Slashdot Mirror
Is Linus Killing Linux?
halbritt writes: "An article over at TechWeb asks the question, 'Is Linus Killing Linux?' The story outlines an interesting perspective with regard to Linus having complete control over the kernel and how that may not be in the best interests of the $2 billion industry looking to exploit Linux for fun and profit. It goes on to describe how a non-profit, industry funded organization should take control of kernel development so that kernel development would better suit the interests of said $2 billion industry." Actually this story amused me, since its essentially the same story that some genius journalist writes every few months. Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot.
I don't know much about the differences between what the enterprise needs and what the low end needs, but wouldn't developing for more highend hardware help the low end? Eventually having dual processors will be the norm so wouldn't developing for multi-processor systems and the like actually help the future lowend market?
Some might argue that you ARE killing Slashdot.
I don't know if Linus is killing Linux, though. It's a fine operating system, as far as I'm concerned. However, if you look at something like FreeBSD, you find more mature code, with a more unified direction. If might not be a bad idea to have a set of core maintainers, responsible for the kernel AND the base system. It might produce better code.
Of course, that's what FreeBSD is for, isn't it? Linux has its own niche. Let Linus do what he will, it's his kernel.
A new year calls for a new signature.
I would not let get businesses to control what goes into my kernel. So they control a group of hackers by paying their rent fancy cars etc. to make linux better. Now there are two or three organizations. One pays more money, to the group and demands that these features are not to go into the kernel because it will slow their graphics card drivers, and the other sponsors say that they will not transfer large amounts of money if they will not put in the patch.
Most reasoning people laugh at the article here. I also like to extend, that if there was to be a group of funded people to maintain kernel, there will be subject to financial, as well as political pressures, to make a decisions. Each one having different ideas will pusue their own agendas, and thats where total anarchy in kernel code will be.
It is slippery slope, and it is possible to reap benefits of such transition, but only in case if there would be a set of people that will make some strong rules about donations, people talking one to the other, who has to do what and all that stuff. Making rules now, for such group will be hard, because every company thats linux, will want to get their hands in there...
Point being here, it will be hard for multiple people to control kernel, because for organization, each person has to communicate to all why feature is good or bad, as well as find out for themselves why it is so. The more people you got the slower the process is.
Thank you. You said that much better than I could. I'm sure those thoughts echo how many GNU/Linux users feel.
Re:Why not? (Score:0, Flamebait)
by kikta on 09:25 AM January 27th, 2001 PDT (#89)
But, that's what Unix did and look what happened to those assholes. That why there's so much talk against proprietary crap - the last thing we want to do is fork the kernel. Unless Linus start taking it down the shitter (and he's not), there's every reason to avoid it. (quoted in whole due to a shithead moderator)
Yeah, but what really doomed UNIX was not kernel forks, it was user space forks and different hardware, dooming binary and even source compatibilty in most cases. Not to mention that admining UNIX meant knowing a different toolchain for each vendor.
Well, now we have the GNU user space and complier emerging as a standard part of even commercial Unix installations (like Solaris), and we have cheap, mostly standard x86 hardware working fine for 90% of the problems out there. And the Linux distributors have already fucked up the admin tool issue, so that will have to solved later anyway.
To k-whore a bit, the unifying part of "Linux" is not the kernel -- it's the free userspace. Commercial vendors are starting to catch on with this with things like AIX-L (runs Linux PPC binaries), and free software vendors know that source compatibility is easy if you can at least make some assumptions about the runtime environ (to a greater degree than you could with commercial UNIX). Once UNIX software vendors have completely standardized on GNU/Gnome/KDE/etc, their really won't be a fractured Unix anymore, and you can mix and match kernels to your hearts content. It's totally likely that we'll see a "Linux-like" OS with a BSD or the Solaris SysV kernel.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Sounds more like those retards who are duped into thinking that big business, market forces, cutting taxes, and greed to be the true leadership of the world. (attitudes typicaly held by a US politcial party that doesn't like fair counting of votes when they count the most) Linux isn't about money. If IBM needs its own special kernel, they can use any number of those billons of lines of code they all ready own. And, they well as soon as it becomes good for them to do so. The "market" for Linux base systems is derived from the fact that "consumers" have developed faith and trust in the GLP projects and distrobutions based on the Linux kernel. All that would evaperate under the control of big business.
There really needn't be multiple kernals. When the time comes we compile the kernal *we* want and that's what makes Linux stronger. Has Linus been turning away anyones kernal development contributions? Hello? Not that I have ever heard. Even if he has I would definately not question his judgement at this point.
If you want to see something in the kernal you are free to develop it right? So go ahead and do so... it will be easy to incorporate your work into the standard kernal once your development is relatively complete.
On a side note, supposed someone or some group wanted to make fundamental changes to the kernal ala a 3.0 release. The same rule applies really... form whatever groups you want to, start your work, and spit out an alpha example of what you are doing. Depending upon your success, you make or may not garner the interest and support of other Linux developers, including Linus himself.
----- sXe
They mention in the article that Torvalds's word on when to release kernels is an important one to distribution makers. While certainly true, I think they miss the reason why.
The example in the article is RedHat, who is the only company that opted to offer a distribution based on a test kernel. But now that Torvalds has released 2.4.0, companies all over are planning to deploy distributions based on 2.4.0. They think that 2.4.0 was the first release that Linus was comfortable calling stable.
However, anybody who's run a 2.4.0-test kernel will know differently. I ran test kernels from test8 to test12, and then used 2.4.0 for awhile. It comes as no surprise that 2.4.0 is trivially different than test12... no more different than test8 is from test9. The reason Linus released 2.4.0, as you can tell from his announcement, is that he got tired of people griping at him, and he didn't think the test base would increase at all.
Companies were holding back, not because a test kernel is inferior, but because Linux newcomers would be scared off by a test kernel. It's simply a matter of PR. Maybe Linus isn't the all-knowing Linux God that the article makes him out to be? Think on that for awhile... he's only a man.
A new year calls for a new signature.
The author, Paula Stringer, has degrees from US institutions. I leave comments on whether she is actually educated to /. contributors. Remember, she is protected by various hunting laws that protect humans and other species from indiscriminate slaughter. I disagree with her basic conclusion, but maybe some of the points she raises are valid. The comment that the Linux kernel is not and cannot be held to a fixed schedule might be a sore point with her, but I agree with Linus Torvalds here. It will be released when it is ready, not when some marketoid decides the time is right.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Hurd supposed to correct this?
I mean, it's the linux macrokernel architecture, and the fact that even minor kernel changes force a recompilation (and possibly a rewrite) of the drivers, which means they have to be submitted to Linus, approved, etc.
The Hurd uses a microkernel, and the concept of translators (instead of kernel drivers), and these translators run in user space, via a stable and well defined interface.
Companies can keep the translators on their website, with no need to submit them for review or kernel patching. I don't think they even need to be recompiled if the kernel changes.
Granted, I think there is a slight hit in performance, but you sure seem to get a lot for this tradeoff.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
US politcial party that doesn't like fair counting of votes when they count the most
Sounds like you don't understand the electorial
collage
http://Lenny.com
That was hilarious! Too bad Taco won't learn a damn thing from it.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Oh, wait, the BSD's are so much better than Linux that nobody in their right mind would ever consider switching from BSD to Linux, taking away that important "release valve", and leaving no other choice to BSD than to fork... It all falls into place now! Oh, btw, what "advanced" developments are taking place in FreeBSD now that Linux does not yet have? What technology are we importing from BSD right now? No, the "more performant network code" doesn't count. That was years ago. Just curious.
Say no to software patents.
(Don't worry, I don't own any firearms, and I wouldn't want to do such a thing.)
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
... Bullshit!
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
If Microsoft or some other company wanted to make their own distribution, or fork the kernel their own way, they are certainly free to do so
Except they couldn't call it "Linux", because Linus holds the trademark to the Linux name, and he can license it as he pleases. If Linus doesn't like where the forked product is going, he can withhold the right to call it Linux, which would dramatically restrict the forked product's market potential.
This appears similar to the way Sun controls Java. The Java language is based an "open" specification, meaning that anyone can create their own implementation of the APIs that Sun publishes. However, to actually call the implementation "Java" (which Sun has trademarked), the implementation must pass Sun's "conformance tests", which it controls alone.
Sounds like Brazil to me....I expect most of you recall the scene. "Think of what this is doing to your credit rating."
Take citizen/individual/person and replace with consumer. Take society/population/socio-economic group and replace with market. And be sure the guy who fixes your heater isn't named Tuttle.
By using LGPL instead of GPL for the source, they'd be free to continue retailing it to their commercial clients. Heck, they could even use a modified LGPL that forbids making the code GPL if they're really paranoid about it getting "infected" by the GPL.
My personal feeling on a "committee" running the Linux kernel is that it's the quickest way to produce another OSF 1 system. Remember that debacle? Thousands of hours between various Unix vendors to produce a "common" system, and the only company to ever ship a release was DEC (now Compaq.)
Design by committee is always less efficient and inelegant due to the politics involved. At least Linus, Alan, and the dozens (hundreds) of contributors to Linux work together, even if they don't agree at times. No one would ever make the same claim for any of the "partnership" corporations, most of which end up disolving a few years later.
They could also always look at alternate kernels, like GNU Hurd, or starting their own "clean" kernel.
To me the final proof of how good a job Linus is doing is IBM's activity. If Linus is doing such a terrible job, why is IBM sinking so much money and effort into the community? Why did they port the kernel to S390 if it was so "terrible" with Linus at the helm?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It became the best with him, it will be the best with him...
We need a big group with 12 layers of beurocacy to go through before getting a patch into the kernel! I think that kind of group would do more to kill Linux than Linus could ever manage...
Posted from the wireless couch.
You bring up a truly excellent point, but I don't think I totally agree. Two objections immediately come to mind:
In short, I don't buy the argument that if there were anything wrong Linux would inevitably have forked already, and therefore that the absence of a fork proves the absence of a problem. There are just too many other factors and options that might explain why Linux hasn't forked yet.
BTW, if you follow this link you'll find the head of a discussion tree from just a couple of months ago on this very topic.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Is CmdrTaco killing /. ???
that you NEED one individual at the helm. However, the question is, WHAT does Linus consider the greater good? He may think the greatest good is to produce something that he and his cohorts consider fun, educational, neat, etc. While that may be just swell for him, you must also remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people in IT that are looking for something that makes their job easier, cheaper, faster, etc. By this I mean ease of use, high stability, scalability, low maintanence, etc. For all the complaints about business, they are ultimately accountable to whomever will consume their product, whereas Linus need not be at all.
If the windows ppl of the last few days are anything to go by... ;)
Could you please explain the inefficiency of the Linux VM? Would you be willing to fix it? Come on, dude. Put your patches where you mouth is.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
You killed Linux! .. D'oh.
Face it, Linus is to Linux as Greenspan is to the market itself. To claim, that one man can't run (oversee) an OS and yet follow Greenspan to the point where a cough brings down the nasdaq is just purely hypocritical. Shame on you Deutche bank!
Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot
Sep. 23, 2004
Today, after yesterday's release of a patch for the FreeBSD, Linus claimed that FreeBSD was now a great OS, afterwhich half of the Linux users switched over to BSD and claimed that "The other OS" was crap.
----------------------
58.0% slashdot corrupt
I don't really think that I want an industry funded organization (profit or non-profit) controlling the Linux kernel. Do we really want Linux manipulated by huge lobbyists (Microsoft) to maximize their profits by funding a non-profit Org? As far as I am concerned Linus is doing a great job. Remember everyone still can use Linux how ever they want.
Then Red Hat really _would_ be Linux!
"Your mega-corp only has one CEO, and is controlled by one man. This can't possibly be in the best interests of your 2 million stockholders."
The BSD point you make is excellent. But again, from the perspective of big business, why are they buying into Linux rather than *BSD, when it's the *BSDs that have the supposedly business-friendly licenses? I believe it's because these business interests are only being propelled by the massive geek-centric focus on Linux.
I have often thought that those of us who were the early adopters of Linux, who used it before it was cool, because it was _good_, would probably be the first to migrate in disgust to the *BSDs. It's interesting that a lot of us have stuck around in Linux land though. We don't seem to mind the fact that for a while at least, our interests are in line with some big money, big business interests.
Where can I find this collage? Is it in a museum on tour? I'm a big fan of modern art, so hopefully I'll be able to see it.
Because :)
I belive that linux is what it is today because of linus and his vision and "hackerness". Taking control of the core of linux would destroy that. Yes, maybe it would arrange to give people what they want, or at least some of them, but in that there is also the possibility of curruption. How long would it take do you think for the consortium to be overly influenced by someone who *really* wants X feature, or doesn't want X feature, so they can use it in their own OS. Yes, a bit far fetched, but I prefer to leave it alone, as Linus has been responsible for the way that things have gone in the past.
I'd talk to Linus. Ask him what he thinks. What does HE recommend?
Sigh. I know...I'm being too logical.
Simple answers are not what I'm known for...
Basically, Linux is the goose that layed the golden egg. They just want to be farmer and his axe.
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
...Which, in my view, anyway, is that it is CONTROLLED ANARCHY. The controlled part comes from the GNU GPL forcing anyone who forks the kernel or any other software to release their changes, and prevents them from making it the "one true Linux". The anarchy part comes from the fact that you are welcome to do whatever you want to it, because no central authority, such as Linus, is going to stop you from doing it. The way I see it is, who cares if an industry consortium wants to "take over" the Linux kernel? Anyone is free to do so, and, hey, if you are doing it and making money off of it, then more power to you! If they feel like Linus's version of the kernel is not meeting their needs, all they need to do is make their own version of the kernel to meet their requirements.
