|
|
| Eric Raymond on Minix and Linux |
 |
|
Friday, April 29 2005 @ 11:58 PM EDT
|
What have we here? Is this a new ADTI? A fresh defender of SCO, a new knight for the dark side, who wishes the world to believe that Linux is a derivative work of Minix? No doubt, judging by my email, you have already read "Paul Murphy's" piece of work (that is not his real name) [Update: You can now find the article here, as the Yahoo link has expired], particularly since a not-so-helpful "anonymous" submitter sent it to Slashdot, so as to spread the misinformation even more widely (although Slashdot's readers have debunked it very well.) But really, guys. Think. Why give hits to stuff like this? It started on CIO Today, who I believe should also know better.
"Murphy" is a Linux Insider author, and they are published by sys-con, like Maureen O'Gara's Linux thing, whatever it's called these days. What a coincidence. I could probably even offer an educated guess who the submitter to Slashdot might have been, but whoever it was, the article is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin. Leaving aside the rest of the screed (I do believe he called us idiots, for example) his "evidence" is a quotation from Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," which others before him have also twisted to try to make the same point. I sent the excerpt to Eric, and asked for a comment, and Eric has provided a response.
First, here's what "Murphy" had to say about Minix and Linux, the excerpt I sent to Eric: First among these is something that I think of as the myth of immaculate
conception, according to which Linux sprang forth, fully formed, from
nothing at all. Thus a reference, in an earlier column [Paul Murphy,
"The Importance of Linux," CIO Today, March 4, 2005] to Linus Torvald's
having started Linux by hacking on Minix unleashed a storm of protest
from believers denying that what Torvalds referred to as his "free Unix
for the 386" could have started as a better minix than minix.
For the record, however, here's how Eric Raymond, in The Cathedral and
the Bazaar described the process through which Linux came about:
Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try to write Linux from
scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minix, a
tiny Unix-like operating system for PC clones. Eventually all the Minix
code went away or was completely rewritten -- but while it was there, it
provided scaffolding for the infant that would eventually become Linux.
In other words, what happened with Linux was exactly the normal process
you expect in open source: You start with some one else's code, hack on
it until you really understand what you wanted to do with it, and in
that process replace all the original code to make your own product.
That's how a fall-1990 Minix kernel hack aimed at using interrupts to
speed processing became a new kernel by March of 1991 and a whole new
Unix clone when file system processing was internalized in June. I must mention that no one ever said anything about immaculate conception. That is misleading. And where does he get those dates? Linus took his first programming class in 1990, according to the linked bio. And what a dishonest use of the word "clone". But, trying to restrain myself and stick to the Minix issue only, here's Eric's reply: "Paul Murphy has misconstrued the quote from my book to suggest that Linux
was a derivative work of Minix. His article contains several other factual
inaccuracies and dubious legal claims, but I will confine myself to addressing
his misapplication of my work.
"In his article he is describing only one 'normal process' of open
source -- we very often write code from scratch, The Linux kernel was
in fact written from scratch using Minix tools, rather as a building
is constructed from ground up using scaffolding that was later
discarded.
"In its very early stages it was a bootable terminal emulator that
didn't talk to the hard disk. Thus the description of it as a 'Minix
kernel hack' is incorrect; if that had been the case, it would have
been able to talk to a disk file system a lot sooner than it actually
did. Linus's famous quote on this subject is 'My terminal emulator
grew legs.'
"This distinction is legally important, because it means that the Linux
kernel was never a derivative work of the Minix code. Andrew Tanenbaum,
the originator of Minix, has loudly denied that Linux is a design derivative
of Minix either -- in fact he and Linus had a nototrious flame war over
Tanenbaum's rejection of Linus's design direction.
"Even if Linux had in fact been a derivative work of Minix, *Minix was
not a derivative work of the AT&T sources*! Thus there is no hope for
SCO here." If you wish to reread about one MicrosoftFolk using this same misinformation, go here. To read Linus (and Andrew Tannenbaum) on this subject, go here. Just to be clear, what Linus said on the record when ADTI vainly tried to make the same point "Murphy" is now resurrecting is this: "Linux never used Minix code... We never credited anybody else's code, because we never used anybody else's code," Torvalds said. . . .
Minix, he said, was simply a platform on top of which Torvalds did his programming work.
