Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. GNU is Not Unix Software Linux

Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus 739

Posted by timothy
from the humor-trumps-ignorant-posturing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, which published the results of their very thorough investigation today, turned out to be right. Linus really isn't the father of the Linux operating system. After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus

Comments Filter:
  • Hah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:04PM (#9178266)
    I gnu it!
  • by Thinkit4 (745166) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:04PM (#9178272)
    Linus is on the Celebrity atheist list [celebatheists.com]. I had a hunch when I heard the tooth fairy and Santa Claus being mentioned together. They are often examples given of non-existent beings (that grant wishes).
    • Dishonest list? (Score:3, Offtopic)

      by DAldredge (2353)
      http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell / agnostic.htm

      What Is an agnostic?

      An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
      Are agnostics atheists?

      No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. T
      • Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Informative)

        by benploni (125649) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:36PM (#9178580) Journal
        Wrong. Linus qualifies as an atheist by his own words.

        From an interview in the November 1999 Linux Journal magazine:

        Margie: How about religion?
        Linus: Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist.
      • What Is an agnostic?

        There's only one real way of explaining it well... [recovery.org]
    • by benploni (125649) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:24PM (#9178481) Journal
      Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god. It doesn't surprise me one bit that Linus is an atheist -- I already knew he was smart and educated.
      • by s20451 (410424) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:56PM (#9178736) Journal
        Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

        I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

        In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

        As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

        In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.

        In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.

        Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
        • I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

          That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.

          As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Scienc
          • Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right.

            Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again:

            Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

            If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.

            For example, in the

        • religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

          Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
          ...and of course you can have compassion and not be religious OR believe in a god.
        • having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

          OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.

          The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.

          In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.

          And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.

          You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.

          You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.

          When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.

          Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists

          I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.

          I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.

        • Here's why scientists are more likely to be atheist (altho I call shenanegains on that 90% number):

          Scientific theories are built up from base principles. If we forgot everything we know back to the stone age, man would eventually figure out the speed of light, gravitation, etc. Evidence + time + observation = truth.

          Religion only works if you get the whole book at once, or at least in big chunks. You can't build it up from base principles... you can't build it up at all, you either believe or burn.

          Since t
      • By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

        Except for the best ones. Like Stanford's Donald Knuth [stanford.edu], for example.

        Or take the case of Reverend Thomas Bayes, the parish priest who discovered Bayes' theorem, on which modern machine learning/data mining relies so heavily, including spam filters named after him.

        • by benploni (125649) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:20PM (#9178930) Journal
          Lots of famous scientists were deeply religious. I never claimed otherwise. I merely expressed lack of surprise that Linus is not.
        • by lysium (644252) on Monday May 17, 2004 @11:44PM (#9180086)
          It has been my experience, from my limited discourse with Jesuits, Christian brothers, and Jewish scholars, that it is indeed possible for highly intelligent people to be highly religious. Or perhaps the proper word for such people is spiritual?

          When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox. I suspect these people may have reached a personal understanding of the divine that would not be accepted by their respective communities. The ignorance of the lay community is a good thing, in this case, because the exact nature of their belief is not relevant to anything. The fact is they believe, and it provides a framework in which they can act in and upon the world.

          I also suspect that the higher levels of theological scholars, pantheistically speaking, are far more tolerant of objective truth than most believe they are...

          ===---===

    • Bad Name - as usual (Score:3, Interesting)

      by soloport (312487)
      Many Atheists really should be called something else (e.g. right-wing-anti-god-folk or just plain Anti-theists) -- thus not giving a bad name to the rest of us Atheists.

      A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

      And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred C
      • by Carnildo (712617) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:55PM (#9178729) Homepage Journal
        And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!

        Sacred Cows make the best hamburgers.
      • by wishus (174405) *
        A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

        I think the actual definition is someone who believes there is no god. Compare to theist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc. Someone who does not know if there is a god or not is an agnostic - he professes no knowledge about the existence of a god.

        Still, none of these words convey a sense of how evangelistic the believer is concerning hi
      • by Dirtside (91468) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:20PM (#9178932) Journal
        "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!"
        Ah. You mean apatheists. :)
      • I saw some of the other posts and I knew that there were people in the early Church called Gnostics that thought that there was a road of secret knowledge to understanding God and ultimate salvation or something. (Don't ask, nine years of religious educations...) It would make sense that an a-gnostic would be the opposite in some way. I was pleasantly surprised when I went to verify that with a web search. Check out the Word History [dictionary.com] for agnostic.

        Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God

  • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:04PM (#9178277) Journal

    Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.

    There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness :-)

    What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that :-)

    Simon
    • by Nurseman (161297) <nurseman&gmail,com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:16PM (#9178409) Homepage Journal
      What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it.

      I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ? They are ALL paid shills. Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner, and Dion Cornett comes out of the red corner. Each one has an agenda. Each one has paid "opinions" Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ? It's like my beloved NY Post. I like reading it, but take everything with a grain of salt

      • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:41PM (#9178623) Journal
        ... and we didn't try and tailor the report (3 months work for 5 people including world-wide travel) to our paymasters. Our view was that we were being paid to produce a report on what is (for a fairly major computer manufacturer) rather than what they would like things to be. They already know what they would like things to be...

        On the other hand, "hired guns" are mercenaries - they will do as you wish, when you wish, how you wish. The AdTI are hired guns. Some of us (the others :-) still have some self-respect and integrity - please consider each case on its merits...

        Simon.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source

      Were they ever? I seem to remember that, like, the very first time I ever saw AdTI mentioned on Slashdot the response was "yeah, this isn't a threat, these people have been around awhile, they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway".

      They don't seem to have much o
    • by MrIrwin (761231) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:27PM (#9178501) Journal
      "What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source"


      How long has it been a serious news source?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:05PM (#9178288)
    Heh heh heh
  • d'oh (Score:4, Funny)

    by abscondment (672321) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:06PM (#9178310) Homepage
    This just in:
    SCO Claims they created Linux and sues itself. Happy day.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:07PM (#9178316)
    who else would give away free software?

    not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...
  • by cavebear42 (734821) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:07PM (#9178320)
    It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down.
    • "It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down."

      I wouldn't be sickened by this comment if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...
  • by Neil Blender (555885) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:07PM (#9178321)
    # ftp ftp.sco.com

    20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
    Name (sco:admin): anonymous
    331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
    Password:
    ftp> prompt
    Interactive mode off.
    ftp> mget *
  • by Fred Foobar (756957) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:08PM (#9178330)
    I thought the real father was Darth McBride.

    "Linux, I am your father!" :-)
  • You know... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux@gm a i l . c om> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:12PM (#9178373) Homepage
    This is one of the reasons why I love linux: It's so down-to-earth. The early versions of the gentoo installation instructions told you to play Bom-Bad Racing on the PS2 while waiting for it to set up. It's nice to see people laid back. Can you picture Microsoft doing this?
  • by LinuxParanoid (64467) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:12PM (#9178378) Homepage Journal
    It's true that Linux is an imitation of prior Unixes.

    But remember folks,

    Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!

    Oh wait.

    --LP

    P.S. I'd be nervous if the press release said AdTI president and pundit Kenneth Brown was tracing the code... but it says he "traces the free software movement over three decades". Hrm, good luck there, Ken!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:24PM (#9178480)

      To be fair: Both Microsoft and Apple copied Xerox.

      You can read [amazon.com] the story of how Xerox invited a number of companies (including Apple) to port Smalltalk to various hardware platforms. This exercise led directly to the Apple Lisa (the "Mother of All Macs"). No, they were not based on Smalltalk, but this introduced the WIMP metaphor to Apple.

  • by dnotj (633262) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:13PM (#9178382) Homepage
    This isn't a dupe, we don't read the articles anymore, now we don't even ready the Posting. Wake up people, this is Linus' rebuttal.

    Article Text: LW Slashdotted already


    LinuxWorld Exclusive: Linus Torvalds Makes Startling Admission, Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux May 17, 2004 Summary As only Linus Torvalds can, the undisputed - except by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute - inventor of Linux has as promised let LinuxWorld have his immediate comment on the AdTI's president's claims this morning that the parentage of Linux is in doubt. Read his startling admission exclusively here.

    "Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus."

    Thus begins a characteristically Torvaldsian e-mail to LinuxWorld News Desk sent by Linus Torvalds in response to our invitation to comment on the sensationalist claims this morning that he isn't, after all, the inventor of Linux.