One of the responses of OSS projects to people demanding new features has always been "You have the source, go code it yourself," which I believe applies here very well.
AFAIK, Linus has considered Linux as a hobby from the beginning, which seems like a sensible attitude, since maintaining GPL'd software was never meant to be a full time job.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
mod down CmdrTaco for Trolling with the last line of his post?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I guess the problem is that linux will fork like unix did and that's a problem for a lot of people.
Yes, a GPL project may fork like Unix did, but it also can merge back together, which proprietary Unices generally couldn't do.
--
This is pretty close to what scientists think about about god.
"Does god play dice ?"
What would you do if God did play dice ?
You can't do anything. You have to trust your insticts and hope it won't happen.
Personally, I don't think someone as bright and selfless as Linus could do this. And to bring up a question like this in itself a slap on the face. How can you ever say anything like that to anyone ? If Lenardo da' vinci destroyed all his paintings it would have had most effect on him himself. And a person like that wouldn't do that untill he feels totally help less !!
You should not be talking about taking away power from linus. You should be talking about giving more power and resource to linus instead.
I am ashamed this question ever came up on slashdot. However, I hope next time this question would be phrased with the right words next time.
regards,
rkt
Funny, I though lawyers ruled the world. That's how it worked last time I checked.
Is Linus killing Linux? Of course, as well he should. Linux could go in any ONE of thousands of directions. Linus has been pruning that probability tree for years now, and it shows. Linux could have gone the old-guard direction that the BSDs are maintaining. It could have become the bloated feature-pig that Windows is. It could have become an SMP-workhorse.
As it is Linus has taken pieces from each of these paths, but created something which is uniquely Linux. This is neither bad nor good, you have to judge it on its own merits. But, in the end, he has killed all of those could-have-been Linuxes. Some of those options would have benifited companies like Red Hat or SuSE more than what we have now, but if it's really too much of a burden to go down Linus' path, any one of these organizations can fork.
Hell, a fork can be maintained in a very sane fashion if you really try. We did it at KSR while the company existed (it died for internal reasons, but the OSF/1 development was going strong).
Linus has killed Linux hundreds of times, and here's to hoping he keeps doing so for decades to come!
A body of OEMs and vendors to guide the development and course of the Linux kernel???
What we really need at this point is a separate, impartial entity, perhaps a body of really pissed-off roving open source or BSD geeks with automatic weapons, a couple spare hours a day, and just that much stomach acid from too much caffeine, to eliminate at birth the Paula Rooneys of the world, and their simpering editors before they actually ever reach puberty and then publish.
CMP Techweb is just another publication riding the Linux popularity wave, scraping for articles to invent, having nothing of substance to contribute to the world, proudly waving their stupidity for all to see.
Sorry to have wasted this much time on it already.
I'm guessing you weren't around for last April Fool's day. They filtered every single article into either another language or another dialect (including swedish chef). It was actually kinda cool, if you didn't mind having no real news for a whole day, or at least needing to use babelfish a lot.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
"Goat"
or "Beowulf"
I'm sure it's been said before
Well, the point is that with Linux, you can take it and do your own thing - that's the point of the GPL. The java language hasn't been standardized, and Sun tries to use its copyright on the spec to control anyone who tries to implement the language. So it's not really the same thing at all.
People give a lot of credence to Linus because they respect him; Conversely, Sun tries to enforce control over Java through lawsuits and threats.
But, I suspect the reason that no one has taken the time and effort to do so is because there is no agreement from Linus to step down, and without that, no one will use the forked version. I know I probably wouldn't. Heck, we even have the -ac series, and still almost everyone uses the straight stuff.
IMHO, this guy is nuts if he's asking Linus to step down. He's looking at the Linux kernel as if it were run by a corporation who cares about a dollar driven bottom line. He's not looking at it like I suspect Linus looks at it: as a piece of art. In other words, it's something that Linus does as an expression of himself. If other people get something good out of it, then that's great. If not, then who cares. Asking Linus to step down is like telling Mozart that his opera had too many notes. Can't he just cut a few? Or like saying that Mozarts operas could be great if only Mozart weren't the one writing them. Can't we get a non-profit organization involved so that the acts will have the nice punch at the end to tell the audience the show's over?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
If any corporation doesn't like what Linus is doing with the kernel, then there is nothing to stop them from adding all the patches they please to their own distro's build of it....
Linux is for the people and by the people. If a company starts managing it then it itsn't what the majority wants it to be, it's what the money wants it to be. Which is the exact reason why people use Linux, BSD, and other free OSs. As it stands right now, Linux CAN NOT DIE. But if handled by a company or a specific person it can, and bad things will happen... It's aint broke now, so don't start breaking it!
The author of the article that started this all has also interviewed Linus.
It's rather interesting in that Linus contradicts many of the comments that have been posted here -- that Linux will never support NUMA or big iron servers, and things like that.
Definitely worth the read...
---
The Hotmail addres is my decoy account. I read it approximately once per year.
Linus is the father of Linux...
Linus is in control of kernel creation...
Linux is riding a wave of steadily increasing popularity...
Linus just released the 2.4 kernel
Many tech-reporting-persons hint that Linux is now a serious factor in the enterprise market BECAUSE of the 2.4 kernel...
Linux gains more popularity because of this...
yeah... right.
DOS is dead, and no one cares...
DOS is dead, and no one cares...
If there's a Bourne Shell, I'll see you there
Firstly, although Linus heads up to programme to move the kernel forward, there is a vast array of people out there on the net supporting the activity. You always have to have somebody heading that programme, and whoever does do it is going to get up some peoples noses sometimes. I don't think a commercial organisation will find it any easier to control the kernel, or ensure it moves along any faster - indeed they would come under enormous political pressures from all sides during the transition phase from the way it is now. Typically the way that an organisation reacts so such pressures is to form committees. Hardly conducive to moving the kernel forward faster. In other words, to change from the way things happen now is a massive risk which should used to argue against those who see the grass as greener on the other side of an imaginary fence
Secondly, the reality is that Linux, to be useable is also a vast array of supporting applications. These two have to continue to move forward (perhaps even more so) if Linux is to see off the competition.
libc isn't the entire API. Stuff like the format of the virtual file systems (/proc and /devfs) also matters. My point is that forks shouldn't be allowed to happen unless they are forced to follow a standard. This can easily be done by Linus not allowing forks to use the "Linux" trademark without standards compliance. Without being forced like this, it is all too easy (because programmers are lazy, I know I am!) for companies to make proprietory interfaces (say through another library like ALSA does) just to make their job easier.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The kernel is GPL.. so..
The developers work with linus' version of the tree by choice. What else is there to say?
Anyone doesn't like it, they are free to do their own thing.
Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot.
So Linux is 6 feet^H^H^H^Hmiles under, huh?
Shit... and here I was thinking that I had a future as a Linux sysadmin...
--
I must respectfully disagree. All decisions went through Hitler, this is true. Hitler did NOT listen to his 'advisors'. It was his way.
Example:
When Normandy was invaded. Hitler's group knew about it beforehand. Enough time, in fact, that they could have moved the panzer division there in time and slaughtered the Allies' troups. Everyone in the group was afraid to wake Hitler up so they let him sleep and you know what happened.
Why do I bring this up? Linus listens to people. In fact, he expects them to speak up. It's better in the end for all, and he knows this. It's good to have one architect because he/she can make sure all the pieces will fit together properly. From what I can see, multiple divisions only work well if they structured like the military. You don't question orders from above. Do as your told. That won't work in this cluster of people. I could be wrong, it might work well having an FS division, a SMP division, a scheduling division, etc, but I don't see it.
SubtleNuance != Fuck dollars - fuck industry!!!!!
--
"This makes me absolutely irate - when did "Person" and "Society" get replaced with "Consumer" and "Market"?!?! And when did it become necessary to measure everything by a 'dollar yardstick'?!?"
When corporate America became too powerful, took over the government, and started feeding us the "capitalism == freedom" bullshit. Free business and personal freedom are mutually exclusive, and tend to work against each other. The propaganda machine won't ever tell you that though.
All glory to the hypno-toad!
I think this guy has it right, as far as what needs to happen in the next phase of kernel development. The problem is that these needs have arisen because the methods in question were rejected in the past. I'm reminded of my sophomore year in college, when I learned that native intelligence wasn't going to cut it anymore, and that maybe studying would be a good idea. Linux development seems to be at a similar point, where an individual's ability to manage things at a fine level becomes insufficient.
I don't enjoy doing project management myself, but I've definitely learned the value of having a PM on hand to help keep track of who's supposed to be doing what during a given period of time. The result is a better end-product, and that's supposed to be one of the benefits of open source development.
Then there's that whole spat over debuggers, specs and regression testing. That one seems to have devolved into an argument over whether the sun rises in the east.
Sooo...according to the article and some of the posts here. Linux (GNU/Linux) consists entirely of the kernel and nothing else besides the kernel. Lets open up a terminal and see what happens. Holy fucking shit it's a c shell! Wait is that part of the kernel? If this guy really wanted to make a statement he would have complained that the tools included with Linux are all GNU tools that repilicate programs on closed source Unix systems. These tools are developed at the whim of a handful of coders which authorize a stable release as Linus does with the Linux kernel. I've read all these arguments before and they've been just as backwards. First of all Linus owns the Linux kernel, you can't just demand he give it over to some group of developers. Secondly there would be little point in doing so. If you're going to use someone else's emulation of Unix you're going to have to put up with their flights of fancy. IBM, Compaq, and HP all have their own versions of Unix floating around. If they really wanted to they could port said Unix systems to any architecture they wanted and blast Linux out of the water on the hardware they stuck it on. If big wig software ever DID want to oust Linus and his kernel all they would really have to do is port the main Linux libraries and write into their own kernels a Linux compatibility layer in their kernel (a la FreeBSD and Solaris).
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Omg, I live in this town! I'm going to find this place, walk in, and give that idiot a piece of my mind! What kinda moron thinks that Linux is only allowed to be controlled by one entity (Linus)?!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Yet more technical writers and developers who, and I quote, DO NOT GET IT.
If Linux isn't growing in the directions they like, they're PERFECTLY free to fork the code base. Just don't expect that everything they write will trickle back to the main branch.
But that's not enough for these people apparently. Or so they say. They'd rather APPROPRIATE (a nicer word than STEAL control of the code base from Linus. IOW, at some point, they'd have enough control that they'd be able to tell Linus to take a hike, stop his fork, change the licensing, etc.
Now pardon my highly technical jargon here. But SCREW THAT.
If they're having trouble making a buck, they need to rethink their business model and business plan. Not hijack Linux and turn it towards only the ends that suit them.
Linus said it himself. He's not the sole wellspring of creativity for the Linux kernel. There's literally dozens (maybe even hundreds) of people who have made EXTREMELY important contributions.
What's more, Alan Cox (who's basically being paid to manage the Linux kernel) acts as a filter between the thousands of dumb ideas and Linus.
Again. The problem is with these companies who hunger to be the next Microsoft. Not Linus. Not Linux's development pace.
These guys need to get out of their Chicken Little costumes already. Halloween is SO over.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Its not the kernel that is lacking for industry. At least, not very much of the kernel is lacking for industry use. Sure, they would like mega-cpu features for gazilions of cpu's. They can hire people to submit code snippets. Hello? That's why I started using linux 7 years ago, if something was lacking, I could add it in. Very powerful.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
That's what we let them think so that they don't get too rowdy and try to get a degree or something
Your well reasoned view is a far cry from "fuck industry." I do realize that companies need to be socially responsible, but comments such as "fuck industry" really show a lack of knowledge about the events of the past. Things are the way they are for a reason. Of course industry can become more humane and responsible, but outright being hostile to it "fuck industry" is ignoring stuff that the situations elsewhere in the world have taught us.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Absolutely no, Linus is not killing linux. This world is wonderful because everyone has a different view. Different view of code, implementation, ice cream flavors, you name it. The problem is that when you try to freeform combine those efforts you always end up with a half-assed mixed mess. One man with a solid vision in the best interest of the people, supported by the people will always be more effective than a group of self-interested specialists. I think it's simple. The opensource community is a team, a kick-ass team. But every team needs a leader. It's that simple. A single vision with the support of the people is unstoppable. Linux proves that every day. But the second that vision is damaged by a special interest the end is near. Linus isn't leading linux, he is linux. Under any other banner linux wouldn't be linux. I don't think anyone should ever forget that.
Aaron
AaronCameron.net
Whenever the suits get a hold of some new technology they have obligations to their shareholders to make a profit and they bastardize that technology to do that.
Corporate interest in GUIs lead to Windows 3.x. Corporate interest in the internet lead to demands that the internet be regulated to protect their profit margins and to "protect" the children.
Linux and free software are enigmas to them, they're something that they can't control no matter how much money they spend. How can the principles of free software be upheld if the most visible success thereof is handed over to the controlling interests on the big money tech sector? They can't be. If the suits got frustrated with Linux and turned their backs on it, would that really be such a bad thing?
Is this about getting the best free software available, or is it about making money and putting boxen on desks?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But.. Taco.. You -are- killing /. . We're dead already! Can't you see it?!?!
