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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 02:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by cbr2702 · 2004-06-01 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by garcia · 2004-06-01 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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".
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by Henrik+S.+Hansen · 2004-06-01 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone.
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.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD? by njcoder · 2004-06-01 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just to play devil's advocate. 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.
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

Typical Stallman by Sanity · 2004-06-01 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Brown's worst crime is confusing "Linux" with "GNU/Linux" ;-)

Re:Typical Stallman by N1KO · 2004-06-01 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Typical Stallman by peeping_Thomist · 2004-06-01 03:39 · Score: 4, Funny

I've written an OS (not Unix, early OS/360)

Well, there goes YOUR credibility, since as Ken Brown has taught us, NO ONE could possibly write an OS by himself!

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

And another thing... by Mz6 · 2004-06-01 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Does this whole thing seem to be unfolding like a cheesy daytime soap opera to anyone else besides me?

Is Ken Brown pregnant with Linus' love child?
*Dun Dun Dun*

How does it end? Tune in next week!

--
Hmmm.

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 ...
Re:Wise man say... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2004-06-01 02:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Ah, yes: Hanlon's Razor ...

Yes, but Bruce's razor also applies:

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

Just publish the report already! by CodeMaster · 2004-06-01 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!)

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)

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

Pre-Release Copy by Andrevan · 2004-06-01 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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 psavo · 2004-06-01 02:32 · Score: 5, Informative

get lost, ignoramus.
samizdat means 'selfpublishing', having nothing to do with communism. It was 'invented' in a communist country, but it's as well employed everywhere where an author can't get published.

--
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Re:Samizdat? by Mikkeles · 2004-06-01 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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.

Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Typical Slashdot reaction to a post about Stallman without understanding a single thing the man says.
Interestingly enough, it's also a "typical Slashdot reaction" to assume that the thousands of registered users and countless lurking ACs here all share the same opinion. Sit and meditate on that one, grasshopper.

I frequently disagree with what Stallman says, but I don't have a fraction of his dedication, either. So I usually keep my mouth shut.

Open source accountabilit by DuncanE · 2004-06-01 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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".

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

Boggles The Mind by bsd4me · 2004-06-01 02:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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))

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.

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

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.

Ken Brown is an Intellectual Property Pirate! by corporatemutantninja · 2004-06-01 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

New flash: Ken Brown didn't invent his book! He may have "written" it but he didn't invent it! It's simply impossible that somebody could invent a new language and a new vocabulary in the 6 months it took him to write that book.

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.

Astroturf de Tocqueville Institute by x1048576 · 2004-06-01 03:21 · Score: 5, Informative

As part of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement Philip Morris (PM) agreed to release millions of documents about their operations. These detail how ADTI was hired by PM to conduct a public relations campaign against the Clinton health plan in 1994. ADTI provided PM with regular progress reports to prove that PM was getting value for its money, so they also let us see how these campaigns are conducted.

The Clinton plan included an increase in taxes on cigarettes from 24c per pack to 99c. Understandably, PM was not in favour of this, so a Philip Morris executive suggested an astroturf campaign, writing to one of his people:

Having just read the Washington Post with a series of provocative articles about Canada cutting taxes, CBO estimating higher costs AND job loss from the Clinton plan and then our old favourite, former president current homebuilder, Jimmy Carter explaining why higher taxes will help tobacco farmers, it occurred to me that we ought to turn a few of our better letter writers loose to blitz the targeted states with letters to the editor about Clinton, Carter and Canada...

If you want some astroturfing done, who you gonna call? The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute:

David N & I think the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute is perfect for this kind of thing. We are working with them on a proposal.

And here is their proposal:

Our three key executives, Cesar Conda, Bruce Bartlett and myself, will run this campaign and we will devote the full energies of our operation and its consultants to this task. We plan to activate our key Advisory Board Members, including Jack Kemp, Robert Kasten, Dick Armey, Michael Boskin and others to mount a public awareness campaign immediately (see enclosed list of Center on Regulation and Economic Growth participants).

As you can see from our press in recent months, we are in a position to deliver. We would like to request $60,000, or $30,000 a month, to implement this program.

And over the next two months ADTI ran a PR campaign against the Clinton plan. For the benefit of PM they documented all their activities. All the details are here.

Poorly written article by beforewisdom · 2004-06-01 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought my writing and grammar were bad.

Wow.

Lisa Stapleton should consider a night course or two if she continues to write professionally.

Steve

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.

33 of 304 comments (clear)