The [ADTI] study suggested that Torvalds might have gradually replaced Minix code with Linux but Torvalds denied it. "I didn't 'write the Minix code out of Linux'," Torvalds said. "I was using Minix when I wrote Linux, but that's in the same sense that you are using Windows when you write your columns. Do your articles contain Windows source code because you use Windows to write them?" How often does this misinformation need to be debunked before it will die and stay dead? Say, might there be a lawsuit in the background that needs to make this point, and so friendly souls, or ... well, I don't call people idiots... rehash it over and over, so they can quote from it in legal documents down the road? Let's keep our eyes peeled to see if that happens. Microsoft marketing seems to work that way. They have a lot of paid-for studies, or studies that just happen to be set up to tilt their way, cough cough, and then they quote from them abundantly, as if it were all true. It can almost seem true, if you squint your eyes just right and don't think too deeply and know very little. And heaven only knows, journalists' articles have been submitted to the court as exhibits in the SCO v. IBM litigation, so I don't think it's a stretch to consider such possibilities. Here's more from Groklaw's earlier coverage of the ADTI Minix et al nonsense: Here's Andrew Tannenbaum's page on the Minix-Linux issue, and here's Appendix A, "The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate", from the book Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution on the differences between the two. Here's Linus' famous announcement in August of 1991 about Linux, in which he says it is free of any Minix code. It is my understanding that he began working on his kernel in April of 1991. Linux history at Linux International
includes Linus' notes on that early email. And yet this warmed over Minix-Linux hash appears. On scaffolding, while I am not a programmer, I know a lot of them now, and they've explained it to me. I also used to live in Manhattan, so I have seen a lot of scaffolding as buildings were being constructed. Here's how I understand it. As Linux was being written, it was written on a Minix-using computer,
like you might use scaffolds to help you construct a building. As the
building is built, you get rid of the scaffolding, bit by bit, and at
the end, you don't need any scaffolding at all, because the building
stands on its own. The scaffolding may be what you stand on to build your edifice, but it is at no point an integral part of what you are building.
Similarly, to write an operating system, you have to use another one to
do the building, but that doesn't mean it's an integrated part of your
construction at any point, just what you are using to get the thing written. Just like I have to use a text editor to write this article, but my article isn't a derivative work of my text editor. This must be very important to SCO's case. I surely hope so, because it will get them absolutely nowhere.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
| the article is so wrong, it'd hard to know where to
begin.
s/it'd/it's/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here - Authored by: VivianC on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:21 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:21 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:34 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:40 AM EDT
- Linux derivative of _Linux_? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:58 AM EDT
- Tamenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- Tannenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- Correction: out of date - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:36 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable using the following:
<a href=http://www.example.com> Link description </a>
and post using "HTML Formatted"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
Why can they come up with something fresh?
HEY GUYS, the horse is dead, quit kicking it.
wb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Given the manifest lack of integrity of Paul Murphy's argumentation, I am
compelled to conclude that he is engaging in intellectual prostitution. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
I disagree that it was even scaffolding, or something that even held a
structure.
It was more like building a boat on a dry dock, where once it was built, the
boat was launched and floated on it's own in the water, something that the dry
dock never did (float very far if it was intended, but Minux was not intended to
float as it was built simply as a little tool for students to play with by the
creator, a dry dock)!
Linux floated... and wow she is floating so high these days that the ship has
indeed begun to fly, and soon her bombs will be dropping all over Redmond.
Good-bye stupid MS server CALs, good-bye stupid MS forced upgrades, good-bye new
OS's that contain less free stuff with every release, good-bye code bloat and
lock-in suites.
A new ship is in port today.
Born from a royal dry dock (not scaffolding)!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:00 AM EDT |
All I see in his (her) article is the basis for more resentment and hostility to
the forces backing & using this type of deceptive approach.
Some thougths:
1) what would happen if someone took 'Murphy' to court for libel ? - reality is
that it would not do any good other than create a bad smell and cost good
money.
2) is this type of article a desperate last gasp before the axe falls ? - could
be but who is behind this story MS or tSCOg ?
3) why would these people keep antagonisng the FOSS and pro Linux community. It
almost seems like it is deliberate!, but to what effect ?
4) the content seems fairly easy to tear apart especially since the arguments
have been debunked before and more than once.
5) if the article is not targetted at FOSS / Linux supporters then who is it
aimed at that would read it let alone understand it ?. Is it simply a sad
example of self-delusion ?
Doug M
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DWitt_nyc on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
| this is a link on 'Murphy's' Articles on the IBM/SCO mess
he has removed the
link from 'An Email exchange with Ms. Groklaw on Minix,
Linux, and
Unix'
PJ, could you find the time to post this exchange? as usual, inquiring
minds
want to know!
thanks,
-DW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
Yeah, but Murphy says that what he thinks Linus did was legit. What about
Murphy's main point: that SCO doesn't have to show borrowed code, they just have
to show that IBM's internal procedures were contaminated? The fact that he's
wrong about how Linus worked doesn't matter if he's right about how IBM worked.