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I believe this person is thinking from the corperate america mindset. "they" as a group, just don't GET this free open source "Thing" as it goes compleatly against their way of thinking. It's like trying to explaing three deminsional things to a flatlander.
If at first you don't feel good.... suffer like the rest of us.
Is Linus killing Linux? Yes. Is this because he's not devoted to Linux full-time or because he's overloaded or for the other sorts of reasons the article covers? No. He's killing Linux because part of a leader's job is to set a good example for others and Linus sets a very bad example. Linus has some very weird ideas about things like debuggers, real-time, enterprise systems, and so forth. He doesn't seem to be a strong believer in things like specs and regression tests and controlled releases. He's not very well read about OS theory and his distrust of ideas from the commercial world borders on paranoia, so a lot of inferior reinvented-wheel proposals get his approval.
Because of the extremely high regard in which many hold Linus, and perhaps rightly so, all of his habits both good and bad tend to be emulated by other developers around the world. When that leads to the widespread adoption of his bad habits, that's bad for Linux. I seriously think that Linux would be healthier if opinions contrary to Linus's own could be expressed freely without hordes of his worshippers acting like the Inquisition.
Linus could ameliorate this problem by recognizing the impact of everything he says and trying to ensure that the impact is a good one. He should be open about the limits of his own expertise, and not make such a habit of shouting down experts in areas where he himself is ill informed. He could actively discourage people from supporting technical viewpoints out of blind loyalty, and from treating dissenters as heretics. His failure to do these things, which are all part of a leader's role and responsibility, is what is killing Linux.
I have several essays providing fuller explanations of these views on my website, for those who are interested.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
get it right ^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're going to have a government doing what the US government is doing today, it should distribute wealth more even and fucking take care of the people.
Registered Democrat, Green voting bastard here,
You moron, its more of a republican view. Democrats (real democrats, not the demo-republicans in office) would want it distributed to a group of individual people elected in a real election, NOT to a group people part of a billion dollar INDUSTRY. And yes, being liberal IS part of being a democrat, all you "conservative demos" need to open your eyes to the control switch they installed in your mind. (same goes to you, dad).
Ever wonder how much cooler technology could and would be if marketing and audience targeting was left out of the loop? (good example: the Sony Pen-sized music player requiring sony's piece of shit encoding format instead of being able to simply play mp3 format music in the name of 'copyright protection'). Btw, all the "copyright/intellectual property protection" research and development dollars are fucking useless.
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
FreeBSD actually does care about SMP. Look at the current undergoings in FreeBSD-CURRENT. They are redoing all the SMP stuff.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
You'll just have to find the next quotable wünder-kid to spice up your stories ;)
How DARE he?! Linus's quotes and interviews make magazines sell like hotcakes! If he steps down, he'll CRIPPLE the publishing industry!
See how stupid this sort of thing is?
Linux is Linus's creation, and he can do whatever he wants with it. He obviously didn't intend it to be a moneymaking venture, or he wouldn't have brought the GPL anywhere near it.
The fact that the GPL is involved, though, means that businesses can fork Linux until they're blue in the collective face. They can include modified versions of the kernel with their products, and they can do their own developlent (as long as they release the source code). Basically, within the restrictions of the GPL, they can do whatever they want.
But they have no right to expect Linus to bend to their [irrelevant] wills. As the originator of Linux, he is universally recognized as the authority on the OS. He has retained the right to decide what goes into the "official" version of the Linux kernel, and he will have that right until he passes it to someone else, or just lets it drop (which is also his right, if he chooses).
So, the business interests can come off it. The official kernel release is Linus's show, and he'll run it his way.
--LordEq
Tho' your promise count for nothing
Right?
rusty owns k5 just like Linus owns Linux. It is not your site so stop complaining.
> ...and the industry really wants the reverse,
part of the industry that is, i.e. the part of the industry creating large servers, not the part of the industry creating small special purpose devices. Even IBM and Compaq have interests in both sides.
It is always a judgement call whether splitting the development in two is preferable from having a single three with some compile times options.
In any case, I think the improvenemts in 2.4 and 2.4.1 are more server oriented, than small device oriented.
no, sega is doing that quite well.
I suspect Linus already put in more work on Linux, than what one can expect from even a good full-time engineer.
I think Linus should hand over control to an industry consortium at some time. Maybe now is the time, since 2.4 is finished, and he doesn't seem to be thinking much about 2.5 or 3.0.
Having competing forks, etc would not be the best way to go, and the surest way to prevent that from happening is for Linus to hand over the official kernel to another organization.
But, for the sake of argument, lets suppose Linus was replaced by an evil clone, doing the bidding of it's master, CEO of a big software company.
People would start to become suspicious, and eventually I think a few of the lead kenrel developers, of which there are many would produce a fork, which would progress in a similar fashion to the pre-evil-clone Linux.
Contrary to popular beliefs forks ar not bad things when free software is involved. Consider GCC - Someone felt GCC was not going in the right direction, so they started EGCS. After a while there are two options:
- The good stuff goes back into GCC
- GCC stops becoming the mainstream and EGCS takes over
In this case the second item occured. Forks are bad things with non-free software, but if everything is free then incompatibilities need not occur, and the majority of users never see the fork.Also the fact that Linus owns the copyright to Linux is not significant. IIRC Linus did this in order to stop someone else registering it. I am sure he is not planning on using it to sue random geeks. If he did so he would move from being geek hero #1, to geek villain #1 and would recieved massive amounts of flack.
--
Steven Murdoch.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
There is a competing implementation to the Linus kernel! It's called the Alan Cox kernel!
Seriously though...Alan does seem to be a rittle less (un)retentive about letting things into his tree. It's nice that he uses his tree to help with getting these things fixed up, tested, and properly fed into Linus tree. This undeniably helps get things into Linus tree that might not otherwise have been accepted.
If they think kernel development is going too slowly, then IBM, Compaq, et al can download the source and submit the changes they want to Linus.
Fuck 'em if they can't stand the fact that they can't buy Linus off like he's some kind of sell-out.
Its even better (or worse, if you a corporate), in that a sort of poetic justice may develop (at least to an extent): Industry may be kicking its own ass by being slow to adapt to open source.
Look at all the open source desktop stuff being developed, even to the level of the non-expert. KDE with KOffice, the Gnome people, etc. Some of this may have developed anyway, due to "market forces" (free-as-in-beer, or cheap-as-in-distro, can be important to those of us who are far from being rich), but the delay in development of many types of software by proprietary vendors I'm sure sped this up. Even now, with all the hype and several major corporations talking Linux, many programs are not available for Linux -- I'd like to see (perhaps start, if I'm ever up to it) open source answers to EndNote and SPSS or SAS. And how much influence might the OS requirements on Civization contributed to FreeCiv getting under way? By the time the "industry" catchs up with GNU et al., they may find the market for much other than hardware drivers gone, having passed them by long ago.
(I also found it interresting the way the artical made a big deal of the Copyright -- clearly everyone posting here takes the implications of the GPL for granted, I'm not sure this mainstream media commentator fully grasped that, instead talking only of stering and direction, as though forking were a foreign concept.)
I haven't been able to track down the source of this statement (possibly docs attached to the kernel, possibly somewhere else...), but I recall once reading a statement by Linus basically saying: "If the community thinks the FSF or some other body would be better off in charge, then I will relinquish control to them."
--
Repton.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
If the following is true:
"Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot."
Then Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
ever.
That why there's so much talk against proprietary crap - the last thing we want to do is fork the kernel.
Forking is a huge issue in proprietary systems. With open source systems it isn't that much of an issue. Since the open nature means that nothing worthwhile is lost.
One thing I have noticed in my short and relatively meaningless existence on this planet is that if one person decides to sit down and do something, they often manage to get that thing done pretty much as they intended. If they enlist the help of others, either as a club, a company or some other form of organisation, they might just manage to turn out something that has some approximation to the thing they first thought of - if they get it out at all.
This is a rash generalisation, of course, but - with no offence meant to anyone - compare Linus' kernel to the Hurd.
I would love for Dreamcast to die, if it meant that everybody discarded all those nice boxes. There's a port of NetBSD to Dreamcast and if there were tons of Dreamcast boxes available for cheap in salvage outfits it would amount to hardware heaven.
(however, I don't like or dislike Dreamcast as a gaming platform, so please don't take this as an attack on a gaming platform that I know my nephew likes very much)
Hay thar.
Actually it sounds like he does under it.
Isn't any non-profit organisation prepared to supply the source code for free able to do this under the current license?
Just let the kernel evolve. If it's under Linus's control or otherwise, the kernel is sure to evolve as long as there is a substantial user-base prepared to take advantage of it's features and demand more.
I killed linux...I needed more space for...uh..downloads...good stuff.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
A body of forked code (let's call it Babylon, shall we?) cam merge together? On it's own?
Yeah, and cats can be herded.
Hay thar.
His job at Transmeta could hardly be described as "not Linux related". Transmeta gives Linus an incredible amount of leeway to conduct his Linux business, including frequent travel, on corporate time and expense. I very much doubt that Transmeta cares one bit if Linux ever writes one line of code for them, and I wonder how much he really has done for them that's not Linux-related.
Do you read the man's own posts, or just stuff that's written about him? His own words make it very clear that he has a strong sense of territory wrt Linux.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Well, yes, but not quite...
Methinks that the real problem that companies have is not Linus, per se. There are two big ones:
1) Nobody can just go out and hire Mr. Torvals and thereby acquire "Linux" in its entirety and use that to club the rest of the market down. Not only has Linus signaled that he just wouldn't do that (probably because he doesn't want Linux to become the whole of his life, more than it is right now anyhow), but even if somebody did, there wouldn't be too much advantage to it, because of
2) the license it came from. This is what really pisses people in business off, the notion that any improvements they make, well, have to get fed back into the common trough.
Remember that this just isn't how the industry is used to working -- it's used to coming up with a good idea, or what's thought to be one which will make some money, and then being able to keep everybody from it through a combination of IP law and marketing resources. Business is not mad about Linus, or anybody else; he could be my pet rock and he'd still be a problem, since nobody can go and get a hammerlock on the industry.
Why should Linus care? It's the industry's job to figure out how to make a buck off this, not his. They can't control it, or bend it to their direction. A fork would be seen as useless because it wouldn't confer much of a competitive advantage, having to give their effort away and all of that.
What's the article really about: nobody remember RMS, or they do and don't want to give him credit for what they see as a problem. And it's seen as a problem only because, well, companies just don't want to sit down and make the effort to create a model which goes with the spirit of the license, take all the time to establish it, and so forth.
That's the real bone of contention, IMHO.
If a woodchuck could, would it be too lazy to?
"We need a full-time leader and a nonprofit organization that can be funded by IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
And who the hell is he? I don't see IBM, Compaq,Dell, (and he forgot HP, Sun, and SGI) saying this. So again, who the hell is he?
Did you notice the tone of the article?
Translation: "I hate my freedom! Please, someone take it away from me!"
Kind of like democracy. It's simply not as clear and effecient as dictatorship. I work with proprietary packages every day and have to wait months for a patch or update. I would love it if I could just search and apply my own patches.
This was the tone I got from the article. He's pleading for a return to the old model of a single, proprietary operating system company and everything comes from the Cathedral. They don't like the Marketplace model of open source. They aren't comfortable with it. It's kind of like wishing some benevelant dictator will come to power and order the world.
The thing he forgets is a company, even a non-profit one, becomes a single target for Microsoft to kill. With the current model, Microsoft would have to kill every single Linux user in the world to kill Linux.
He also doesn't get the idea that nothing stops people from forking the Linux kernal into a different direction. As others have posted, the fact that hasn't happened is a market vote of confidence in Linus. IBM had an opportunity to fork the Kernal, but chose not to because they respected Linus's decision.
The other thing he doesn't get is that the "market" of distributed Open Source is permanent. The "cathedral" of a Linux Non-Profit Corporation risks losing permanence because development will become focused into the programmers at the Corp and if the Corp folds, who will support Linux then?
In my nearly 20 years (has it been that long already??) of dealing with computers, I've learned that the "marketplace" model of software development lasts longer and usually is better than the "cathedral" of a single, proprietary company or organization.
10. Linus can spell
9. Linus' attempts at humor aren't laughable.
8. Linus can get girls(he's married).
7. Linux doesn't go down more often than a Clinton intern.
6. Linus didn't sell out *cough* VA Linux *cough*.
5. Linus is not in any way responsible for Jon Katz
4. Linus is modest.
3. Linus responds to email
2. Linus doesn't start flamewars for banner ads.
1. Linus can code.
Life is a psychology experiment gone awry.
With Linux in its current state, Linus is unquestionably at the helm. The concern for me is not that he (or any individual) is at the helm, but rather WHERE and HOW he is steering it. It's not that I question the man's integrity, rather I question his motivations. Although there's nothing wrong with a singular hobbyist perspective (or even a grouping of divergent hobbyists), it's difficult to argue that the output of such an effort is equivelent to that of a company that needs to sell to consumers. Issues like ease of use may not be sexy to someone like Linus, but it can make or break a company.
On the other hand, I'm highly skeptical of the ability of a large panel of "experts" to lead a complex development process. Trying to fit all the different opinions and demands under roof can strain the final product, not to mention slow it down with endless talks. Furthermore, even where the group would all benefit, they don't necessarily all know it at the moment it would be proposed. There is a certain value to breaking away from the rest of the flock at times, striking out on your own, and coming back when you have a finished product.
