Tanenbaum Rebuts Ken Brown

Stephan Schulz writes "Andrew Tanenbaum has rebutted Ken Brown's reply to his original comments on the (in)famous AdTI report on Linux's origin. It's quite entertaining, and leaves little doubt (well, even less than before) that Brown is conciously twisting the truth. Choice excerpt: 'I'm pretty animated all the time. But I only get tense when people try to put words in my mouth. After half an hour of repeatedly answering the question "Could Linus have written the Linux kernel by himself?" in the affirmative, I was getting a bit irritated. ... People who know me would probably confirm that I do not suffer fools gladly.' I'd add that being called 'the good Professor' repeatedly would have me exploding in no time..."

Comments

This may be.

[jwcorder]

This argument may be just as unsolvable as which came first?....the chicken or the egg. Or what does it take to win in NASCAR a good driver or a good car...or (GASP) which is a better OS...OS X or Windows XP!!!....

I think I just started something on that one! :)

Re:This may be.

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

which came first?....the chicken or the egg.

Neither. The ROOSTER came first. ;-)

Re:Rebuttal to the rebuttal..

[aardvarkjoe]

So, your hypothesis is that the ends justify the means - particularly when money is at stake?

Here we are, posting to a discussion about somebody who was annoyed at someone else putting words in his mouth ... and you're putting words in the parent poster's mouth. The OP didn't say a thing about "ends justify the means," and I rather doubt that he believes that in any case.

Re:Rebuttal to the rebuttal..

[Lodragandraoidh]

...and you're putting words in the parent poster's mouth. The OP didn't say a thing about "ends justify the means," and I rather doubt that he believes that in any case...

Parent poster's words en toto (read slowly if your comprehension level is too low):
~
Why doesn't KB just cut his losses and slink away before he's made a greater fool of, if that's possible.

Are you kidding? He's trying to sell a book, it's 100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight as long as possible no matter what that takes. Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on /. all day, confident in their superiority.Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on /. all day, confident in their superiority.
~

Looking at his whole posting, not just the piece I chose to snip, you can see where I made the inference. My question is, why does the parent poster think it is "100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...no matter what it takes", versus doing the right thing. I would think his 'best' interest would be printing factual information, instead of FUD.

This definitely implies, as I said, that the poster believes the 'ends justify the means'. I am not putting words in his mouth - I am restating what was said in a more direct manner that enlightens the subject matter. To paraphrase the orginal poster, "it is in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...to make money"; this certainly seems to say 'the ends' (making money), justify the means (doing whatever it takes to stay in the spotlight - by passing off FUD as valuable research).

Re:Rebuttal to the rebuttal..

[Martin Blank]

I think what you're looking for is less "ends justify the means" and more "any publicity is good publicity." They're related, but not quite identical.

And I'll admit that I've fallen for it in some cases. I'll check out a movie or buy a book if there's a big enough media presence to some aspect of it, just to see what the big deal is, even if I don't agree with the idea behind it. This is why I watched Ken Park -- to find out what the Australian censors were so up in arms over. I still don't see what their big problem was, and it wasn't a very good movie to begin with, but it made someone $1.25 here in rental fees.

I have no intentions of buying this book -- I just don't have enough interest in it. But the phenomenon does work.

Re:Rebuttal to the rebuttal..

[Lodragandraoidh]

Give me an example of doing something that is truly in someone's best interest that is not right. I can't think of anything that meets your criteria. You can not seperate your best interest from doing the right thing.

We can only judge the actions of ourselves and others based on our own set of rules of right and wrong. Some of these ideas are universaly agreed upon, such as the idea that it is bad take the life of another person. However, taking the life of another person in the defense of your own life or that of others is right - if there is no other way to subdue them. In that case it is the right thing, based upon the circumstances.

I can think of no circumstances where it is right to profit from lies and distortions of the truth - even more so where those lies cause unjustified injury to the reputations of others.

This is why I find issue with someone advocating profit over truth as the best interests of anyone. Saying 'any publicity is good publicity' is the real issue is also incorrect. This is confusing side effects with the real problem. Publicity, in the case of the publication of a book, is designed to generate sales - and hence increase profits, thus my analysis stands: this is an issue of means justifying the ends.

To put it simply, can the actions you do or promote pass the 'red face' test. Can you look yourself in the eye and say 'what I am doing is right; what I am doing does no harm'. Or, are you just kidding yourself?