|
This Is How Linux Is Done: It's The Scientific Method of Peer Review |
|
Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 02:26 PM EST
|
OSDL has released an explanation, with a handy graphic that Linus and Andrew Morton helped create, that illustrates how software code is contributed to the Linux kernel. The development process is not a "don't ask, don't tell" free-for-all, as Darl McBride would like you to believe. Rather, it's an organized arrangement which has been in place in essentially the same form for more than a decade. Here's the OSDL description of the process: "'OSDL firmly believes that the Linux kernel development process, under the guidance of Linus Torvalds, has proven to be an extremely effective means to produce powerful software for more than 10 years now,' said Stuart Cohen, CEO of OSDL. 'Recent public criticism of the Linux development process shows a lack of understanding as to the rigor imposed by Linus himself and the development community at large. It is a process built on the scientific method of peer review.'
"The Linux operating system kernel is the result of the efforts of its creator, Linus Torvalds, and thousands of dedicated software developers from around the world. These developers are self-organized into specific subsystems defined by a developer's interests and technical expertise (for example, I/O, storage, networking). Each of these subsystems has a domain expert developer, called the subsystem maintainer, who oversees the work of others. Subsystem maintainers review the code submitted to them and orchestrate broader peer review of code to ensure its quality.
"All Linux code, both the current version and that submitted for future inclusion, is also available on-line for public examination. This allows literally thousands of interested parties to scrutinize submitted code in what amounts to a massive code review. Only when a subsystem maintainer accepts software code is it passed along to one of the two developers at the top of the Linux hierarchy, Torvalds himself or Andrew Morton.
"Torvalds maintains the "development kernel" where new features and bug fixes are tested. Morton maintains the "production kernel" which is the version release for public use. Torvalds is the final arbiter of what is included in Linux. OSDL, with the help of Torvalds and Morton, created a simplified Linux Development Process graphic to help illustrate these key points. The graphic is available at http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/graphics/linux_dev_process.jpg.
"Over the years Torvalds has enhanced the Linux development process itself to accommodate its increasing complexity and scope. The process is expected to continue to evolve in the future, but the basic structure has remained constant since the creation of Linux in 1991." One advantage to proprietary software companies of this open method is that they too can look over the code to make sure that no proprietary code belonging to them has made its way into Linux. There are no hidden pieces, so it's open for their review 24/7. This is just the first in a series of outreach efforts OSDL plans, part of what they are calling their Linux kernel awareness initiative, to help people, including those who may not be techies, to understand Linux better. Speaking of Andrew Morton, you may have seen an article on CRN about the 2.6 kernel. Morton was interviewed for the article, and he said some positive things about the integrity of the kernel, but there was one aspect of his remarks that struck an off note: "Morton said the crew of open-source developers working on the Linux kernel are certain that no one has introduced thousands of lines of Unix code to the Linux kernel.
"'We're a fairly tight-knit community who have been working together five years, and if a new person with 100,000 lines of code [tried to contribute], it would stick out like sore thumb,' Morton said. 'You can tell when something has grown up in a different environment and is ported over to another [platform]. We've gone though Linux and looked at all the major subsystems, and we couldn't come up with anything. We mentally took a walk though the kernel and came up with a blank.'
"He did, however, cite two possible exceptions that might apply to the litigation.
"'There was one obscure file system written by a person employed by SCO and Caldera, but he said he developed it on his own time,' Morton said, adding the person got his boss' approval via e-mail. 'We were quite comfortable with that.'
"Morton acknowledged that the XFS and JFS file systems, which were originally developed under a Unix license and then ported over to
Linux, could be a sticky issue that lawyers can exploit. 'SGI did develop it. It could be [SCO] has a legitimate case there, not technically, but on the letter of the law,' Morton said."
Naturally I wondered what he was saying. What did he know? What did he mean? So I contacted him and asked him those questions. Here is what he tells me his actual position is: 'I believe the SCO claims which I have read in the press are without merit from a technological point of view.