In other words, I feel most current Open Source projects are, or will be, ultimately limited by their leadership and developers. However, the recent events with IBM, et. al, putting in millions of dollars into the Open Source Labs looks like the one shining prospect--sort of hybrid between traditional capitalist methods and the new open source model. 24m can do a lot of good, initially. I just wonder if the economics of Open Source will encourage sustained contribution to the continued development of technology that, in all likelyhood, will not give any company an edge over its competitors.
Essentially the companies who develop linux software want to be able to change linux around to what their customers want.
I thought because of open source they could do that anyways.
I doubt the companies listed in the beginning of the article ever had the ability to have microsoft change windows to their liking either.
In my opinion, linus is the best guy to take care of the kernel. If a non-profit company were to take over, I'm sure there would be alot of in-fighting about the direction of the kernel.
Right now you've got two groups working on making Linux better- you've got the traditional hackers working on a purely voluntary basis, doing it for fun or education or reputation or whatever. Then you've got the companies like Red Hat and IBM who want to make money from Linux, who have the resources and the desire to pay professional engineers to work full time on enhancing Linux in one way or another. In reality I don't think these are two distinct groups...there's lots of big gray areas in between the two. Lots of stuff is getting done only because companies are willing to sponsor it and contribute their resources (their people and in some cases their IP.
The mostly symbiotic relationship that exists between these two groups (volunteer hackers and the industry) is much, much greater than the sum of its parts. You say, "who cares?", but I think lots and lots of people on both sides of the fence should care a lot, regardless of their interests or motivations. This symbiotic relationship should be preserved if at all possible, and at the expense of neither group's interests.
Also, the painfully obvious answer to "who cares?" is, those companies and the people who work for them. You seem to strongly identify with the volunteers, and consider the industry people to be some sort of parasitic, second-class citizens of the Linux community, like they don't do any good for anyone but themselves. I don't agree with this, and in fact I don't think the volunteers are on any sort of moral or ideological high ground with respect to the industry folks. Maybe the execs who run those companies wouldn't be doing anything with Linux if not for self-interest, but the fact remains that those companies are doing as much or (potentially) more good for Linux and the Linux community than all of the volunteers put together. You have to look at the positive impact that they are having; you can't just denounce them because you think their motivations are somehow impure. It's not like the engineers who work for those companies are only motivated by profit- probably most of them are glad that they are in a position to help out with Linux and get paid for it and not have to compromise their obligations to support their families, etc.
People need to get off their high horses and stop flinging shit at everyone they perceive as not being as selflessly motivated as they are.
For 10 years now, Linux has been mostly a project done by a few (now a few dozens) of dedicated hackers. Linux's good general design originates in that fact that in the early stages of its development it was built by only a few people, following a uniform way of thinking and pursuing a limites set of goals. However, now when Linux is a major project which is supported by millions of users, thousands of enthusiastic developers and numerous industrial giants, it seems that the concentration of kernel development in the hands of a small group of people (and particularly, Linus) is becoming ineffective.
Linux source is so large (2.2 had over 1.5 million lines!), that it is no longer uniform. It has split to numerous platforms, and it supports a wide array of hardware. This new diversity makes it impossible for a single group of people to have a coherent opinion regarding all the added issues.
I think that Linus has to understand that the burden of being the kernel's sole guardian is very heavy, particularly when so many parties have to say so many things regarding so many questions. Being the only decision maker will do no good, neither to him, nor to anyone else who wants the kernel's good.
I think that the best solution in the meanwhile is to divide the kernel development into a few sub-groups, with expert leaders attached to each one. It seems clear to me, that there should be separate discussion lists for issues like LVM and networking. I could be wrong, but it also seems to me that Linus' deep insight as a project leader is being wasted on checking whether Patch Nr. xxxxx is indented in the right way. Others could check it (or at least do most of the job), and leave the thinking to Linus.
Leading such a project is in a way similar to being a parent. A 5 year old is not yet ready for the complex world of the school. Yet, a 17 year-old is unlikely to fit into a nursery. A teenager is much more open to the influences from his environment, than to influences from his parents. That is also the way it is in Linux. I think that the true wisdom for Linus will be to ease his control over Linux, so it can mature in the best interest of everyone.
This is typically argued three ways: Linus is killing Linux by insisting on certain kinds of changes that generally leave out the things the Industry wants. The Industry is killing Linux by forking off and releasing all kinds of weird patches, many of which don't work as advertised (probably why Linus rejected them), and giving Linux a bad name when in fact their products are not Linux any more than any hacker's mangled, broken source tree is Linux. Nobody is killing Linux because the entire process is demonstrating the strengths of the open development model that's so hip today.
To be honest, I consider a fourth argument more accurate: Linus is killing Linux by proxy; he is actually accepting too many patches. The kind of patches that are needed are things like the PCI rewrite and Softnet and Netfilter. To me there is no similar effort more important than analogous rewrites for the block and scsi layers, with a FreeBSD-style VM close behind. Therefore, no major patches should be accepted until that work is done and has been tested. To continue all kinds of unrelated development when much of the core code is in total disarray, a mess of hacks and black magic that break half the time, is simply foolish. The 2.5 series should be dedicated to three major points: Dead code removal, major structural overhauls with substantial and rigorous testing, and a complete and systematic review of all existing code to ensure that it is using the most up-to-date and efficient ways of doing things (ie make sure that drivers aren't using the back-compatibility PCI cruft, then remove the cruft). This would result in a 3.0.0 that contains not one new feature, and probably would have fewer drivers since unmaintained drivers would be dropped completely from the codebase. But the tarball you download would probably be 20-30% smaller, and the entire system would be much more reliable and predictable. The greatest advantage is that 3.x would have a solid foundation to build on, free of back-compatibility cruft, broken code, dead code, unmaintained code, spaghetti code, and all other manner of obnoxiousness. The interfaces specified during the rewrites would be considered fixed (ie minor bugfixes are ok but no rewrites no matter how clever the idea) for the entire major version (as opposed to the current plan to preserve them only within a minor version). This gives some stability to the project and helps industry, as well as independent hackers who have to maintain code.
I don't wonder. They would.
Linus is a technical genius, and there is no better way to waste everyone's time by tying down a technical genius with project-management tasks. Let Linus do what he's good at, and let someone with the proper skills do the things Linus doesn't do so well. Of course, that person would have to have Linus's full and explicit support to be effective, and Linus would have to resist the temptation to override decisions appropriate to the project-management role, and I'm not sure he's the sort of person who would abide by those terms.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
All right. This discussion is over, due to invocation of Godwin's Law.
I know this won't work, since I'm invoking it directly, but I'm using this to make the case for generalizing Godwin's Law to cover weblogs such as /. and k5.
-30-
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Isn't it rather "Work or die?" ;)
bla
Jealousy is a terrible thing dude, especially when you say things with no facts to back up your trolling.
Is Linus killing Linux? Bah. What a stupid question. A better question is: can Linus kill Linux? The source code is available, the community is in place. If Linus were running it into the ground, the community could fork off. No one person can kill Linux. It would have to be outright abandoned by an entire group for it to die. And, strangely, I don't see that happening.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
*cough* trolls *cough*
No comment. Make your own jokes.
No, CT. You're doing a beautiful job of killing Slashdot. It's a work of art. I've never seen such style in the killing of anything. You are a master artisen. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, ok.! Moderate this down as a lame attempt at sarcasim that missed. Off Topic!
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
There are some valid points lately. Recently on the linux kernel mailing list, Linus made a post saying
'I've basically thrown away all patches sent to me so far, and I will continue to do so at least over the weekend. I'm not going to bother thinking about patches for a few days.'
How many people who submitted useful patches that the kernel _needs_ won't bother resubmitting? Hell, what's the point? I do all the work, and he throws them away.
So yes, I do believe that in some ways Linus is hurting Linux.
And as for the state of the kernel, all kernels prior to 2.2.16 are insecure. They have a huge hole that allows an attacker to lock your machine with a structured tcp packet / series of packets. But all kernels since 2.2.15 (up to and including 2.2.19pre2) are unusable for high traffic web sites. The VM subsystem is broken. I am using Andrea's patch against 2.2.18 and that seems to help, but the stable kernel has been broken for almost a year now!
From what I have read so far, raid 5 is now broken under 2.4.0 (under a reconstruct / degraded mode) and the VM subsystem is _still_ broken.
/* Wayne Pascoe
Take the pride of a man's effort away from him and give it a committee that little or no emotional or economic investment in it? Can anyone name another software project where this was done and the project improved?
There are no fields in Project 2000 for "love", "devotion", "pride", or "repute". On paper it might seem that more hands will make lighter work, but development by committee will surely make lighter work of causing Linux to fail.
Read "Mythical Man Month" to understand why more programmers to not necessary make a project go faster. Read "Cathedral and Bazaar" to understand the motivational value of pride, commitment, and repute in the Open Source community.
Really what planet do these technical writers come from?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Anyone?
In the long run, Linus' preference for enhancing Linux's support for small and embedded systems instead of big multiprocessor mainframes will probably have greater impact. Many visionaries claim that ubiquitous computing is the future, although their views of "ubiquitous" may differ. I suspect Linus finds small and embedded systems interesting because they will be ubiquitous.
:-)
How many people are affected by whether Linux runs on big mainframes? A few people in a number of large corporations. If Linux eventually becomes adapted to and widely adopted in set top boxes, handhelds/PDAs, cellular phones, etc (yeah it's a few years away at best), it stands to impact a lot more people than if it is made to scale to 256 processor boxes (the latter will surely happen when 256GB, 256-processor boxes are your average desktop).
Linus is going for the bigger potential market in the long run and in 10 to 20 years, if he pulls it off, he will probably be recognized as a major visionary. Those people who claim he is hurting Linux by his focus are just annoyed he doesn't share their own narrow view.
Personally, I wonder if Linux would have been as much of a success if Linus' parents had named him differently. Larsux and Bjornix just don't have quite the same ring, do they ?
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
And Santa is killing Christmas.
MLK killed human rights.
And errr...Video killed the radio star...
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Good point. But are you sure this wouldn't come from academia anyway? There is a lot of academic research which is now using Linux as a platform.
Also, the painfully obvious answer to "who cares?" is, those companies and the people who work for them.
I disagree with this one. These companies see an opportunity for profit in free software, so they take advantage of that opportunity. Does the free software community (eg. Linus) now owe them loyalty because of that? Of course not.
So perhaps instead of "who cares?" I should have asked "why should Linus care?"
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
This article is probably written by some "technology reporter" who predicted that Linux was just a passing fad a few years ago. Now Linus is killing Linux... Right.
Keep up the good work Mr. Torvalds.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Not that anyone should be expected to, you know, actually read an article before running off at the mouth about it but "$2 billion industry looking to exploit Linux for fun and profit" is the submitter's words, not a quote from the article.
companies interests =! quality software
companies interests = spitting out product on time
They are also not used to the idea of community ownership of something. They think Linus owns Linux so he can stop them doing something with it. I guess they are also scared of forking for the same reason why they want only one windowmanager and desktop - it just makes things easier for them - less work, easier to make money.
--
Steve Jobs: We're better than you are.
Bill Gates: That doesn't matter.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
There are other situations that don't need/shouldn't have people in charge. Keeping with the discussion forum theme, kuro5hin.org is supposed to be run by the users, yet, rusty can't let the general public have control, and he keeps doing things like posting advertisments on the site (these ads simply appeared one day, no consulting of the general public was done. It is a prime example of 'Mr. X is killing foo'.
Linux is Linus code, he's shown it to the general public, and they have said, let's change this, and this, etc, and he said 'Ok'. It's not your code, so stop complaining.
Apathy -- The state of numbness of the mind. When you are apathic, you can think.
How does that response get a +2, oh well... I expect better from a troll of your caliber :P
"My point is that forks shouldn't be allowed to happen unless they are forced to follow a standard."
Then why GPL the kernel if you won't let people use it as they wish.
"This can easily be done by Linus not allowing forks to use the "Linux" trademark without standards compliance"
Yeah well see he can't LET them use his trademark or else he LOSES IT. Remember Napster v. Offspring. What they can do is say, "XYZ O.S. is based and Linux(TM) technology and compliant with it's *standards*[POSIX, LSB(whatever that means?)] etc..." So...
(1) as long as they cite Linus as the holder of the trademark, they can use it however they want, and
(2) there is nothing he can do if they claim compliance with linux and their product ain't compliant. Maybe they don't even want compliance (ever think of that ?) BUT since linux is GPL'd, we get to see the SOURCE (yey)
" Without being forced like this, it is all too easy (because programmers are lazy, I know I am!) for companies to make proprietory interfaces (say through another library like ALSA does) just to make their job easier."
Wrong, Try again dumbass...
(1) How are the programers creating " proprietory interfaces", IT'S OPEN SOURCE
(2) ALSA or Advanced Linux Sound Arch. is slated to be the replacement to OSS lite in the current kernel. There is NOTHING "proprietory" (there's that word again...) about it, it's developmental and doesn't belong in the stable tree so the author kept it out as a seperate project. BTW- it will probably be merged in 2.5 or so the rumor goes....
"...through this door all my dreams come realities, and all my realities become dreams..."
