Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Interview with Linus
Thanks to several of our readers who noted the public version of the Wall Street Journal's interview with Linus, conducted by Lee Gomes. Some of the standard issues - 2.4, Linux on the desktop are talked about but the statements concerning ye olde Mindcraft tests are particularly interesting.
He also said that, by not having a staff, he can ignore the sorts of routine administrative details that would bog him down.
I want a job where I don't need a staff because I can just ignore the stuff I don't like!
This may also be a symptom of the author thinking of Linux as an OS like Windows which comes in a nice shrinkwrapped box, containing everything (M$ thinks) you need.
But overall I think the article is very well-written. I certainly like to see things like this in the Wall Street Journal:
Meanwhile, his creation has become so popular with programmers that it represents one of the most serious competitive threats to Microsoft's influence of the software industry.
:-)
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
From what I've read, Melinda was a development manager, not a secretary.
Never mind the fact that Linus' wife could beat the snot out of him if he ever touched another woman.
-B
Check out this link.
Give me a linux distro, a roll of electrical tape, one of those Clockwork Orange type rooms, and a computer, and this can all change.
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
Windows has it's place
:)
I can't agree more! The Windows 2000 CD makes an excellent coaster for my coffee mug
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
There are a couple of tidbits from kernel traffic which may be helpful. One is a discussion on Joe Pranevich's DRAFT of his The Wonderful World Of Linux 2.4. The other is the DISCUSSION of the DRAFT of a PROPOSED press release which highlights the big features for when 2.4 comes out.
If you're into finding out things before they are final and are an early adopter, these may be of use to you. They are certainly not finished documents and should not be treated as such. They may contain misleading statements, misunderstandable statements, misunderstood points, mention of features that don't make it, and/or outright lies with the intention of deceit.
It is fundamentally untrue that "Linux is not ready for the desktop."
I use Linux as my primary desktop OS.
I am not a programmer.
I understand that it is not appropriate for most (l)users, but that does not make it "not ready."
My grandmother does not drive a Porsche, it would be too much for her, and wouldn't carry groceries well, but that doesn't make it "not ready for the highway."
In the same way, Linux does not make a good platform for Word and AOL, but that does not make it not ready.
This whole "not ready for the desktop" idea revolves around the assumption that there is some ideal desktop for everyone, and that Windows (or MacOS) is closer to this that "Linux" (really, KDE or GNOME or Windowmaker, or something) and that "Linux" has further to go towards this ideal.
I disagree. For me, customizability is king, and "Linux" takes the prize in this field. (note: BeOS might, but HW support is too weak -for me-)
Windows is not ready for MY desktop.
-Peter
I think that last statement is untrue. About a month ago, many of the audio engineers you spoke of released an "open letter" to the linux-kernel mailing list. They requested that the average and max latencies be reduced (for exactly the same reasons you mention). They suggested a set of patches created by Ingo Molnar, but not integrated into the main tree. This started a flame war on linux-kernel over the validity of the patches, but the views of Linus were well-stated: he believed that reducing latency was a "serious issue" and considered it very important.
As happens with many such requests/patches, the implementation details were shouted over at length, but most of the kernel hackers seemed to be in agreement that reducing latency was a big concern.
Kernel traffic (what a great resource!) has the thread here.
Since I have started arguing on a polish newsgroup devoted to computer advocacy three or so years ago (seems like an eternity...), my point was always: I don't want any world domination. I don't even want to be in majority. I just want to be able to keep those tools and this OS I like, which works *for me*. I keep hearing about the average user. The average use of the word "average" is a misuse of statistics: as anyone can tell you, it doesn't tell you the variance, or even whether the distribution is normal. I don't want to be put in the category of an average user. Although not a techie, but a mere biologist, I use computer as a tool much of the time at work. I want to have my niche. Linux gives it to me. For me, Linux was perfect as a desktop OS two years ago! It had all I needed (with one notable exception: the possibility to communicate with Microsoft Office users. This hasn't changed and looking at various efforts this will be the last thing that will, taking into regard the fact that various Office versions have very hard times trying to import each others documents).
