Ken Brown Responds to His Critics

Embedded systems.... by kidgenius · 2004-06-04 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does he not realize that Linux runs on embedded systems. He makes a comment that:
"Software is also embedded in hardware, chips, printers and even consumer electronics. Should embedded software become 'free' too, it would be natural to conclude the value of hardware will spiral downward as well." Let's see....PDA's, routers, cell phones, dvd players....yup, they all run Linux, and I don't see the value of these pieces of hardware spiraling downwards. The "cost" may drop, but the "value" could stay the same, or increase due to the possibly increased functionality (among other things) that running Linux on these devices allows.

Re:Embedded systems.... by meburke · 2004-06-04 12:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

This (Ken Brown's portion) is actually a semantics-challenged statement that arrives at good economics: It makes total sense that as the cost of producing/reproducing human effort is reduced, then a competitive market will reduce the cost of the product to the consumer. I remember when I could make a pretty good living selling a couple of Vector Graphics Z-80/S-100 systems each week. The margins were 50% or higher and we were able to charge a reasonable amount for consulting and programming. Within a few years, the component costs, OS costs and expectations had reduced margins to about 15% on systems costing only 1/10 as much for the same features. It makes total sense that consumers would be interested in almost any method to to reduce their incremental cost, but we had to do about 30 times the business to make the same amount of money. In addition, the maintenance costs on proprietary methods and products is very good for the proprietor, but a real annoyance for the end user and consumer. People seem to resent being bent over a barrel while they are trying to accomplish their own goals. Lastly, the cost of reproducing a solution is much less than the cost of initially deriving a solution. One thing I like about producing software solutions is: NO INVENTORY! It's all brainsweat, and the distribution of the solution is likely to be jsut as valuable to the last person who uses it as to the first person, even though the cost of distribution is so much less.

--
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Re:Embedded systems.... by dubious9 · 2004-06-04 12:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, he is using straw man arugment. While challening the validity of linux with quotes like

he reality is that, noone, including Linus Torvalds, can ever guarantee that code in the Linux kernel is free of counter ownership, or attribution claims.

When in reality noone can ever be absolutely sure, OSS or proprietary, the validity of source code who has more than one writer. This is a common theme of anti-Linux writers: Desribe a weakness that Linux has (as the defacto-OSS model) that really isn't a weakness, or that it effects all software.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't thought of another avenue of attack. And then there is inflamatory sentences like this:

Isn't fair to question the character and ethics of individuals that espouse contempt for intellectual property?

Um... the GPL is ALL about IP. It has protections and safegaurds. It doesn't even have to be free! Contemp for IP? Not Linus, RMS maybe, but it's still a longshot.

Isn't fair to question their character, when the core of their business strategy is trust?

As I said before trust applies to everybody who writes code. You have to trust your employees not to steal GLP'ed code too. Given that most software written is proprietary I'd say that that is a MUCH more likely propositition than masive amounts of unowned IP getting into Linux.

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Embedded systems.... by 13Echo · 2004-06-04 13:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is true, to some degree - but look at products like the QTopia desktop interface. I don't really see Trolltech hurting right now, and QTopia is a pretty good product (look at the Zaurus).

Outside of the PDA - Companies like Opera use QT (commercial) for making their browser products.

Open source (especially free software and dual-license) can really benefit the innovative companies that do it right. Right now, that completely goes against Microsoft's traditional model... It scares the hell out of companies like that, because they no longer have the same level of control.
Re:Embedded systems.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 13:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

he reality is that, noone, including Linus Torvalds, can ever guarantee that code in the Linux kernel is free of counter ownership, or attribution claims.

I'd like to see him guarantee that nobody will claim to have written his report. It's trivial to say "hey, I wrote that!" A five year old could do it.
Re:Embedded systems.... by nilram · 2004-06-04 16:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's not forget that brilliant 19 year old who wrote the BASIC interpreter for the Altair 88, Bill Gates.

Gates must have just sat down and started dumping bits in. He couldn't have had a list of opcodes or even seen a BASIC interpreter before otherwise that would be stealing.

How long did this project take Gates anyway? I believe it was less than a year.
Re:Embedded systems.... by dubl-u · 2004-06-04 18:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

The "cost" may drop, but the "value" could stay the same, or increase due to the possibly increased functionality (among other things) that running Linux on these devices allows.

That's spot on. I can't believe that he doesn't understand basic economics.

By his logic, the massive drop in prices for long distance phone calls over the decades must be really bad for the economy. And Moore's Law must be decimating the computer industry.

Given how much money Microsoft has, it would be nice if they bribed somebody smart to tell lies about Linux; this drooler isn't even a challenge. I hope they got a good deal.

USPTO respected? by TwistedSquare · 2004-06-04 11:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency

Says the article... I'm sure a few round here would disagree.

Re:USPTO respected? by bstone · 2004-06-04 11:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency

And the United States Copyright Office is also an internationally respected agency, so when the "Star Registry" places a copy of their book there, it immediately gives you ownership to the "star" they named after you.

Right?
Re:USPTO respected? by Talking+Toaster · 2004-06-04 12:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't be so sure. I had an epiphany yesterday after reading this article on the BBC website yesterday.

The situation probably is that most people don't know and don't care about Intelectual Property. I once got into an argument with a co-worker over the difference between copyright and trademark, and her argument was basically "What's the difference."

When most people don't understand what patents are for, and what they are, and are not supposed to protect, and when and when not they should be granted, when they don't know and don't care is it any wonder that our patent system is in such a mess?

Yes, a few around here will disagree, but outside the computer geeks and patent lawyers most people are too willfully ignorant to respect or disrespect the USPTO. Never underestimate the power of stupidity. It is the most powerful force in the universe. If only we could build a car that ran on the stuff, the world might be a better place. Either that or we'd have lots of car accidents.

--
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?

Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by shatfield · 2004-06-04 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux. It is our hope that leadership would find this document helpful with public policy decisions regarding its future investment in Linux and other hybrid source products.

So they are writing a book of lies to give to non-technical politicians in order to persuade public policy.

So who is going to step forward and write a book, of researched FACTS to counteract this work of FICTION?

--
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero

Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by Rimbo · 2004-06-04 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's a great idea, and now that we know their motives, we know to whom this book should be addressed.

My God, reading this thing... Ken Brown assumed his conclusion from the start. He has a rabid religious fervor to his response; I can see the spit flying from his lips just reading the text.

What's clear is that like all True Believers, Ken Brown will do anything possible to win, and he will never give up. He will not rest to his dying days to fight what he has started. He has put himself in a position he must defend. He is going to shout what he wants to anyone who will listen, and as most people are ignorant of the issue, many of them will.

The only proper response is to educate the masses with the truth before Ken Brown can spread his lies.
Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by raidient · 2004-06-04 11:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's generally accepted that politicians prefer lies (and liars), as it puts them at their ease to know they are around like minded people.
Honesty, in any form, leads to angst, and is therefore avoided at all times.

--
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by cduffy · 2004-06-04 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Frankly, PJ has gotten a bit religious herself lately. I still respect Groklaw as a source of fact -- but have been needing to pick that fact out from the editorial on increasingly frequent occasion.
Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by Rimbo · 2004-06-04 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps you're right.

I make my living doing work for Linux. Linux created job opportunities for us that didn't exist before it, and has created far more opportunities for the software industry than it has destroyed. Brown seeks to destroy my livelihood, and from what I've read, he's willing to lie, twist, and distort to do it. In fact, that's all he seems able to do.

When it comes to a choice between trying to reason with a liar and defending our ability to feed our children, we'll take the children every time.

So I apologize to you, since we're not exactly being calm and polite about this.
Re:Here it is, exactly what Brown is up to! by jcr · 2004-06-04 12:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

The discussion here seems to have a lot more "rabid religious fervor" than the Brown article.