"It is my understanding that XFS and JFS were developed by SGI and IBM under Irix and AIX. As a programmer, I do not expect that this procedure would have lead to leakage of technical knowhow from IRIX or AIX into Linux. However it could be that the law contains wording which make this an area which SCO lawyers could work on anyway.
"In my conversation with Paula my intent here was to disclaim my ability to predict any outcome with respect to that aspect of XFS and JFS. I am a technologist and this part of it is not a technical matter."
In other words, he was just saying he isn't a lawyer, so he can't say what could or couldn't happen with respects to the law, particularly with SCO in the picture. That is all he said and definitely all he meant, despite the odd way it ended up looking in the article. It happens. The poor guy did around 10 media interviews yesterday. Yes, in one day.
|
|
Authored by: Korpo on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:10 PM EST |
Being around on Slashdot for quite some time, I cannot resist the urge of a
"first post".
Having said that, I want you to think you for your great work, PJ, as I visit
your site several times a day and have learned very much from it. Presently, I
do open it up before any other news site I visit.
When SCO falls, you will surely have played a big part in its demise.
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:34 PM EST |
There is no better way to follow this case than here. It is better even than
sitting in the courtroom. This site has provided great clarity and moved things
along. It is helping to make December 5 a definitive day. The Court is not one
to embarrass itself. It will also want to show that it is fair and independent.
You can be sure the Court knows about Groklaw.
What will the Court do on December 5 about discovery? That is what the
hearing is about. Don't expect any dismissals unless they are for discovery
abuse. Will he give one or both sides a deadline. Will he make one side pay
the other's legal fees due to the discovery stonewalling? Will he sanction
parties and/or lawyers? Since they have already had hearings and conferences
with
the other judge, I don't think so.
Wouldn't it be better for Open Source to prevail on the GPL before one
gets to discovery abuse and IBM contractual issues? The Red Hat Judge and the
IBM judge are probably comparing notes also. On December 5 or soon thereafter
we will know a lot about the Court's grasp of this case, his attitude on
discovery, his attitude toward the parties and counsel, and what he
independently brings to this confrontation.
Hey, PJ. Can you do anything about transcripts?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:39 PM EST |
Totally off-topic, but this year I'm grateful for all the hard work PJ and
everyone has put into this site and into a thorough debunking of SCO's antics.
PJ gets a prayer from me tomorrow at the dinner table. As well as the people
who do the leg work and transcribing and the web hosting and the
maintainence...
I honestly believe Groklaw is having a postive impact, and will be one of the
many factors that ultimately destroy SCO's idiotic plans.
Thanks to you all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Giving Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:52 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:43 PM EST |
PJ,
I'm glad you cleared that up. I saw those statements and wondered what was up.
I guess in this climate, its not surprising that one might feel like one must
to double check everything one might say.
cc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:44 PM EST |
Unfortunately from the information we have, it appears that JFS was developed as
part of AIX, ported to OS/2, prorted to linux and BACK to AIX. Only IBM knows
how clean that OS/2 implementation was.
BUT notwithstanding that, the amended AT&T contract seems to make it very
clear that so long as the IBM Software doesn't contain AT&T code, They can
distribute as they see fit. I don't see anyway SCOX can defeat that
amendment.
Joshua Clayton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: pjcm on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:05 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: sjohnson on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:38 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 04:21 AM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: pjcm on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:19 AM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: PM on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:11 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:38 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:12 AM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:51 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: mac586 on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:07 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:17 AM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:35 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:40 PM EST
- JFS and AIX - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:20 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST |
Since the beginning of this ordeal with SCO, I followed Groklaw as a very
competent source of information.
Darl McBride has demonstrated beyond any doubt, that he has no idea whatsoever
about open source or peer-review. I wonder what this guy did in college. Maybe
one should point out to him, that open-source in combination with peer review is
one of the most successful models in history.