He says:
Notice, however, that the openness and legitimacy of
the processes constitute the key differences between what Torvalds did to create
Linux and what SCO accuses IBM of doing to bring it up to System 5.4 standards.
Torvalds was working in an open, academic environment within the scope of both
Tannebaum's [sic] intent and the Prentice Hall source license for
Minix.
What SCO claims is really that some IBM people
undertook basically the same process, except that they worked in isolation and
started with code and documentation whose integrity and confidentiality their
employer was contractually committed to protect.
I haven't
seen this line of argument aired around here (not that I've been reading
everything); I thought that SCO's failure to produce the infringing code sealed
it. Should I worry? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:34 AM EDT |
| I'd be interested in hearing ideas about how an operating system could be
written without the use of an existing OS to build it with. Unless you are
using switches to input binary data directly into memory, you are going to be
using some sort of OS to write it with.
The closest I've ever got was using
the keypad on an EPROM programmer to create a real-time control system for a
Z80-based jigging machine.
But even though I was working out the Op codes by hand and putting the Hex
humbers directly into an EPROM, the EPROM programmer would have had it's own
rudimentary operating system, so I could have been said to be using
that.
Incidentally, I only ever did that once. The experience was enough to
make me go out and get a computer (I think it was a Beeb) with a Z80 second
processor and an assembler. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:38 AM EDT |
A point that is overlooked is that this doesn't just target businesses or be a
potential ploy in court. It also has the potential to cause problems in the
Linux community, as an experience of mine illustrates.
I've only been using Linux for about a year. I had heard about it (mostly
thanks to the SCO lawsuit) and gave it a try, and found I prefer it immensely
over Windows. The problem was, I more or less came in in the middle of the
movie. A whole community and history had sprung up, and I had no clue about
it.
I was told, if you have questions, ask online, there are all kinds of people on
the Internet willing to help. So I went to an Internet newsgroup. I don't
recall the question off the top of my head, whether it was about SCO or the
Minix thing, but it had something to do with an article that hinted that Linux
was on very shaky ground. So I asked the group for background info about what
was going on and some related questions, basically looking for facts to make
sense of it all.
I was promptly labeled a troll.
I tried to explain I wasn't trolling, I was new to all this and was trying to
get answers.
I was told to go away, little troll.
Those were the only responses I got, both from the same person. (A couple of
others responded, but only after, I think, a couple of weeks. I didn't bother
keeping tabs on the group after that first one.) No one seemed willing to set
me straight. I recalled thinking, "If this is what the Linux fanaticism is
like, maybe I should rethink this." But instead of giving up, I joined a
LUG. Presumably, my LUG was more willing to assume I was genuinely clueless
rather than a troll since I live in the area and they could conceivably come by
and punch me out if I'm looking for trouble. But they were and still are
patient, helpful, friendly (at one meeting, we were quoting our favorite Monty
Python bits), and most importantly, tolerant of this learner. But were it not
for them, I'm not sure if I would have stuck with Linux.
The point of all this is, all it takes is a little confusion and uncertainty to
generate all kinds of ill will, possibly chasing away people, which is just as
deadly as any lawsuit or TCO study that plays fast and loose with the facts. It
almost happened to me, and it is something that must be guarded against.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Machiavelli Would Weep If This Worked - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:49 AM EDT
- Machiavelli Would Weep If This Worked - Authored by: dzimmerm on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:28 AM EDT
- Newsgroups - Authored by: Observer on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- Newsgroups - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:44 PM EDT
- Newsgroups - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 02:03 AM EDT
- Machiavelli Would Weep If This Worked - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:21 AM EDT
- Machiavelli Would Weep If This Worked - Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- Machiavelli Would Weep If This Worked - Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- Speaking of which - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:55 AM EDT
- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way - Authored by: Zartan on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Online help and rudeness - Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:43 AM EDT |
Read the comments on Slashdot and now I am here and everyone seems to have
missed this shot.
"Fundamentally this is exactly the kind of outcomes-based circular
reasoning that leads to conspiracy theories -- in this case probably one to the
effect that a beneficent IBM planned the whole thing as unpleasant but necessary
medicine."
which clearly means it an absolute FUD piece. He's trying to say that IBM may
have engineered this (the SCO litigation) completely and all they are doing is
trying to sink Linux and have done it by "planting" the seeds of doom
somewhere in there. Its known as divide and conquer. Sadly for Mr Murphy the FSF
and OSS ppl are already so used to being divided and use this to intellectual
advantage that this will never fly let alone float.
