Slashdot Mirror
Stallman vs Ken Brown
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has become the latest person to speak-out about Ken Brown's "independent" study of Linux, which accuses it of being a Minix/Unix rip-off. Stallman says Brown deliberately confused the Linux kernel vs the GNU project, although I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two."
I'm just dying to see this so called "academic study" of the history of Linux and the Open Source community get to see the light of day, and get tarnished so badly by everyone.
Mr. Brown is up for the ride of his life (probably the last one as I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously after his paper gets out).
Stop being afraid of reviews and books - the truth will let itself be seen...
(sorry for the karma whoring - this just drives me nuts!)
Cynicism Personified got a hold of a pre-release copy of it, and we posted some similar editorial.
"All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss." - Douglas Adams
He'll publish.
The point of the report is not to be correct, but to give MS (and others) something to point to and say "See? That there Linux thing is EEEEEVUL!"
In defense of TFA, it never once mentions "GNU/Linux". I think it does a fairly decent job of making the point that the GNU system and the Linux kernel are two separate things, without having to explicitly hand-hold the reader.
And about MS funding "studies": the ones that aren't FUD are the ones that we never hear about. I will bet my reputation as an AC that Microsoft has paid independent researchers to conduct a test, and thrown out the results when they didn't get what they wanted. It's not a conspiracy, it's just forum-shopping. In the spirit of bad Slashdot analogies, it's like getting a second opinion from a different doctor.
Brown's argument is that no single person could have written a Unix clone in six months. In this case it's necessary to point out that Linux is just a kernel, not the entire thing. All the other utilities and programs were available from GNU at the time.
I can't believe I'm reading comments complaining about Stallman's use of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, when this whole Brown debacle highlights how important it is to differentiate between the GNU system and the Linux kernel.
Typical Slashdot reaction to a post about Stallman without understanding a single thing the man says.
Usually arguments about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" are nearly pointless, but in this case they matter. Linus wrote most of Linux-the-kernel but not most of Linux-the-operating-system. Brown takes advantage of most people thinking of "Linux" as Linux-the-operating-system to make people think that Linux couldn't possibly have written "Linux" in six months. This is a prime example of equivocation .
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
I wasn't specifically quoting the use of GNU/Linux in the article. I was making the point that RMS insists we use that to describe Linux and the tools generally used with it.
RMS insists that GNU/Linux be used when talking about Linux in general (not just the kernel). People are just starting to see Linux and they see the GNU in front. They will immediately believe they are one in the same. Remember... Most people are under the MS-influence. "Microsoft Windows" is what they know and understand. They are likely going to extrapolate that to "GNU Linux".
Ken Brown will make lots of money from this book because of the massive free publicity.
I hope the mainstream media's reviewers of this book are decent enough to mention that EVEN THE AUTHOR OF MINIX disagrees completely that Linux is a ripoff of Minix.
*Sigh* but he'll make money anyway. Sucks that you can proclaim a big lie and make mad cash from it.
Another point where this is a problem is when people say "Linux is too fragmented", because Red Hat is different from SuSE is different from Mandrake is different from Debian, etc.
Linux is not an OS! It's a kernel. Red Hat is an OS, and so is Debian, and neither Debian nor Red Hat is fragmented. Sure, they're different, but then a 747 is not the same as an A300 and you don't hear anyone complain about that either. As long as you can switch reasonably easily from one Red Hat version to another, there is no fragmentation.
And really, is it all that hard? Linux is a kernel. GNU is a set of userland utilities. Red Hat is an OS, one that includes both Linux and GNU, and a whole lot of other software, some of which is Red Hat specific. Think about what you really want to say exactly and the right way to say it is obvious.
And if you want to generalise all the distributions that use Linux as a kernel, try "Linux-based OSes".
Lourens
You got it wrong. Stallman very much realizes that most people get it wrong. And that's all the more reason to correct them.
Also, keep in mind that a lot of users are unaware of the GNU Project's involvement. He's trying to reach them also.
One thing that stood out to me in this article:
"Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."
Why?
Why do open source projects have to prove this for each piece of code? Proprietary projects dont have to do this right? But open source projects always have the code available for the world to check over.
Surely Linus should just accept any code and leave it up to any companys who own and IP it may infringe on to chase it up? Thats why we have patents, copyright etc right?
I cant believe that the SCO lawsuit and MS FUD has lead to this... extra work for Linus.... he should be left to concentrate on producing kernel code not dealing IP issues.
Fine, MS can continue to charge as much as they like for their OS, but from now on it should include the source code so we can check the codes "origins".
"Is the money from Microsoft really worth destroying his reputation?"
(Looks at cheque. Looks at any estimate of the current value of his reputation, after all the detailed postings about his complete incompetency)
Yes, absolutely. If everyone is going to think you're an idiot, you might as well look like a rich one.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Ahh, in this world of uncertainty at least you can count on good old Stallman to filter EVERY SINGLE THING that ever happens through the Linux vs. GNU/Linux argument.
Ken Brown is a Troll, hired by MicroSoft.... ...And we have ALL taken the bait!
