| |||||||||||
Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)Posted Oct 8, 2004 20:10 UTC (Fri) by oseemann (subscriber, #6687)In reply to: Staying on the cutting edge (The Age) by Ross Parent article: Staying on the cutting edge (The Age)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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
|
|||||||||||