Ken Brown Responds to His Critics

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ken Brown Responds to His Critics

Posted by michael on Friday June 4, 2004 @11:29AM from the nothing-but-flamebait dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Yes, I know it's getting boring by now, but the truth must be told... the latest Unix celebrity to come forward and criticise Ken Brown/ADTI is Unix pioneer Dennis Ritchie. The gist is that Brown is claiming an 'extensive interview' with Ritchie but this was actually limited to a single email exchange and a follow-up call from one of Brown's lackeys checking one or two facts." Reader markrages writes "Ken Brown (of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution) replies to his critics. Dr. Tanenbaum is an 'animated, but tense individual about the topic of rights and attribution'. The GNU/Linux naming issue also makes an appearance."

14 of 579 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Comparing Apples and Oranges. by bjarvis354 · 2004-06-04 11:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Comparing the MINIX kernel to the Linux kernel is like comparing a microkernel to a monolithic one...Hey wait a minute!
1. Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges. by zurab · 2004-06-04 12:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Just shows the guy knows nothing about the subject matter, he is just creating some fictional story in his own little world:
  
  Is it likely that a student (Linus Torvalds) with no operating systems experience, a non-Unix licensee, without any use of Minix or Unix source code, could build a functioning kernel in six months -- whereas it took you (Tanenbaum) three years to build Minix?
  
  I think he already replied to that by saying "yes." Since Minix was worked only part-time during those 3 years. And creating a simple kernel for limited hardware and limited functionality is not that hard of a task as it's made out to be in this case.
  
  Another problem with Tanenbaum's logic is that he only presents examples of people that were Unix licensees ...
  
  Tanenbaum was not a Unix licensee and he told you the task was possible to accomplish in few months if he had devoted more time to it.
  
  Yet Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to be tempted to borrow from.
  
  Making stuff up eh? When you have no logical argument to make, just use your creativity. I am assuming Linus had programming books, knowledge and education, a compiler, and other tools, including an existing OS - Minix. Not to say that he copied code from Minix, as Tanenbaum already showed.
  
  The GNU team contributed their GCC compiler, a complicated product with over 110,000 lines of code to the Linux project. Without the compiler, it is very likely that the Linux project would not have succeeded. The GNU team only asked that the product be called GNU/Linux, a very simple request for helping to make him famous. But Torvalds silently, but deliberately let the naming idea die.
  
  Eh? Where do you begin? "Contributed" to who - Linus? Kernel called GNU/Linux? I don't recall reading anywhere anyone insisting the kernel should be called GNU/Linux. Surely, the guy knows nothing about the subject matter he is trying so hard to talk about.
  
  How much 'inspiration' did Linus get from Minix? AdTI argues clearly enough to credit the Prentice Hall product. Not in conversation either, but within the copyright and/or the credits files of the kernel. Quite noticeably, however, there is not one acknowledgement of Minix anywhere in the Linux kernel.
  
  Because Linus didn't copy any code from Minix. How many times does this guy have to be told, and by how many people? Or maybe he wants to come in and specify files and line numbers like SCO did? Oh wait a minute...
  
  I also found quotes taken out of context quite amusing:
  
  Tanenbaum insists that we are wrong to bring any of this up, but ironically, he comments on his site, "but Linus' sloppiness about attribution is no reason to assert that Linus didn't write Linux(8)."
  
  Linus decided he was not the inventor of Linux commenting in a ZDNet story, "I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word(9)"
  
  And finally, a reply to:
  
  Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector.
  
  Err... replace "Linux" with "competition" - because competition in general is also very bad - it has a deleterious effect and is depreciating the value of the products and services that our patriotic abusive monopolists provide to masses, right? Idiot! Why don't we ask HP (a Unix licensee, ironically) how "deleterious" Linux has been for them last year. Or maybe you want to try IBM, another Unix licensee?
2. Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges. by zurab · 2004-06-04 16:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ken Brown asserts that Tanenbaum had the Lions notes (illegal Unix copy), so the fact that he wasn't a Unix licensee should be irrelevant. Given that, how would you now respond to Brown's statement?
  
  People who know much more about this than I ever will have already answered this, so here is the summary.
  
  First of all, I am not sure what the "Brown's statement" is. Is it that
  
  - Linus used Lions' book to create his kernel; or
  - Linus copied code from Minix into Linux?
  
  The latter has already been put to rest by Alexey Toptygin's code comparison done for Ken Brown (previously reported on /.):
  
  To summarize, my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied one way or the other.
  
  In Tanenbaum's own words:
  
  Thus, of course, Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book, was running MINIX, and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book). But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up. ...
  
  The aforementioned code comparison proves there is no Minix code in Linux. So, what is the "Brown's statement" with regards to Minix? I mean - what else? Of course, Linus had and knew Minix, as Tanenbaum wrote:
  
  I told him that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code.
  
  Is there anything wrong with taking filesystem layout and directory structure? No. Should Linus have attributed this to Minix (if he did take it from there)? Maybe. Is it wrong that he didn't do so? Absolutely not. Not only did Linus not copy any code from Minix, he didn't even take Minix' microkernel design and later flamewars should tell you what he really thought of that system.
  
  As far as the Lions' book, this is what Tanenbaum wrote:
  
  I don't think he could have copied UNIX because he didn't have access to the UNIX source code, except maybe John Lions' book, which is about an earlier version of UNIX that does not resemble Linux so much.
  
  So, even if Linus had access to Lions' book, he did not actually take anything from it because Linux didn't actually resemble the earlier version of UNIX that was in that book. Ken Brown, is obviously free, like SCO is, to name the files and lines of code that he believe were "stolen" from earlier versions of UNIX and put into Linux' first release so he can have something factual rather than fictional.
  