    "They (for obvious reasons) couldn't step forward to admit that they had gotten bitten by the computer bug, and had been developing a series of operating systems on their own during the off season. But when they started with Linux (which they originally called Freax - they do feel like outsiders, you know, and that's a whole sad story in itself), they felt that they could no longer just let it languish in obscurity. They started to look for a front-man, and since Santa Claus is from Finland and thus has connections to Helsinki University, and the tooth fairy claimed 'He's got good strong teeth,' I got selected."

    "Since then," Torvalds continues, "I've lived a life of subterfuge, always afraid that somebody would find out the truth. I'm actually relieved that it's over, and that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute has finally uncovered the lie. I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt."

    In a PS he adds:

    "Btw, did you know that newts have more offspring if you play the harmonica to them during their mating rituals? It's true."

    And in a PPS:

    Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.

    I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

    Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?

    Or is it really unintentional?

    Linus
  • Good! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:14PM (#9178391)
    At last some proper justice meated out of this Linus wannabe programmer poser guy. The Tocqueville Institute is right to expose such frauds, being funded my Microsoft who, as we all know, is the true father of MS-DOS...
  • what they will say (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeBuck (7947) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:14PM (#9178397) Homepage
    The Toqueville people say they are going to quote people like Dennis Ritchie and Richard Stallman. What those Ritchie and Stallman almost certainly told them is that Linux is a faithful re-implementation of Unix and thus not highly original or ground-breaking; also that Linus is often given credit for functionality that is not in the kernel (you know, the whole GNU/Linux flamewar). And all that's true. The problem is that the Toqueville people don't get that this is perfectly legitimate; the Posix standard that specifies the behavior of Unix-like systems is a public standard, the code is all original and there were no patents in the way.
    • RMS: It isn't Linux. It's the GNU System.

      AdTI: OMG! Linus didn't write Linux!
    • by Pseudonym (62607) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:15PM (#9178895)

      Exactly. The original "study" is correct in that Linus didn't invent very much at all, but they fail to acknowledge that this is completely beside the point. Linus constructed the Linux kernel from scratch. Like all people who progress humanity, he only did so by standing on the shoulders of giants.

      For what it's worth, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, either, but even decades later, we'd hardly accuse him of theft. Moreover, he built cars that existing drivers would already know how to drive by making them look like the cars that were there beforehand.

      The situation is similar to what Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics refers to as "the semi-attached figure". If you can't prove something, prove something else and pretend they're the same. So, for example, you say your toilet cleaner "kills germs faster" and strongly imply, though never right-out say, that this has something to do with your family's health even though it probably doesn't.

      Worst of all, this kind of thinking completely ignores how human progress happens. It's the myth of the genius all over again. Progress happens on the fringes of what we already have. When you get down to it, every work is a derivative work (except in the legal sense of the term). Einstein couldn't have come up with the idea of relativity without centuries of work by smart physicists and mathematicians before him.

      Hell, Unix is just a castrated version of Multics, right?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:15PM (#9178406)
    At the Tocqueville Institution site here [adti.net], try clicking accomplishments. ;)
  • Horrible! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Woogiemonger (628172) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:18PM (#9178435)
    I can deal with Linus not being the father of Linux, but what I can't deal with is the tooth fairy being a guy! Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow. The horrors!
  • by strredwolf (532) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:22PM (#9178461) Homepage Journal
    So, if I quote Linus:

    Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.

    I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

    Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?

    Or is it really unintentional?

    Linus


    WHOIS of ADTI.NET says...

    Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

    Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.

    • FYI the database is updated quite often...
      sice@kadath ~ $ whois microsoft.com | grep -i update
      Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:00 EDT.
      sice@kadath ~ $ whois fark.com | grep -i update
      Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:46 EDT.
      sice@kadath ~ $ whois somethingawful.com | grep -i update
      Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:32:24 EDT.
      ;-)
    • by csnydermvpsoft (596111) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:36PM (#9178570) Homepage
      Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

      Uhh... that's the timestamp for the last update of the entire .net (and maybe .com too) database - which has obviously been very recent.
  • by Revvy (617529) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:29PM (#9178519) Homepage
    While a formal statement is being prepared, please allow me to express my outrage and personal dismay at the coninuing lies about the origins of the "Linux" operating system. It took many arduous years of skillful coding and deliberate system design for my employer to create what has been stolen from him. In the interest of the public good, he has continued, against my best advice, to allow the bastardization of his avocation to be coninually distributed without compensation or even recognition.