This is where open licenses take over. If Linus were killing Linux, what's to stop Red Hat or someone from starting their own non-Linus blessed version of Linux? Nothing except name recognition and the use of the name Linux...which Linus would have already run any notoriety into the ground. So they take the last known stable kernel and run with the ball.
but seriously, the linux kernel is linus' child, and he did not design it with the goal to make lots of money. therefore IMHO the $2billion industry can make their own kernel if they want to earn money with it
Obviousman is obviously not obvious enough
It's amusing to see an article asking if Linus is killing Linux, because I'm used to seeing articles asking if the $2 billion industry is killing Linux.
The article is interesting in that it entirely fails to show that the actual industry has any problem with the current model of Linux development. I suspect if they could have gotten a quote like "We wish 2.4 had been released sooner, but Linus held it up" from anyone actually in the industry, they'd have used it. Instead they say that Linux should be controlled by a consortium of companies that show no evidence of wanting to do that.
The industry depends on being able to use a steadily improving piece of software in the products that they produce. If they knew how to run the development process better, they'd have done it before. They have enough to do to make their products without being directly involved in kernel development. The industry understands this, but some analysts seem not to.
Like 10 or 15 years ago, one could defintely say that there were few if any companies mingling with the free software community. But you did have a lot of academics and research people from various government and corporate labs contributing a lot of free software to the world. These people would probably not have been doing that if they were not being paid to do so.
Likewise you now have a situation where companies like IBM and Red Hat and SGI are paying people to develop free software. The people who develop that software probably wouldn't be doing it if their company wasn't paying them to do so, so I don't see the difference between these guys and the guys from CMU or MIT or NASA or NIH or wherever that have contributed much free software in the past. The organization they work for is bankrolling free software, perhaps for less selfless reasons (although you'd be surprised- a lot of companies are contributing stuff purely out of charity, just to maintain the goodwill of the community). But that doesn't make those engineers any better or worse people or any more or less sleazy; in all cases they are doing it because it's their job, and everyone benefits from being nice to them and working with them (not for them, but with them).
IMHO the amount of sway any organization (be it a company or a research group or a university) should have over the community at large is directly proportional to how much that organization gives back, how much free software and assistance do they provide to the community, and how generally cooperative they are. The fact that the organization's management is doing it out of self-interest doesn't really bother me. The people at companies like the late LinuxOne are just a bunch of guys with a get-rich-quick scheme who don't really care about giving anything back, so of course they can't really be considered "part of the community". But Cygnus (now part of Red Hat), IBM, SGI, et al contribute a lot and make genuine efforts to be good citizens of the community and deserve to be treated as such and given some consideration.
None of this rant is really directed at you, rather at the really extreme "all corporations are evil" kiddies who post to Slashdot all the time. It doesn't take much provocation to get a long-winded rant out of me. :)
Gimme a break! You should *lose* the discussion for such blatant misuse of Godwin's Law. It is meant to prevent discussions from degenerating into camps calling each other Nazis, not to prevent individuals from making legitimate historical comparisons.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
Careful, you're idealism is showing. If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
;)
Then why GPL the kernel if you won't let people use it as they wish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Freedom is one thing. Success and quality is another. Take your pick. I'd argue that a slight limit in freedom is worth big gains in quality and compatibility. But that's just me
(1) How are the programers creating " proprietory interfaces", IT'S OPEN SOURCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe prorpietory was the wrong word (though anyone with some sense would have picked up what I meant based on the context of the post.) I meant that they can create interfaces specific to a particular kernel. While this is sometimes necessary, programmers in general do it far more often than they need to.
(2) ALSA or Advanced Linux Sound Arch. is slated to be the replacement to OSS lite in the current kernel. There is NOTHING "proprietory" (there's that word again...) about it, it's developmental and doesn't belong in the stable tree so the author kept it out as a seperate project. BTW- it will probably be merged in 2.5 or so the rumor goes....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you have any semblence of reading comprehension? I said they could make propriatory interfaces (admitedly the wrong word) , maybe through a custom library like ALSA does. I said that ALSA was custom library (as opposed to a standard one like libc), not that it was a proprietory interface.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The day Linux turns out to be an OS for the corporations and not for the people
Why do you see those objectives as mutually exclusive? People that work in corporations have the same goals as those who work in small business, those who work for themselves, or those who don't work at all. Many of those kernel hackers work for said corporations.
They simply want a stable computing environment. If something like, for example, kernel debuggers or a fine-grained permission system [read: ACLs] will help is that goal, and a group of poeple need to fork Linux to do that, more power to them. We`ll all benefit from it. Why would a corproate forked Linux be bad, compared to a non-corporate forked Linux? The same people would still be working on it. The lciensing wouldn't change.
Id like to see if there's reasons here beyond `all corporations are inherintly evil'. Since you didn't qualify your initial post, I honestly doubt there is. But please post back and prove me wrong.
I never said that it was. The problems in the US are not so much due to industry, but irresponsible people. (Believe it or not, nobody is causing moral, social, and environmental decay but the people themselves. I love this country, but to tell the truth, the prevalent thinking that the current situation is anybody's fault but their own is hugely irresponsible. That's why George Bush's moral message is such a load of bull. The government can't fix society, only the people can.) True, industry in this country does pollute a lot, but that's because there is a lot of it. If you take a look at industry in other countries, they don't cause as much pollution, but only because there is less of it. In Asia, for example, the taxi industry often doesn't install correct air control systems in their scooters (those of us who've been there know what I'm talking about ;) and they use very poorly refined fuel. While those things don't cause as much polllution as all of Los Angles, they make more per unit. The reason they do so is because those countries simply don't have enough money to make things more efficient. (Kinda like the US at the turn of the century.) I'd argue that by building industry first, and stabilizing the economy, you end up (eventually) being cleaner than if you try minimize industry to begin with.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Your wrong from the first line.
;)"
If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
no there would still be problems, they'd just get fixed.
"I'd argue that a slight limit in freedom is worth big gains in quality and compatibility. But that's just me
well not just you, i bet MS would too
"I said that ALSA was custom library (as opposed to a standard one like libc), not that it was a proprietory interface."
Without ALSA lib how are you supposed to use the features of ALSA? Magic? How is it "custom", OSS is on the way out and ALSA the way in so ALSA has OSS support, ALSA lib is the way of the future. I have no idea what the hell your trying to say with the interface/lib thing...
"...through this door all my dreams come realities, and all my realities become dreams..."
"Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot"
No comment. It's like tripping midgets, there's no sport in it.
And this is the same Slashdot that thinks Sun is awful for shephearding Java????
Slash-ethics seem highly situational.
The real need is not to add extra functionality to the kernel, but rather to simplify it to the level of a LEAN AND MEAN micro-kernel (QNX-style). This will have benefits in both directions:
- For embedded applications: The ability to fit the beast on smaller flash
- For all flashing-singing-and-dancing desktop use: Adding bleeding-edge drivers or functionality without bringing down the kernel
- For scientific number crunching: Maximum cluster performance without unneccesary overheads
- For corporate servers: Super-high reliability for specific tasks
This way, even real-time Linux becomes easier to hack together!hell redhat/ibm/compaq all employ kernel hackers, and i think linus listens to them when he makes decisions.
Indeed - I believe Linux accepted DevFS into the main tree due against his own personal judgement based on consensus from other well known Linux kernel authorities.
while ($story_needed) {
@idiots = find_idiots($senseless_yakkers);
foreach $moron (@idiots) {
push(@comments,get_quotes($moron));
}
$story = intersperse_speculation(@comments);
print html_format($story);
}
A competing fork/implementation would be good for both the Linus version and the "industry consortium" version. It's all GPL, so mix, match and cross-breed at will.
Linus has stated that he cares more about small devices than 'enterprise' features, and the industry really wants the reverse, so that would give everyone something they like.
Better than using SCO.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Is it me or did everyone just take drink a gallon of knee-jerk reactionary juice? Most people are reacting to one phrase "linus killing Linux". The article had some valid points to me. One, if Linux is to grow as it has done, shouldn t what Linus does with respect to the kernel, be a full time job? By dividing his responsibilities is he not giving short shrift to one or the other or both? To me the article is proposing that Linus devote himself to Linux full time or let another org do it. If Linux is to grow as its done the idea just makes sense.
Every release of Linux not only fixxes old problems but adds new functionality to allow it to maintain its dominance in the market as the only OS that can run on nearly every CPU enabled device you can find, from video game consoles to mainframes and highly scalable multiprocessor supercomputers (used to work for SGI).
I can't believe slashdot would write an article like this, if anything you should be a Linux advocate. Bad slashdot! *whack you with a stick*
You got it all wrong... M$ is good if you wanna work a couple of ours and then shut your system down, if you're looking for a solid server try something free, and solid. You may choose Linux. I choose FreeBSD. Tradition, robustness, thousands of ports (if it doesnt compile on *BSD, then probably some Linux geek wrote it), security, set-up the server and let it do the job. With Linux you'll spend countless hours upgrading weekly your kernel and RedHat patches.
forever failure
Somebody changing the kernel APIs isn't that huge a problem, as long as there's a glibc port for the forked kernel. I'm pretty sure that most kernel API changes can be completely hidden behind the C library.
OpenGL still not as popular as D3D? Excuse me, but D3D isn't popular outside of the Windows games market -- I've never seen a scientific visualization using D3D. And I don't know how this relates to your `changing APIs' point. OpenGL's API stability and flexibility is astonishing, considering how much hardware has changed since its inception. (D3D's API instability is astonishing, considering how little hardware has changed between any two incompatible iterations.)
Yeah, but they couldn't call it "Linux" without Linus's approval, right?
IANAL
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Without looking deeply, there are at least three forks of Linux.
rtlinux - A realtime, low latency kernel
uclinux - Designed / designing for microcontrollers
ELKS - For embeded devices
--
Carousel is a lie!
Arguably, you are. Your illiteracy does a great disservice to slashdot in the long run. It's past the point where amateurish is somehow charming.
I dont give a damn what 'industry' thinks of GNU/Linux - they can goto fucking hell.
Now that's what I call an appropriate use of 'goto'..
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do realize that you can't argue with a statement like that! It's like saying, "I've told you a million times..." It's not scientifically thought out, it's an exaggeration and all you are supposed to get from it is meaning, not detail.
well not just you, i bet MS would too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To each his own. However, "total freedom" is not always best for the user. People who seek complete freedom (anarchy) are just as bad as people who seek no freedom (autocracy) The happy balance lies closer to complete freedom, but some constraints must be imposed to insure quality of product.
Without ALSA lib how are you supposed to use the features of ALSA? Magic?
>>>>>>>>>>
I never said you weren't supposed to use ALSA. I have nothing AGAINST ALSA, or the method it uses. You (in your original post) said that the common API was libc. I said that extensions could be added via libs like ALSA, and that some of these exensions could be specific to particular forks. You can't read ANYTHING else from that aside from what I just said.
How is it "custom",
>>>>>>>>>>
It's not a standard part of the Linux kernel or OS as compared to something like libc. I think you'd get the meaning by now.
OSS is on the way out and ALSA the way in so ALSA has OSS support, ALSA lib is the way of the future. I have no idea what the hell your trying to say with the interface/lib thing...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESL classes failing you? How clear do I have to make it? I'm not making a comment about ALSA, I just used it as an example of a library that can be used to add an API to the kernel without going through libc.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Linux is about its users, not some mega-money sucking corperation
Did all those kernel and code hackers spend their time into something that coperate America will just suck up in the end?
NO!! They did it for themselves, and other Linux users. Its stupid how slashdot always tries to force Linux into main stream corporate America. I'm prefectly happy by the way the kernel is shaping to be. And IMHO Linus is doing a great job too.
The day Linux turns out to be an OS for the corporations and not for the people, is the day that the kernel hackers either fork the source and continue with what they wish, or they start making a whole new OS altogether.
Actually , I am wondering, that there isn't already a big company (f.e. IBM) that has split off from the main tree....
Here's just a few good changes a corporate structure could make to the kernel:
Stop refering to "UNIX", it just makes men feel insecure. How about "MANIX", or "TESTICLIX"?
Instead of saying, "Core dumped", say, "Oops, there was an error! Exiting Program!", and display a little icon of a penguin falling over. Yes, even in text mode (it's not that hard). And instead of "core", name the core "Delete me, I'm useless!" (the geeks will know what it is)
Make XFree part of the Kernel, eliminate text mode. You can get a terminal by typing "CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-TAB" three times fast
If that doesn't work, keep text mode, but devote the bottom line of the display to scrolling ads.
Signals? More like "intersystem communication quantum packets"!
More verbose, understandable instructions. Instead of "ls", "show-directory", insted of "kill", "stop-the-program-with-this-program-identifiers"
Merging of Microsoft Office Paperclip technology with Linus, the Singing Penguin
Just watch, Linux will be in the home in no time!
There's a common misconception that people seem to make regarding this scenario: Linus has complete control over the kernel.
It just ain't true.
Just because Linus has headed kernel development up until now doesn't mean he always will. IBM (or anyone) could suddenly split off from the main tree and begin development on their own. And provided they remain true to the GPL, there is no reason this couldn't happen (and frankly, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet).
I think that fact that Linus still heads development is just a testament to his phenomenal abilities as a project manager. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Your post sounds just like something a teenaged moron or 20-something helpdesk loser would write.
Um, yeah... okay... (snicker)
Truth be told, I doubt that the development sections of these companies are too worried about Linus' release cycles. Certainly, however, the marketroids are plenty concerned about the lack of control that they have over the spin cycle.
The business school graduates can all get together if they want, fork the kernel and call it Spinux. They can release new versions all they want... "Now! Even more lemony!"
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Im not a Linus Worshipper, and this comment is not in _his_ defense.