People forget that the whole world of science relies heavily on this model since
modern science exists. Without this model, the world as we know it would not
exist. We would probably still be in the middle ages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST |
eWeek says that SCO denies that Google is a target:
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,4149,1398341,00.asp
"We have not yet decided what
company we will sue for Unix intellectual property rights. At this time, we
don't even have a date for when we will decide except that it will be by the end
of our already started 90-day clock," Stowell said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:04 PM EST |
Honestly, before I go to slashdot to get the 'scoop' on the latest sco vs. ibm
battle, I come here first. You truly have a way with research. Keep it up!
echodots[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:05 PM EST |
From Darl's public opinion of Linux developers as mere thieves with no regard
for other peoples work, blah, blah, blah. Wouldn't that open him/SCO up to
lawsuits based on defamation of character and slander?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:07 PM EST |
This would be a colossal admission. It would show that they grossly
miscalculated or lied. This proves the counterclaim and dismissess part of
their complaint. The derivative code contracts issue is 'de minimis' compared
to this. The suit would go on only to lessen the amount SCO should have to pay
for thier business slander and false claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:10 PM EST |
No one should have to do ten media interviews in one day. Talk about brain fry.
Oh, and happy Thanksgiving to all the members of the Groklaw Institue for
Strategic Research. :) (Even those of you in Canada who had Thanksgiving six
weeks ago or in Europe where Thanksgiving is something those crazy Yanks do.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:25 PM EST |
Sorry if this line of reasoning has appeared before; I haven't seen it.
1) SCO is suing IBM for damages for the alleged leak of SCO's Unix source (or
SCO-"controlled" source) into Linux.
2) SCO is invoicing Linux users and is going to sue a major corporate user of
Linux "within the next 90 days" (as of a week or so ago).
SCO cannot have it both ways. If #1 *succeeds* (i.e. they get damages from IBM)
they cannot legitimately seek money from Linux users. They can't get paid
twice for the same infringement. It's damages or license fees, choose your
pick.
If #1 *fails* (they lose the suit or it gets thrown out), then #2 falls through
the floor. The premise for seeking money from Linux users is that IBM put
illegal code in Linux.
So, at the very least, the efforts to extort money from Linux users can be seen
as illegal or frivolous. So why would they continue to do so, while case #1 is
"pending"? Because even they believe their case is weak or perhaps
non-existent, and the real intent is to pump up the stock while the officers
sell their shares. Is this enough to get the SEC involved?
OK, the last part is a stretch, but certainly there's no way they can win
tactic #2. What a strange fiasco...
...J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:30 PM EST |
"During a recent teleconference, CEO Darl McBride touched on other alleged
infringement fronts on which SCO's legal firms would be deployed, forcing
commercial users to stump up SCO's Unix IP licence. 'We have a situation with
other settlement agreements with respect to the BSD case from a few years ago
where we do have a legal settlement, we're in strong shape to go out and start
enforcing these now and this is really what David [Boies] and his team are going
to be expanding their focus around,' he said."
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=50862
Blake further stipulates in the article that files from BSD made it into Linux.
Umm, wouldn't that be because those files, under the 1994 ATT-BSD agreement,
were permitted by ATT to be licensed under the BSD license?
To be frank, I don't even know if any BSD code from '94 or earlier is in
Linux. But if there is any, it's covered by the BSD license. I can't see how
SCO even remotely thinks it has a case here.
Besides, I thought "David and his team are ... expanding their
focus" on suing an end-user for copyright infringement, and defending
against the Red Hat suit, in addition to prosecuting the IBM suit and defending
against IBM's counter-claims. Looks like Schiesse Heise's gettin' busy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:40 PM EST |
Happy Thanksgiving, PJ & Crew. If I could, I'd send you a big bunch of
flowers for all the great work you've done.
Failing that, you'll just have to
go to someplace like ProFlowers.com and pretend we sent you the biggest bouquet
you can find.
Now, how to go through $50M in a hurry...
1)
Sue IBM, which has been successfully defending its IP since before the
parents of anyone at SCO was born.
