Scum ipsa loquitur. From Monday WSJ. Included in full because paid subscription required.
--QS
PORTALS
By LEE GOMES
To Judge Recent Attack On Linux's Origins,
Consider the Source
June 14, 2004
There was a time when computer-industry marketing battles were fought over who had the best technology. But these are litigious times, so if you want to keep customers away from a competing product, just infer they might get sued for using it.
Consider a recent study about Linux from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank that, in addition to general pieces about Beltway topics, has a track record for attacking Linux, the free software. An earlier institute study, for example, suggested Linux's openness made it a boon to terrorists. Most security experts say the opposite: that open review makes software stronger and thus safer.
It probably won't come as a big surprise that one of the institute's funders is Microsoft, now locked in an epic battle with Linux. How much the company gives the institute is unknown, as neither party will tell us. Microsoft says, though, it doesn't underwrite specific institute reports.
An institute study issued last month ups the ante in Linux criticism. It tries to prove that Linux's Linus Torvalds has always been contemptuous of intellectual-property laws, starting with the very birth of Linux. The implication: Since Linux is tainted, potential users may one day find themselves in court.
How well does the draft study do in making its case? Not well at all -- so much so that even Microsoft has distanced itself from it.
The report argues that complex operating systems take years to develop, and then questions how a 21-year-old college student could have created one in just a few months, as it says Mr. Torvalds did back in 1991. The answer it provides: He must have stolen from Minix, an operating system popular in colleges.
Kenneth Brown, the institute's president, argues his case largely by pointing to what he insists are inconsistencies in the way Mr. Torvalds and others have described the birth of Linux. Sometimes, he says, they'll say it was created "from scratch"; other times, they'll say it was "based on" Minix.
Another researcher might have tried to clear up such trivial inconsistencies by sitting down with Mr. Torvalds. Mr. Brown, though, says he never actually talked to the subject of his study.
If he had, he might have learned that the Minix-Linux connection has never been a secret. The very name "Linux" was a combination of "Minix" and "Linus," and Mr. Torvalds has always freely admitted to starting with Minix, in the sense of looking at it and deciding he could do better. Most people would call that "innovation," not theft.
If Mr. Torvalds did steal Minix code for Linux, he would have been stealing it from Andrew Tannenbaum, Minix's author. But both Mr. Tannenbaum and his publishing company have said in recent days that Mr. Torvalds did nothing remotely improper. "Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about" is how Mr. Tannenbaum phrased it.
What's more, the very first Linux was not some inexplicably superhuman programming feat but a tiny first draft that barely worked. Linux grew to what it is today only after years of work by a global army of volunteers.
For his research, Mr. Brown hired a University of Maryland, College Park, student, Alexey Toptygin, to run software that could find matches between Minix and the early Linux. But there were none. We know this not because it is in the study -- Mr. Brown conspicuously omits mention of that. Instead, Mr. Toptygin, appalled by the way Mr. Brown was ignoring the evidence, posted his work online. (He also refused his paycheck.)
Which gets us to the biggest problem with this attack: If Mr. Torvalds had the larcenous heart of a software pirate, it would be very simple to prove. Linux, you'll recall, is totally open. All that purloined code would be sitting there, buck naked, for both terrorists and Linux bashers to see.
Mr. Brown, though, hasn't a single example. With the absence of such evidence, reasonable people will be forgiven for assuming that Linux folks are as scrupulous about intellectual-property issues as they have always said they were. For those like Mr. Brown who insist otherwise, the phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.
I asked Mr. Brown why we should believe him rather than Prof. Tannenbaum -- who, incidentally, is no fan of Linux. "There are just too many conflicting interviews and facts," Mr. Brown replied. "When those guys get their stories straight, maybe we can make some progress."
Mr. Brown says he never maintained it was impossible for Mr. Torvalds to have written Linux, just "highly unlikely." And he calls Mr. Toptygin "a great kid," albeit "a little caught up in the fanaticism of the Linux movement, which is cool with me."
With growing numbers of businesses turning to Linux, its pros and cons are fair game for debate. But cynically manufacturing confusion isn't debating. Even Microsoft didn't like the way this report turned out, though it indirectly helped subsidize it. A company spokesman called the study, "an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best technology for our customers."
Send your comments to lee.gomes@wsj.com1, and check back on Friday for some selected letters at WSJ.com/Portals2. |