What the fuck do we give a shit if "$2 billion industry looking to exploit Linux for fun and profit" Fuck dollars - fuck industry!!!!! Why should Linus be accused of leading Linux poorly? Because he is not some TransNational Board of Directors looking to homoginize something for the mass market? It makes me sick to think that people are so caught up in 'market economics' and the like that they DO NOT EXIST OUTSIDE OF THEIR MARKET FUNCTIONS ! People everywhere adopting the word 'Consumer' in place of 'Citizen' or 'Person' is a telling example of the transformation of everything we do to being a 'Business Function'.
I dont give a damn what 'industry' thinks of GNU/Linux - they can goto fucking hell. Im interested in Linux because of the possibility that it will change people and society by freeing them from a future of proprietary IP controlled by those who would seek to exploit them... if 'industry' thinks that the success of Linux should be 'co-opted' for their ends, and not for this liberation of users I say 'Fuck them'.
This makes me absolutely irate - when did "Person" and "Society" get replaced with "Consumer" and "Market"?!?! And when did it become necessary to measure everything by a 'dollar yardstick'?!?
I'm really not sure what sort of heirarchy for making decisions exists, but it seems to me that having one person who can say for sure where the core goes is a fairly effective way to do it. It's sort of like the whole argument that the most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Although I don't necessarily agree with this, the main argument for it is the efficiency it allows. Having a single person at the top also helps keep a little more conformity among the linux world, which is important. Linux is a fairly complicated world with all the different distros and such, giving them a chance to create friction and arguments between people at the highest level probably wouldn't be very productive. With Linus, that problem doesn't really exist, unless he has more than one personality bouncing around in his head. I think he's also got the greater good of Linux as an operating system as his prime concern, rather than its viability as a monery making product. Hence the nonapologetic delays, and the whole it'll be released when it's ready mentality. Although this might bug some of the people that are trying to make money off of it, and need to impress clients, it's more in line with the ideals of Linux.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
"We're the hardest working band in the business, I don't care if we're the best!"-Iggy and the Stooges.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Look, I love Linus, I want his babies, and he's doing a good enough job IMO. Sure he rejects a few too many patch features from unknowns - but he's just one (sexy) guy. It's not his fault.
Really, just fork it and see if you do a better job. The reason there hasn't much forking (there has been a little) is because people are generally happy with the results.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
pretty much the only part of that paragraph was the line that said "take control of kernel development so that kernel development would better suit the interests of said $2 billion industry." i thought the point was that the industry didn't control the software, that the programmers did. if we can assume this to be true, then linus, the program, has the only say in what happens to the kernel, end of story...
Seriously, Microsoft's "best interests" work against the industry a whole lot more than Linus's. I wonder if Paula Rooney thought of that.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Linus is the only who can release Linux under a
different license than the GPL.
If he wants to discontinue being the head developer / releaser but does _not_ move the
main copyright to an other person, nobody could do something more to it than described in the GPL.
And btw, Linus doesn't do much more than releasing at this time. Look at the Linux-Kernel ML. How many posts are his? Not much actually.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Haha. Losers are funny.
Excellent points.
There is still plenty of opportunity to make lots of money on this. Aside from wanting to see certain changes in the kernel, like support for certain devices and certain processors, what the industry wants is to bypass competition. As you say, they want to lock it in their way. Ironically, everyone, including they, benefit from from the competition and openness, because they cannot be locked out by someone else.
The other thing business likes, but is bad, is pushing things to be delivered before it's ready. Linux's great advantage in my mind is that Linus won't release it as official until it's ready. Now I was running 2.4.0-test10 on several machines before 2.4.0 came out. But business seems to want to have it now, but doesn't want to call it anything but the final release. If Linus had released it early, you might have 2.4.0-test10 or some other earlier version. It wouldn't be any better if it were called 2.4.0. But it would be a lie if the developer-in-chief didn't think it was ready. I trust Linus far more than software marketing types. Their schedules and deadlines (which is what runs business now) are for the birds. And I'm glad Linux works the way it does.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
They had their chance with Motif fiasco. Hadn't
they?
That should say.. Is Slashdot killing Linux?!?!?!
It was intended as a joke, primarily. I do understand Godwin's Law. I will admit that I was very tired when I made the joke, since it obviously wasn't funny...
-30-
And I'll certainly continue to 'farm things out'--having others maintain the things that I don't have the heart for. I think that a lot of the talk about the 'succession' is due to this--people see the project growing, and see other people having a large impact, and don't realize that it's already long since grown past being just 'Linus.'
;)
from a zdnet interview with linus. he goes on to say:
hope that in another few years, people will still remember me, but they'll also consider me more of a traditional 'technical lead' person and 'senior architect,' rather than 'Mr Linux.'
THAT's what I'm aiming for. The ability to be 'just' the technical guy some day. I'm in no real hurry, and I'm convinced it will happen, so I'm not worrying. You'll just have to find the next quotable wünder-kid to spice up your stories
so linus realizes that linux is growing, and it will be to big for him (or any other singular person) some day. the community will deal with it. hell redhat/ibm/compaq all employ kernel hackers, and i think linus listens to them when he makes decisions. at some point a decision has to be made and currently i think those decisions are best made by linus.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
another company couldn't pick it up at a stable point, and run with it. IBM could start adding their own features to the linux kernel, and call it something else, no problem. Of course they'd have to either release it under the GPL or work something out with Linus, but it's entirely possible. Then we worry about fragmentation; so would IBM, or whoever. These companies should try to organize a working group with a purpose similar to POSIX, guaranteeing interoperability of the various kernels (maybe even BSD), minus extra features. This would ensure a good future market for Linux, and allow vendors and organizations to pick it up and run with it they way they see fit.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Obviously the idea that Linus is "killing" Linux can be laughed about now. But I question how persistent the OS will be should a barrage of new forks spring up after Linus steps down or slips up. Sure the GPL will keep it "alive", but with many forks to choose from, how are we to tell the good side from the bad? As good idea submissions get diluted to the various new forks, how long will it take to recombine them under the One Ring's rule? Are we even guaranteed that one fork will gather them all and bind them together again?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
"Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot. " This one comment has caused the value of VA Linux stock to plummet from $8 to $0.03 a share in 6 hours.
All this talk of the colonel is making me sick. Colonel this, colonel that. It doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what the colonel has to do with the computer I use daily.
________
I remember reading a Nostradmus quatrain interpretation on alt.prophecies.nostradamus a few years ago which said that we would think on who rises to power would be the antichrist, and this appears to be Billie Gates whois name in ascii has also been shown to equal 666 (Bill Gates III?) as does Windows 95 I bleieve. However the prophecy says that the real antichrist will actually be the one that we believe to be our savour... a person who has a big grudge but that everyone likes. Considering the power Linus weilds over the Linux kernel code, could it be true that the mongels from that off the planet newsgroup are actually right????
meridian at tha.net
Well, my reaction was not to the headline but more to "non-profit, industry funded organization". Well, i know a lot of these organisations, and most of the time i ask myself who is bought by which corporation. The more people are included in decision making the more formalized and obscure the process becomes and the more it gets slowed down. We will soon ask ourselves which people are bought by a certain redmont software giant to slow down Linux development to a grinding halt (conspiracy theories blooming everywhere), we will expect kernel 2.6 no earlier than 2010, and in general we will see so many interest groups feuding over the direction of kernel development that it won't be remotely funny anymore. This organisation may even take the US Patent Office's position as the organisation most hated by the internet community as a whole.
Apart from points mentioned elsewhere, like:
- should we really care about a million dollar Industry, if they want a piece of Linux it should be the other way round
- Linus' success in handling kernel development is demonstrated by the fact that there are no major forks
... theres also the fact that Linus' handling of the development process resulted in very fast decisions and rapid development. Also one of the major strengths of Linux lies in it's independence on industrial corporations. Had Linux been developped by something like Redhat then Microsoft would have bought it long ago.
The next thing is the philosophy behind it. When i read stuff like:
"In the early stages of open source, it was more of a charitable affair and developers didn't attach a fee," said George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "But the vendors are in it for financial success, and they'll think twice about being charitable while answering to their stockholders."
i see some conflicts with the meaning of the GPL here. If they want to develop Linux we want them to do that under the GPL, meaning that anyone who wants can take all that work and fork it whereever he wants. if he finds enough people thinking he's doing a good thing and helping then what? Will all the stockholders ask them to please stop? Will some lawyers look for loopholes in the GPL?
I'm sorry, but i think if the Industry wants to take part in Linux i prefer them doing it at Linus' terms. If they want part in an OS controlled by a big corporation and saying in TV and newspapers all over the world "We're gonna stay forever" they can turn to Microsoft Windows. If they want part in Linux, they can take influence on the development, by setting some developpers to work and submit patches that plainly can't be ignored (and stop calling that "charitable", if intel sets some developpers to work on a kernel working better with their P4 it's surely not because they like Linus Thorwalds so much). But they should not just say "wow, that Linux is a fine thing, let's take it and make it ours".
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
This story doesn't even make any sense, its just techweb trolling for hits.
If an industry consortium wanted to take over linux, they can go right ahead and do it under the license. They can release their own LinuxByTheMan(tm) version, with their own kernal based on the linux kernal, forking it is perfectly legal.
Moreover, the premise is damaged. Just because a bunch of companies have invested in supporting MS products, does that mean the author believes windows should be controlled by an industry consortium.
Don't feed the techweb troll, this article is obvious bait.
There's an old Army saying:
"Amateurs think tactics.
Professionals think Logistics."
How does that apply to the weird confusion of ethics and economics? Well, all other things being equal, a intelligently-regulated free market increases the standard of living by about an order of magnitude. If you believe that a high standard of living is a 'good' thing, then one has to espouse such a market economy.
OTOH, the values associated with capitalism are one dimensional, with the preaching of the virtues of self-interest and the the wonders of the pursuit of wealth. Altruism per se is denigrated, and too often the most profitable course for yourself is harmful to others. (see Nestle for the classic example) So, what's the solution? We need free markets to feed and clothe ourselves, but they work orthogonal to morality in the best case, and work against everything society holds sacred in the worst case...
The real problem is the Corporate Extremists: those who say the only salvation lies in the almighty buck, and the removal of all evil regulation. Then progress will continue on an exponential increase, solving all these transient problems like pollution and resource depletion. Their god is the dollar, whom they rely upon for the salvation of the planet. These guys are as whacked out as any religious nutcase, the kind that make the good people of the churches/mosques/temples of the world cringe. We need a term for them, a simple one-word condemnation like we have for religious nutcases(fanatic). We have a word to insult environmentalists,(tree-hugger), and even a word for the madmen who 'spike' trees,(eco-terrorist) but no word for the well dressed killers in our corporate boardrooms... just because they don't get their hands dirty personally doesn't mean they aren't as evil as any eco-terrorist... and they can cause a lot more deaths, anyways, just by the power of logistics: hundreds of millions of dollars in short-sighted exploitation
-------
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
email: proprietary becomes free, org to com
Past experience and observation would indicate that Open Source projects of high general interest, in the condition of massive disagreement between factions will result in project forking. In other words, if enough smart people think Linus is screwing things up, or not directing kernel development in the right way, or refusing to merge in important patches, then dammit, they can and will fork and make their own kernel fork. This hasn't happened to any significant extent. Therefore things are probably doing okay. Hell, if they look like they have _MY_ interests better in hand, then I'll support a forked effort too. I just doubt that a megacorp consortium will in any way have my interests at heart.
Because projects developed and maintained by committee are of such a high technical quality? I don't think so!
Linus my not coddle the people trying to make money off of Linux, but so what? They have the source, they can fork their own edition if they have some particular need. Try and do THAT with commercial software!
Removing the popular figurehead who also provides cohesiveness, would be the best thing that could possibly happen for those OTHER OS's.
For this reason, I would like to suggest that future crucifixions be accomplished by a committee of corporate leaders who are sensitive to market forces. While three crosses was a good start initially, I feel that next time Golgotha should have far more representation, say at least twelve rows of three crosses. I would also like to suggest that Ms. Rooney accept a position on cross 12C. jeko
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Do we really want to turn Linux into another Windows?
The way I see it, the minute Linux is regulated by any person, company, or consortium that is in any way shape or form subject to commercial considerations, the game is up. We do NOT need an entity who's mind is in any way dwelling upon "what is the best for the stockholders?".
Why do you think MS produces as crappy a series of OSes as it does? Simply because Bill Gates was and still is in it for the money. Linus ISN'T, and IMO, that's what makes it great.
The Linux kernels constantly come out better and more stable than their counterparts. Why? Because the man who controls the kernel says "it will be released when it's ready".
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Akardam Out
He can't do that by himself, there's too many people using this thing.
And if he quit, we'll all be OK as long as GNU doesn't get wiped from the face of the earth.
--------
Essentially, the writer of the story is saying "I'm not understanding Open Source, because I haven't learnt about it in business school".
The truth is: as soon as Linus would try to kill of Linux, he will be put aside and someone else would take the lead in Linux development. While offcourse that would be a shocking event in Linux-land, it would still ensure the continuing excistence of Linux in the future.
And did I mention 'fork' yet?
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
"We need a full-time leader and a nonprofit organization that can be funded by IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
Well, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It occurs to me that these nonprofit organisations might end up causing more division then they're worth...what if, heaven's forbid, Compaq disagrees with Dell and, shock, horror, one threatens to pull funding. What you're looking at is the potential sanction of seperate forked versions of the kernel...including a lame assed version released for use under the GPL, with more and more lawyer workarounds for proprietory(sp-?) versions.