Well, I'm one who has no stake at all in the question of whether Linus wrote Linux, and it's still very plain to me that Ken Brown is neither a scholar nor a journalist. He's a paid polemicist, and no more worthy of our attention than the characters in MS's fictitious switcher ads.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Does he think Linux was completed overnight? by Brackney · 2004-06-04 11:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Am I missing something, or is the implication made that Linux became a fullblown and mature OS overnight? The earliest version that Linus put together was incomplete and immature. No one ever claimed that Linus got from version 0.0 to 2.x.y all by his lonesome. We all know (now) that he had plenty of help from Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...

Re:Does he think Linux was completed overnight? by scoove · 2004-06-04 12:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

s the implication made that Linux became a fullblown and mature OS overnight?

Exactly. I was first introduced to Linux when it took two 5.25 floppies. Coming from Ultrix and having messed with Minix for a few months, I was shocked at what Linux couldn't do.

We were joking about writing a VMS emulator under Ultrix, and this Linux stuff seemed to be not much more than some PC UNIX mockup to my unsophisticated eyes. I certainly didn't see the potential at the time.

Linux was nothing like Minix. And those that were UNIX geeks in the early 90s probably remember that all the attention and excitement was on BSD/386, not Linux.

So if one thing is clear, it's that Ken Brown didn't learn how to turn on a PC until the past couple of years. Still, it's nice to know that such incapable people with high self-esteem can get hired for such senior positions at the Toqueville Institute...

*scoove*
Re:Does he think Linux was completed overnight? by 0x0d0a · 2004-06-04 13:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Linus probably has contributed more code to Linux than anone else...but, sure, there are a lot of other people. He started it, though, and "Linux" sounds cool and friendly, so why change it? Linus has done one hell of a job over the years coding, making engineering decisions, keeping development from forking, managing people...he deserves the credit, and he's certainly no "manager only" type like Jobs is or Gates has become.

--
May we never see th
Re:Does he think Linux was completed overnight? by the+gnat · 2004-06-04 14:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you read closely, he implies that Linus wrote version 1.0 of the kernel.

Yes, he claims that Linus and his supporters were claiming that Linus authored 32,000 lines of code that made a working kernel in a year as a first-year CS student. I read this and thought, wow, maybe Brown has a point. That's a pretty complex app.

So I downloaded some older kernels. I decided to look back earlier than 1.0. 0.01 is available from kernel.org, and is dated from the fall of 1991. With headers and everything, 'wc' reports that the entire thing is less than 7500 lines. (That includes blank lines, comments, lines with a single brace, etc.)

By the time you get to 0.95, released six months later, the kernel has grown to just under 9000 lines. The memory allocation routines are not even by Linux, but contributed by Theodore T'so at MIT.

By July of '92, four months after 0.95, the 0.96c kernel has around 11,500 lines. Linux already has mailing lists and alt.os.linux, and a growing user community testing the code.

Version 1.0 is not released until the spring of 1994, by which point the project was two and a half years old, and had 80 contributors listed. It is indeed around 32,000 lines, and is clearly not all Linus' work. It had also undergone extensive testing by a very skilled community.

Linus' original kernel seems like a very reasonable project for an undergrad, and someone pointed out that it was pretty raw at the beginning. I wrote a large code library this spring, and although it's packed with comments it's about 6000 lines. And I'm a biologist, not a CS student. Looking at kernel 0.01, I think I could write this if I wanted to, once I learned some basic OS design. (Guiding it from an undergrad project into an industry-leading product, on the other hand, I could not do, and therein lies Linus' real brilliance.)

The complete history of kernel releases is publically available on the web, and it's easy to verify that a) the original kernel was both small and incomplete, b) the initial growth of the kernel was slow, c) version 1.0 was neither written in a year nor did it pretend to be written solely by Linus. In other words, Brown is ignorant and/or flat-out lying, and can't even get the facts in his rebuttal correct. He's not doing much to dispell the impression that this is a paid disinformation campaign with little factual basis.

Hmmm... by Reteo+Varala · 2004-06-04 11:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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."

I think I read a phrase once that fit quite nicely... what was it again?

Oh, yeah, that's it...

"Tough. Adapt or die."

--
The Penguin Producer

Re:Hmmm... by Blastrogath · 2004-06-04 12:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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."

This is nothing new. What do you think henry ford did to his competitors? The only way to avoid "steadily depreciating the value" of somebodies business is to never invent better ways to do anything. This is blatant anti-progress retoric.

--
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato

Re:He writes like a tool by tweek · 2004-06-04 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's funny. I read this line and wondered to myself...if it is having such a terrible effect on the IT industry, why the hell did my company just spend alomst 1 million dollars on IBM software (websphere, db2, tivoli) and IBM hardware for our new datacenter all running on RedHat Enterprise Linux which we also PURCHASED?

Surely we can't be alone in that regard?

--
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"

Yeah but .. by kbsingh · 2004-06-04 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mr Brown, seems to have made loads of statements with no real basis to back him up at all - much unlike his critics who have used real facts and figures to build upon. Where did he come up with statements like 'Linux is a leprosy' - and have nothing at all to say as to why he thinks its like that. He has no answer to his critics, so he will evade the real issues and facts, just try to keep people thinking about different things by such a response.

Okay, so he says that Linux might not be good for the s/w industry ( uneducated and uninformed as he is, he is most likely wrong ) - but is that the only industry there is in this whole world ? dont the other industries ( who have been held to ransom, more or less by organisations like MS and Sage ), also have a right to benefit ? If you look at the reality - the user base is many many times higher than the provider base. So how does the economy suffer ?

All in all, its not even worth commenting on this anymore. Mr. Brown is the hall mark of a paid dog, who is going to make a fwe bucks from his backers who want to see Linux down - cause they are incapable of doing that in real terms, tech terms or in direct compeition - so they must resort to people like Ken Brown to create this fascade and false FUD.

Look around you - does any of this work ?

If Linux wasent as big a threat to MS and such companies, they would leave it alone. But they cant, because Linux IS very much a threat - and its breaking them down.

Mispellings ruin one's credibility by jlowery · 2004-06-04 11:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's hard to take a guy seriously when in a semi-formal publication he repeatedly uses the non-word 'noone'. Doesn't this guy know english?

--
If you post it, they will read.

Re:What a hatchet job by raistphrk · 2004-06-04 11:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Um, while this is a blatant troll job here, it's certainly not a good one.

The problem is, Ken Brown HASN'T made a great case. The guy contacted a bunch of Unix hackers pretending to be writing a book about the Unix timeline, when in reality his only agenda was to come up with some load of hooey about Linus stealing source from Minix. And the sad part is, he was repeatedly given information quite to the contrary, and completely ignored all of that data. I mean...when Dr. Tanenbaum comes right out and says "Well, while I don't approve of Linus adding tons of functionality to Linux, because I'm a minimalist, I will say that Linus didn't steal any of my source code", and yet, Brown completely disregards Dr. Tanenbaum's answer, you know the guy is hardly a credible author.

No, the only hatchet job I've seen is one carried out by Ken Brown against Linus. Brown set out with an agenda: to try and say that Linux was pirated, so that he could lend credence to the SCO case, to Microsoft, and to all of the anti-open source/free software zealots out there. The guy got lambasted by computer scientists because he was dead wrong, and he should've seen it coming. I mean...his claims are about as good as the wackjobs who routinely crop up to claim that the Earth is flat. Those guys get tons of PR, because EVERYBODY AND THEIR DOG KNOWS THEY'RE WRONG. Then, after they're properly put in their place, they leave the spotlight and we resume our lives, until the next idiot comes along with another worthless and asinine assertation.

Ken Brown, Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

This guy has no more credibility than me, the Anonymous Coward.

If you don't believe me, try to find out anything at all about him. Their site isn't offering up any clues about his credentials. Searching for his generic (and IMO probably fake) name along with appropriate keywords hit just about nothing.

Loser, Idiot, Nobody.

Likely bought and paid for by the Conspiracy who created him.

From scratch... by Brandybuck · 2004-06-04 11:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Mr. Brown is deliberately playing his audience for fools. Of course Linus didn't create Linux from tabula rasa. He didn't start with a blank harddrive and manually toggle in hex until he managed to get it booted up to an editor to start typing in Linux source! Duh!