I don't care if the Pope speaks out about this book -- we've beaten this dead horse enough.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
The thing that boggles my mind about all of this is that it seems like Brown thinks or wants to convince others that Linux ``magically'' appeared in a robust form.
I started using Linux in December 1991 with version 0.11. Stable and mature aren't quite the words I would use for that version, especially when you consider that I had to reinstall it about twice a day and it didn't even have login or a proper shutdown command.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
So why does it matter?
Why should we even bother reading such FUD if we already know the author doesn't posses the capability to make a reasoned argument? And whose fault is it if we get mad at what they say?
It is pieces like this which say far more about Microsoft than they do about Linux. This is as bad as people criticizing Microsoft carte-blanche with no rationale whatsoever.
I suppose these articles are useful as flame-fodder, but they do very little toward actually providing enlightment concerning the issues facing both Windows and Linux.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It's being "rewritten", apparently. Was mentioned in an article a couple of days ago. Allegedly to add in Browns answer to the criticism he's recieved, and the news of Linus wanting more source history control in his tree.
My guess is that it will lose all the debunked bullshit and instead consist of "Look, Linus Torvalds want better source history control in the Linux OS (confusing the kernel with the OS, again), therefore we were right all along no matter what we said! Based on this we draw the conclusion that so there! Greetz to Team McBride and Billy The Goatsex"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Don't help them beta test their FUD please.
It's especially humorous (in a sad way) as one of Alexis de Tocqueville's (the French author, not the intitution) main, favorable points about the US was the rich fabric of volunteerism, community spirit, and neighbourliness.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
How is it news when Stallman once again complains that no one seems to get the difference between GNU and Linux?
Stallman regurgitating rhetoric about the difference between "Free as in speech" and "Free as in beer". There's another bit of news that Slashdot can report every single day and still remain reputable.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just forum-shopping.
It is deceptive. Essentially, they want it to appear to be a scholarly work because of the credibility they believe that will lend to the report. It is a deceptive advertising practice since it does not meet the standards of a scholarly work. A good clue is that the people interviewed seem to feel misrepresented.
Brown's argument is that no single person could have written a Unix clone in six months.
Brown wouldn't be able to. But that's hardly the same as no one can.
It's been done before and will most likely be done again. It's not that big a deal. I've written an OS (not Unix, early OS/360) and I'm nowhere near the league of these big guns.
Want proof? In the entire review copy there isn't A SINGLE WORD that hasn't been used by other writers, sometimes writing on the VERY SAME TOPICS that Ken Brown writes on.
By the way, I'm trying to be "Insightful" more than "Funny"....
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
At the end of six months Linus had a functional kernel. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing even really that great compared to other existing kernels. It was from the support of other developers that it was able to become better.
I am not trying to downplay what Linus did because not everyone could do it. Just saying there were other kernels out there including bsd. Without the contributions of other developers I don't think the linux kernel would be where it is today. Now with others contributing to it, it does make sense to keep a good log of where the code comes from. A little bit of hassle to prevent bigger hassles down the line.
To say he must have copied the code is a bit unfair. The best way to describe it is the way other scientific projects grow. Bill Joy said in an interview "At Berkeley, we had the model that software is the result of your research. The university tradition is that when you do research, you publish. ...... But the fundamental principle in my mind is that people get to see the results of other people's work in a way that they can stand on shoulders rather than on toes."
Open Source Java DAO Generator
No, he will not.
The only people who know he is a screw-up for M$ are on slashdot and similar forums, and most of us do not count.
Has any big journal caught this? Time? Newsweek? Forbes? Fortune? Etc
nah. They do not have to know stuff, only know what the great unwashed masses that read them want to hear.
They have to dumb down so much, so often, that they are dumbed down themselves.
wake up and hold your nose
"RMS insists that GNU/Linux be used when talking about Linux in general (not just the kernel)."
No he doesn't. He asks that you refer to a GNU system that uses a Linux kernel as "GNU/Linux". He could easily have ignored it and continued to refer to the GNU system with a Linux kernel as just GNU but that's disingenuous because Linux isn't part of GNU.
I fail to understand why people can't grasp what RMS is saying. He's explained it often enough.
Kidding aside, this seems to be his only topic of conversation now. He's the legless veteran on the front porch, bemoaning the fates of battles fought long ago, and not budging or even listening to the greater conversation. He is just as divisive as the GNU/Linux terminology looks.
[
GNU was and a valuable part of Linux but it is now so bogged down by RMS's ego it is loosing it's way. The whole idea of a software social movment and how it is un ethical to sell software just gets to me. Why is it anymore evil to sell software without it's source code than to sell a book with out making it available in machine readable from? Why should I not take a copy of a book and add a chapter or two or none and resell it as long as I give away the "source"?
Frankly I find RMS saying that selling closed source software is immoral as offensive as SCO claiming that Open Source software is unamerican.
The right to give away your work is just as important as the right not to.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'd be very much inclined to agree with you...
What I'd say is slightly different -
Linux is the kernel
GNU is the operating system itself
RedHat is the group that got it together to produce a product of GNU and Linux.