Really these people are going to have to much better than this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
|
SCO, Groklaw and the Monterey mystery that never was
Excerptover the
past month the site's maintainer Pamela Jones has run a series of articles which
could offer SCO some elusive ammunition to discredit the site.
It's a
lengthy article disagreeing with PJ's view of Monterey and what
happened.
Cheers
rob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
Wow, I've *really* got to start reading the news a bit more often these days!
Ok, I take that back... it's much more fun sometimes to completely miss out on
bits of controversy.
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: micheal on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
"Eventually all the Minix code went away or was completely rewritten -- but
while it was there, it provided scaffolding for the infant that would eventually
become Linux."
Perhaps a better analogy then scafolding would be the construction of the US
Interstate 80 highway in Nebraska. The existing highway (US 30) was used during
the construction of the initial piece to get to the construction site. This is
analogous to using the tools (editors, compilers, etc) of MINIX.
As pieces of the interstate were completed they were opened to the public. The
public could use the completed pieces of the interstate by using US 30 to get to
and from the pieces and there was no other way to get to it. This is analagous
to using MINIX I/O routines to do disk I/O. (In the case of Linux, the
"public" was just Linus.)
Once a large part of the interstate was completed it could be used independently
of US 30. This is analogous to Linux having its own disk I.O.
At this point, Linux was released to the community for improvement. In the case
of the interstate, additional pieces were added by other contractors, more ramps
were built, beltways around cities were built, etc. Both Linux and the
interstate continue to be improved.
At no point was US 30 ever "part of" US 80 interstate. (unlike Route
128 in Massachusetts which did becone part of US 95 interstate.)
---
LeRoy
If I have anything to give, made of this life I live, it is this song, which I
have made. Now in your keeping it is laid.
Anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: etmax on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
I have to say that we should get away from the scaffold analogy, because it
supports twisting in the direction of the Murphy & ADTI articles. When you
talk about scaffolding, you are actually saying that the "scaffold"
provides shape and guides where it goes, ie. the building end up
"shaped" like that!
The editor or word processor analogies are much closer to the point. Here the
editor etc. is merely a tool like a screwdiver or a bulldozer etc., and is much
closer to what Minix was to Linux.
Have a serious think about that!
- The tongue, one of the worlds deadliest inventions, second only to the pen.
---
Max - Melbourne Australia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:07 AM EDT |
I am getting tired of these rumours, here is Linus attempt
to find the exact date for a one year birthday party:
http://www.sslug.dk/artikler/linux_history_1.html
regards
guran [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CypherOz on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
What I find amazing is that these 'research groups' (AdTI, Yankee Group et. al.)
are losing cred faster than the US deficit growth!
I am an IT decision maker - so when I see the next report from a discredited
souce - What will I be thinking? - you got it - look at what they are not
recommending.
As for IT journalism ... well MOG, DiDio et. al. have made us all think a lot
more, and in the end that is a good thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Amazing! Think. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:37 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: El_Heffe on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
Eric Raymond responds, but does not address the critical issue here. Eric says
that "Paul Murphy has misconstrued the quote from my book". The quote
in question, begins with:
"Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try to write Linux from
scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minix"
Is this what is in Eric's book? Is this an accurate quote?
If this in not an accurate quote, then Eric needs to clear up what he actually
said.
If it *IS* an accurate quote, then I don't see how Paul Murphy can be accused of
"misconstruing" something.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it" - anonynmous[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
| It has nothing to do with some idea of getting ones hooks on Linux through
Minix, as Minix is itself an original work. Rather, it is a matter of pure
propaganda. The story of a bright finnish cs student who could must be
destroyed to create a vision of a less likable community. The Travolds story
at it's heart and as a factual myth, says everything that is nice and there is
to
like about Linux, and everything there is to dislike about corporations like
Microsoft. It destroys the preferred corporate myth of dangerous crackers
and
"communist anarchist coders" out to break and steel things. So clearly,
from
the point of view of Microsoft Marketing, Linus's reputation must be
destroyed.
It's simple as that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
He wrote quite a long piece on The Register this morning
(UK time) seeming to say that the Monterey debate here was
skewed/possibly off track. He suggested that Groklaw
was/is accommodating his points - is this true and if any
such accommodation occurs how might we know? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: oneandoneis2 on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:44 AM EDT |
I just thought I'd comment that LFS (Linux From Scratch) is a good example of a
current-day "scaffolding" process.
In order to install LFS, you need to do it from an existing Linux installation:
You have to create a partition for LFS's files to be stored on, you have to
compile the LFS compiler, and so on.
In the end, you have a complete Linux system compiled from scratch, and can
throw away the original Linux (Knoppix is a popular one to use, as it doesn't
take up any hard drive space). But that doesn't make it a derivation of the
Linux you installed from.