When Linus "used" Minix and GCC, he used them as tools. Is this so hard for Mr. Brown to get through his skull? Apparently so.

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

Mr. Brown seems to be making the argument later than Linus couldn't of possibly have written Linux 2.6 in six months. Of course! He came up with version 0.1 instead. Although it was functional, it wasn't terribly useful.

People would take Ken Brown more seriously if he didn't write a book that was nothing more than his attempt to discredit his own erroneous assumtions.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:The GNU/Linux naming issue, as I see it. by Nasarius · 2004-06-04 11:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

He shouldn't. That's up to the people who package and/or sell the OS. Using "Linux" to refer to a UNIX-style system built with the Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc. has caught on. It may not be "proper", but it's certainly not illegal. In other words: who cares?

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1

From Scratch? by gnugie · 2004-06-04 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ken has a funny definition of "from scratch".

I guess in Ken's mind, in order to bake a cake "from scratch", you couldn't use a cookbook to devise a recipe, would have to grow your own wheat, crush it into flour with your bare hands, add sugar from your own sugar beets, and bake it on a rock in the sun.

Previously, I'd just thought him a shill. This is sheer idiocy.

--
Don't know; Don't care; Don't ask

Re:From Scratch? by demon · 2004-06-04 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I believe a famous research scientist (might've been Einstein?) once said that to make something "from scratch", that "first you must make the universe". Nothing ever occurs in a vacuum, and we get ideas from all sorts of places. Things we hear, things we see, people we talk to. Even things totally unrelated may help to spark an idea. So to say that anything anyone does is completely, totally, 100% unquestionably original is pretty hard to justify. Even Linus admits he was inspired by Unix - that's not a bad thing, even if this Ken Brown character wants to paint it that way.

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

Good point with a bad foundation by lukewarmfusion · 2004-06-04 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Aside from his rants and the conclusions that lack any logical progression, there is a good point underlying much of his "reasoning." Linux is not an entity, and cannot be held responsible any more than "P2P" can.

This isn't just a legal issue; in order to gain significant market share, earn the trust of potential users, and develop with a strong backbone in a reliable direction, Linux must be accountable. Users have to be able to turn to someone/somewhere for support, for resources, for guidance; because there is no single authority over Linux, many companies and users are uncomfortable with it.

As for the legal issues, we've seen this play out already. SCO claims to own IP, and without a single entity to fight back it has been difficult to put and end to that nonsense. Because there's nobody to sue directly, SCO resorts to picking on individuals/corporations. The RIAA sued Napster, MP3.com, Kazaa, etc. because they put a face to a problem (P2P). While P2P thrives on the "anonymity" factor, Linux does not. This Ken Brown realizes this, perhaps unconsciously, and while he does not attack that directly he does recognize the consequences.

What's the solution? I dunno. But companies like RedHat are a traditional solution - form an entity that can be held responsible, and hope that the rewards are worth it.

Re:Good point with a bad foundation by CaptainCarrot · 2004-06-04 13:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Have you even read a EULA lately? Sure, I know it's easy to click past it as quickly as you can when it pops up in the installer. But try it sometime. You'll find that the vast majority of them contain language that distances the vendor as much as legally possible from anything like accountability.
Note that this is not the same as "support... resources... guidance." Anyone can provide that. Lots of folks make livings doing this for MS products, many of them without even official certification. It would be absurd to say that Bob, the techie that lives down the street, is in any sense "accountable" for, say, Clippy. No, the only ones who can be accountable in any real sense is MS itself, and it refuses to be so held.
How is this any better than Linux?

--
And the brethren went away edified.
Re:Good point with a bad foundation by mwa · 2004-06-04 14:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

This isn't just a legal issue; in order to gain significant market share, earn the trust of potential users, and develop with a strong backbone in a reliable direction, Linux must be accountable. Users have to be able to turn to someone/somewhere for support, for resources, for guidance; because there is no single authority over Linux, many companies and users are uncomfortable with it.
This is entirely an economic argument against what Brown is stating. His conclusion is that "hybrid source" will ruin the economics of the software industry.
False. It will ruin the economics of the monopolistic software lock-in business model. It will create a software industry with local support experts with full access to the source code, capable of actually fixing problems instead of reporting them to the vendor and sitting on their hands awaiting a fix. Whether you contract them, or hire them, they are people who live next door and whose next meal depends on keeping you, the customer, happy. That's "accountable". An EULA that disclaims all warranties and liabilities is not.
What bozo's like this fail to realize is that the U.S. economy is driven by small businesses. Collectively, small businesses pay more taxes and employ more people than the Fortune 500 combined.
Real (libre) open source has the potential to kick both the U.S. and global economy in the ass, to such a high gear, that the the gradual disappearance of Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, etc. wouldn't even be noticed. Custom application of open source components would drive huge productivity gains as people and businesses started to work the way they decide they are most efficient, not the way their applications dictate. Open standards and 100% compatibility would completely eliminate time wasted converting or re-transmitting information. File formats would cease to be an impediment to communications. Open code and full disclosure would strengthen security and eliminate billions in lost productivity to viruses and worms. All those high-tech workers displaced by outsourcing would be able to get off the public dole and become entrepeneurs -- more small businesses supporting other small business
Economic threat, yes. But not to 99% of the population. Only to the very small portion of the population that own proprietary software companies (employees will have whole new vistas of opportunities) that refuse to adapt to a customer-oriented service model. Mr. Browns elaborate propoganda for promoting only "proprietary-friendly" open source software is a thinly veiled argument on behalf of the status-quo.

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed... by eggstasy · 2004-06-04 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. So now you know where they got the name. We live in a world of greed and spin, and AdTI is out to make a buck... brainwashing the people... being paid to hide "complex truths" from their view, replacing them with whatever simple lies the people will prefer to believe.
They aren't very original in this respect, but they should be feared rather than scorned.
You never know exactly how many influent people will buy this crap, not to mention the masses.
People cling to silly myths and urban legends for decades!

Huh? by Ponkinator · 2004-06-04 11:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency which contributes to the worldwide effort to protect and govern intellectual property."

It may have been respected in the past but now with the USPTO issuing patents without proper review I'd say it isn't worthy of respect today. Also, wasn't the intention of patents to give the inventor a 17 year limited period of protection? Its main goal, however, was to have the invention end up in the public domain for the benefit of its citizenship. He doesn't seem to understand that and I'll bet he doen't understand the concept of public schools or libraries either. Ken Brown has a very pueril view of the purpose of goverenment.

I'm not even going to try by 3rdParty · 2004-06-04 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

to dispute points made by Ken Brown. The AdTI is nothing more than a conservative "think tank," which means they come up with ideas, some of which, or all, are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Devoting any time to dispute the Brown POS is foolish, given the place it comes rom. One needs to merely read a few paragraphs to determine that the writers have no interest in the truth, but see themselves as some sort of policy makers, twisting facts and making unsupported statements purely for the benefit of what they see as "their" society. A little too much Socrates, and not enough hemlock, I think.

Brown is an imbletard by The+Lynxpro · 2004-06-04 12:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want to highlight some of Brown's flawed logic:

"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5 billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source."

Interesting, his choice of BSD, considering that Microsoft has used BSD code in Windows before. Getting the U.S. government to pay for research that will benefit Microsoft ($60 billion in the bank) is nothing short of corporate welfare, especially when said corporation pays so little tax to the U.S. Government with the exception of campaign contributions for the Capitol Hill gang.

Then the author (similar to SCO) shoots his own foot with the following statement:

"The disturbing reality is that the hybrid source model depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software."

How is the *hybrid source* of Linux being more of a sponge than BSD? Linux requires the community to give back improvements so the entire Linux community profits. Anyone can use BSD without giving anything back (thankfully some companies like Apple do, and unlike MSFT). So how does BSD get a free sponging pass in this guy's logic?

