Stallman vs Ken Brown

what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by garcia · 2004-06-01 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

"The actual words I used were quoted correctly, but [author Kenneth Brown] deliberately confuses his terms, like 'Linux.' He confuses the Linux kernel, which I had nothing to do with, and the GNU OS project, which I launched," said Stallman, who characterized such mistakes as "deliberate."M

I believe that Brown is probably far more knowledgeable about the differentiation between the kernel and the GNU project but for the masses it is certainly not something that most people know or care to know.

Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone. The whole GNU/Linux bullshit doesn't help a bit either. Anyone not in the know is going to say, hmm, GNU/Linux, all one thing.

It was certainly FUD but what MS funded "study" isn't?

Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by Short+Circuit · 2004-06-01 02:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

I don't mean to sound trollish, but I think it's funny that, for once, RMS is emphasizing that GNU and Linux really are separate.

(Yes, I'm aware that it's the Distro that he usually insists includes the name "GNU/Linux", but to the uncalibrated ear, it often sounds like he's equating GNU and Linux.)

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 03:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

I fail to understand why people can't grasp what RMS is saying. He's explained it often enough.

I fail to understand why people like you can't grasp that others do understand what RMS is saying, they just disagree with him.

I understand what he's saying just fine, and he kind of has a point, however it ignores the fact that there are other pieces of software (such as X, KDE, Gnome, etc.) that have just as much relevance and importance as GNU - in fact, to many people, they have even more relevance. So why does he not call it "GNU/[KDE|GNOME]/[X]/Linux"?

Answer: because that would be obnoxious.

Which, incidentally, was his argument against the original BSD license.

By continuing to push the whole "GNU/Linux" crap, but ignoring other components of a usable system, he's demonstrating hypocrisy.

Why do you not see it, when it's plain as day to the rest of us?
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 05:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

Just to play devil's advocate.

You're not playing devil's advocate - you're quoting exactly what the book says, and providing just as much proof, when it has already been debunked.

There have been other kernel projects that have taken a lot longer than six months to create. Don't have to look past Stallman's own house to find one, The HURD.

This is the exact problem with the book - he's using the existence of HURD to 'proove' that nobody could write a kernel by himself, while ignoring the fact that:

A) lots of people have done so, and
B) HURD didn't fail because it was difficult, it failed because the people who were writing it didn't know what they were doing, and
C) Everybody who holds up HURD as 'proof' that nobody can write a kernel by themselves pretty much does so because they can't offer any other proof.

HURD is an example of how politics, poor development practices, and lack of a clear direction and leadership can ruin a project. It is not an example of how complex a kernel is to write.

Wise man say... by BurritoJ · 2004-06-01 01:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Re:Wise man say... by realfake · 2004-06-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Ah, yes: Hanlon's Razor ...

RMS says "I told you so!" by Zocalo · 2004-06-01 01:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two.

This is a surprise? Hell, most of the people who work with FOSS on a daily basis can't agree on whether to use "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux" and whether that means an entire distro or just the kernel. What possible hope has a shill-for-hire layperson who can't be bothered to do research like Ken Brown got?

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Will Brown Do The Right Thing? by peeping_Thomist · 2004-06-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is there any chance Brown will just scrap this misbegotten report? When you look at the critiques that have already been made, there's no way he can possibly revise the report to accommodate them. Maybe he should just not publish the report.

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton

Re:Will Brown Do The Right Thing? by peeping_Thomist · 2004-06-01 02:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

He'll publish.

I'm sure you're right, but the problem is that he's holding off publishing so that he can respond to the critics. But he CAN'T respond to the critics! So what's he going to do?

Is the money from Microsoft really worth destroying his reputation?

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Re:Will Brown Do The Right Thing? by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2004-06-01 02:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

That should have a "... oh, right." at the end.

Unless you believe Ken Brown and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution as a whole have a reputation as anything other than Libellous FUDmongers For Rent?

