Slashdot Mirror


Torvalds Tells All

Eugenia writes: "Linus Torvalds gives an interesting interview to OSNews.com, talking about everything people are wondering about his personal opinions on several matters: on the GNU/Linux naming, the GUIs currently offered for Linux, the kernel 2.6, his plans for hot-plugged devices & drivers, Microsoft, FreeBSD and the future in general."

525 comments

  1. Keeping up with kernels by totallygeek · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I currently use 2.2.19. I would like to go to 2.4.x, but have too many devices and programs that would not work. Now they are talking about 2.6. When will it end? I mean, one of the beauties of Linux is the development, but I end up having to wait behind because of equipment that won't fly.


    The machines I am about to mention are behind firewalls, so don't get your hopes up about exploits. But, I have several machines with specialized equipment that will only work in 2.0.33. They have binary modules, and I don't have the source to them, and the company is now out of business with no further development. This has struck a major blow in my ability to offer Linux solutions (unless I can demonstrate a non-Beta, long history).

    1. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Hostile17 · · Score: 2, Interesting


      They have binary modules, and I don't have the source to them, and the company is now out of business with no further development



      The first and best reason not to use any software delivered in a binary only fashion. You should have insisted on an open source license for the drivers or offered to buy access to the source code. Perhaps you can find the original developer, he may still have the code, offer him a job.


      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    2. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't want to sound like a jerk, but:

      >They have binary modules, and I don't have the source to them

      Who's mistake is that? Live by the sword, die by the sword, so to speak. Living the proprietary life can be more expensive than most would care to admit...

      I personally wish Linus would break binary modules much more often. That way companies would have two choices: Support Linux properly (via Open Source) or go away. I'm more than tired of seeing "Linux Support" on a box when they include nothing more than a crappy binary module. That's almost false advertising: It should say "Supports RedHat running Linux kernel 2.x.y-preZ only" on the box instead.

      I no longer buy hardware for my Linux box unless the support is via source code. Even then, I try to avoid certain hardware unless its built into the kernel source tree (I'm not fond of patching the source for storage controllers and the like...). Doing that has kept me sane, and reasonably happy.

      I guess that opinions' a little too hardcore. See you in -1 land! :-)

    3. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      The machines I am about to mention are behind firewalls, so don't get your hopes up about exploits. But, I have several machines with specialized equipment that will only work in 2.0.33. They have binary modules, and I don't have the source to them, and the company is now out of business with no further development.


      DOn't use binary-only modules then. If the vendor won't release the source, buy from a competitor. The source doesn't have to be GPL, but if you don't have either the source or a cast-iron guarantee that you'll get the source if the company goes under or stops developing it, your business is a hostage to the whims of some other company. You lose.


      In my experience though, it's much easier to get source code, technical details and so on from specialist companies that sell kit in small volumes, as they tend to be interested in a relationship with the customer.

    4. Re:Keeping up with kernels by bstrahm · · Score: 1

      What are your choices... I mean MS upgrades their OS on a yearly bassis (to almost no effect) first it was Win 95 (and a OEM only service release every year after that) then Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win ME, Win XP... Seems pretty frequent to me...

      As for not being able to upgrade because your binaries only work with a given version... Well that is why you either get source, or go with a company that will keep its software updated (and probabaly pay maintenence on the software as well)

    5. Re:Keeping up with kernels by PigleT · · Score: 2

      The smug response to this is "binary modules? well there you go then, vendor lock-in and all".

      OTOH it would be quite a sensible thing for you to consider 2.4, and maybe junk the proprietary equipment, on the grounds that iptables is at least a stateful filter whereas ipchains was only an approximation.
      "Now they are talking about 2.6. When will it end?"
      Never. Development is good. Taking a flyer and running with something out of development (what package do you use that *hasn't* evolved since you installed it?) is your responsibility/problem/job.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
    6. Re:Keeping up with kernels by cnkeller · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That way companies would have two choices: Support Linux properly (via Open Source) or go away.

      Other than the above statement, you have some insight. I think it's great that say, Nvidia for example, is supporting their cards on linux, even if it's a binary module. Companies should be able to leverage linux's sucess without giving up source code.