So I propose that Brown (in my opinion) is an imbletard. That is the byproduct of a union between an imbecile and a retard.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

So, Here's The Problem With Ignoring This Guy... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, it's obvious that Ken Brown is out to do a hatchet job on Linus and Linux. Can you blame Microsoft? They have a tremendous market position and cash hoard. Why take any risk whatsoever? Spend some of your damn money to put this genie back into the bottle.

Realize that we haven't seen *ANYTHING* yet. Just imagine the death throes of one of the most profitable companies that every existed. EXPECT character assassination. EXPECT lobbying. EXPECT fronts like SCO. EXPECT software patenting and litigation. EXPECT FUD books, FUD articles, and FUD conferences.

The best thing the open source community can do is to be as squeaky clean as it can be. Open source legal teams need to be formed to independently review code carefully for patent infringement and at least be aware of the problem. Better yet, either remove the risky code or break it off into a separate module. Patent law will kill open source companies if Microsoft prepares a mega-case that only the likes of an IBM can take on.

The other approach is to have Microsoft's customer's throw down the gauntlet. "Either back off of our open source alternative or get the hell off of our servers and desktops. We won't be bullied." Once real business starts walking out the door, Microsoft will have to back down. It's probably the only thing that's prevented them from getting more aggressive up till now.

Lions book on V6 UNIX by murr · 2004-06-04 12:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

One of the many things that Brown ignores is that the question whether Linus had a copy of the Lions book is entirely irrelevant. The book is a historical gem, but the hardware it targets and the programming language used (an utterly archaic and fairly anarchic dialect of C) are so far removed from PC hardware and ANSI C that it's pretty much impossible to learn anything from it about OS design.

Tanenbaum's Minix book is obviously much better suited to learning about operating systems, but the book was always legal and learning concepts from it was never illegal (there are plenty of atrocities in copyright law, but making students licensees of textbook publishers luckily isn't among them -- yet).

The late Mr. Toqueville would roll in his grave.. by Eggplant62 · 2004-06-04 12:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

if he could read the absolute shite that Brown is spewing from his asshole. From what I've seen of that response, the cheeky bastard thinks that it's high comedy to slander Torvalds and misquote Tanenbaum. Warn the American government about "hybrid source" software??? Right. They already know: It works much better than the closed source model.

To wit: Open Source and Viruses, which I'm certain will receive much attention on Slashdot very soon.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-06-04 12:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nope by mcc · 2004-06-04 12:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry, but that should be "GNU/X". If X is a part of "The GNU System", then we have to give credit to GNU by calling it "GNU/X".

We can do whatever we want. And if the GNU project didn't want their code to be used without that sort of titular attribution, then they shouldn't have released it under the GPL.

BA-DUM CHING!

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Can someone explain why ... by zymano · 2004-06-04 12:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why all the attacks are happening now on Linux?

Is this all about greed and fame ? I think so.

Re:Can someone explain why ... by Bob+Davis,+Retired · 2004-06-04 20:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, the goal of this book was to create a twisted version of history that completely distorted the facts. The author and his nefarious project have been outed for what they are - prostitutes. Bought and paid by SCO, Microsoft, and probably Sun, they play the game.

They're losing.

Re:What a hatchet job by swillden · 2004-06-04 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

I mean...when Dr. Tanenbaum comes right out and says "Well, while I don't approve of Linus adding tons of functionality to Linux, because I'm a minimalist, I will say that Linus didn't steal any of my source code", and yet, Brown completely disregards Dr. Tanenbaum's answer, you know the guy is hardly a credible author.

The thing that jumped out at me when I read Brown's little diatribe is that the man loves to rave about intellectual property, but clearly has no understanding of IP law.

A few examples.

Specifically, Torvalds and the Linux kernel management team accept blind source code contributions. Then, they ask for a certification. But the certification does not hold the contributor, the Linux community, or Torvalds legally accountable. Nor does it guarantee that the source is produced in a 'clean room'.

Where to begin?

In the first place, the certification doesn't have to hold anyone accountable, because the *law* does that. If I contribute code that I don't have a right to contribute, I'm violating someone's copyrights and can be sued for my lawbreaking. The point of Linus' new patch labelling process is to make it easier to automate the tracking of who contributes what and, incidentally, to make sure contributors understand that they must have the legal right to contribute. The contributions can be tracked with or without the labels, and the contributors *are* liable under the law, with or without the certificate statement, but Linus' changes help to make sure that everybody's clear on how things are.

Second, what's the crap about 'clean rooms'? "Clean room reverse engineering" is an unnecessary, even silly process. The only reason it was invented was because Compaq's lawyers wanted to make absolutely and completely certain that IBM's lawyers wouldn't have any way to complain about Compaq's version of IBM's PC BIOS. Legally, the Compaq engineers could have studied the IBM BIOS, put it away and written their code and been in the clear. The whole "virgin programmer" nonsense was just overkill to make it utterly and completely clear that a lawsuit would fail.

But I think Brown actually *believes* in the contamination theory of IP.

the same people that are selling the trust model cannot answer basic questions about what attribution, acknowledgement, and IP credit they may have owed ATT Corporation and/or Prentice Hall Corporation in 1991 when the Linux kernel was introduced

Here Brown is talking about attribution, acknowledgement and credit, and implying that they matter. While it's nice and it's polite to acknowledge your inspirations, this sort of relationship between works has no legal force whatsoever. Just because your favorite band idolized Jimi Hendrix when they were kids does not mean they owe any money or control of their music to his estate, unless they actually use his music or his lyrics.

Lots of people get irritated with RMS' refusal to use the term "Intellectual Property" but you know what? He's RIGHT. Talking about IP as though it's some amorphous set of property rights that mysteriously rub off on anything that is influenced or inspired by something else is a fantastic way to build FUD, to concoct ridiculous theories that lead to all software being owned by Microsoft, or to just plain confuse people.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:He writes like a tool by hpa · 2004-06-04 12:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

He's not an idiot, he's a paid stooge.

Convenience by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 12:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

The SCO PR machine is starting to lose momentum, and Microsoft's pumped about as much money into that as they can.

So now the ADTi thing is starting up.

In six months once ADTi's shouted itself hoarse, it will be something else. And like SCO and ADTi, that something else will also have funding ties to Microsoft.

Wow. by DaveJay · 2004-06-04 12:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

After reading Ken Brown's response, I can only say this: I have never in my life read something written by someone so obviously and transparently dedicated to ruining someone's reputation on the basis of arbitrary speculation and doubt. This is major-league political-type mudslinging, and it's painfully obvious that the only reason he's doing it (barring some personal vendetta, which I doubt) is to cast doubt in the community on Linux vs. SCO .

If this man came up to me, handed me a hundred dollar bill, and used the same type of arguments he used in his "response" to convince me that the hundred dollar bill was freely and legally mine with no strings attached, I'd cram the bill back into his hands, run away, and call the police.

Sharpest Knife? by saddino · 2004-06-04 12:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Mr. Brown is clearly the drawer itself, rigid and defiant in the face of well-informed and well-argued counterpoints to his (especially in the light of the sheer amount of critcism) pathetic straw grapsing.

His point -- ironic that he, the alleged "dull" knife should have one -- is almost hysterical in its adherence to semantics: he is "right" simply because a "blank screen" could not have been Linus' starting point. In the parlance of the vulgarian: no shit sherlock. Every programmer builds upon the collective works of the other (even his surely esteemed Mr. Gates wrote BASIC from existing specifications) and the line between "stealing" and "innovating" is thicker than he would care to admit.

Please. Let us leave Mr. Brown alone and collecticly close this drawer. His dellusional arrogance -- as if the U.S. Government would stop and listen to his shrill "arguments" -- betrays his objective: to attack what he does not understand, to malign what he can't comprehend and to dimiss what he cannot possibly accept: open source is here to stay, and all the covertly funded "studies" to work against the tides are surely for naught.

AdTI has now been exposed in the same light as this fishy "research" that recently surfaced; Ken Brown took the bait and shoved it down his very own throat. Now, Mr. Brown, please try to remain quiet while your book lingers on the shelves.