As flattering a photo of RMS as there'll ever be by JessLeah · 2004-06-01 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

...can be found here (it's inlined in the article). Not bad, for RMS. He kinda looks Jedi-ish. Or like a philosophical gnu ;)

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin

Samizdat? by Naked+Chef · 2004-06-01 02:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nice title for the book... So the author's implication is that open source is also communist?

Yeah, because doing something for the betterment of society without wanting to get rich off of it is just un-American...

Re:Samizdat? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-06-01 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

The opposite, I suspect: Brown's implication is that his "report" is "samizdat" aimed at the oppressive power of"communist" Linux. (Remember that the original samizdat was underground anti-Communist writing in the USSR.) This is a favorite tactic of extremists, particularly those on the right wing: painting themselves as heroic rebels speaking the truth to power, even when in fact (as is clearly the case in M/i/c/r/o/s/o/f/t/ AdTI vs. Linux) they hold most of the cards. Cf. Christian fundamendalists in the US, who love acting like a persecuted minority in a country that's 85% Christian ...

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 02:06 · Score: 0, Interesting

Most of the community does agree. They call it Linux.

It's pretty much only Stallman that keeps trundling out this GNU/ hogwash. Unless Stallman ships a mature release of Hurd this week. (I hear it will include Duke Nukem Forever) Everyone will continue to call the whole shebang, Linux.

Re:Just publish the report already! by mopslik · 2004-06-01 02:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

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)

What are the odds that the paper will in fact be published? Couldn't this whole exercise just be a means of stirring up the pot? I can easily imagine a quiet statement along the lines of "the article was not published due to $RANDOM_REASON" coming out in the near future. But the FUD and talk remain fresh in the minds of the public.

(wraps tin-foil tighter)

Re:Ken will make loads of cash by peeping_Thomist · 2004-06-01 02:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ken Brown will make lots of money from this book because of the massive free publicity.

I doubt it. It's being published through Booksurge.com, a vanity publisher.

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton

Interesting new followup on Tanenbaum's page by colinleroy · 2004-06-01 02:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

A. Tanenbaum has recently posted an email he received. Interesting stuff, in which you'll discover the way K. Brown does his analysis.
stuff here

--
blah

Creative Perspective by sciop101 · 2004-06-01 02:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Software is a creative work (RMS agrees), the disposition of which rightfully belongs in the hands of the creator or their employer (RMS turns red and starts screaming, because useful creations like a home improvement TV show, how-to book, or software program, morally belong to the collective). I believe the decision to donate code for the public good is an altruistic act, not a moral imperative, and a choice deserving admiration, not expectation."

http://findu.com

Another software writer's perspective on software writing. Not quite off-topic, more of a sidebar.

--
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]

Confusion by kevin7kal · 2004-06-01 02:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is clear that Brown is doing one of two things. Trying to dumb things down for the non-*nix savvy, or trying to propigate negative opinions for the pervayours of Open Source. Both will cause problems for the Open Source community. People who read dumbed down versions of any subject, will end up more confused than if they read a detailed version but can only digest a few sentences or paragraphs. Having someone who is propigating misinformation about a subject, again underminds the proper understanding of that subject and can perpetuate myths that cause fear and confusion. I also believe that a technical subject, by it's nature can never be simplified for easier understanding. The only goal should be better understanding, and the way to accomplish that is by taking smaller morsels of the information and re-enforcing it more often. So, I agree. Brown needs to get his facts straight, whatever his motivation is.

What I truly wish: by theolein · 2004-06-01 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wish that Linus, Tannenbaum and the whole damn FSF crew would finally go see a lawyer and sue these people for libel. Given that both Tannenbaum and Linus agree on this point they might even be able to subpoena Alexis de Fuckville's mail correspendence with repsect to Microsoft.

I pray for this, in all honesty.

Re:Open source accountabilit by DuncanE · 2004-06-01 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmmm...