In my opinion -- though I have read only the public version of the interview -- Linux is wrong if he sees those things so one-sided. Windows were a boom, and taking lessons from evolutionary biology what one could expect would be adaptative radiation. Computer for a scientist, home office computer, game computer... et cetaera. I definitely have very seriously different needs from the fellow game-addicted Ph.D. student sitting next to me. And they are more deep then just different software installed over the same, bloated, idiot-proof, easy-to-learn, hard-to-make-work, ugly OS. Divergence in place of competition: if we had Linux boxes instead of that Mac / Win98 / WinNT melee at the lab would save us many problems. Linux is good for someone used to read the documentation, willing to learn technical information or to invest some time in learning (that is, taking a steep learning curve) or to just finding the things out. Coincidentally, people who choose natural science are often like this. I want Linux as a scientific OS, not a user-friendly bloatware.
Joe Schmoe may bite his toe. I don't care. Or, rather, I do. I don't want him to get hands on my OS. May he stay with Windows as long I can use Linux. Forcing Linux to be the desktop OS for Joe Schmoe is harmful for both. I hate saying it, but I really don't give a damn about KDE / Gnome. One week of learnig bash saves you 1 GB of hard disk (via rpm -e kde). (Well.. I am exagerating... a little bit...). It is Joe Schmoes fault.
Best regards,
January
P.S. You didn't say pro-Microsoft things. You said pro-Windows things. That is worse. Microsoft is a large company. There are many IT companies. There is no need for Linux becoming Windows. We already have Windows. They *will* become better with a little competition. Linux should become better Linux.
P.S.2. I may sound as a 50 yrs old Unix hacker by saying "giving up man pages, command line options, and stdin/stdout capability is a sin and people who do this should burn in hell", but in fact I am 27, working on experimental biology, and free climbing in my free time.
I have two boxes. Both are K6-II's with 128 Mb RAM. One runs Win98. One runs Mandrake 7.1. With this, I feel I've got a good base to compare the two.
Both have their advantages.
Both have their disadvantages.
The advantages of Windows are exactly in some of those areas that "home" users are most interested in. It has a better web browser. Sorry, but it just does. Browsing on Netscape is a pain. It just plain sucks. Windows is also better for games. Windows also plays video media better. Windows also runs certain applications like Quicken that don't yet have equivalents under Linux. And, in general, the desktop is quicker than any Linux desktop I've tried.
Those are the sorts of things home users care about.
Yes, Linux takes the prize for customability. It is also a far better dev box. It is also more stable. More flexible. Less frustrating. It has more of the sort of software I'm interested in.
That's good for me. That's why I've got it.
But frankly, home users don't care about those things as much as they do about browsing the net and playing games.
When people say that Linux is "not ready for the desktop", they are talking about for the average user. They are not saying that it isn't ready for everyone. They aren't saying that it won't work for anyone. They are talking about the average user. That are saying that the average user, who doesn't give a good goddamn who makes the software, but just wants something that does what they want to do, who tends to do things like write letters to grandma, sell things on e-bay, and play Myst, find Windows an OS that better meets their needs.
And they are right about that. If you want to overtake Windows as a desktop OS, you need to admit that, then start working on changing that.
The cake is a pie
I am glad he did not let his ego get to him
they consider ANY feedback good this a sign of
a smart man
quote:
Subsequent tests, though, showed Microsoft was
right, and in his interview, Mr. Torvalds
conceded that he initially had been "in denial"
on the matter.
"We had been arrogant," he said, adding it was
painful for him to admit that Windows was better
than Linux, at least in the areas covered by the
Microsoft test.
The normally inaccessible Mr. Torvalds spoke in an interview....
Am I the only one who considers Linus one of the most accessible leaders in the tech industry? The man is like the Finish brother in law I never had.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Have you been following the news on linux-audio-dev? For the past year or so, there has been a kernel patch (by Ingo Molnar) that guarantees latency times below 4 msec. This is on par with BeOS, previously the market leader. (Windows, for reference, gets about 20 msec; I'm not sure about the old Mac OS, but I know it's not that great.) Unfortunately, this patch was kind of kludgy (by Ingo's own admission) and Linus wouldn't include it. But in the past few weeks, Andrew Morton has written a clean and successful low-latency patch that is likely to be accepted. During testing, it has been found to be stable and get sub-2 msec latencies. We're already beating BeOS, and we've been beating Mac OS and Windows for quite some time now.