Re:The GNU/Linux naming issue, as I see it. by fatray · 2004-06-04 12:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Brown says that Linux should be called GNU/Linux because Linus used GCC. He goes on to say "Without the compiler, it is very likely that the Linux project would not have succeeded." This is implying to those who do not understand such things that Linux somehow illegitamately used GCC to make Linux. Linus was using GCC exactly as GNU (Richard M Stallman) intended. If GNU wanted any program compiled with GCC to be named GNU/{program name}, RMS would have written it into the license.

It may be true that Linux may not have succeeded without GCC. While Linux could have been written for other C compilers, GCC is the ubiquitous, free, standard.

Re:Brown says it all here: by magictongue · 2004-06-04 12:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Brown's best case is that nothing is invented or innovated in a vacuum. This is true of open source or prioritary software. Linus did not start from nothing and create Linux. From school, reading, and discussion with others he learned how to write an operating system. Linus did not need to fumble around repeating others mistakes. Instead, he borrowed on the good ideas of others than came before him. This is the way all progress is made. We take the good ideas and proven techniques and build on them. This is far different from saying that Linus stole the code for Linux. He is the rightfull creator of Linux and should be given credit. Microsoft itself is famous for hiring away skilled programmers from other companies to write code. Wasn't it some DEC VMS programmers who were hired away to write the original Windows NT? Talk about a direct and legal way to steal other companies intellectual property. Hire the guys that wrote it so they can reuse there skills and _ideas_ for you. Either way, Brown has only proved that ideas come from pre-existing ideas. Nothing more.

Re:He writes like a tool by AndroidCat · 2004-06-04 12:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

His spelling-checker tool is borken too. Count the number of times he uses noone in that article (instead of no one). Any bets that there's a loose instead of lose in there too?

He doesn't know copyright/trademark/patent law. He doesn't know the history of Unix. He probably doesn't program, and now he can't spell. What are the job requirements for a stooge?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

An e-mail to Ken Brown.... by wintermute42 · 2004-06-04 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

OK, this was probably a waste of time. Ken Brown is so over the top that he has to have an agenda. But for what it is worth, here is a copy of an email I sent him (with minor changes)

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:54:31 -0700 To: kenbrown@adti.net Subject: Linux, Linus and so on...

Dear Mr. Brown:

I am a software engineer with over twenty three years of experience. Much of my background is in the design and implementation of system software, including compilers and runtime support. If you are interested you can find my resume at my domain.

I am not in the Linux fanatic camp. I use Linux, but in many ways I am disappointed with its popularity. I would much rather that the freeBSD operating system, which I regard as superior, had Linux's popularity. But popularity is the result of many factors, some of which have nothing to do with technology.

As a highly experienced software engineer and someone who is not a Linux fanatic, let me state that I absolutely believe that Linus Torvalds wrote Linux. And I also fully believe Prof. Tanenbaum when he states that Linux was not "stolen" from Minux.

Linux has been many years in development. The initial operating system was not the operating system that exists today. Linux has evolved over the years and many people have contributed to this evolution. As you note, Linus was young when he wrote Linux and I have no doubt that he too has evolved into a skilled and expert operating system designer and implementer. Linux is now far better for this experience and the work of its many contributors.

I find it rather odd that you, who are not an expert in software, are arguing against a large community of people who are experts, that Linus did not write Linux. I would hazard a guess that most UNIX systems programmers find your arguments silly. I also find it interesting that many of your arguments mirror those that have been put forward by Microsoft, a company that clearly finds Linux a threat.

Yours,

Wintermute

Microsoft is the source of "hybrid" software by 0x0d0a · 2004-06-04 13:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Hybrid source code" is a phrase coined by former Tocqueville Chairman Gregory Fossedal. The term refers to any product with a license that attempts to mix free and proprietary source code at the same time.

Okay. I cannot imagine what he's talking about here, though. The GPL explicitly forbids such a license being used with any GPLed code, so unless he's just trying to mislead people or doesn't understand the legal nature of the GPL, he's not talking about the GPL.

The only people I can think of that mix "closed" and "open" code would be closed companies. Microsoft, for instance, used the BSD TCP stack.

I get the impression that Mr. Brown is trying to make people make the association between this "hybrid" business and the GPL, which is nonsensical -- of all the people involved, GPL users are the *least* likely to fit under his definition of "hybrid".

While hybrid software appears to be the same as open source, it isn't.

I can't agree -- I don't think that anyone would think that Microsoft's software is open.

Hybrid source code can never be true intellectual property.

Not true. Microsoft's software is presumably their own intellectual property.

The actual purpose of hybrid source is to nullify its value as private property, which makes the hybrid source model significantly different from true open source.

Microsoft has made billions with their IP. I doubt that Ken Brown is correct.

Noone can ever truly accrue any value from owning hybrid source software, because everybody (and anybody) has the rights to every line of improvement in it.

I don't have rights to Microsoft's software.

It sounds like he's talking about the GPL -- but the GPL does not allow mingling of closed and open source. The BSD license at least allows code licensed under it to be placed under such a "hybrid" license -- as Microsoft did. The GPL does not.

Worse, many argue that if hybrid source is used the wrong way, it can make other source code hybrid source as well.

Notice that he said "many argue". This is clearly legally wrong -- there is no legal basis for "accidentally" licensing something under the GPL. If you steal GPL code and put it into your closed-source product, you may be guilty of copyright infringement, but the remainder of your code will not be automatically licensed under the GPL.

The only relevance that GPL-licensing one's code would have is that it would be a guaranteed way to avoid the copyright infringement. This is *more* permissive than the case if a closed company stole source from another closed company -- it would have no such guaranteed out. I guarantee that any company that finds out that Microsoft stole its code and put it into Office is going to have a *field* day suing Microsoft.

I can only guess that he's trying to spread fear about getting anywhere near the GPL.

The hybrid source model negatively impacts the intellectual property model for all software, and inevitably the entire IT economy.

Again, the "hybrid source" argument is just plain silly.

As long as the value of the IT economy is dependent on the preservation of intellectual property, it is counterproductive for the U.S. government to invest in Linux.

Okay, *now* we have a more interesting argument. This may or may not be true. It is true that Microsoft maintaining a monopoly has the potential to bring a huge amount of wealth into the United States. However, even for us USians, there are significant efficiency advantages to allowing anyone, anywhere to be able to freely use and modify their computer's software.

I do not have evidence to rebut this point. On the other hand, I claim that Ken Brown has no evidence to support this point either.

My suspicion would be that "chaper, more open, more widely available" actually globally increases the quality of life of people to such an extent that the loss of local

--
May we never see th

hua?? "users have to" what...? by IBitOBear · 2004-06-04 13:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your oddest bit: Users have to be able to turn to someone/somewhere for support, for resources, for guidance; because there is no single authority over Linux, many companies and users are uncomfortable with it.

Having a "single authority" over Linux is no useful goal. The entire point of the history and value of open source is that there is no such point. A single authority is granted draconian control. When Microsoft decides, as the signle authority over Windows, that Win2K is no longer to be sold, distributed, or supported, where will the comfort go? How happy will your business be?

Where can I go for support? Resources? Guidance? Well, if not to myself, then to *ANY* *KNOWLEDGEABLE* *PERSON* *ANYWHERE* willing to act as guide, resource or structural span 8-).

To date, companies have become used to the idea that software is a secret art paracticed by some new preisthood. This is expected. It is, indeed, the foundation of every technophobic movie from the fifties and sixties. (Can you say "Colossis: The Forbin Project"?)

The surreal position that we somehow magically benefit from having an almighty dictate how our things should be is, perhaps, useful as an article of faith in a religion, but it is anathma to every other human persuit.

Would you, even for a moment, consider accepting a position in life where you just had this one credit card controlled by some finincial manager you never met? Every so often, when your maganger decided you needed more money, he would recharge your card. You can't check your balance. You cannot find out when or if you will receive a deposit. You cannot find out how much your employer is "paying you" and how much of that actually makes it onto your card. You cannot take out cash and you can only lease or rent but never buy. At any time, you may be temporarily or perminantly out of money. And if the card gets declined, you can't find out whether it will be declined for a day or for the rest of your life. Would you accept this?