Therefore saying 'RedHat' is fine, unless RedHat makes a non-GNU or non-Linux product. It describes the collection of GNU and Linux that the RedHat company makes.
Debian produces a similar product, they use different parts in their final product, so it's 'Debian'
So Debian is Debian, RedHat is RedHat - if I wanted to call about them collectively they're GNU distributions as far as I'm concerned, especially when you consider that Debian *does* do products that don't use Linux, ie Hurd, NetBSD, etc.
Referring to it as Linux is dumb, because some day a new hot kernel will come along, and it'll become the next buzzword, but if we all say GNU/Linux now, then when GNU/Homsar or whatever becomes the cool thing, people will recognise the GNU element, and it won't be so confusing for people.
Join the Free Software Foundation
It seems to me that the community has already given this guy a lot more consideration (and free press) than he deserves. The guy is a hack. The "institution", as far as I can see, is an unconvincing sham perpetrated by a couple guys in their basement who were just barely smart enough to realize that, when unencumbered by morals, it's trivially easy to hack the media and make them print whatever BS your "sponsors" want distributed.
It's necessary to respond, of course, and do so in a way the media can understand, but enough is enough. If we ignore him, and persuade the media that he's an uninformed kook, he'll go away.
That's exactly the opposite of what stallman's trying to do. He's emphasizing that linux is a kernel, the userland is GNU, and these are not the same.
The blanket use of "Linux" is causing more and more problems. People using Mac OS X, who then switch to a linux distro, say "wow, this is all the same, OS X is sort of just another linux distro!" No, what they're familiar with is GNU, not Linux. Then there's this, and many many other mainstream articles that assume Linus wrote everything that comes in a distro, when in fact the vast majority of user-visible stuff -- the part of the OS that matters to a reviewer -- is GNU. You can throw in another POSIX kernel and, as far as an end-user can tell, the OS is exactly the same.
The confusion gets worse and worse. It really is important to differentiate GNU userland from Linux the kernel, and that's all that RMS is trying to get us to do.
ten years after Linux reached that milestone.
but the goals were different. linux as a kernel is to a large extent an implementation of the "standard" UNIX ecosphere. when we look at the conceptual underpinnings for the filesystem permissions, user priviledges, say, there is nothing really "new". It is already well-trodden ground.
Before the bastard ken brown uses my above paragraph to support his MS-asslicking "thesis", i don't mean the above in the sense that there was code theft, but rather more of multiple clean-room implementations of a known-achievable goal.
the HURD is targeted to introduce types of e.g. user escalating/differentiated levels of priviledges that are more novel than what exists in linux (In a way, more like old-style mainframe OSes). comparing completion dates of things with differing complexity levels and then alluding that "ha, these guys are clearly incompetent" demonstrates almost a ken-brownish grasp of the situation.
UNIX was not always regarded as this perfect, beautiful environment, it HAS many problems that were rightly pointed out. Don't forget that GNU = Gnu's Not Unix.
Indeed it's almost certainly the case that these days a minority of the Linux OS has a heritage in the GNU project.
coming from someone who probably uses the bash shell as the default shell himself. with a kernel compiled with gcc.
RMS wasn't able to, either. Or should I say a team working for RMS. But that can probably be explained by philosophy and working style rather than by competence (EMACS is no small accomplishment, after all). Perhaps Brown is unfamiliar with the power of small teams (or individuals) working on a narrow domain problem (which Linux was at first) despite the number of historical examples.
Stallman's arguement isn't that selling the software is unethical just that prohibiting others from owning it is.
No one prohibits you from modifying a car you buy because you own the car. But with proprietary software you're not allowed to modify it when you buy it, because you don't own it.
It's like buying a car but only being able to drive it if you rent software from the car dealer so you can start it up. That would be silly, and yet before the FSF we could only run computer hardware by renting the software used to make the computer run.
Except that for most (well, at least the most vocal anyway) _fundamentalist_ Christians "we are being persecuted" means:
1. We aren't being allowed to tell everyone else how they should be living their life.
2. We aren't being allowed to define what all children are taught in school (not just our own children). 3. We aren't being allowed to determine who can and cannot get married.
I realize this isn't entirely fair and that sometimes individuals are persecuted because of their religous beliefs (e.g. Christian Scientists being prosecuted for denying medical care to their children), but it also isn't fair (or reasonable) to declare that all (or most) _fundamentalist_ christians are persecuted.
What makes me laugh out loud is the faulty assumption that Linus could not have accomplished the job independently, due to his inexperience.
I once wrote a paper in a College English course that my professor put on the rounds with the other department teachers, as an example of some outstanding work by his students. Several of the professors leveled accusations of plagiarism against me, due to my 'inexperience' I could not have possibly created such work.
These people did not take into account that I was 28 years old at the time (I am 40 now), had been writing my whole life in and out of structured courses, and had ample time to develop my own abilities for critical thinking and composition. I ended up having to persuade them I did not plagiarise the work.
It is interesting to me that in a professional setting no one's word has weight unless 'Doctor' precedes their name, and the burden of proof does not lay with the accusers.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain