Slashdot Mirror
Linus Defends Proprietary File Formats [Updated]
Simon (S2) writes "Torvalds launched a blast against OpenOffice.org, and defended Microsoft's right to keep its binary Office formats proprietary. 'I'm happy with somebody writing a free replacement for Microsoft Office. But I'm not fine with them writing a free replacement just by reverse engineering the proprietary formats,' said the Linux founder. 'Microsoft has its own reasons for keeping them proprietary, and I can't argue with that.'
At the heart of Torvalds' decision to refrain from using Bitmover's BitKeeper source code management tool last week, a day after BitKeeper decided to drop its limited functionality free client, is a dispute between BitKeeper developer Larry McVoy and Samba developer Andrew 'Tridge' Tridgell. It has subsequently emerged that Tridgell was working on a clean room reverse engineered implementation of McVoy's proprietary software, and Torvalds has come down on the side of his friend McVoy." Update: 04/13 17:24 GMT by T : As reader Daniel Callahan points out, this is a goof. "The Register article made up the Torvalds quote. The article offers the quote
and then continues: 'Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up. But what Torvalds really
did say this weekend is only slightly less bizarre.'"
But dodgy summaries like this one are what makes life on slashdot exciting!
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
Anyone who RTFA will find that the quote in question is false. Its spelled out in the page that it is a false quote.
Indeed, editors need to keep tabs, but asshat submitters need to shape up as well.
lol... i predict RTFA to be written at least 200 times.
Slashdot: News for Trolls, Stuff that's Bullshit.
the false headline will hit google news and spread further, whereas the correction in the comments will go unnoticed.
This story should be yanked now.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Congratulations, submitter! It's not every day you can successfully troll on the front page. Ten points to Slytherin.
This is really unforgivable: to quote the 'Linus quote' from the Register verbatim, and then to not quote the bit immediately after:
Actually he didn't - we just made that quote up.
It doesn't matter how well the quote summarizes Linus' position. The Register makes it very clear that the quote is not really Linus' by denying it right afterward. Slashdot should too.
This is worst kind of out-of-context quoting I've seen in here quite a while, in a story at least. Both the submitter and CowboyNeal should apologise.
(even after I sent an email to the "on duty editor" after seeing this in the "mysterious future")
yeah, I did the same thing. Appearently they just don't care.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
"Look, even Linux Torvalds supports our right to innovate!"
C'mon, /. .. I rely on you people!
"There is a reason Linux is free"
~me~
I mean, shit, I'm very tempted to stop reading this site. Slashdot, the Weekly World News of tech journalism.
Seriously. I can understand if the editors don't read an article about some guy who creates a walking robot in Japan, but really, how could they post something, anything about Linus without even taking a glance at the article?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Unfortunately, you can't assume that submitters will shape up. Trolls can troll the slashdot editors just as easily as they can troll the rest of us. But unlike ordinary posts, they don't get modded down once somebody discovers an obvious mistake. They don't disappear off the front page; the best we can hope for is a retraction.
So what do I recommend? Nothing, really. The editors, if they wish, could work a lot harder to verify the summaries, and Slashdot would be somewhat more valuable. Or they can continue to do what they do and trust their readers to figure it out. If they do, I'll keep doing what I do, and treating each Slashdot article with a serious grain of salt until I read the original source. Which is OK with me; I get what I pay for.
Sad that in this case it comes from an actual quote from The Register, a reputable news source. They made it easy to take the quote out of context, and that's bad writing. I'd expect to see this from J. Random Blogger and repeated on Slashdot, and I'm disappointed to see it in The Register.
Don't be an idiot. Relying on the masses to send you stories is one thing, but relying on them to do all the editorial legwork (fact checking for instance) is just naive. Even if every submitter is making a genuinely good effort to provide nothing but good stories (and believe me, that's not that case) you're still going to get a lot of crap. The fault here lies with the editor.
Sigs are awesome huh?
The article actually is about Linus Torvalds defending proprietary file formats. It's just that he's talking about a different format from the almost-made-up quote.
I say "almost made up" because it's got a grain of truth. The original quote is:
"Larry is perfectly fine with somebody writing a free replacement...What Larry is not fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what he did."
The made-up quote has the same gist, even if it's critically wrong in (a) the file format, and (b) the fact that Linus is talking about somebody else's beliefs, not his own. This gist, however, is clear that Linus believes roughly the same thing:
"It says: 'Get off my coat-tails, you free-loader'. And I can't really argue against that."
So I'd say the score is:
Headline: 1 point (for being accurate)
Summary: -2 points (for repeating a false quote without the retraction)
Submitter's final score: STFU
Slashdot: -2 point (for not verifying the quote)
Slashdot: +1 point (for the retraction on the front page)
Slashdot: +.5 point (for posting an article that's kind of interesting with an accurate headline despite a bad summary and bad editing)
Slashdot's final score: try to do better next time
Register: -2 points (for making up the quote)
Register: -1 point (for putting the retraction after the advertisement)
Register's final score: Really stupid, but they're usually reliable, so I'll let them off with a warning.
I haven't yet RTFA, but since the issue of file formats is near and dear to my heart (and what I do professionally), I figured I should say something.
I'm working on a Digital Archiving project for a government agency. And what we have determined thusfar is that proprietary file formats are -very bad- for long term preservation.
Now, you may ask, who cares about long term preservation? To which I would respond, clearly you are not a fan of history- or at least, good history. Innocuous documents end up being primary sources! People find new uses for and interest in old documents!
Still you seeem doubtful. Fine. But, should Microsoft disappear (unlikely as it may seem) or otherwise leave us with a bunch of proprietarily-formatted files that we cant read save through- shudder- emulation of something like Windows XP, a lot of people will be unhappy. And a lot of data may not be fully recoverable.
You may say that if such things really bother people, then they should only purchase software using open standards. I sort of agree. But we are dealing with a field in which -certain- companies are convicted monopolists, so....
Proprietary formats are still the bane of my existence.
It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn
This place is going south, fast. I have paid my last subscription since I can no linger justify even 5 USD on this site. This just confirms my theories that the editors won't even bother to read to paragraph 3 in an article. And won't even do it when people spell it out for them via e-mail. Slashdot has become a shadow of its former self.
The proprietary file format in question is that of BitKeeper; Tridge reverse-engineered it so that people can have access to their own data when BitMover pulls the plug on the free-as-in-beer BitKeeper (which hadn't happened yet at the time he did it, but which was inevitable as Larry kept changing the license and threatening people with losing their rights to use the software). Linus sided with Larry, despite the fact that Linux, GNU, Samba, and everything else we run has had to rely on reverse engineering of proprietary formats, devices, and protocols since forever just to function.
Yes you are. I was editing a book some years ago and the author was apparently taking delight at quoting grammatical mistakes his non-English speaking subjects made, which I thought a cheap shot. Looking up some reputable texts on journalism supported my view that minor errors can be silently corrected in quotes unless it's from a published text, and this is common practice. Actually listen to what someone says in an interview and compare with a written article -- you won't see the "ums" and false starts that almost everyone makes, unless they're trying to make the subject look like an idiot. Of course, trying to make any sense of what GWB says off the cuff may require more than that.
Both Slashdot and the poster also screwed up, but The Reg is the one who really blew it, IMHO.
I don't know if you're a regular reader of the Reg, but pisstakes are a feature of their writing. Their logo is a vulture; their slogan is "Biting the hand that feeds IT". They don't post lies but they sometimes do sex things up a bit. The poster is obviously a troll, he knew what he was doing. However, there is no excuse at all for Cowboy Neal. The "we just made that quote up" is prominently in the third paragraph. CN is just lazy and sloppy, like they all seem to be now. They collect a salary for editing this, they should be ashamed. But they're not -- I've sent several messages to him via the editor's address on similar issues, and they all bounce, he doesn't even want to know when he fucks up.
BitKeeper
Samba
That was great!
Now, who has devoted more time, energy and resources to community development of software?
BitMovers
The Samba Team
You know, I think you really have this thing down by now. Last one:
Who would you rather be stuck in an elevator with?
Larry McVoy
Andy Tridgell
Wow! 100%
I'm sure glad that Andy did raise his hand in class and ask to go to the potty in Professor Bill Gates' class. And I have to wonder how many Samba installations are cooking on the machines of BitKeeper employees.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
it's misleading stories like this that make me want to switch my homepage from /. to Foxnews. At least there I KNOW every article is a slanted half-truth.
It's called /. because the / is slanted, just like the news. If you want straight news without a pro-commons slant, go to Pipedot.
And Tridgell didn't reverse engineer something that already had a capable Free Software client. You know, the PC actually has a "capable and popular" operating system. So, presumably, it's absolutely wrong for the Linux developers to continue to use reverse engineering to develop a Free Software alternative. Right?
Wrong. This is about freedom. The Bitkeeper people had no business discouraging those who want to use free tools yet who want to interoperate with those who lack the same standards from writing free tools to spec. It was bad enough that the protocols were undocumented and proprietary to begin with. It's worse that this kind of vengeful stance was taken against third parties for daring to have an association with someone trying to create those free tools.
I'm absolutely amazed. He may not be the loudest proponent of FOSS in the world, but he's at least made himself look like such a proponent, and he has relied upon the very people he attacks doing exactly what he's attacking them for doing to make his kernel usable and what it is today.Your respect for him may have risen, mine has dropped. I was prepared to handle the fact he adopted BK in the first place because, well, people do often see themselves as pragmatic when making decisions that essentially defy good practices. He should have learnt something from this lesson, but essentially it looks like he's merely digging himself into a deeper hole while yelling "You all suck!" at those trying to get him out.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.