  So, what exactly is the "Brown's statement" is what I don't know. It's obvious by now that he doesn't have any proof to back his assertions up - how could Linus have written a kernel by himself in 6 months - it's all fiction in his created in his own mind; it's also obvious that he is misrepresenting many interviewees that he "extensively" interviewed, and all those interviewees that sounded off are ever so politely calling him a liar at best.
Re: who is paying him to write this crap? by bjarvis354 · 2004-06-04 11:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is a bit of speculation. One guess and two don't count.
Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by goon+america · 2004-06-04 12:16 · Score: 5, Informative

You may also be interested in the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Disinfopedia page
Re:Brown is an imbletard by The+Lynxpro · 2004-06-04 12:25 · Score: 3, Informative

And to further my point regaring Mr Brown:

"He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world."

Was that last comment meant to be funny or witty? Being accepted at "fine restaurants and hotels around the world" has nothing to do with ones intelligence, only liquid capital (mainly) and connections.

Even better:

"one of the first papers to raise serious questions about the security of open- and hybrid-source computer software, a point recently raised by the president of Symantec Corporation."

Oooh, Symantec raised a red flag over open source software, especially after open source based firewalls have shown up Norton Firewall so much. That would be like Star Trek producer Rick Berman critiquing George Lucas on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy.

I stand by my prior statement, the guy is an imbletard (imho).

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:Embedded systems.... by eggboard · 2004-06-04 13:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, Cisco's "losing" all this money through its Linksys division using Linux to run its wireless routers. I'd love to "lose" as much money making embedded systems like Linksys.

--
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
Re:Embedded systems.... by soloport · 2004-06-04 13:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I like this thin-minded quote, "For us to accept Tnenbaum's argument, Linus Torvalds at 21, with one year of C programming, was Doug Comer, an accomplished computer scientist, or smarter than the Coherent team, and of course a better programmer than the good professor too."

Let's see:
Edison started inventing at age 12
Alexander Graham Bell started inventing at age 18
Chester Greenwood applied for his first pattent at age 17
Blaise Pascal invented the mechanical adding machine at age 19
Philo Farnsworth invented the television at age 14
Margaret Knight invented the modern loom at age 12

Of course each of these individuals stole their ideas from others (they must have, given their age) and were able to bring their inventions to market without the aid of a single, solitary other person -- much like the story of Linux.
Re:Does he think Linux was completed overnight? by Pseudonym · 2004-06-04 13:51 · Score: 3, Informative

I think that's true. As Ken Brown pointed out, Linus had only a year or so of C experience at the time. As Linus has pointed out, a lot of that code embarrasses him today.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If you use "SIM"... by Crazy+Eight · 2004-06-04 15:07 · Score: 3, Informative

... it's like comparing one project's code base with a totally different one written by someone else. That's what Alexey Toptygin did with MINIX and Linux. His results are here . His commentary on the results are illuminating since he made the comparison specifically for Ken Brown's pamphlet only to find that his conclusion wasn't appreciated.
Brown says it himself... by ImpTech · 2004-06-04 15:20 · Score: 3, Informative

LOL, I'm only halfway through, and already this "response to critics" is nothing more than a pile of invective and blatant FUD. Not even clever FUD, the dumb "how can we trust them" kind.

This quote is beautiful though:

> The point of the paper is to magnify potential problems associated with this type of software development.

Key word there is "magnify". Not impart, not highlight, not discuss. Magnify!
No one understands the software industry by defile · 2004-06-04 16:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Most programmers don't even figure this out, so non-programmers are a lost cause, but I'll keep patiently repeating this:

The makeup of the Software Industry is that 95% (or more) of the software developed in the world today is sold to single buyers. The remaining 5%, which most analysts mistakenly characterize as the ENTIRE software industry, is shrinkwrap software like Windows or Adobe Photoshop.

While open source directly threatens the shrinkwrap (5%) software industry, it has enormous positive impact on the custom software (95%) sector. Remember, since it's sold to single buyers (developed in-house by the company or under contract) so if it incorporates GPL or BSD licensed code, IT IS IRRELEVANT! Custom systems are almost never resold because a) the client is usually not in the software business, and b) the software is usually useful only in the original buyer's environment, and is custom tailored for their individual needs.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS, OPEN SOURCE IS ONLY A REMOTE THREAT, AND ONLY TO SHRINKWRAP SOFTWARE VENDORS! Microsoft is worried, Oracle is concerned, Siemens, IBM, and consultants like me who write and sell code every day sure aren't.
One of Brown's misrepresentations by defile · 2004-06-04 16:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Furthermore in almost every interview with experienced computer science professionals, almost all said that they personally had a copy of the Lions notes, an illegal distribution of Unix source code.

Either Brown is an idiot or a liar, since he left some interesting information out of his report. This once illegal distribution was eventually published as a book, which I'm holding my lap right now. Here's an excerpt from the preface:

Thanks to the efforts of Dennis Ritchie, AT&T's lawyers stated that they had "no objection" to publication [of the Lions notes as a book]. Negotiations with Novell, purchasers of the UNIX system from AT&T, were sluggish. Then, late in 1995, came the announcement that The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO) had purchased UNIX from Novell. Dennis and I wrote to Mike Tilson and Doug Michels, executives at SCO we knew personally. Mike actually owned a copy of John Lions' work, treasured it, and within a short period of time had arranged with SCO's lawyers for permission.

It's truly amazing how far the name SCO has fallen since then, and how this shill can make such a blatant misrepresentation, and how much money he probably made doing it.

I wish someone would pay me to tell outrageous lies.
Re:Embedded systems.... by chris_sawtell · 2004-06-04 17:20 · Score: 3, Informative

You forget that Louis Braille invented his encoding of the alphabet as dots at the age of 12.
His was a true invention, there was no prior art whatsoever.