| |||||||||||
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)Posted Oct 8, 2004 16:47 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)Parent article: Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)
A quote from the interview:
Even though de Raadt was aware of Linux, he says not a single person at the San Diego conference spoke about it. "There wasn't one single person, I believe, who ever mentioned Linux at that thing. So we are really saying that we were here before the Linux people were. Now, on some other mailing lists, he (Linus Torvalds) was already starting to build - Linux was already a thing that you could download, install and run. But in our mindset, it was a very weak System V. It was a Minix derivative at this point. At the time of this conference, Linux still used this Minix file system code. Well, the same file system layout, and half the code was borrowed. And you have to remember that Linux was infected by the fact that it used Minix source code.
(Log in to post comments)
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) Posted Oct 8, 2004 18:22 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Erm, I don't believe Linux ever used Minix source code. From what I recall of the Minix licensce that would have been a bad thing.
I could be wrong though. I followed Linux for awhile in the very early days and then lost track of it until the early 1.x series.
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) Posted Oct 8, 2004 18:42 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Linux derived from Minix code: that's news to me. Anyone able to confirm?
I thought that was thoroughly debunked in response to the ADTI "book".
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) Posted Oct 8, 2004 20:10 UTC (Fri) by oseemann (subscriber, #6687) [Link] in the article (which now needs some kind of reg; but was readable like 2 hours ago) theo says that linux contained the minix filesystem code which was eventually replaced.
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) Posted Oct 10, 2004 23:04 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Right. I know that he is making such an accusation, but I'm wondering ifanyone can confirm (or deny) that Minix filesystem code really was actually used instead of a separate implementation which read/wrote the same on-disk format. I brought up ADTI because they were paid by someone (maybe SCO, maybe Microsoft) to make similar accusations, but they were almost universally denied by the Linux, Minix, and Unix authors.
Linux never had any Minix code Posted Oct 11, 2004 3:57 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Nope, even Linux 0.01 had no Minix code. This was recently proven, and the irony is that it was a guy that Microsoft/SCO shill Ken Brown hired who proved it, by doing a thorough source code comparison between Minix and Linux 0.01. No match. The author of Minux, Andy Tanenbaum, is fully in agreement with this analysis. Read more on what Prof. Tanenbaum had to say about claims that Linux is not Linus's work. Not that Theo is bad for believing otherwise, as Eric Raymond wrote several times (falsely) that Linux once had Minix code in it. He was misinformed. Linux implemented the Minix filesystem, but Minix had an extremely simple filesystem, not that hard to code up independently from the explanation in Tanenbaum's book.
Linux never had any Minix code Posted Oct 12, 2004 8:16 UTC (Tue) by sean.hunter (subscriber, #7920) [Link] I wouldn't consider either Theo or Eric S. Raymond any sort of authority on Linux
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) Posted Oct 8, 2004 23:01 UTC (Fri) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Andrew Tanenbaum himself has written a long (and interesting) essay onhis home page, establishing that there has never been Minix code in Linux (except for trivial things such as constant declarations, file names etc.). Either Theo doesn't know what he's talking about or the conspiracy runs deep...
|
|||||||||||