And would you be happy when you suddenly discovered that you have nothing to eat?

These are *exactly* the rules you agree to every time you click that EULA. Sure, it's your Novel, or Dissertation, Family Photo Album, or whatever. But it is M$ Office or whatever that says that you can print or use or look at it. But that's fine. If they decide to take their ball and go home you could... sue... if you could only open Outlook and find your lawyer's phone number...

The simple fact is that a large number of sheep^Wpeople feel more comfortable if they can just ignore things and do what everybody else is doing. Especially if everybody else is also agressively failing to "look behind the curtian." It is, however, dumb.

And DUMB is VERY BAD for BUSINESS.

So I wouldn't put too much stock or desire into giving someone single authority over your computers and such. Someone will take you up on the offer, and it won't be out of altruisim.

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

This is the Big Lie. by waferhead · 2004-06-04 13:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

80+ percent of all programmers work exclusively on software for "In House" uses... NOT retail sales.

Linux/Open source software (can) make them MANY TIMES more productive.

The GPL ALLOWS this use... The code "borrowing" is EXPLICITLY allowed, as long as they do not distribute binaries.

I expect the next installment of this shill will move from calling Linux a "leprosy" to simply using the troll term "open sores".

I almost expected it in the article... Looked like a professionally written troll.

Cn I call him a Nazi so this can end?

Arguing Is Pointless by Bob9113 · 2004-06-04 13:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've just finished reading the piece and can only conclude one thing:

Arguing with this guy is completely pointless. He is constantly mixing the legal protections afforded by copyright, trademark, trade dress, and patent. He bounces off every logical fallacy in the book. It's like the open letter wars with SCO, but with a guy who is clearly far more versed in rhetoric.

There is only one clear response to this in my opinion; force him to address the real issue. Point blank: What code are you alleging has been infringed, and by what code in the Linux kernel? The entire history of the Linux kernel is available for public review - if he is going to make slanderous accusations about Linus, he had better be ready to back them up in court.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:The GNU/Linux naming issue, as I see it. by ignorant_newbie · 2004-06-04 14:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

>... and Hurd is a better design...

"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't. Linux wins heavily on points of being available"

True in 1992, _still_ true in 2004.

--
Sitting Walrus Blog

Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges. by Red+Alastor · 2004-06-04 15:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

By pointing to the fact that Brown made no distinction between Linux being a monolithic kernel and Minix being a Microkernel. Linus can't have copied Minix because of this fact as Tananbaum pointed out. If the Lions book was a monolithic kernel, Linus could have copied from it if he had it but that would mean that Tanenbaum is sure to have written his from scratch. Or vice-versa if the Lions book is about a microkernel. Either way, if one was able to do it from scratch, why not the other ?

--
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"

Ken Brown is the Ebeneezer Scrooge of IP by mhackarbie · 2004-06-04 15:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The debate about whether Linus Torvalds wrote Linux is just bait to keep the issue in the headlines. The real aim of Ken Brown and his supporters is to wage an ideological battle over the nature of intellectual property.

His flawed reasoning and poor judgement are too extensive for me to go into detail. I think the best way to summarize the error of his position is to compare him to Ebeneezer Scrooge, the greedy miser whose excessive concern with wealth blinded him to the truly important things in life.

The growth of information technology is part of a greater world of creative activity that includes science, art, music, literature and more. A critical requirement for continued creative work and innovation is an environment which enables the healthy flow of ideas between people.

Capitalism and the profit-motive play a part in enabling such creative activity, by helping to channel resources more effectively, but I maintain that the role of business and profit is strictly secondary. The true source of innovation starts with people who are passionate about creativity and discovery.

The great success of Science in the last several centuries has been critically dependent upon open communication and a free flow of ideas. The great success of software development in the last several decades has likewise been dependent upon an open environment for exploration and communication of new ideas.

Both of these creative activities are threatened by legal mechanisms such as patents and copyrights, which were originally intended to promote and reward innovation, but lately are mostly a means of protecting entrenched economic power.

I am not against Capitalism or rewarding creative endeavor, just as I presume Ken Brown is not against creativity or technological innovation. It all comes down to where you focus your energy. In Ken's (and Ebeneezer's) world, there is an obsessive emphasis is on building legal mechanisms and protecting corporate profits, at the expensive of an environment that can give birth to new innovations.

In my world, the focus is on the conditions that foster creativity and innovation, and subsequently deriving profit from the fruits made possible by those conditions.

Which world do we want to live in?

mhack

--
Building a better ribosome since 1997

Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 15:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mr Brown has not the foggiest, vaguest clue about the essence of the human creative process.

When we create something "new", we are not forced to return to the first glimmerings of conciousness and higher cognitive function. Even a popular work like James Burkes "Connections" would tell him that *nothing* created by man gets created in a vacuum.

Furthermore, "standing on the shoulders of giants" is so utterly pervasive in science and engineering, and I can't believe that Mr. Brown doesn't understand this.

Clearly, Linus didn't start with a 200litre drum of refined silicon dioxide, and build himself a computer. He had tools. Like Minix, and a C compiler. And a keyboard, cpu, memory, CRT. And a place to live and work, and a regular supply of food and water. He likely took a shower once in awhile, and might even have been using electricity purchased from the power company, rather than cluttering his brain and wasting his energies repeteadly running magnets through
hastily-assembled coils of wire.

Clearly Linus stole the idea of his own existence from his parents, who, at least according to some, owe a great debt to some chimpanzees and a man called Charles Darwin.

Following Mr. Browns argumet, Linus can't reasonably have claimed to have invented anything, since the dependancy tree for his creative process (as described above) is actually staggering in scope.

Because it's being paid for by msobkow · 2004-06-04 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

The timing of the attacks is obviously being paid for by someone.

Someone who has previously funded discredited research through the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

Someone who previously invested large sums of money in SCO, leaving a debt to be called in the future.

Someone who is busy patenting common-sense user interactions using mice and GUI's.

Someone with the clout to buy a reprieve from justice, and treat the penalties as merely the cost of doing business, and likely calculated into the projected expense budgets.

I mean come on -- why settle for mere greed or glory-hounding when there is a perfectly good conspiracy theory out there.

Besides, the tack Brown has taken is entirely self-destructive. Glory hounds want attention, not to paint themselves as the village idiot, repeating blatant lies as if they're a defense against the criticisms levied by respected members of the IT community. If the man truly believes his "response" appears like a rational defense, he seriously neds help, and I hope he gets it soon.

Yes, I read the whole article. The use of buzz-phrases is interesting.

What happens when you Google those phrases? Has the reference to the report shown up in the search results yet? How long until it does, with all the news sites cross-referencing the trash information?

Fast forward a few weeks when the furor dies down and an "apology" is issued. Someone searches for those key phrases -- is this "reasoned argument" response still visible in the search results? Maybe long enough to influence a few people to accept it as fact because it achieved such a high Google ranking with all the cross-references?

Remember the people doing those searches likely don't have technical knowledge to realize the "research" is virtually non-existant. They've heard about this Linux thing, and SCO, and look -- here's a high-rated "Institution" report.

I think the combination of SCO and Brown's report are the most elegantly crafted FUD attack I've seen to date, and one of the most subtle. It even uses the OSS community's own outrage to boost it's ranking and visibility.

Now just imagine you could actually control a search engine and make sure only the "right" links show up in the results, with one or two mild detractions to appear balanced. How much Google stock would one need to buy to ensure that kind of control?

Sure it's all ranting conspiracy stuff, but it's amazing how such theories fit sometimes, isn't it?

