Slashdot Mirror
Linus Talks About 2.4
Platinum Dragon writes: "ZDnet ran an e-mail-based
interview with Linus about that new kernel thingy. Linus replied to the fluff questions in typical self-mocking Linus fashion. " Check out original story on the release as well -- many people seem to have missed it, and keep submitting it.
If it wasn't for mindcraft/microsoft 2.4 would not be as great and scalable as it is now. I heard 2.4 is as smooth as butter even on single processor machines. I just downloaded it and plan to install it soon to find out.
:-)
The only reason its smooth as butter is the previous version sucked when it came to i/o and disk buffering. Mindcraft and Microsoft pointed the fault and pissed off alot of Linus's followers and even Linus himself was in denial.
He decided to rewrite 2.4 and put a bold and brand new i/o, disk buffering, and networking code that originally were all orignally not planned.
The result is that we have a very fast high end unix that can theoritically scale to 16 processors! The previous version had trouble with only 4 and also with more then 1 nic card. All mission critical serers have several nic cards and mindcraft/microsoft showed that 2.2 was only engineered with the dekstop in mind. This critism showed Linus that his pc o/s needed major server enchancments.
Well I look forward to the next mindcraft test which they promised to redo.
Linus is also more aware of Solaris and AIX as he wants linux to compete agasin't them. He has plenty of critism today form outside the Linux community and from private firms who benchmark Linux.
If you look at Linus's response, he's actually inviting journalists to do research, not just hit up famous people for quotes and pass that off as stories.
First, you assume that Linus' work and decisions are not subjected to criticism. Read the kernel mailing list (or at least Kernel Traffic), and you'll see that people are constantly butting heads with Linus, to everyone's benefit.
Second, you assume that Linux is "supposed to be a democracy". Since when? It started as Linus' project, and the way things tend to work in an open development community, whoever starts the project generally retains the lead and the power to rule by fiat if necessary. If you don't like it, fork.
Which brings us to your (not sequentially) third assumption, which is that such a system will inevitably lead to major forks. This is not the case, especially when the project lead is as respected (and with good reason) as Linus, or when the project is as identified with its leader as Linux is with Linus. It would *not* be a healthy decision for a Linux distributor to fork the kernel, and everyone knows it, and nobody really wants to anyway.
I'd rather see Wired interview him, after having called 2.4 'vaporware' only a week ago. But of course, you'll never see a follow-up from them. It's easier to just trash something and never revisit your statement to admit you were talking out of your ass (like so many technical columnists do).
---
seumas.com
it almost sounds from that last comment he made ("I don't even want to plan 2.5.x or 3.0 at this point yet.") that he intends to make the next stable release be 3.0 instead of 2.6.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
- Dear PHB,
Now if they buy this, you're also going to have to make sure they understand that "guiding the code" as they need it does NOT mean putting tripe in for a new whistly-bell they like, but providing real technical leadership for general purpose improvements, but that's another battle.Regarding your concern about the "lack of future plans" for the linux kernel, you should understand you have 2 options. First, you can bring in proprietary vendors, ask them what their future plans are, pick the one that most closely matches where you want our company to go, commit to it and pray fervently that the vendor does what they say they will. Or, you can support open source participation by your employees, perhaps even hire a few more, and encourage, even direct, them to get involved and submit code that allows linux to support your own future plans. The first option is politically safe, since you transfer all blame for the risk to the vendor, but technically risky since their plans may not be realized the way we need. The second option is politically risky, since it requires you to take responsibility for the technical future of our company, but technically safe because we have the code and can make it do exactly what we need. Moreover, if others outside our company agree with our assesment of the future, they will provide free labor to help us achieve our goals.
Also understand that right now, most of our competition is likely to be taking the first option. If we choose the second option before any of our competitors do, our voice; e.g. our code; will be submitted before theirs increasing the likelihood of our guiding the technology towards our goals. Participating in open source development will transform our information organization from an off-the-shelf support organization to a driving force behind achieving our corporate objectives.
Your devoted and loyal subject^W employee.
What else does the PHB want in Linux?
This is a trajedy of wording. Ever other operating system is considered the whole system---Mac, Windows, also Sun, HP, and all them other Unix systems I've only read about---they all consider the operating system the hardware access, drivers, graphical user interface, all the way up to your basic utilities and applications.
