rights to it and renamed it MS-DOS. It looks similiar to cp/m but its an entirely different OS. look here http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson 04_10_98.htm
people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix.
I guess he's saying this to contrast the way Microsoft unscrupulously imitated CPM/DOS, Lotus 1,2,3, Macintosh, WordPerfect, Stac . . .
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
_Star Wars_ was a good idea. The same way successive U boat campaigns against the British were a good idea, the same way Sherman's march to the sea was a good idea. IOW, hit them in the wallet or flatten their production capability. Because of the great debate on Star Wars and the intransigence of the Reagan administration on the issue, the Sovs had to take it as something plausible, and thus we were able to force them to divert funds and resources to a possible chimera.
It doesn't matter whether you think Star Wars can work now or not, it's been almost 20 years since it was first proposed, so the reality now has no bearing on then. For what it was used to accomplish, Star Wars was a great idea.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Fact: AdTI employs James Kilpatrick as a senior fellow. Kilpatrick made a career defending segregation and apartheid.
Fact: AdTI employs John Norquist, the not-so-big-time younger brother of big-time conservative activist Grover Norquist.
Fact: AdTI president Ken Brown's sole research qualification is a BA in English from George Mason. He has built a career out of milking shady publications, agent-of-foreign-power lobby groups, and dubious business-academica-government incest groups.
Half of the links from the AdTI front page are broken. The other half send you to repositories of op-eds and recorded radio shows.
This is not a research institute. Not even a bad research institute. This is a demi-journalistic hack shop where goldbricking bottomfeeders of right-wing policy studies and editorial-writing filch cash from gullible corporations in return for hastily-written hokum.
Please do not post any more from these con artists. I'm sure they get paid by the hit.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
And Honda cars are a 'stolen product' because they have steering wheels and gearshifts just like Fords.
Linux started out as a Minix clone. Though it is more than that now, it's roots lie much closer to Andy Tannenbaum than they do to the Finn.
... not using a single line of Tannenbaum's available, but not open source or free, source code.
... that is to say, partially true, but also not really correct, and an overall mischaracterization of the effort (an OS written completely from scratch, not copied from another) and the goal (a usable, free UNIX-clone, not a usable, free, specific-UNIX-implimentation clone).
There is nothing to "admit." Linus wrote Linux as a i386 replacement for MINIX (which only ran on 80286 machines) because he wanted a UNIX he could use and play with on his hardware. He wrote the entire thing from scratch
Anyone looking at the old Tannenbaum book (which has the source code to MINIX in it) and the early Linux kernel code can easily tell they were written independently of each other. Anyone, that is, without an anti-free software agenda and ax to grind...
Calling Linux a MINIX clone is about as accurate as calling Linux an AT&T Sys V or generic UNIX clone
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
OSAMA BIN LADEN!
Thus, by using Linux, you're supporting the terrorists.
Everyone please report to the near Homeland detention center for "reprogramming".
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.
I love the Linux Mainframe comparison, they compare Linux on an IBM mainframe to Windows 2003 Server on a dual Xenon server. Then cite the Linux machine as having a higher TCO becuase of the cost of the mainframe, the power bill, the maintenance contract, etc.
Or how about the Windows vs. Linux report that does not put a cost on the security breaches and malware attacks on Windows systems?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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
This is almost like saying Bill Gates didn't write MS DOS! ...oh wait...
He didn't.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I have experienced, on many occasions, the burn of a scrutinous pedant seeking to demerit my efforts. In this particular case K. Brown is deliberately misunderstanding Linus' "invention of Linux". Linus has never claimed to be the father of open source nor has he ever claimed to be the father of the POSIX standards upon which *NIX-like operating systems are built. As Linux has achieved a mild popularity those in the public who are not familiar with the history of computing have begun to associate Linus with the invention of *NIX-like operating systems since they only know of one: Linux. They have associated Linus with the inception of open source software because they are ignorant of the origins of software and only know of one open source arena: Linux.
Linus is being attacked because of common perception built upon a basis of ignorance. This is a common tactic used to discredit and undermine support for anyone who stands at the forefront of a collection of ideas which challenges the established financially successful, and often monopolistic, "powers-that-be".
If this even bothers Linux, if he even takes more than a few moments out of his day to be concerned with it, then I can empathize with him. For his sake I hope he takes the higher road: ignore it and concentrate on what he does best.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Uh, I think Linus's claim to the first Linux kernel is quite valid and he cited prior art:
c t5.0541 06.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
"As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers."
I think the lineage to Unix via minix is obvious. Linus wrote his own kernel. The other pieces may have already existed, but the kernel was new. Unless he stole it from another Linus who conveniently named the project "Linux" after himself.
Over the last 13 years, many others contributed to the kernel and development which, according to SCO, may have included some questionable copy-paste commands, but I think the beginning is clear and the origins are clearly cited.
See here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991O
I'm not sure the author of the article really understands what Linux is and what Linux is not. He is right about varying degress of fanaticism and the very loose definition of "open source." No matter where you get your software, you're at the mercy of the developer to maintain it--commercial or open source. For example, I think the Linux community has been very good about responding to security issues compared to much larger corporations who have a very loose definition of quality control. When those corporations begin to loose money to smaller groups who out perform, then those corporations pay for studies that skew the truth and spread FUD.
Read the article--the math isn't all that fuzzy.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Try to reduce the Linux community by litterally annoying their followers to death. Particularly the zealots will get issues if they have weak hearts (which most have since geeks don't exercise) while composing their forum posts. A very clever plan indeed...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think that is entirely the point. Linux was also written from scratch[1] but based upon UNIX design and philosophy[2]. It (Linux) looks similar to UNIX but it's an entirely different OS.
The analogy is entirely apt. Microsoft got its big break by selling a CP/M knockoff. Linux is a UNIX knockoff. So what? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Perhaps somebody should release a whitepaper: "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS". Could equally well follow that up with "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-Windows".
[1] Pedant Points: Linus says that the early (never distributed) versions of Linux contained Minix code but all that code was removed before the first ever public release.
[2] More Pedant Points: Some people might say Linux was based on Minix design, but Linus early on said he wanted to follow POSIX specs. So Linux is more correctly a POSIX wannabe.
I don't think Linus should bother. As it is, everyone who matters can see how ridiculous that is. If Linus places a rebuttal in major news outlets, it'll give credibility to these people (or at least more public controversy, as they will post a response themselves, then Linus will have to reply, and this will continue to go on fueling publicity for Brown's book). They WANT people to take them seriously and reply. They're powerless if we don't.
Really...I'd just rather see Linus's usual witty replies in a board somewhere, definitely not in a major news outlet. It won't give them fuel to their campaign and I'll be able to laugh, perhaps as much as I laughed after reading their press release.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I am not sure if terrorism works better because of open source, but that Nicholas Berg video appears to have been encoded in WMV format.
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
Your post begins with some promise, pointing out the dubious intellectual heritage of key AdTI fellows, but then... somehow makes the leap into generalisations about conservatives?
Not to belabour an obvious point, but... Not everyone who is stupid is a conservative, and not every conservative is stupid. You aren't helping your cause (whatever that is), by picking up some limp hack, and shaking him about as an example of the "Evil Neocon".
In an attempt to paint all conservatives with the AdTI brush, you have made the same error that AdTI makes -- taking a shallow understanding of a concept, and make inflamatory generalisations about a group.
As both a conservative and a supporter of software Libre, I find your persistent rantings both tiring, and comical. Surely all "liberals" can't be as shallow as you are? If you are going to continue searching for examples of "Neocon" evil, at least try to come up with some examples worthy of disdain, instead of derision.
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
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.
There is a creative process involved with writing software, but its no more invention than the act of writing music is called "inventing music".
Music is "composed".
Software is "developed".
There's nothing "inventable" about software.
Unless you think Hayden should have took out a patent on the "Symphony"
"Collection of music that is played by many musicians such that music is broken into theme, counterpart, resolution in 1 to multiple parts. Music is group together to form a sound picture which is then used to inspire both performer and audience. It includes the following elements:
1) White pages with black dots on them to represent exact musical score
2) Wood or metal instrument which is plucked or blown to create sound
3) Sound in claim #2 is used in accordance with claim #1 to produce sound that has coherence
4) Each musician has a slightly different copy of the music
5) The claims in #4 when performed in exact time increments produces sound variations that are impossible with a single instrument.
6) Additional performer (known as conductor) will stand and wave arms
7) Said conductor in claim 6 will wave arms in unique motion depending on type of time in part 5 above such that there is a distinct way of waving arms according to number of beat in measure
8) As music is broken into movements, time may be taken to give audience a rest. Audience may leave to get drinks in the lobby at this time.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
> 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...