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Because it's being paid for by j-pimp · 2004-06-05 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

In general, seems like computer systems are extremely inbred. This from about 30-40 years ago and it can have only gotten more so. Seems like some cross-breeding is desirable, maybe even essential to long-term survival. Well it looks like all the growth is occuring in innovation causing mutations. I never touch true big iron, but after operating an AS/400 for a while, it seems like their borrowing from our Unix/Windows ideas more than we are borrowing from them. Their are alot of new OSes, and some stuff does find its way into the "mainstream ones," but other than BEOS, what new OS had a shot of making it past few years. The embedded areana is a place for new OSes, but how long befor eWindows and linux conquor that. Remember when NetBSD was the OS to run on "eccentric" hard ware. Now its debian.

--
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.

Ken Brown may be a twit, but... by AB3A · 2004-06-04 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

...he's a very wiley and literate twit. The prose he makes up (and it is really no more than that) does have a certain self consistency which reads very convincingly if you didn't know any of the background.

I have to admire the careful way he dances around the issue of Intellectual Property Rights. It's a fact of life that when your IP hits digital media, it becomes very easy to make perfect copies on an individual basis for next to nothing besides the cost of bandwidth.

Unfortunately, that fact of life is becoming a serious concern to everyone with a stake in intellectual property of their own. Ken Brown uses this fear very adroitly by saying that giving away software for free devalues other software.

What he doesn't realize is that the software industry really isn't about software. It's about service. Anyone who has ever had a plumber visit their house to make repairs knows that the vast majority of the bill has almost nothing to do with the parts, and everything to do with getting someone there armed with tools and experience to fix the problem.

Similarly, the RIAA would have us think that it's all about the parts, not the performers. But ask any professional musician across the economic spectrum and they'll all tell you that they make their real money going on tour.

Ken Brown would have us think it's about the parts, not the people. He may be pushing an agenda full of half truths, but he's not stupid.

His view is panders to those who insist on thinking that the plumber is just selling them bits of pipe, a valve and a washer or two; the electrician is just selling wire, boxes, outlets, and wire nuts; and the software industry is selling a box with a CD in it.

--
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!

Ken Brown - Operating System Creationist. by eddy · 2004-06-04 16:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ken Brown is a Creationist. Like Christian Creationists, he misunderstand, lie, twist quotes, engage strawman arguments, pepper his writing with fallacies, redefines common terminology, and finally; refuse to provide any evidence for his outlandish claims.

For instance:

Christian Creationist: The human eye is too complex to have been created via evolution!

Operating System Creationist: Linux is too complex to have been written by one person from scratch!

In both contexts, the Fundy is not only wrong, they also add a twist to their wrongness. CC will always claim that evolution is "something from nothing", basically confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The OSC, likewise, will twist 'written from scratch' to mean 'written in a vaacuum with no tools and with a clean brain that's never been exposed to any information'

Another:

Christian Creationist: You weren't there, so you experts don't know -- but we home-schooled fake-PhDs do!

Operating System Creationist: You weren't there, so you computer science experts don't know -- but we English Majors do!

Ken Brown, OS Creationist.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:Comparing Apples and Oranges. by FatherBusa · 2004-06-04 17:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes. Obviously. Your counterattack is well informed and your reasoning is perfectly sound. Ken Brown is an idiot. He has not slightest idea what he's talking about. Amen, amen.

Now, could we please ignore this nonsense and start talking about something else? All we're doing is feeding the FUD by calling attention to it. If this blowhard wants to claim that Linux was written by a covert gang of CIA operatives with money from Al Queda, let him go ahead. There is absolutely, positively no way that any CTO faced with a decision about Linux migration is going to take advice from AdTI. There is also no way that SCO is going to enter this garbage into evidence and win their case with it. And certainly, there is not the slightest possibility of shock troops from the USPTO breaking down our doors and taking our laptops, because of Ken Brown's expert research.

It is really time to stop turning this guy's deluded ramblings into /. headlines.

Stop laughing; this is serious by violet16 · 2004-06-04 19:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm genuinely concerned by Brown's article, but even more so by the community's response, which is to call Ken Brown an idiot and laugh the thing off. Even the Slashdot story begins: "Yes, I know it's getting boring by now..." as if every intelligent person can immediately see the gaping holes in Brown and AdTI's case.

The problem is that the community has almost entirely missed the thrust of AdTI's argument, and, worse, has failed to notice the danger it represents. The community has attacked the technical details of AdTI's argument while mostly ignoring the ideology. But Brown's new article clearly identifies AdTI's target--policymakers in the US Government--and these people will do the opposite: ignore the technical details and ponder the ideology. And to them, there will be an arresting argument here.

The key point AdTI makes is this: you can't trust OSS unless there's a big company or institution behind it. This is why Brown questions Linux's authorship; not to prove Linus is a fraud, but to muddy the waters sufficiently so that the answer is unclear. They are demonstrating not that Linus did not write Linux all by himself, but that we can't know for sure exactly who did.

And let's be clear: although Linux is the example, it's really the entire OSS movement in the sights here. AdTI wants to take software creation out of the hands of individuals and put it in the hands of corporations and institutions. It clearly draws an ideological line: software created by companies can be true open source, but software created by informal groups of individuals is "hybrid source," which means potentially stolen.

If the US government agrees, expect legislation that puts the onus on software creators to prove that their code is not stolen (in contrast to the current situation, in which the onus is on an infringed party to prove someone stole it). This would be a trifling matter for an organization with salaried employees, but onerous for groups of unconnected individuals. It could severely damage OSS projects that rely on code contributions from the general public, and make it much harder for new projects to ever get started.

Of course, when I say this is "what AdTI wants," I really mean that this is what the companies who fund AdTI want. They're talking about diverting billions of dollars, so the companies who stand to gain from this will make sure Ken Brown's words are heard in the right places in government. On the opposing side, however, we the community have very little money and influence. So our voice is at risk of going unheard in the places that matter.

The community needs to realize it can not laugh away Ken Brown. It must understand that the issue is not whether Linus wrote Linux, but whether any group of individuals should be allowed to come together, write code, and release it. That is one of the most vital issues we have ever faced.

--
I should buy some cement.

Brown tips his hand early on in his reply by sporktoast · 2004-06-04 20:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

I realize that with 400+ comments that this has probably been said already, and perhaps even more cogently. But I thought I'd get my opinion down regardless. This is from Brown's response at ADTI

[...]
True Open Source vs. Hybrid Source
[...]
While hybrid software appears to be the same as open source, it isn't. Hybrid source code can never be true intellectual property. The actual purpose of hybrid source is to nullify its value as private property, which makes the hybrid source model significantly different from true open source. Noone can ever truly accrue any value from owning hybrid source software, because everybody (and anybody) has the rights to every line of improvement in it. Worse, many argue that if hybrid source is used the wrong way, it can make other source code hybrid source as well.

Brown seems to consider that the value of software comes not from the utility it provides for the posessor, but from the posessor's ability to deprive others of that utility. He appears to believe that only scarce things have value.

--
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.

Lions book WAS probably unavailable to Linus by rmlane · 2004-06-04 21:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

In the same time period Linus was writing early versions of Linux I certainly couldn't get a copy.

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. Even Tanenbaum admits to teaching from the Lions notes. Linus says he started with nothing. In a recent ZDNet interview(6), he denies having the Lions notes. This is also unbelievable to AdTI. The story is too amazing----everybody that I met knew Linus intimately enough to confirm he wrote the kernel from scratch--- had an illegal copy of the Lions notes---- but Torvalds, was never---even near the Lions notes.

Not having a copy of the Lions book is sure as hell not surprising to me. I was a CS student in 1990-1992 at Sydney University, which is about a quarter hour drive from UNSW, which is where Lions taught his course and published his book. I studied OS design, and wanted a copy, and could not obtain one. This is the exact same period that Linux was going from 0.01 in 1991 to 0.95c in 1992.

The book was published in 1976
The book was banned in 1978
By 1990 / 1991 it had been out of print for 12 years and was really hard to obtain.
Bandwidth outside the US was incredibly paltry, so downloading it would be very difficult. Australia (the entire country) had a single unreliable link of under 500 kbits in 1991, which was probably more than Finland.

