Bill on Unix

Bill on Unix

Post by david parso » Wed, 26 Mar 1997 04:00:00






>: Nobody pretends that Linux is original. It was designed to be a Unix clone.
>: It was however written from scratch...

>I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining other bodies of
>source code doesn't seem like "written from scratch" to me.

But it is nevertheless written from scratch.  A definition of written
from scratch that specifically excludes knowing about prior art would
exclude every operating system that was written since the first system
monitor was toggled into the front panel of ENIAC.

                ____

                 \/

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Tom Wheel » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00





> : Nobody pretends that Linux is original. It was designed to be a Unix clone.
> : It was however written from scratch...

> I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining other bodies of
> source code doesn't seem like "written from scratch" to me. "Written from
> scratch" to me would be something a bit closer to a "clean room" design
> where those implementing the clone have not seen source code related to
> the original.

Yes, but "written from scratch, with reference to Unixen past" is still very
different to "cp /src/bsd/* /src/linux/".  It _is_ written from scratch, the
fact that many other sources would have inspired it adds to the added bonus;
theoretically it should allow Linux to take the best features from all, and
integrate them in one OS.

--
:sb)

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Andrae Mu » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00


<blink>


: > : ... Linux was written from scratch.
:
: > Don't misunderstand me, linux is great work but original it is not. Yet
: > another UNIX implementation, just more efficient and certainly less
: > expensive than most. :-)
:
: What?!?  Are you telling me that NT isn't "yet another Windoze
: implementation"???  I admit it is a hell-of-a-lot less buggy than
: 3.1, and 95, but it's still just "another Windows", just more
: efficient, though a hell-of-a-lot more expensive than the rest.

No NT isn't "just another Windows product".  Its a mongrel cross-breed of
DOS/Windows, W95, OS/2, VMS, and Unix, without actually managing to include
the main benifits of any of the above (I'm including VMS by induction).  It
ends up being 'yet another server OS' nothing special, nothing particually
unique, nothing really worth bothering about.

It certainly isn't "from scratch".

Andrae Muys

(Ohh boy now watch the flames roll on).
</blink>
--
=========================================================================

                          |
Andrae Muys               | Linux... What do you want to DO today?
4th(and a half)Yr CSE     |
University of Queensland. | Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Doggie!"
Australia                 |    till you can find a rock. - Wynn Catlin

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Christian D. Smi » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00




><blink>



>: > : ... Linux was written from scratch.
>:
>: > Don't misunderstand me, linux is great work but original it is not. Yet
>: > another UNIX implementation, just more efficient and certainly less
>: > expensive than most. :-)
>:
>: What?!?  Are you telling me that NT isn't "yet another Windoze
>: implementation"???  I admit it is a hell-of-a-lot less buggy than
>: 3.1, and 95, but it's still just "another Windows", just more
>: efficient, though a hell-of-a-lot more expensive than the rest.

>No NT isn't "just another Windows product".  Its a mongrel cross-breed of
>DOS/Windows, W95, OS/2, VMS, and Unix, without actually managing to include
>the main benifits of any of the above (I'm including VMS by induction).  It

          ^^^^^^^^ Windows has benefits?

Quote:>ends up being 'yet another server OS' nothing special, nothing particually
>unique, nothing really worth bothering about.

>It certainly isn't "from scratch".

>Andrae Muys

>(Ohh boy now watch the flames roll on).
></blink>

I think you`re safe in this group with that statement ;-)
 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Anthony D. Tribel » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00




: >: Nobody pretends that Linux is original. It was designed to be a Unix clone.
: >: It was however written from scratch...
: >
: >I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining other bodies of
: >source code doesn't seem like "written from scratch" to me.
:
: But it is nevertheless written from scratch.  A definition of written
: from scratch that specifically excludes knowing about prior art would
: exclude every operating system that was written since the first system
: monitor was toggled into the front panel of ENIAC.

Reread the part of my post that you snipped, I think I was being a
bit more specific that your general "knowing about prior art":
    "Written from scratch" to me would be something a bit closer to a
    "clean room" design where those implementing the clone have not seen
    source code related to the original.

Knowledge is one thing, source code is another.