2) Sue Google (yeah, OK, so far
it's just a rumor... humor me while I pray the turkey thaws by tomorrow), which
every investment banker (and therefore every securities lawyer) wants to get on
the good side of, with the (rumored) Google IPO.
3) Not spending fast enough?
Take on BSD and BSD users, [www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=50862] which
in one fell swoop brings the Regents of the Univ. of California, Governor
Arnold, AT&T, Apple Computer, and all the Mac zealots into the
fray.
Who's left to sue? Maybe DARPA, since they funded this whole Internet
thingy back in the 60s. Why not the whole DoD while they're at it? The military
must have an install or three of Linux, here and there.
Happy Turkey Day to
All!!!
Dave
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:28 PM EST |
This site is miraculous. Nothing like it has been seen before. And mostly this
is due to the efforts of Pamela, without her fire, enthusiasm and writing style,
the band (of tens? hundreds? thousands?) of supporters would not be pulling
together, translating Court Documents, interviews, webcasts et al into plain
text for the edification of all.
Many people exhort PJ to 'get some sleep' when it appears that she's posting
in the middle of the night; she, like us all, has to earn their daily bread and
I get the impression that the ONLY time that's available to her to research and
document stuff on this case is 'out of hours'.
Let me tell you a story:
Four months ago, I was forced to use PayPal because I was ordering some stuff
online and the company I dealt with had decided that that was the secure way to
guarantee payment so, like it or not, I had to open a PayPal account. They
charged me a registration fee, refundable when the first (and quite possibly
last) transaction had completed and also gave me a $5 new-user bonus at that
time. So, I'd paid the money via PayPal and was left with a credit on my
account... Several months go by... Then I spotted the donate button on this site
and I thought 'If anybody deserves this cash, it's PJ'.
Of the 400,000 page hits this site gets each month now there must be quite a few
others in the same situation, with odd dollar amounts sitting in a PayPal
account doing nothing.
If ONLY 2.5% of the people who now rely on this site to keep them informed
donated ONE Dollar a month to PJ's PayPal account, her income would be more
than $10,000 per month, she would not have to seek employment elsewhere and
could work full time on this wonderful site she has created. Or, everybody
donate $1/YEAR!
Think about it folks: Is the existence of this site worth $1 to you?? If it is,
you may consider making a donation.
Or...If like me you have credit in your PayPal account that's going nowhere,
please consider donating it to further ALL of our interests: give it to PJ!
Thank you PJ, visiting this site every morning for my "fix" of
Groklaw sets me up for the rest of the day! (and apologies for any embarrassment
caused!)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:30 PM EST |
Try this link:
[http://www.thegnats.com/dave/pj.html]
By the way, PJ, I
don't think I'm the first to note that you have a talent for this... I hope
you're able to build upon this, and take what you've learned
further.
Regards,
Dave
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ's Flowers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:44 PM EST
- PJ's Flowers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:33 PM EST |
The SCO Group is one turkey I wouldn't mind seeing stuffed and carved up on Dec
5. On that date, I expect that IBM will compel the SCO Group to admit that it
does not actually have any infringing code and that its allegations of IP
infringement are exclusively based on its selective reading of its Unixware
license contracts.
If the SCO Group wants infringing code to be still a trial issue, then it will
have to identify that code block by block and specify the nature of the
infringement for each block. If the SCO Group still refuses to identify the
code, then IBM should move for dismissal of that part of the SCO Group's
lawsuit with prejudice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ansible on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:49 PM EST |
Looking at the picture, I can't help but think that the little beaker next
to Linus's pengun is what holds the 'Holy Penguin Pee' which is sprinkled over
releases.
Note to groklaw regulars: I'm not making that up. Do a google
search, or browse the Linux Kernel Mailing list. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:56 PM EST |
PJ, thanks for a wonderful site - very educational and illuminating!
Comparing development of the Linux kernel with science is interesting. The
scientific method is very near perfect, but the way science is done today is not
nearly as perfect. Scientists of today (at least those in the field of
biomedicine with which I am familiar) are in a highly competitive field. This is
in many ways good, but also leads to a focus on short term (even trivial)
projects with quick pay-offs (i.e. published papers) since funding and continued
employment to a large degree depend on how much one pulishes ("publish or
perish").