Yet part of us in the free software world insist on calling the operating system "Linux". So when we get a new version of Linux, what do we have? Improvements in Bash? themes in KDE? better installation?
No, we just get a better kernal (kernel...kernal...I don know).
So just let that PHB know that, actually there are lots of plans for the next operating system (look at the new versions of GNOME, KDE, Apache, Red Hat, Debian, etc., and their "The Road Ahead" announcements). Its just that they have little to do with Linux. Or they have everything to do with Linux. I guess it depends what you mean by "Linux"...
So don't blame the PHB. Blame whoever came up with this absurd naming scheme in the first place.
...check out the "talkback." It degenerated into a MS vs. Linux flamewar even faster than usual for a ZDNet talkback. And, as someone pointed out to me on LinuxToday, these posts are supposedly moderated; the worst trolls could have been excised.
I found the anti-Linux/Linus shots even more vicious than usual, in between shots from people who haven't read the Advocacy HOWTO (guilty). I swear, there are about five reasonable, well thought-out posts, total. It's just unbelievable; you'd think these people's lives were threatened by Linux or something. I mean, shit, it's only a kernel with an OS built around it, it's not as if we're discussing the Middle East or something.
Also if you get the chance, take a look at 2.4.0; I've been running it since the night it appeared (probably one of the first people to get and compile it), and it's been smooth sailing. 'Course, now that a wider audience is poking at it, more bugs and problems will be smoked out, but the last few tests and the prerelease seemed pretty darn stable. Worth a look if you're up for resetting your precious uptime:)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Throwing away the opportunity to moderate...
Yes, people do look up to Linus - but IMHO he's a better "role model" than some movie or sports personality. He's managed to co-ordinate an industry-changing project. Linus isn't perfect, he admits that himself, and some people do get a bit excited sometimes, but that's hardly his fault. I'm not aware of him having any problems accepting valid criticism.
Also, Linux isn't a democracy - it's a meritocracy. The people who are listened to and respected are those who have earned it - they've made a contribution to the project.
If Linux development was a democracy (as we typically understand the word), we'd have a situation where there are a lot of vocal people, with very little work being done. I'm not a kernel developer, and my knowledge pales into insignificance compared with some of those who work on the kernel. However, I am a keen Linux advocate and Unix user. How would people like me making suggestions such as "I think the kernel should be rewritten to be a microkernel, in an object oriented lanuage like Java"? I can spout buzzwords as well as the next person, but it doesn't mean my voice should carry equal weight to someone like Linus or Alan who really understand what they're talking about.
I say maintain the meritocracy. Big companies such as Red Hat, and organisations like Debian and LUGs help steer the development of Linux by coding, not discussing things in a committee. Better that way, no?
Face it, "Home and Garden" is probably more interesting.
-- Linus Torvalds
(8-DCS)
Well I had this really funny idea. Let's go download Qt-Embedded and see if KDE will compile (it does!).. so I download the 14 meg and start the compile. 20 minutes later I bother to read through the requirements. Pretty basic.. all I need is a linux kernel with a framebuffer. oh crap. I have a look at my kernel (2.2.18.. or something) and the framebuffer support is lame. VESA or matrox.. hello. So just at a laugh, I go and grab the 2.4.0 release and what do I find? YES! There are framebuffer drivers for my NVIDIA Riva TNT2! You know it. So I forget all about Qt-Embedded, do a make config; make bzlilo; make modules; make modules_install and reboot. It hangs. I try a couple more recompiles with various options turned on and off. Finally I slap myself in the head and say "Duh! This is my Celeron box, not my PIII" and quickly change the processor option. It works, everything works. Then I spend a few minutes fixing up all my scripts. Modules arn't in the same place anymore (2.4.0 has sperate directories for kernel and pcmcia modules which modprobe just doesn't know what to do with.. shouldn't make modules_install set this up?) and that kerneld starting up can just piss off, I'm using kmod! So finally I boot up in my new framebuffer console and have a play with fbset. Turns out Qt-Embedded is just beautiful. It can run in any old framebuffer mode and starts up in under a second (I tried to time it, too fast). Just for a laugh I did a boot init=/usr/src/qt-2.2.4/examples/launcher/start_dem o to see how fast a "qt embedded desktop" would boot. Ok, enough rambling.. linux 2.4.0 rox!
