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
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Can you name ONE SINGLE THING that RMS has predicted years before it happen, that had gone wrong?
Did he not say before that the Linux generalization term will confuse and will be used by the proprietary companies to muddy their not so just arguments against the GNU/Linux OS?
Did he not say before that patents are an Evil Thing(tm)?
Did he not forsee the abuse the BSD license will get from uncrupulous coporate entities, producing the GPL?
Tell me, mister wise guy, where RMS has said something wrong about what He has dedicated his life for?
I am not a Zealot, I am using Linux at home, at work sometimes. And I am gratefull for RMS CONSISTENCY in what He is doing.
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
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
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.