You're joking, but something like year or two ago MS itself published an interview with Dave Cutler, who said that the name NT came from Intel's i960, code-named N-Ten, which was under construction at that time and was also the RISC chip that NT was originally coded for.
After it became clear for MS that i960 would never became a generic-purpose processor it was first meant to be, and that its release would get significally delayed, MS started quickly to work with an i386 port of NT. It did not took long, as at that time they did not have much except kernel ready, and it was quick to port as Cutler had insisted portable code without excessive asm optimisations.
(Disclaimer: everything IIRC)
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
SCO: Slashdot never told you what happened to your father.
LINUX: They told me enough! They told me you killed him!
SCO: No, Linux. I am your father!
LINUX: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
majority of corporations, which are run by people, are slow to wakeup to the realization that most of us /.ers know. In time, the truth will be self-evident, and is becoming so for more and more. As this quote says.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
I believe it's only a matter of time. It doesn't mean we're complacent, we still have to continue our efforts at debunking the FUD.
Scientia et Potentia
*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:
"I was reffereing to the fact that Paul Allen and Bill Gates started Microsoft porting Basic interpreters from a "borrowed" open source base."
Why stop at that? Where Micro-Soft's original corporate home was is very intresting. The Sundowner Motel in Albuquerque. The Sundowner was a seedy little Motel that was widely used by drug dealers and Hookers for their business.
Microsoft was born in a Whore House! Dosen't that explain their Business ethics?
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
But we really don't need a Microsoft link to demonstrate the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's grotesque ideological bias. While the think-tank positions itself as an independent, libertarian research group designed to "study, promote, and extend the principles of classical liberalism: political equality, civil liberty, and economic freedom," they function, more often than not, as a shill for Big Business and the far political right.
AdTI is a fellow-traveler of neoconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and shadowy groups like the "Defenders of Property Rights," with whom they are aligned as part of an anti-Clean Air Act hit squad ironically misnamed the Cooler Heads Coalition. These are the folks who have been grinding out the industrialist propaganda which has allowed the Bush Administration to roll back environmental laws a couple of decades.
The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute can always be counted upon for a convenient white paper discounting the risks of tobacco smoking or in favor of vastly expensive weapons programs of dubious utility.
It's tough to source the funding of private institutes, but the folks at Media Transparency have taken a stab at AdTI. Big sugar daddies include the Bradley Foundation, which gives away millions each year to attack social programs and support the privatization of government services. There's also the John M. Olin Foundation, which has lavishly funded a host of robber baron nonprofits over the years.
So it's no surprise that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institiute -- which seems to exist to provide a moral compass for the richest and most powerful interests in the West -- should be seen to carry water for anti-Open Source reactionaries. What's bad for big business must be bad for the nation. Linux must be discredited before it causes more distress for the market planners at Microsoft.
The only freedom being defended by groups like AdTI is the feedom to buy what the Establishment is selling. And at a price they decide.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
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
I can't begin to do it justice (Groklaw is already linking to it). Enjoy!! (I will reveal in advance only that Torvalds "comes clean" about a lifetime of deception...)
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.
"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.
Quote from this publication:
"many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt."
Since when is speaking with contempt of something wrong? Does that make you a "software pirate"? Let's see how these guys define "intellectual property" in a previous publication about intellectual property theft linked by Slashdot:
"Today, intellectual property is not just patents, copyrights and trademarks, it is processes, techniques, methodology and talent; described by many experts as intellectual capital."
This apparently means that:
1. My talents are the property of my employer because the value of my talents is part of the capital valuation of the company on the market. If I leave that constitutes intellectual property theft.
2. If intangible capital valuation on the market decreases because someone else is doing the same things better or cheaper than you that constitutes intellectual property theft (instead of competition).
I do not know what they are trying to promote, but it surely is not freedom or competition. This conception of intellectual property is based on a fundamental misconception of the value of knowledge. It is also a great threat to freedom and world peace.
In a close sourced patented world of the AdTI's making, Henry Ford makes a car with 4 circular wheels and 100 years later, we're arguing about whether the car should have 3 or 5 square wheels.
Unix is a 30-year-old idea because Unix is a 30-year-old good idea... enough said.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.