Of course it is unserprising that all the people 10 - 15 years older than Linus who were licencees had copies: they were around when it was in print, or worked at AT&T / Bell, or knew people who did. I knew lecturers who had copies of the Lions book, but they sure wouldn't photocopy it for an undergrad (well, not me, anyway).

And as others have pointed out (including Linus), pre-1.0 versions of Linux were, well, crap. I tried it a couple of times in that period, and was less than impressed compared to the BSD derived UNIX systems we had access to at university, ignored it, and used pirate copies of 386 BSD.

Writing Linux (Freeix) 0.01 didn't require genius. Project managing 0.01 into 2.X did.

Ken Brown doesn't know anything about code by pmjordan · 2004-06-04 22:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I didn't read his entire "response", just about 10 or 20 paragraphs from various parts, but it is SO blatantly obvious that the guy has no idea about what he is talking.

(a) he obviously doesn't understand the extent of the UNIX/POSIX specifications.
(b) he clearly doesn't know anything about software engineering, getting source code, architecture, framework, interfaces, etc. all mixed up
(c) he hasn't even understood what his critics are saying. They are saying that Linus wrote the code but based it on the specs and architecture of previous Unices. The conclusion he jumps to is that he stole code.

It's really sad that this publication is going to be believed 100% by politicians, probably mostly because of the whole American Patriotism thing he's got going on in there. If you want the US government to believe you, you apparently only have to say that anything else is un-American. Bah.

Stop destroying our moneymachines by Dodecha · 2004-06-04 23:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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."
In other words: "WEE WANT OUR MONEY, and linux is destroying our evil capitalistic way of living!"

It starts out bad... and then gets worse by maximilln · 2004-06-05 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it
Name-calling "rabid"
Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model
The worst fears are confirmed. This is an assassination attempt on F/OSS using the political vector
The actual purpose of hybrid source is to nullify its value as private property
(ignore the provocative "open source" vs. "hybrid source" labels for a moment) Here comes trouble...
The hybrid source model negatively impacts the intellectual property model for all software, and inevitably the entire IT economy. As long as the value of the IT economy is dependent on the preservation of intellectual property, it is counterproductive for the U.S. government to invest in Linux.
Complete and utter FUD!!!

The "hybrid source" label is being used to invoke a psychological response in the politicians who are not familiar with the computing industry. "Hybrid" is a term that gives them headaches--hybrid cars, hybrid crops, hybrid tissues, hybrid vaccines, hybrid banks, hybrid businesses.

AdTI's hybrid source, as near as I can tell, is F/OSS as in GNU. Their open source is F/OSS as in BSD. I personally feel that they've mixed things up. Freedom, I feel, naturally strives to preserve freedom as in GNUs GPL stipulation that GNU GPL code can only be included with GNU GPL code. I feel that freedom is naturally at odds with greed. Freedom, according to AdTI, preserves the freedom to be greedy. This only ensures that, politically and legally, the upper levels of corporate America will always have a stranglehold on the wage slaves and Universities who are really writing good code.

F/OSS software is only a threat to MS because the selling price of $0.00 is forcing the upper levels of corporate America to turn the blistering eye of Quality Control on proprietary software. This is not something that proprietary software has ever experienced. Previously they have always been able to hide behind EULAs, smoke, mirrors, and play on the ignorance of the customer. The outlandish price of proprietary software has been justified by a witty saying (which proves nothing),"You get what you pay for." This is not to say that F/OSS inherently has no value. This is our last-ditch effort in a war that began 15 years ago--the infuriation, indignation, and humiliation of watching MS and their alliances live luxuriously on a good marketing pitch while many superior programmers, and their products, were left to watch a light bulb swing from the ceiling.

GNU GPL seeks to allow real free-market capitalism to set the price of software. The industry, and AdTI, is quite happy with the current model which allows them the freedom to pilfer code from any available sources, fund the marketing, and charge outrageous prices for poorly hacked together crap. I don't agree that all software under GNU GPL would be free because, if people weren't being raked over the hot coals for crap software, there would be enough fair-minded people who would have the available resources to contribute back to the projects that they use.

I dunno, maybe not. It's possible that an IT admin in a large corporate setting would have trouble convincing the executive board that yearly donations should be sent to F/OSS projects. The default setting is "No" and, unless the executive is a computer programmer, making a donation to a F/OSS project is perceived as little better than giving money to a beggar on the street. The upper echelon of corporate America has a beautiful corporate pyramid scheme running as long as they continue to side with proprietary software vendors. Company money is dumped into proprietary software, and MS, Norton, McAfee, etc. stock has a good return every year. Selling F/OSS as a cost-cutting measure isn't really the Right Thing (tm) to do because it doesn't

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Dennis Ritchie is not a Unix Celebrity by beforewisdom · 2004-06-05 01:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dennis Ritchie is not a Unix Celebrity.

He is a Unix *GOD*.

Please get this straight for the future

Re:No one understands the software industry by pjkundert · 2004-06-05 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Absolutely correct (although I can't confirm your percentages...)

I work with Linux and a multitude of other FOSS sofware every day, developing embedded solutions for a large company. Most will never see the light of day (they are pretty specific to our company/industry), but FOSS software makes it all possible. Any parts that are generic, I am making available as FOSS (under the GPL). WIthout FOSS, we would be using some crappy closed source solution, without a fraction of the capability of what we've been able to build on top of Linux, et. al.

Incidentally, we spend large amounts of money buying some "closed" solutions (that run on Linux) from other companies; I suspect that they enjoy the income! Linux doesn't seem to be destroying their economic model.

The only companies that are going to get hurt, and badly, are those companies that have stopped innovating, and are just trying to milk an existing position for all they can get out of it. Any company or individual that actually wants to innovate, can now enter the marketplace much, much more easily than they could before, by building on top of an ever larger foundation of FOSS.

I think we can all guess what type of entity doesn't want that to happen...

--
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net

Mozart didn't write any of that music either by ricksmith · 2004-06-05 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

We all know, of course, that Mozart was much too young and unsophisticated to write any of that music attributed to him. Wasn't it all really stolen from someone else?

Just kidding.

Even the most trivial of Mozart's familiar works shows more creativity and genius than any derivitive Unix-like kernel. Reimplementing the kernel is NOT rocket science. It takes some taste, sophistication, skill, and LOTS of time on your hands, but it doesn't require some exceptional degree of genius (well, it needs that 99% perspiration part). That's why there are at least a half-dozen Unix kernel clones out there right now.

Rick.

From scratch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-05 02:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Pointless argument about what "from scratch" means. Did Linus have knowledge of other os kernel implementations and the theory behind them? Of course yes. Now twist this to mean he did not create the Linux kernel "from scratch". Go figure.

Someone please tell Brown... by jtheory · 2004-06-05 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

that "noone" is not a word? He uses it repeatedly, so it's clearly not a typo.

Perhaps he and I can meet at Ye Olde Sandwyche Shoppe at noone to discuss this, as well as his interesting discussion of "hybrid source".

I like it how open source is dangerous because we have to have some degree of "trust" that developers aren't adding in other people's IP. Whereas private corporations developing closed source applications, with a financial incentive to steal others' IP and no easy way to get caught will be struck down by God if they do it, so we don't need to depend on "trust".

Nice.

--
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.

He does indeed mention the GPL, by omission. by Bob_Robertson · 2004-06-05 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

While he never mentions it, the GPL is the real object of his attack.

Examine his argument that "hybrid software" is not really "open source". He clearly states that "open source" is only the BSD or MIT licenses.

I also enjoyed the "hybrid source software can infect other software by some uses". Well, DUH!!!! The use, which he doesn't specify, is from directly using the source code.

Yeah, it's so obviously the old "Microsoft says GPL bad, BSD good" argument that it's pathetic.

To understand the importance of the GPL, everyone who doesn't know Microsoft continually copies from BSD, raise your hands. Nobody? Good. Lesson learned.

Bob-

--
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics

Slashdot Mirror

Ken Brown Responds to His Critics

79 of 579 comments (clear)