Just an observation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
"I was using Minix when I wrote Linux, but that's in the same sense that
you are using Windows when you write your columns. Do your articles contain
Windows source code because you use Windows to write them?"
The original document probably did contain a fair amount of Windows proprietary
code - that is one of the problems.
;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Even if Linux was Unix (a complete pirated copy):
Novell ships Linux
SCO shipped Linux
Berkley probably uses and distributes Linux
CA ships Linux
So they agreed to GPL their stakes in any Unix in Linux.
Even if SCO claims "we didn't know" it *does not* matter. They used
GPL,
they are stuffed.
Ironically SCO would have been less stuffed if they had released all their
UnixWare IP as GPL and just been a minor Linux distributer...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
I seem to recall MS using some flavor of Unix to develop their products (long
ago). I have no references, but if true it should be pointed out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
"Paul Murphy, a CIO Today columnist, wrote and published The Unix Guide to
Defenestration. Murphy is a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry,
specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues. He maintains a
discussion forum for his column on Winface.com."
Ah ha. I see now. It's all so clear.
I have seventeen years of experience as IT support, network & database
administrator, application developer and IT manager, so I must be inferior to
him. Oh, how I bow down to the almight consultant...but I digress.
For a period of time, right after the dot-com bust, I was a consultant, too.
Back then, most consultants knew that their job title was a euphimism for
"spotty employment". The money may be good for brief stints, but the
time in between stints can be ugly. In "The Dilbert Future: Thriving on
Stupidity in the 21st Century", Scott Adams refers to consultants as
"people who had already been downsized". In that same book, he also
talks about how magazine and newspaper columnists are good occupations for
people who like to criticize others who are more skilled than them. As he puts
it, "If you're a young person who is accustomed to being selected last for
teams, these are excellent jobs for you...If you want to be at the top of the
criticism food chain, become a publisher or editor."
The main vein of the book was humor, but how often have we seen thinly veiled
truth peeking out from any given Dilbert cartoon. Those of us who are former or
current cubicle warriors (and sometimes, moreso, technology workers)
occassionally don't think it's that funny, only because it hits too close to
home.
A very small percentage of people who try make it successfully as a consultant.
I have a hard time believing that somebody who spends all of his time writing
poorly researched "tabloid" pieces for online publications has been
very successful in his career (not in IT, anyway; maybe marketing and
advertising). This would be what my last boss referred to as "lack of
attention to detail".
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
this article only spells out what the court will find in november. this site
will be an internet footnote in about a year...see "internet echo
chamber"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:17 AM EDT |
MS Windows must be a Unix derivative, since Microsoft used
Unix (SunOS?) back when they created* Windows (and DOS
before that)!
* I use that term loosely [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
Linus actually learnt quite a lot from Minix. He not
only got the book and
the source code, he also set about
bringing it up to i80386 standard. It also
explains his
frustration with both the Minix development model - as
evidenced in his outburst in the "Linux is Obsolete"
thread - and its design.
Linus isn't the only one to have
expressed some frustration with Tanenbaum's
design
decisions - Switzer in his book, "Operating Systems : A
Practicla
Approach" wonders why so few of the Minix
components were separated from the
kernel - the memory
manager, the file system and very little else, if my
memory serves me right.
In fact, if anyone cares to track down the
history of
gcc, Linux was one of the people who did some work on
making it
work on Minix-386.
That being said, he took his own tack with Linux -
and
never looked back. Just ask him.
---
finagement: The
Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season.
Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Paul Murphy isn't a paid shill of MS or SCO. He's an intellectually bankrupt
maverick-- a crusty leftover from the Unix days of yore. He's a Sun-worshipper,
a lover of mainframe Unix, and he despises x86/Linux. So naturally he wants SCO
to prevail. Linux is ruining his beloved Unix.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
Why not start over?
Put Linux 2.x in Maintenance Mode and only
build independent modules. Create the
specific interfaces and then code all
the major modules to those interfaces.
There is enough knowledge and architecture
understanding now. That starting over might
take some time. But would prove to NOT have
anything other than new code.
I bet it could be done in less than 12-24 months.
And would more than likely be more efficient.
Maybe call it Linux 3.
It would have all the interfaces as Linux 2.x
but would have a completely new and independent
core operating system.
And I would suspect that building it with Linux 2.x
would be an OK move.
Besides have you seen a graph of all the
APIs to c files in Linux? I have. It is not a
very clean architecture.
But then again it might need to be that
way to be fast. But then again, it could
always be improved.
Big G[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why???? - Authored by: Duster on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 04:25 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