How we know is more important than what we know.
actually I did try to run it. It just compiled and then I got busy with 2.4.0. From what I've read here I'd say I wasn't too successful and it probably wouldn't run without X. However I would like to see it and the qt-em demo is very encouraging. I've read a lot of stuff (in relation to gtk+) about "replacing X" and apparently most people just can't see why you would want to. I can think of a number of reasons, but my biggest complaint is setup. Getting X to work is a bitch. Framebuffer in the kernel is the way to go and with video card companies starting to offer drivers it is definitely the way to go. I think it's plausible to write graphical versions of the linux startup scripts. So the first thing init does (or your replace init) is start the GUI, then the rest of the scripts run in graphical format (ie, they display icons and status bars instead of printing text). Qt-Embedded will run from a read only filesystem so you can even do your fsck in graphics mode. Perhaps you can even launch some applications while that's going on (but you can't save your work until the filesystem is remounted read/write). You could then go about making the entire distribution GUI bound. So you can change your tcp/ip settings with a "network manager" and point and click to mount filesystems. This is what people are talking about when they say "Linux isn't ready for the desktop." Not a lack of applications, but a lack of respect for the GUI based users. If you have to start up a command line (or subject the user to a text mode) then you've failed.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I was surprised and a bit worried when I read Linus saying that about 3.0. Why is it that nearly every software product in the last half-decade has a version sequence like this:
x.0
x.1
x.2
x.3
(x+1).0
(x+1).1
(x+1).5
(x+2).0
(x+3).0
(x+4).0
Folks, I remember running the 1.x kernel series. The 2.x introduced some major changes, and we were thrilled to get it. But I haven't heard what new things could require (or deserve) a jump to 3.x.
I'm just seriously looking forward to 2.4.1. :-)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Linus should have his own action-figure line
I have to take the role of the Slashdot troll [usually moderated up, but still a vapid and stupid response] and say if you want this particular feature, you'll have to do it yourself .
You'll need a series of Linus mug shots to subm,it to have the figure made, but thee should be easily acquired from any recent version of Wired, Linux Magazine, etc.
You're right about this guy, RMS.
:)
:)
Some of my close friends on a linux IRC channel (check my user info) suggested that I send this link via email to folks like Alan Cox & his wife Telsa Gwynne; ESR; and RMS and the like. (For those who are wondering, it's some of my best GIMP artwork--feel free to check the link and give me feedback!
Mr. Cox actually replied and said it was neat, in, like, three words. I actually had some degree of correspondence with Telsa (she's AWESOME. She liked it.)
RMS had a problem with it, though. Sheez. He was displeased because, in the picture, a grinning GNU is a "reindeer" for a "Santa Tux". He probably didn't much like the idea of the GNU project tugging Linux along like a dumb pack animal--it could be construed. "Use of the term 'Linux Distro' for referring to the GNU/Linux system suggests you have never heard the real history...Usual confusion," he wrote.
The GNU isn't a PACK animal. (You need to see the picture in order to figure out what I'm talking about.) He's aiding and abetting the penguin, and they're both HAPPY. They're helping EACH OTHER. I thought it was cute. Geez.
I thought of creating a muscle-bound, hugely impressive, and more or less completely spiteful Santa GNU with important Open Source free software for all the world, but my channel made me think better of it. They told me I couldn't talk down Mr. Stallman.
Oh well. This is offtopic.
Yes. Let Mr. Torvalds joke about himself. I think it shows he's a perfectly healthy normal geek who likes what he does. Leave him alone.
"The Gimp Girl"
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
More like drive quickly into some serious ass. When Hawking was visiting Caltech, he had a reputation for running students down with his cart. The thing is pretty fast.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Well, here's a good quote from George Bernard Shaw that applies well to RMS:
Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves.
All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.
I guess what that means is that because RMS is so hardcore pure GNU philosoply, he makes you think and question what it is that YOU believe in. That's a good thing.
Sometimes he does seem to act like a whiny brat. Oh well, though.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
No offense, but the question "Why should anybody use Linux" is legit. This isn't meant to be flamebait, however, some members of the linux community give the impression that the only reason people should use linux is because Linux Torvalds is an all knowing, all caring benevolent god, and Bill Gates is evil incarnate. If you want to advocate linux, stick to discussing linux's benefits, such as its stability, and openess of code/standards. Be willing to compromise, for some people, windows is going to be the better choice of opperating system, and some people will want to stick with apple, or BeOS. Admit that linux does have its faults, its not the most user-friendly operating system, and it does have a problem supporting some hardware. Alienating vast segments of the population by being rude and condescending will not convince more people to use linux. Saying that you should use linux because "windows sucks, linux rules" is not really a valid argument, no matter what you may think.