As for cron, it's a DDT (Don't Do That!). There's no need to run cron on a DAW, so disable it.
On the topic of MOSX, I think it should do quite well. It's heavily based on NeXTSTEP, which was quite popular in serious computer music fields (CCRMA and so forth). The MusicKit is also being actively updated for MOSX (and somewhat less actively ported to Linux/GNUstep). I have to say that I'm increasingly excited about the developments in computer music lately--it's an exciting time to be doing this.
Well, from recent discussion on the linux-audio-dev list, I can safely state that many audio engineers and musicians are dying to start using Linux. They're sick and tired of the high latencies (even with DirectSound) under Windows; they're tired of the crashes. Between ALSA, Andrew Morton's new low-latency patch, the developing LADSPA, and more, Linux is a rising music platform. Unfortunately, Linus doesn't seem to be too interested in (or particularly cognizant of) these developments. But still, it's coming; and it's coming rapidly.
A good interview. I'm consistantly impressed with the candor and openness that Linus exhibits when he talks about a project that is, in a big way, his baby. He has no trouble admitting the shortcomings of Linux, nor any trouble touching on its strengths. His comments prove that it is possible to be a very strong advocate without resorting to extremism or flame warring. How many people who aren't nearly as involved as Linus can wade into the OS debate while maintaining some perspective? Linus Torvalds will convince more people of the virtues of Linux with his balanced take on the issue than any given hundred /. "M$ is the evil empire, windoze sucks, Linux roolz" posters.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
I was skeptical when following the link to the interview; I figured it was going to be full of pro-Linux statements, advocating the crushing of Windows. But, from the mouth of Linus himself, "Windows is still a no-brainer for most people." And well it should be. Microsoft got to the position they're in today by being the best of what was out there (emphasis on was) and by catering to the end user. Yes, Windows 95 is buggy, crashes a lot, has the security of a single sleeping puppy trying to guard a mansion, but it's by far the easiest O/S to manage for the home user. Again, according to Linus, both his mother and sister still use Windows or Macintosh.
That's exactly it. Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop. I have problems running it now at work, administering only 9 boxes. NFS filesystems drop, X freezes up with no recovery, and don't get me started on Netscape. Microsoft has the end-user market nailed right now. And Linus acknowledges it.
I got a new found respect for Linus today. It appears that he has not been blinded by the bright lights of the press and their attention. 5 or 10 years, he says, until Linux is ready for the home user. I would place that a little lower right now, from the latest releases of RedHat (the install process is slick compared to old Slackware installs). RedHat is moving Linux to the masses, and they should be commended. For Linux to be true competition, we have to have both sides of the fence; server AND workstation. Server is doing pretty damn well right now. Time to focus on Joe Schmoe, the average user.
Ok, moderators, since I said pro-RedHat and, even worse, pro-MS things, I expect to lose heaps of karma. Do your worst.
------
"Mr. Torvalds said tests show the new Linux compares "really well" with its rivals, including Windows and other versions of Unix. "It is painful for me to go back and use the 2.2 kernel," he said, referring to the current version.
"Mr. Torvalds [co-ordinates linux development], and won't take a stand on such issues as what sort of user interface the software should have.
That is one reason there are now two rival Linux interfaces."
They REALLY don't get it, do they?
I assume the editor had picked up from a piece on Sun's adoption of Gnome (and not KDE) that there were only two possible ways to use Linux. I am forced to assume the concept of a windows manager being interchangable is beyond him. As for the first quote, well, I suspect he is convince that there will be a shiny new "Linux Millenium" on the shelves for xmas, which would fit into his nice tidy microsoft-style image of "the linux product". The idea that the new kernel is already in use across the planet would astonish him.....
--
-=DaveHowe=-