Furthermore, the competiveness has a negative influence on the peer-review
process as reviewers sometimes have not-so-honorable motives for suppressing
publication of competing research.
As far as I can see the community development of Linux is free of these negative
impacts of short term "solutions" and trivial work. Unlike the
situation of many scientists the success of a developer does not depend on the
number of lines submitted, but rather the quality of the solutions. The
financial aspects of kernel development (money play a small role if any) also
favours a situation where developers work together rather than against each
other. Furthermore, under the guidance of Linus resources can be allocated to
optimize the amount work that can be done by the community.
So in my opinion development of Linux seems to be much closer to the ideal of
what science should be than what science itself is today! That's just one more
reason to admire the success of Linux and free software in general!
./ Kristoffer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:33 PM EST |
ODSL awareness campaign misguided?
The problem is: the odsl is trying to say: "see we're careful about how
we allow code in the kernel." That's all well and good. But:
1) Obviously, no matter how careful they are something can always get through.
Everybody knows that.
2) It misses the more important point: even if something does get through, Linux
end users need to understand that *they* can not be sued. Forget the ibm v scox
case - that is a case between ibm and scox.
The idea that scox can sue linux end users is completely absurd - even if ibm
did break some contract, even if there is illegal code in linux.
Companies and individuals that buy linux in good faith, have done nothing wrong.
They have not violated any copyright - and certainly they have not violated any
patent, trademark, or trade secret. Therefore, scox has absolutely no grounds to
sue linux end users. I don't care if ibm broke one hundred contracts with scox.
That is the message that the needs to get to the linux end users.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tuxi on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:43 PM EST |
I understand the UK celebrates Thanksgiving on 4th July ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:24 PM EST |
Stowell denies SCO violating the GPL
I can't even parse what he is trying to say, particularly in view of what the
article says 2 paragraphs before the Stowell quote
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22768.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:57 PM EST |
New article at http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3114241
by Michael Hall
There's a sign popular among middle managers that reads "the beatings
will stop when morale improves." SCO's variation on that might be
"the suing will start unless revenue improves."
The author goes on to say that HP and Sun will indemnify, but Red Hat has done
nothing for its customer.
He of course forget to mention that Red Hat is "proactively" seeking
an Declarative Judgement against SCO, so SCO cease its baseless meddling with
Red Hat customers.
When sucessful, this judgement will be way better than the "Indemnify to
the amount of the purchase price" approach. Yeah, get wrongfully sued for
$1 million, and we'll chip in the $129 you paid for our software. That will
really help defray the legal costs.
_Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:07 PM EST |
Yesterday, I asked how solid IBM's defense of XFS and JFS was, and was told
that:
1. IBM had nothing to do with XFS, which was contributed solely by SGI;
2. IBM developed JFS independently in OS/2, and ported the OS/2 version to Linux
without referring to AIX.
It look's like IBM's defense is solid. How about SGI's, if SCO continues its
litigation madness against SGI?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Trepalium on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:32 AM EST |
Ever notice that SCO likes to claim that their quotes are taken out of context
when people line up quotes to try and make them take responsibility for
something they said, but then turns around and misquotes Linus over this "don't
ask, don't tell" thing. The fact of the matter was Linus was talking about
patents, and he later clarified what the meaning was in this article. He
wrote, "Ask any lawyer in a tech company (off the record, so that he can be
honest too), and he’ll tell you that engineers should absolutely not try to look
up other people’s patents. It’s not their job, and you don’t want them tainted."
This could be a real danger, especially if someone looking to clear their work
of possible patent infringement (which SCO obviously isn't free of, either),
ends up reading several patents. Sometime later, this person believes they've
come up with an idea, except the idea is actually a patent that they read some
time ago. They go and implement it, and oops, now they're knowingly infringing
on the patent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|