Linux was created by IBM, HP (HPQ)...

[greggh]

I saw this on Groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 9195737631

Linux was created by IBM, HP (HPQ) and other former IT systems monopolists that realized that Microsoft was taking their systems monopoly away from them. IBM, HP, Digital Equipment (now part of HP), etc. had banded together for this purpose in the early 1980s while Linus Torvalds, the nominal creator of Linux and who now works for one of the groups IBM, HP, etc. put together for its trust-like purposes, was still in short pants. Ten years later, the consortium chose a small piece of software code, "forked" by Linus from some other code while he was in college, to complement the still ongoing technical development effort by IBM, HP, etc. to come up with "one Unix." What is today called Linux is the result of that one-Unix effort.

Here's the bio of Denis Byron, the guy that wrote it.

http://seekingalpha.com/author/dennis-byron

Dennis Byron has more than 30 years experience researching and analyzing all areas of information technology (IT) and information-systems use.

I have to take my hat off to Mr. Byron. If you can be this incompetent, and stay employed as an IT researcher/analyst for 30 years you have to be one hell of a BS artist. Kudos to Mr. Byron!

[Claudio]

Uuhhhh....DOUBLE-YOU-TEE-EFF????

[LinuxMint-4]

And the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

"Over...what do mean its over...was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Germans?"

"Forget it, he's on a roll"






-Animal House

[Gomer_X]

He's not literally saying IBM created Linux. You'll have to read between the lines a bit. Some of the details are inaccurate (on purpose, I think), but the basic premise is sound.

IBM, HP etc have "made" Linux by supporting it as an alternative to Microsoft and other commercial Unix. Linux wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for a lot of corporate money. There's plenty of code in the kernel that was paid for by IBM and HP.

If you don't know about the anti-trust suit against IBM, read up on it. They were forced to separate their hardware and software businesses into different companies.

IBM has had to fight Microsoft in the software world because George Bush was nice enough to screw up the DOJ anti-trust suit against them.

[greggh]

He's not literally saying IBM created Linux. You'll have to read between the lines a bit. Some of the details are inaccurate (on purpose, I think), but the basic premise is sound.

IBM, HP etc have "made" Linux by supporting it as an alternative to Microsoft and other commercial Unix. Linux wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for a lot of corporate money. There's plenty of code in the kernel that was paid for by IBM and HP.

Nope. The author is very clear in his writing how IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and other IT corporations CREATED Linux. They did not. They certainly helped to improve it, but to attribute creation to them is beyond inaccurate, and is definitely not a sound premise.

[Gomer_X]

Nope. The author is very clear in his writing how IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and other IT corporations CREATED Linux. They did not. They certainly helped to improve it, but to attribute creation to them is beyond inaccurate, and is definitely not a sound premise.

That's not how I read the article. You're interpreting "created" to mean "wrote all the code" or "invented." That's not how I interpret it, so it's not clear to me that's what he's saying.

That's why I used the term "made" instead. IBM and others made Linux what it is by funding development and marketing it to corporate customers. That doesn't mean they invented it.

[greggh]

Nope. The author is very clear in his writing how IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and other IT corporations CREATED Linux. They did not. They certainly helped to improve it, but to attribute creation to them is beyond inaccurate, and is definitely not a sound premise.

That's not how I read the article. You're interpreting "created" to mean "wrote all the code" or "invented." That's not how I interpret it, so it's not clear to me that's what he's saying.

That's why I used the term "made" instead. IBM and others made Linux what it is by funding development and marketing it to corporate customers. That doesn't mean they invented it.

I think most reasonable people would understand "created" to be the thing that Richard Stallman, the GNU project, and Linus Torvalds did, with relation to GNU/Linux.

[Claudio]

I also thought that maybe the author was implying that these companies actually allowed GNU/Linux to "arrive" on the scene, but it definitely seemed as though it was meant as though they had in fact "created" the Linux kernel and everything on top of it.

[Gomer_X]

I think most reasonable people would understand "created" to be the thing that Richard Stallman, the GNU project, and Linus Torvalds did, with relation to GNU/Linux.

That's a technique my wife uses. If I disagree with her, she calls me unreasonable.

I'm reasonable, and I stand by my interpretation. You don't have to agree.

[jturning]

The article was a hack job, and he noted it at the bottom that he didn't use "created by" correctly. We know GNU came up with the core utils, and Linus wrote the original kernel. It's disingenuous to refer to Linus as the "nominal creator of Linux". It also belittles all the other people that have been involved in writing code for Linux that haven't been employed by these corporations, not that I'm trying to diminish their contributions. But it's not the product of their efforts solely for the purpose of supplanting Microsoft. I wouldn't pay much attention to anything this guy ever writes as his writing is chaff to be sent to the fire.

Bugz

[Gomer_X]

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything this guy ever writes as his writing is chaff to be sent to the fire.

Yes, he definitely seemed to be going for sensationalism. While his point is arguable, I have a hard time believing even the author believed all he was saying. It's possible but, but I got the feeling he was just trolling.