Slashdot Mirror
Andy Tanenbaum on 'Who Wrote Linux'
Andy Tanenbaum writes "Ken Brown has just released a book on open source code. In it, he claims (1) to have interviewed me, and (2) that Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux. I think Brown is batting .500, which is not bad for an amateur (for people other than Americans, Japanese, and Cubans, this is an obscure reference to baseball). Since I am one of the principals in this matter, I thought it might be useful for me to put my 2 eurocents' worth into the hopper. If you were weren't hacking much code in the 1980s, you might learn something." Tanenbaum's description of the interview process with Brown is classic. See also Slashdot's original story and Linus' reply.
Poor old Ken Brown must be wondering how wise it was to have made that particular trip now! :-)
Curious that someone would spend all that cash and yet have done so little research. Smells of hidden agendas, or no-so-hidden agendas perhaps?
The best part has to be: "But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up."
Andrew Tanenbaum discovers slashdot effect. Adti disputes it, citing that others discovered it first and that Tannenbaum just copied it.
Start with a premise, do little or no research, and declare conclusions. When the truth is pointed out, get indignant.
Granted, I haven't read the book in question, but this was a very enlightening article. I especially loved the comment that insinuates that Linus could have done a better job if he HAD stolen the code, than he did.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
"It was the dawn of the third age of mankind. Ten years after the Earth-Minbari war,
"the Babylon project was a dream given form
"Its goal: to prevent another war by creating a place where humans and aliens could work out their differences peacefully.
"It's a port-of-call, home away from home for diplomats, hustlers, entrepreneurs, and wanderers.
"Humans and aliens wrapped in two million five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal, all alone in the night.
"It can be a dangerous place, but it's our last, best hope for peace.
"This is the story of the last of the Babylon stations. The year is 2258.
"The name of the place is Babylon5."
"Oh, and GNU Hurd was just released."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
SCO wrote it. From scratch. Now cough up that $699!
Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
1. Describe the components of an operating system, besides the central component, the kernel.
The Klaspil, the Frammistat and the Peramulator (sometimes called the "Virtual McGuggehupphe Valve). The Kaspil formats tuples for processing by the Frammistat, tuples are sorted, tagged and valued by the Perambulator.
2. What do programmers usually develop first, the compiler or the kernel?
Acne. Lots, usually.
3. Does this sequence impact the OS at all?
Probably
4. What's more complicated, the kernel or the compiler?
Girls
5. Why does operating system development take as long as it does?
Why is a duck?
What are the three key things in operating system development that take the longest to perfect?
Obsolecense, threading and nice icons.
6. Do you need operating systems familiarity to write a kernel? Yes / no? Elaborate please.
Yes. No.
7. In your opinion, why aren't there more operating systems on the market?
Terrorism.
Windows is a special 3rd type of kernel, called a "three ring clusterfuck".
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Further you are comparing apples with oranges comparing a Mac to a PC
I object to your comparison between apples and oranges and Macs and PCs. Equating apples compared to oranges with Macs compared to PCs is like comparing comparisons between euphemisms with comparisons between idioms.
The components of the operating system are as follows: The file browser, the kernelized window manager, the web browser, the media player, and the gaping remote exploit. As can be seen by this feature list, Microsoft Windows is the only true operating system on the market today.
Neither can be developed without access to a text editor, so invariably this is always written first. Unfortunately, once it is written, it needs to be compiled, and the compiler itself needs an operating system to run on. This "chicken and egg" problem wasn't solved until 2097, with the invention of time travel.
[Seriously, this guy is wrong to assume that both have to be written in order to have a complete system. Theoretically, you could develop an x86 operating system entirely on an Apple Powerbook, and just copy the binaries over, so you don't need to develop a compiler to develop an operating system.]
Yes. Writing the compiler first opens a gaping hole in the fabric of the universe, while writing the kernel first causes a plague of sabre-toothed cows. The trick is to write them both at the same time so that the cows are immediately sucked into the gaping hole.
"Complicated" means "something I know how to do." "Simple" means "something I don't know how to do, but I know the people who do and they're a bunch of nitwits so how hard can it be?" Given that criteria, I would have to say that both are braindead simple. Ask me again in a couple of years.
There are three rules that apply here. The first is Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you think, even if you've accounted for Hofstadter's Law.
The second rule is the 90% rule: The first 90% of the project will take 90% of the time, and the last 10% will take the other 90% of the time.
The last rule is called the "There's no way in hell we can add all the features the marketing department has already promised our customers, and they just added twenty more, and by the way three of them violate laws of physics" rule. Unfortunately, only the name of the rule has been passed down over the years, so nobody remembers what it was about.
A basic familiarity with computers is helpful, but not strictly necessary. For example, when Dennis Ritchie wrote the compiler for the BCPL language, he didn't actually use a computer. He scrawled the whole thing on a ream of paper, and had his secretary transcribe it. Similarly, when Linus wrote the 0.1 kernel, he used a photocopier.
Because it is not in the interests of the Freemasons to have more operating systems on the market. I can't say anything more about that in this forum, but it's absolutely true.
[Geez. There's a difference between an "operating system" (which a decent grad student can whip out in a few months) and an operating system which can be marketed as competition to the OSes already on the market. Linux 1.0 was probably closer to the former than the latter.]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I personally prefer nanokernels. A nanokernel is a (kernel * 10^-9). It works out as being much smaller and faster, since a microkernel is only (kernel * 10^-6). Yeah, yeah? Let's see if Andy Tanenbaum can explain that one! Soon, Linux hackers will be jumping ship because they will be 1337 enough to write a PICOKERNEL!
It's what makes pine work.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.