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Anthony D. Tribel » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00



: > I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining other bodies of
: > source code doesn't seem like "written from scratch" to me. "Written from
: > scratch" to me would be something a bit closer to a "clean room" design
: > where those implementing the clone have not seen source code related to
: > the original.
:
: Yes, but "written from scratch, with reference to Unixen past" is still very
: different to "cp /src/bsd/* /src/linux/" ...

"From scratch" implies working from raw materials, perhaps in this case
knowledge, text editors, assembler, compilers, etc. Referencing related
source code is taking advantage of canned ingredients. A very wise
shortcut to take, but one that IMHO invalidate the "from scratch" claim.

: ... It _is_ written from scratch, the
: fact that many other sources would have inspired it adds to the added bonus;
: theoretically it should allow Linux to take the best features from all, and
: integrate them in one OS.

I'm in no way claiming that the wrong decision was made. Leveraging
pre-existing work is the smart thing to do. I'm just disagreeing with the
use of a phrase that implies a level of originality that linux does not
deserve. Linux deserves praise on many levels, originality is just not one
of them.

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Anthony D. Tribel » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00




:     Anthony> I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining
:     Anthony> other bodies of source code doesn't seem like "written from
:     Anthony> scratch" to me. "Written from scratch" to me would be
:     Anthony> something a bit closer to a "clean room" design where those
:     Anthony> implementing the clone have not seen source code related to
:     Anthony> the original.
:
: Kind of rules out NT then, as I think Cutler had something to with VMS
: ;).

Could you kindly show me where I claimed NT was written for scratch? :-)

: And what did Linus see of the original (any original) UNIX code, outside
: of what anyone can get from Bach's "Design of the UNIX Operating
: System"?

MINIX is another source of related material. Also, many schools seem to
have proprietary source code around, you can not use it but you can read
and study it. I'm sure there are other legitimate sources as well.

You do not have to directy replicate source code in order for it to be
useful. Just studying it to see problem areas and how other have worked
around those problems is a big advantage. An advantage the those who
worked "from scratch" did not have.

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Eugene O'Ne » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00




>: Nobody pretends that Linux is original. It was designed to be a Unix clone.
>: It was however written from scratch...

>I'm sorry, implementing well known ideas while examining other bodies of
>source code doesn't seem like "written from scratch" to me. "Written from
>scratch" to me would be something a bit closer to a "clean room" design
>where those implementing the clone have not seen source code related to
>the original.

>Tony

If I make cookies by mixing flour, butter, eggs, and so on, that is making
cookies from scratch, even if I'm following directions from a well-known and
often-used cookbook. Similarly, if I re-implement a program without using any of
the origingal source code, I am writing it "from scratch".

-Eugene

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Richard Kettlewel » Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:00:00



Quote:>Reread the part of my post that you snipped, I think I was being a
>bit more specific that your general "knowing about prior art":
>    "Written from scratch" to me would be something a bit closer to a
>    "clean room" design where those implementing the clone have not
>    seen source code related to the original.

>Knowledge is one thing, source code is another.

But by that definition NT fails the `written from scratch' test, as
the authors may reasonably be assumed to have had access to the source
for other versions of Windows.

This subthread started, IIRC, with the reported assertion that NT was
the only OS written "from scratch" in the last decade.  That it was,
in fact, no more written from scratch than was Linux, doesn't strike
me as a very controversial statement.

--
Richard Kettlewell               http://www.elmail.co.uk/~richard/

 
 
 

Bill on Unix

Post by Richard Kettlewel » Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:00:00



>Nobody pretends that Linux is original. It was designed to be a Unix
>clone.  It was however written from scratch. As was DG/UX (Our
>commercial Unix).  No AT&T or BSD code. Completely designed, written
>and owned by DG.

Actually Linux does include BSD code.  For example:

: muskogee; more ip_fw.c
/*
 *      IP firewalling code. This is taken from 4.4BSD. Please note the
 *      copyright message below. As per the GPL it must be maintained
 *      and the licenses thus do not conflict. While this port is subject
 *      to the GPL I also place my modifications under the original
 *      license in recognition of the original copyright.
 *                              -- Alan Cox.
 *
 *      Ported from BSD to Linux,
 *              Alan Cox 22/Nov/1994.

Out of interest, what motivated DG to implement their own UNIX, rather
than using BSD or the then-current commercial offering?

--
Richard Kettlewell               http://www.elmail.co.uk/~richard/