"Despite Torvalds' technical reign over Linux, IBM and Compaq have quickly become the industry's de facto Linux leaders, and tensions over the kernel's direction will heighten as market forces intensify, experts say..."
These damned, physcic, unamed experts again. Would that be the expert working for Microsoft, or the 20 year old college student skipping all his classes to hack code? (HACK, not crack 8)...and when they say industry, do they mean the Hardware industry? Last time I checked there were a few other companies that held popular LINUX distros/solutions(mind you, I did blink yesterday to moisten my eyeballs...maybe everything changed then).
I think that covers it. Put that puppy to rest...won't stop me writing the same article in a few weeks time, but it satisfied by Linux frenzy for the moment.
8)
Concrete analysis...
they are stupid and lazy in general but they can do good work occasionally--one of 'em fucked a woman and made linus.
They're free to go make their own. That's what true free and open software is all about. If Microsoft or some other company wanted to make their own distribution, or fork the kernel their own way, they are certainly free to do so, under the openness requirements of GPL. That allows us to go pick and choose what they develop to include, or not include, in our version.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Ya right, Linus is killing Linux. Like what he's an over controlling megalomaniac or something. I'm sorry, I got confused I thought I was talking about Bill Gates for a second there.
On the subject of Bill Gates Who cut this reporters/authors check. Or, maybe it's the editor of the publication that's on the dole and this guy is just trying to keep his job by spewing out whatever FUD he's told to.
The beauty of Linux and the Open Source movement is that it is Open Source. If third party businesses want to incorporate their own ideas into Linux, they can download the source and do whatever development they want! There are some great projects out that patch against the standard Linux kernel that are not appropriate for mass distribution, for instance FreeS/WAN, XFS, JFS and Apache 2.0. Having a very small core of people decide what goes in the kernel keeps the process from getting messy and political.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds himself. Windows, in contrast, is the trademark of Microsoft.
Wow, that's a real reason, those techweb authors should not hassle and install W2K on their computers...
has considerable professional obligations outside his open-source activities
He even had the time to answer an email I send him sometimes ago, regarding the Sony Picturebook PCG-C1VN & X 4.0.2., I don't know how he does all this, but in opposite: Techweb can't even write a descent article?
Some Linux solution providers view the constantly evolving process of the posting of Linux libraries, patches, and updates to the Internet as inefficient and cumbersome, Davison said
Maybe Davidson should at least upgrade his approx. 300 baud modem, or why else does someone think that using lightspeed for transport sources over the internet would be inefficient and cumbersome?
"I don't believe open source works well for commercial companies because they can't control schedules," said Michael Cusumano,
In my opinion it doesn't work well because you can't really make big bucks in short time and that's what those commercial companies are after...
You can make money from it, but you have to offer great support...
Nuff said...
Michael
They just want to point out vunerabilities in poorly understood, emerging technological fields. It's like watching the 11 o'clock news, with headlines like "Cell phones cause cancer".
At least that's what I take from it.
I feel safe venturing a remote guess that the author has never even used linux, so let's not put too much stress on it.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
>complete control faster than you can say anti-competitive
Are they in control yet?
--
A non-profit organization funded by IBM, et. al... Nobody wants their feet held to the fire. If IBM wants to make a release, then they have every right under the GPL to do so. I think that the linux community would encourage them as well, just as NSA's, rtlinux, etc. have been encouraged. Why don't they make their own Linux? Because Linux=Linus? Yes, well no, maybe, not.
The truth is that there are a lot of design innovations in linux. Between it and the tools that come with any normal distro there are a wealth of features you don't find on most commercial unixes. To me Linux is like taking off the back cover of a watch and seeing the pieces move.
In a production environment it's sooo nice to be able to make changes sans reboot and get helpful dmesg output, and not have to jump through hoops to get a strace or struss installed. These debugging tools for the developer are the joy of the administrator.
Anyway, the point is that Linux is a gift from the people who write it. They are going to do what they like-- and they're going to do it in an open forum. If you don't like it, PICK UP THE GPL and WRITE YOUR OWN. Everyone will benefit.
Besides, I always get a kick out of these release announcements. I thought it was pretty funny.
"I don't believe open source works well for commercial companies because they can't control schedules,"...
Oh please. Since when have coporations been able to control, to any success, the schedule or direction
of a group project? C'mon, you want to point to Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc. as examples? So be it...
-J.
One should remember the industry track record for creating consortia for developing and promoting Unix. These have been dominated by backstabbing among the members, and demands of holding back technology that competed with the members proprietary solutions.
I suspect some of the players (IBM, SGI) actually remember this period, and are happy to have a independent benevolant dictator running Linux, instead of a consortium.
It is said that the most efficient form of govnerment is a benevolent dictator. It is good for ANY project, be it corporate, special interest, non-profit, development, whatever to have an individual who, when appropriate, can and will make a decision. If Linus's cavalier attitude about corporate interests is 'killing the linux kernel', consider for a moment what a commitee of lobbyists would do when faced with an either or decision with an impact to the direction of the kernel. It is VERY important that this 'dictator' has the proper motivations, and a strong desire to do what is best for the project, so far I congratulate Linus on the job he has done. The instant his decisions become based on courting money from company X or catering to the 'monied' special interest Y, putting personal gain above doing the 'right thing'(TM) we might as well sign the kernel over to George W. and all move to another OS. Besides, if these groups really, truly want something in the kernel, nothing, not even Linus is stoping them from building it, and putting it into their own projects (a feature, I believe helps to keep Linus honest(not that it seems necessary to do so at the moment)), and that is the beauty of the current system.
I do agree that some sort of succession planning should be addressed, in the event that Linus cannot continue his present duties (or just decides he doesn't want to do it anymore.) And perhaps a non-profit industry sponsored group is the answer....BUT the structure should allow for a strong personality, to development in the 'right' (TM) direction, without consideration for IBM's, COMPAQ's, RedHat's, etc particular whim-of-the-day is. (With a schizo as market conditions have been, and are likely to be, do you think a consortium of these guys could result in a coherent kerenel design?)
The article raises good questions....but in my estimation, the title, and the conclusion that linux would be better served by a 'management team' of 'industry leaders' bickering with each other and jockeying for fame, glory, or their own particular interests is just so much FUD.
Flame away.
FreeBSD has been doing it for ages already :)
This seems almost as intelligent as the article I read in a Swedish computer-magazine just the other day, where they said that the fact that SuSE, Red Hat et al. makes money on support-deals, certification-programs and so on will cause Linux to become non-free (both liberty and beer free)...
Sigh... The downfall of mankind will probably be industry-analysts.
Maybe a fork is indeed necessary. But let's not forget that if such a fork comes alive, it is only because Linus allowed it by using the GPL.
So go ahead big companies, fork it and shut up.
They note Torvalds lacks formal accountability for Linux ...
Argh damn, almost a tech article without FUD. Better luck next time.
I read this and a thought popped into my head. Hitler was THE authority when it came to making a decision for the German army. All decisions had to be made by him. By doing so he crippled his army by not allowing them to quickly make important decisions.
While I wouldn't go nearly to that extent with Linus' control over Linux, I certainly think there is some similarity. I know I'm going to get flamed out the wazoo for comparing Linus to Hitler, but my comparison isn't like that.
I'm just saying that Linux might advance a little more quickly if Linus delegated authority to different people over different areas of the Kernel. I don't know how these divisions would be drawn up, since I haven't done much kernel development.
I'm not sure how much a committe would really help matters. Think of a bunch of kernel hackers in a big group debating and voting on changes to the kernel, when their time could be spent better coding. I could imagine meetings lasting into the wee hours of the morning with little getting accomplished.
In the end, I think that Kernel development should be structured like a good army. Find good divisions with well-defined tasks, and give those divisions a lot of authority. Linus should act like the General to assure that all of the divisions are working well together, while still having relative autonomy to do their job. Well, that's my historical take anyway.
Every few months Microsoft funds this story because essentially they want to get another ICANN at the helm. A non-profit entity easily steered by corporate interests via the lure of huge gobs of money. As it stands now MS can't buy off Linus (and thus Linux). As MS would like it, a non-profit spin-off, MS would be in complete control faster than you can say anti-competitive.
If Linux Kernel development were ever to become sensitive to market pressure, it would quickly degrade into the quality we've come to expect from many other OS's. It just takes time to do these things right. We've already seen the first signs of yielding to market pressure, when other Kernel hackers threatened to release their own 2.4 kernels end of 2000, because they (he) felt Linus was dragging his feet. This is not a good sign and it's important for everyone to catch on to this situation now that's it's not yet too late. Reminds me of what I heard when Red Hat went public. "The greatest danger to Linux is not M$, it's Red Hat". Not meant personally, against Bob & Co, but against the pressures of the commercial world that were being introduced into the Linux community. Pressures we'd never had to contend with. And once you're talking billions of dollars, you're basically playing on Bill's (and George's) turf. You're in a different world, with a different culture, in fact, as anyone that has read The Cathedral And The Bazaar must realise. It's possible that things will go smoothly though. An equilibrium is most certainly possible Take a hint from what Sun has been doing with Solaris kernels. Even though they are clearly a commercial organisation, they have *never* let market pressure threaten software quality at kernel level. I'm figuring Linus sees this and will be as strong.
If you want such a project, do it. There's nothing preventing you form releasing your very own kernel, differing in whatever manner you choose, and nobody'll complain as long as you conform to the GPL.
Of course, if you want developers to sign on you might find it a rough road without Linus's blessing, but who's to say he won't bless your alternative kernel? (Well, I suppose Linus is who).
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
I'm not going to argue about whether Linus is smothering kernel development or not. Quite frankly, I lean a bit more to the "yes" side of it. Of course, that doesn't matter, because his system seems to be working :)
But let's, for a moment, consider what the author is suggesting.
Would anyone here trust IBM, Compaq, and other heavyweights with the development of the kernel? Would you trust them to be honest and open? Would you trust them to keep other people's needs in mind, as well as their own?
Most importantly, do you honestly believe they'd make a compromise (in kernel functionality, or anything else) that would cost them money?
I didn't think so.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
I pressed submit too soon.
What I wanted to ask is "Would a forked version of the kernel be subject to the GPL, and for that matter would anything written for it?."
The straight answer is probably "Yes", but I wonder if there isn't some legal workaround.
8)
Concrete analysis...
Just take a look at 2.4 if you don't believe me ;-)
Having seen Linux develop since the days before before the 1.0 kernel, it is amusing to see it morph from a "computer hobbyists toy" OS to an "industrial strength" OS. Or at least that's what the mainstream IT press would have you believe. I don't buy it. To me, Linux has always been my choice and passion. They just can't accept the fact that Linux is what is
I think what frustrates the IT press thinks that the "Johnny Come Latelys", aka IBM, Oracle, HP, et.al. are not in control. Linus is. Believe me I appreciate the corporate support, but not having it around at the start didn't hurt Linux one bit. Nor if they "packed their toys up" and left, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Linux would keep on being developed.
As far as accountability goes, does anyone else see the statement:
as just good old fashioned FUD, or maybe just innacurate. People thought DEC would be around forever, or maybe that Montgomery Ward would be around forever, or maybe "insert your your favorite company that isn't in business anymore" here. Linus said very clearly when asked how Linux would survive if he were hit by a bus that "I would wouldn't care, as I would be dead." Simply put Linux is more than Linus. More than Alan Cox. More than anyone else. Dare I say it - Linux just is. That's more than any corporation can promise.-dan
P.S. Since when has corporate backing == accountability? Has anyone ever won an IT related lawsuit related to suitability to task. If so, please let me know me I've got a few companies in mind.
Of course Linus is killing Linux. He has to, in order to aake any progress with it.
:-)
Linux has mostly been hope and dreams -- a tremendous amount of work has been done, and it has really changed computing, but everyone out there with a real interest in it has a vision of what it might be. And given a lot of differnet choices, Linus has to pick just a few, probably the ones that best suit the strengths of the main kernel coders.
He has to kill off imaginary might-be Linux to make the actual here-it-is-for-free Linux.
A committee would be likely to try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody. But there is NOTHING stopping them from grabbing that code and forking it -- if they really think they can do better they are welcome to try. Journalists rarely seem to really get this.
And yes it is harder than hell to get something added to the kernel that Linus didn't pre-approve, but it can be done -- Reiserfs is finally going in based almost solely on the strength of its code, overriding (apparently) some very political factions in support of ext2/ext3.
As an example, if IBM really wants something added to the kernel they can probably make it happen. They claim they're doing a billion dollars' worth of development this year -- with that kind of money they can pay an awful lot of good programmers.
And if anyone could fork Linux and succeed with their version, IBM could -- although the thought of APARs in Linux is a bit frightening.
The question is not "is Linus killing Linux?" but rather "is Linus killing the Linux industry?". And I say, who cares? If the big companies can't make a profit from Linux under Linus, they'll either fork it or give up and move on to something else. Either way, who cares?
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Taco, Linux is a great programmer, modest, quite skilled and a good speaker. You are named after Mexican food. Please do not compare yourself with him again.