But if Im a Microsoft OS coder and I contribute some code to the NT Kernel no one will know if I stole it from somewhere. Microsoft doesn't verify each of its coders contributions yeah?

Re:Ironic Though.... by The-Dalai-LLama · 2004-06-01 03:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

[rationalization]This is a little off-topic, but if you consider the article in question to be Microsoft-generated FUD intended specifically to emasculate Linux, then it ties in a little better.[/rationalization]

As I read the user comments on this article, the top of the page is showing an ad saying that Windows 2003 is 400% faster than Linux...

I noticed yesterday that one of the articles was on a page with a Microsoft ad that said more people were using Windows Server than Apache, and I've also seen one that compared Windows Server to Red Hat.

Seems to me that Microsoft is now being forced to address the challenge posed by OSS, rather than ignore it. That's not exactly news, but it's interesting to see Linux popping up in MS's ads. Using the competition's actual name in your own advertisements is a bad sign - it says that they are credible enough to warrant discrediting.

The Dalai LLama
... picture it: two servers side by side, then the Apache server starts bumping some bangin' MP3's and bouncing up and down on hydraulics like a tech guy's hittin' the switches, the IT boyz start noddin' their heads, the Windows Server says, "That was awesome!"....

--
My sig could be your sig!

Re:Consistent by hardgeus · 2004-06-01 03:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

I have personally met the man. I have been at a convention in Taiwan, filled with people eager to hear about this thing called Linux. They were willing to learn.

All he did was berate them for saying Linux. I watched him shout at the top of his lungs at the organizers. Yeah, that's going to help.

In addition, hearing his answers to questions I was struck by how out of touch he is. Several of the questions were regarding Mesa (open source OpenGL). He had never heard of the project, which is borderline forgivable, but even after I piped up (being the only other American) and tried to help him by giving him about 10 other graphics APIs as reference, he still had no idea what they were talking about.

In addition, his utter disdain for money and corporations' motivations for using free software was just ridiculous. "I don't care about your profits" he answered to one question from the audience regarding how one can sell the idea of free software to their accountants.

If he feels that way, I wonder why he lets them fly him out there to talk.

I have read much of what he has written, and you are right, he has predicted many of the bad things that are coming to pass.

Unfortunately, he has absolutely no tact and no ability to communicate with normal people. I also believe he is totally out of touch with the modern computing industry. He is fixated on this one semantic issue and obsessively brings it up regardless of the topic at hand.

Re:Consistent by wine · 2004-06-01 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is hardly insightful. The comments of RMS are not about terminology per se. Brown assumes Linus wrote an entire operating system in 6 months. Brown also assumes this is impossible and Linus must have stolen code.

The point RMS is trying to make is that Linus did not write an operating system, but only a kernel. This distiction is important and shows that Brown is jumping to conclusions on the basis of false assumptions.

Re:Boggles The Mind by Goo.cc · 2004-06-01 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

To me, the really boggling thing is that Ken Brown says that Linux must have been stolen from Minix because one man couldn't do it, yet overlooks the fact that Minix was a one man show.

I'm sorry but Ken Brown is a dirtbag.

Re:Open source accountabilit by DeadVulcan · 2004-06-01 04:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think you're missing his point. Microsoft, for example, doesn't require that each and every programmer certify that they haven't illegally copied anything every time they want to check something in.

You're right. In that sense, I don't think anybody else does this... Both open-source and proprietary projects. I was thinking of legal obligations.

However, in a proprietary project, you're presumably working for a company, and they are paying you to write code for them. If you steal code, the company has a great deal of leverage because they can fire you.

How often this has actually occurred is a different question, I admit.

In an open source project, there is no such agreement. Potentially, there is no relationship at all between the submitter and the submittee... This exposes the submittee to potential abuse.

The way I see it, Linus is establishing such a relationship. This makes the situation closer to the proprietary arrangement. IMHO.

--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.

26 of 304 comments (clear)