Oh well, just my $.02
I love this
/. knows its safe but until our moms know its safe, then they're just trusting a beer guzzling programmer. I think this is where we need to use the code we're given to show our moms and dads how to read it so they to can know its safe.
you can rest safe in the knowledge that there are no backdoors.
OK You can rest prety safe. I use it and I don't have any fears of this-- but isnt this a bit microsoftish to just pass it off as saying yea its safe. You know its safe, I know its safe, every single person on
Another thing is that if people want to do something different and he stands in the way, then there is more likely to be a split. I mean, I don't see other major commercial projects with one single man at the helm, do you? It should be a committee of interested parties, all the main organisations that use Linux, who decide what happens to it. Big companies like Red Hat and Debian would have a place, along with representatives from the LUGS.
I suppose what I am trying to say, in my stupid way, is that I thought Linux was supposed to be a democracy? These moves would make sense, and I think they are pretty much inevitable. Don't you agree? ;-)
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Check out original story on the release as well -- many people seem to have missed it, and keep submitting it.
It must be because Slashdot has only posted this story once - everyone knows real stories are duplicated at least once, if not more.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
> The GNU isn't a PACK animal
:)
'course not, it's a HURD animal
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Why should anybody use Linux?
Why don't you just quit?
Why don't you get back to work?
That's basically it. No wonder he hates the press.
Kids could learn important spacial and social skills
hahahaha, learning social skills from a coder, that's funny.
Personally, I think we should have 1-900-LINUSEX where you can have phone sex with a real Linus impersonator!
Mmmm, I'm thinking of something that's 2.4, but it's not my kernel.
Ohhhh, let me unroll your tarball, big boy.
The possibilities (and cash flow) would be endless...
Wired already *has* run a follow-up article about the 2.4 kernel. Which makes you look like an imbecile.
Wired Article
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Damn Linus and his self mocking humor to hell. Doesn't he realize that mocking major figures in the geek community is a job for trolls?
Why does he have to be so damned friendly and likable? Why god, why?
Why can't he be a self important blowhard like ESR, Bruce Perens or (best of all) Theo De Raadt?
Doesn't he realize that he's making it impossible to mock him?
I can't believe the nerve of that fucker.
--Shoeboy
*shrug* Call me weird, but I'm just impressed overall. Linus Torvalds is a genuine human being and his qualities haven't diminished.
Ken Thompson wrote an important article about this, back in 1984 (wow, that brings back memories), titled Reflections on Trusting Trust where he discussed his famous compiler-trojan which propagated itself even when the user had full access to the source code. The way it worked is the compiler had some code in it that recognized when it was compiling the compiler's own source. When it did, it inserted a bit of code which compiled the source not as a clean compiler but as another copy of the trojan. The user could read the sourcecode all he wanted, but he couldn't get around having to trust the compiler. The thrust of Thompson's article was that you have to put some trust in someone or something along the line.
The moral of the story is that unless you built your own processor, built your own hardware, built your own compiler from scratch, and read the source code and understood it completely, you're open to attack. Open-source itself is no magic bullet, and it's time the zealots figured that out.
Read the rest of this comment...
I'm serious. Linus is being slowed down by having to work only part-time on Linux, devoting all those hours to Transmeta doing the heavy lifting for the internal translation work in the Crusoe. He needs to be free from monetary constraints in order to realize his true potential, the way Stallman has.
The options are to start up a trust fund, which would never work and wouldn't be consistent with Linus's libertarian politics. The second best option would be to start manufacturing and selling his own action-figure lineup. For the boys, there'd be Combat Linus with his dashing Finnish looks and two front-loading high-caliber automatic gcc's under each arm. For the girls, there'd be Dream Date Linus in a tuxedo with his pet penguin, Tux, on a leash. Kids could learn important spacial and social skills while also learning about the open-source and free-software movements. And geeks love toys, so adults would buy them too.
But most importantly, the proceeds would go to support Linus full-time. Think how much faster 2.4.0 could've come out if Linus could've devoted 14 hours per day to it. Just think about it.
Read the rest of this comment...