Forking is a nice thing to allow the kernel to do, but I'd be very careful about doing it on a whim. If it can be avoided, that would be the best thing. This all harks back to the whole KDE/GNOME mess. The problem with that isn't duplicated work, but duplicated APIs. Its also the same reason why OpenGL still isn't as popular as D3D, comptibility. It is critical that different implementations remain source (and preferably binary) compatibile with each other. I'd hope that somebody would have the sense to create a Linux Standards Committie (oh, wait...) that would decided changes to the API standards. Without such a body, you get the whole UNIX fragmentation mess all over again. The problem stems from the fact that people are willing to change things that they own. Because Linux owns the kernel right now, IBM can't change the API. However, if they create their own fork, then they'll go changing APIs that, with some work, they could avoid changing. Like it or not, programmers are human, and they are inherently irresponsible. You can't just say "fork it, it'll work out" because frankly, it won't.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Really. Let's get out of angry reactive mode and seriously ask ourselves that question. While the phrasing is deliberately provocative (I really wouldn't say 'killing Linux') we should take a look at Linus' management skills.
Obviously, it's his project, and his perogative. But if you follow the 'Kernel Traffic' website to see what's going on in the list, you'll see a lot of prevaricating on Linus' part. We all know that he's a brilliant developer. But his management skills seem to be less than ideal. He lets deadlines slip, which by itself is no big deal for an open source project, but it happens because he often doesn't stick to his guns when it comes to drawing the line on feature creep for production kernels. Entire interfaces and huge subsystems were changing, very late into the 2.4.0 development process.
I wonder if Linus and the core kernel developers could benefit from the help of a Project Manager. Not to make important development decisions for them, but rather to keep it coordinated and moving in the right direction, and prevent the tangential stuff from turning kernel development into a big mess.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
You are killing Slashdot with Jon Katz articles that most of us do not come to Slashdot to read and that belong on salon or inside or nytimes, but for sure do not belong here.
Not a troll, just a comment on how things have changed over the past year.
This article is too alarmist. I would rather Linus take as much time as he and the other people need to get things right then for them to release too early. This is the way it should be. Where I work we have a system going into production on Monday and the only reason it's been done is to satisfy the politicos. It's not ready, the developers know it, but they are forced to do what's required especially since it mostly works anyway (except they have never had a chance to test it under load yet....heh heh). Monday will be hell for me because of this. Managers should NEVER have the final say on when something is ready. I see Linus as a informed manager. Informed mangers, or managers who know what they are managing, can maked good decisions. I would have even like to have seen Linus wait even longer then he did, but it was his decision to say it's good and not mine or yours. I already knew it was good because I was running it. The beauty of open source is if something's not quite there it's YOUR choice to run it. Unlike when Microsoft foists something upon us in a package update or service pack promising that it's better. At least when you update a kernel on Linux you can keep the old one around unlike when Microsoft does this. Noone is FORCING IBM to run a specific kernel or anything like that. In fact, IBM is helping to improve the kernel by pouring resources into it (programmers).
Gorkman
As leader of the sad world of open-source fandom, the weblog buck stops at CmdrTaco's keyboard.
/. however, is a registered trademark of Andover.net.
The 24-year-old CmdrTaco, a leisure-class hero to lazy developers who prefer web surfing to work, is the inventor and guardian of a technology website that reports unsubstantiated rumors about a $2 billion industry, one whose rapid rise is unnerving executives at Microsoft Corp. (stock: MSFT).
Yet some solution providers, vendors, and industry observers are beginning to question how long one man can steer the evolution of slashdot, and whether CmdrTaco's sole oversight of the site, now at version 1.0.9, is slowing its corporate adoption.
While he's not driven by aesthetic motives, CmdrTaco has significant power over the look of the website.
Kuro5hin, in contrast, is the trademark of Rusty Foster.
They note CmdrTaco lacks both color vision and good taste for web design, and as an inept but persistent amateur guitarist, has considerable professional obligations outside his slashdot activities.
What's more, industry titans such as IBM Corp. (stock: IBM); Compaq Computer Corp. (stock: CPQ); Intel Corp. (stock: INTC); Hewlett-Packard Corp. (stock: HWP); and Oracle Corp. (stock: ORCL) are losing billions of dollars in developer time as their employees spend the entire day reading the site and those developers to exert more influence on the development of a less garish color scheme, not based on a bad acid trip.
"We need a designer that understands why the BSD section shouldn't be a combination of teal and fire engine red. Employees at IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors have taken to wearing welding masks while viewing some portions of the site," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
Some overweight, bearded, slovenly Linux users view the unpleasant site design as proof that CmdrTaco isn't gay, Davison said.
"Linux wookies reluctant to see the site change because they have channeled their sexual frustrations into homophobia. They don't want to see a Maurice or Antoine saying, 'Pastels would be nice,'" he said.
Torvalds opposes the notion of aesthetic principles controlling the look and feel of the slashdot website.
However, experts say he'll face pressure from big OEM VA Linux which is attempting to bankroll the transformation of the inaccurate technology reporting into a lucrative industry.
The slashdot user base stands to double this year to 600,000 accounts, according to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, a Wall Street investment firm. Users are hopeful but leery about Taco's casual indifference to usability and readability.
Shoeboy's recent pledge to spend $1 to advance slashdot usability in 2001 comes with a no-strings-attached promise today, but observers say that won't last if Taco doesn't pick up steam in the form of making the site less shitty.
For example, at the LinuxWorld conference in New York, a passing marketer cried out in horror after viewning the apache section. She is currently in therapy working to resolve her new found aversion to the color purple.
"In the early stages of slashdot, it was more of an amateur affair and developers didn't have high expectations," said George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "But CmdrTaco has acheived financial success, and they think he should maybe fix the fucking site already."
Publicly, blue-chip posters recognize Taco as the lead slashdot user, but note that they aren't beholden to his final nod to carry out their posting plans, as they are with other websites.
Still, insiders say Taco's casual e-mail flip-offs of the user base carry tremendous weight in the user community - down the food chain from Karma Whores to Trolls, slashbots, and first posters.
For instance, when Taco declared Microsofts web outage unimportant several days ago, many posters opted to call him a "fucking shithead."
"[Taco's] decisions are ones he quickly pulls out his ass," said Signal 11, senior director of database marketing at Oracle, Redwood Shores, Calif., who contributed to the decline of slashdot.
"After he's had a few too many, that's when he's ready to check the submission queue. He flames users, reposts old stories and then vomits. He makes CowboyNeal lap it up," Signal 11 said. "Having a little bit of alcohol is a good thing, but Taco takes it to far."
Despite Taco's technical reign over slashdot, Timothy and Michael have quickly become the sites de facto editors, and tensions over the sites direction will heighten as they continue to post pointless articles, experts say.
"I don't believe open submission queus work well for commercial sites because they can't control submissions," said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management who sits on the board of solution provider NetNumina Solutions. "This leaves them open to accidentally posting links to the Amsterdam hooters and shit."
Tech Journals just don't understand that the kernel is irrelevent! What really matter now that 2.4 is out is applications!
This is a *prime* example of why RMS is correct about his GNU/Linux thing!!
These idiot journalists think that all these billions of dollars are going into the Linux Kernel. That is obviosly incorrect. That money is going into the kernel + lots of other free software projects.
And this talk about Linus relinquishing control of the kernel is ludicrous. He has done an amazing job of keeping bloat under control while providing a great piece of software. The results are obvious by the continued success of the kernel. What we don't need is to get some lame consortium steering Linux.
IBM and SGI are free to make changes to support their mainframes, but us workstations users will always use Linus' software.
If he wants to change the mainstream development model--well, that isn't up for discussion. It's Linus's kernel, and everyone else can take it or leave it. If you haven't heard, Linus has made it clear that he doesn't care about the financial interests surrounding Linux.
Asking Linus to change his development principles is like requesting the repeal of those quantum phenomena that (the nerve!) prevent us from making our transistors smaller.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
...the fact that no one is *really* responsible for linux. the day that changes we'll see bigger companies moving to linux.
:-). as soon as internship time rolls round linux will be running my department.
i had to fight tooth and nail to get linux used in a certain bank in canada, due to the fact that support doesn't go thru *official* lines.
i got it on the webserver, but so far that's it. (there's only so much you can do when you're at school
peace.
Odd isn't it, how an article like this, clearly aimed to cause unrest among corporations considering adopting Linux, comes out right after Microsoft names Linux the #1 threat for this year?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Wow, this article beats them all.
Right in the 2nd paragraph:
Why does the Linux kernel and the Linux community always gets defined as "unnerving executives at Microsoft Corp?" As if that's the only thing we care about.
Well, it certainly hasn't stopped corporate adoptions so far. Oh yeah, and I like the terms "solution providers", "vendors", and "industry observers" ...
I don't see the point. Having power over something implies a profit motive? I don't get it.
Which, of course, changes everything.
Ah, yes, the old mare of not having someone who I can sue if stuff goes wrong. Boring.
I like those stock quotes. Seriously, if they want to exert more influence, they can always hire some kernel hacker or write the code themselves. If it's good, it get's accepted.
Who is we?
Well, it's efficient enough to have patches for newly found holes and bugs faster than most other operating systems. Especially these commercial ones (see above). Sounds good to me.
Well, if they are waiting for Microsoft to embrace Linux, they should not be holding their breath.
Says who? Where are the snappy quotes?
Is IBM (stock: IBM) not a strong company, or are $1 billion in one year not enough to be classified as "We're going to be here forever?" Take your pick.
Also, I don't think that anybody is ever going to make money out of the Linux kernel, but on the products and services based on that kernel. And the last years show, that this is a huge market.
Oh, yeah, and one final piece ...
If only commercial companies would try harder and actually develop a rhythm. Granted, 2.4 was late almost a year (It's not that I mind, though.), but take a look for example at KDE 2.0. Only one week late of schedule, which was set in stone months in advance. Talk about being on time. I don't see this anywhere in the commercial world.
Okay, enough of a rant. This was way too easy to debunk.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
first they were too scared to touch an open system because god forbid everyone can see what you system does. now they are afraid of an individual having any control over the development cycle of the open system because it might not work efficiently with their closed hardware architecture. when its all opened, then we'll be free, until then, pirate windows, run linux, and stick it to them. billion dollar industry my ass. I've spent over $20,000 (mostly my parents money) on computer related items (software MOSTLY) and today most of my software has to be pirated because I can't afford a fucking $400 piece of software just for a little bit of use. fuck the SPA. and yes goddammit I bought a copy of doom 2. that damn load scare tactic worked. of course that was 6 years after i first pirated and played doom 2.
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Where to begin. This whole aritcle is just a bunch of idiotic fluff, probably written just to generate a few more hits on Thechweb's completely irrelevant site. Let's see a couple of gems:
"We need a full-time leader and a nonprofit organization that can be funded by IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
Let's see, http://www.davison.com. Oops, wrong company, thats some web design outfit in maryland. Surely then there's http://www.davisonconsulting.com? Hmm. Nope, no such site. Nothing against this poor guy personally, I've read some of his posts on some mailing lists and I'm sure he's done a fine job being a consultant. But he hardly qualifies as a headline-grabbing clairvoyant worthy of pulling the industry's needle off the proverbial record with his opinions.
Here, I can play that game too:
Phil DeBecker, of DeBecker Consulting, owner and president of DeBecker Consulting, says "We are really concerned about the sources that TechWeb uses. When we can't locate any actual company owned by a quoted source, that source's status as industry spokesperson is placed into serious doubt."
Oh, and then there's
"I don't believe open source works well for commercial companies because they can't control schedules," said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management who sits on the board of solution provider NetNumina Solutions. "Software companies try to have regular development cycles. That's how you build a rhythm for a company."
Umm yeah. Because we all know that companies that operate on schedules and release products on time, like Apple Computer, IBM Corporation, and Microsoft, just to name a few, release far superior products that completely meet the needs of their target markets and are met with rave reviews by everyone who tries them.
Oh my god, they're right! We have to stop this open source insanity NOW! We absolutely must give control of these open source products back where it belongs, in the hands of the companies whose products are so good, so infallible, so well managed... that they prompted the creation of open source alternatives in the first place!
Linus does not accept technically weak kernel code. This might not sit well with some of those would-be "technology leaders" who now claim that Linus is an "obstacle". If they know it better, they should start their own kernel project, nobody prevents them from doing so.
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-
Once you have that, you are the master of your own kernel, and you can start a non-profit based on the direction of that kernel.
I think that at this point, the big vendors are scared of forking the kernel because of the old Unix wars and the ammunition it would give to the MSFT FUD machine. They needn't be worried, though; I think most people (outside of industry) agree that an amicable fork would be in the best interest of many people. IBM could take some of that $1B they were planning to invest and pay someone to oversee development of their forked version. And since both projects would be GPL, they could learn and borrow from each other. If Linus should happen to make a bad design decision, for example, he may reconsider if it's shown that the other kernel, using the decision he rejected, performs better.
As other people have pointed out, Linux is a hobby for Linus. He just wants something that will run well for him; if people submit patches for something that he'll never use, he'll include it in "his" kernel if it's good code and doesn't adversely affect other systems.
sigh...
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
The way i understand it, alot of features are kernel patches for years before they're integrated into an official release, and there's nothing preventing an individual or corporation from using these patches. More proof of Linus' open-minded approach: Caldera is developing a UnixWare kernel with Linux APIs to possibly replace the Linux kernel, and Linus welcomes the competition.
"Is Linus Killing Linux?" may be a sexy headline, but it's also deceptive and wrong.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
If the $2 billion Linux industry doesn't like Linus's kernel, they can write their own. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head here. We use Linus's kernel because we like it.