    But now, as Linus Torvalds insists on further disregard of the truth, my employer has become enraged and will soon begin legal action to claim his rightful place as the creater of "Linux", originally and forever known to his friends, employees, and supporters as Bunix.

    Sincerely,
    Bun E. Sue
    Chief Counsel
    Easter Bunny Inc.
  • by MrIrwin (761231) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:29PM (#9178523) Journal
    ....tux reveals that he is the tooth fairy and Santa Claus is his father.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:34PM (#9178550)
    To the tune of Oh Christmans tree:

    Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
    I stole your O/S named Minix
    Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
    I stole your O/S named Minix
    :
    :

  • by jd (1658) <imipak@yaCOLAhoo.com minus caffeine> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:34PM (#9178553) Homepage Journal
    For the toothfairy, I neither confirm nor deny this allegation that Linux has anything to do with Teeth-R-Us. Linus has received money from our organization, but only in payment for appropriate dental material. We do have information that kermit the frog has susppect connections, however.
  • by BCW2 (168187) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:40PM (#9178611) Journal
    Linus not only believes in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. He has a better sense of humor than 90% of the people in the entire computer industry.

  • Í like it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AlecC (512609) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:43PM (#9178634)
    This is the right way to respond to the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right.

    There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.
  • ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wastedimage (266293) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:43PM (#9178635)
    This is getting ridiculous. We should enjoy these stories people! I mean serously any day now people have to start seeing this. How many people can honestly beleive that microsoft just happened to give money to all these companies giving linux shit? Why the hell don't they spend that money on more proficent coders?? FUD only works to a point ..I wish the media would see this and go after ms. Its almost like they're being anticompetitive or something...oh wait jackasses yes thats it jackasses.
  • Fuck! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hooded One (684008) <hoodedone@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:44PM (#9178646) Journal
    Santa told me he loved only me. That cheating bastard!
  • by Ruliz Galaxor (568498) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:50PM (#9178688)
    Alexis de Tocqueville admitted to be the easter bunny

    "At first I didn't believe it myself, but when I started humping around during easter, I knew I had to be. Besides that, I'm actually quite releaved that the news is out and I don't have to keep it to myself anymore", Alexis commented.

    sig(h)
  • by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:17PM (#9178910) Homepage Journal
    PJ' post about this on groklaw [groklaw.net] notes that the best translation for tocqueville would be city of the crazy falsness -- or, as I would put it: fudville.
  • by Leomania (137289) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:18PM (#9178919) Homepage
    Washington, DC (FantasyNews) May 17th, 2004 - The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute reported today that Linus Torvalds, the public relations spokesman for the Linux operating system that was invented by Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, misled the public when he revealed the actual provenance of Linux.

    "He can't be believed or trusted," said Ken Brown, head of the institute. "He says he has good teeth, yet the truth of the matter is that he has a mouth full of cavities. This is entirely consistent with the lies and fabrications this man has put forth since claiming he wrote Linux."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:19PM (#9178923)
    see http://www.santaclaus.com/faq.html#Linux
  • by discogravy (455376) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:22PM (#9178943) Homepage
    just cos he's got a beard doesn't give Linus any reason to call RMS "Santa".
  • by darnok (650458) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:25PM (#9178972)
    The former Iraqi Information Minister has been spotted in New Hampshire, where he is believed to be working for a large corporate enterprise.

    According to our translator, he said "I believe Alexis de Tocqueville to have been one of the greatest Iraqis in history, and it is an honour to be serving his esteemed foundation. I believe this role to be the pinnacle of my professional career to date, even exceeding my colonisation of Mars in 1994"
  • A careful analysis of the study reveals that it was not authored by the The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but actually cobbled together using words stolen from the English language.
  • adti.net on freebsd (Score:3, Informative)

    by MySt1k (713767) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:40PM (#9179417)
    from a post in the Comments of the article,
    amomynous commented ... Funny that for all their railing against FOSS software, www.adti.net is served from FreeBSD [netcraft]. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.adti .net I would think for all their MS schilling, they would go with their own recommendations.
  • Who is the ADTI ? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sfjoe (470510) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:53PM (#9179480)
    I picked a couple of names at semi-random (names that seemed to be fairly uncommon) and did a Google search. Apparently, the requirements to be a "Teacher Choice Fellow" are not high. Google had zero results for both Don Koniezco and
    Marilyn Ketter Rittmeyer.
    Interesting.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...