      I do agree with you though on the deal with it aspect. If they don't release under open source, they can deal with the API changes or not suppport linux. But, to only give them two choices: open source or burn in hell isn't a great way to encourage companies to support our favorite OS, be it open source or closed.

      I like the fact you are voting with your wallet, however, when you don't buy something because of zero linux support, do you drop a note to the manufacturer? "Dear Company X: Your product rocks and I would loved to have bought it, however you don't support linux. Instead I chose company Y who does. Have a nice day."

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    7. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shows another good thing about linux and open software. At least you can still get 2.2.19 with the source even.

    8. Re:Keeping up with kernels by fgodfrey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Changing the API often will result in companies that *do* opensource drivers to drop support as well. If there's a valid technical reason to change API's, great - go for it. Otherwise, you're pulling the exact same kind of crap that Microsoft does to try to force people to use their platform and that people on this forum regularly complain about. If I were a product manager and got told "you're going to have to have a developer spend 2 weeks rewriting some code because some guy decided to break the API for no good reason", I would *not* be a happy camper.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    9. Re:Keeping up with kernels by dinivin · · Score: 1

      I personally wish Linus would break binary modules much more often.

      If there's a valid to change the API and break binary modules, then I'm all for it. If, however, it's being done to just make it difficult for others... Well, if I wanted to put up with that kind of crap, I'd stick with MS.

      Dinivin

    10. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      access to the source code won't help when the hooks device drivers use to interface with the kernel change radically every 5 months.

      Cutting off all backwards compatability shows continual poor design decisions by the linux maintainers (Alan Cox & Linus Turdvalds). KDE, BSDs, and even MS all have backwards compatability and a sunset so legacy support doesn't keep them stuck in the past.

    11. Re:Keeping up with kernels by spudnic · · Score: 2

      The frequency of Microsoft updates doesn't really matter to the argument he made. He can't upgrade beyond 2.0.x because of drivers that where made for that kernel. With the exception of jumping from the 9x/me branch to nt/2000 you could pretty much use the same drivers for most devices.

      One thing Microsoft does is to make sure that drivers, etc. are generally backwards compatible, sometimes to it's detriment.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    12. Re:Keeping up with kernels by shepd · · Score: 1

      >do you drop a note to the manufacturer?

      Up to now, just once. Generally I can find another competing product that does what I want without too much anguish (especially now! Hardware support in linux has never been better!). The one time was to email DirecPC. I was desparate for some high-speed internet and there's (still) no highspeed in much of where I live region. At that time DirecPC didn't suck. Yes, this was a few years ago! :-) I recall that they told me I had to buy some $300 US piece of software from Helius (or Helix, I don't remember). What I do remember is it was a binary (yuck!) and limited to just a few connections at a time. So I (nicely) told them no way.

      I suppose I should email other companies too -- I'm just a little lazy.

      Admittedly, I have one windows PC, filled with "runt" hardware that isn't too Linux compatible. [Don't hit me! It's for college, they're making me use VB, ok? :-]

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    13. Re:Keeping up with kernels by shepd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >If I were a product manager and got told "you're going to have to have a developer spend 2 weeks rewriting some code because some guy decided to break the API for no good reason", I would *not* be a happy camper.

      I realise that. I guess its a fine line between making Linux a binary-freindly mess like Windows and making it company unfriendly. Maybe I should have been a little less extreme. But I really prefer open source drivers -- they usually just work more properly (not always higher performance, but in a more standard way).

      I've been down the road of products that are half supported in Linux by the manufacturer. I have a telemann skymedia card whose drivers are binary. The company pretends their card is fully Linux compatible, but I have to run an out of date kernel 2.2. This wouldn't be a problem but the skymedia card is a satellite network card! This is the sort of thing that the new IPTABLES and NAT were cut out for. Argh!

      I have to question that if Telemann thought their card was only going to work for a month in Linux, would they have decided to open source the drivers? In which case I think they'd have been ported to 2.4 by now. I have heard of some hacks that get the 2.2 binaries working with 2.4, but they just didn't work for me.

      Yeah, they could have decided not to bother with Linux support at all. In which case I would have found another card to do the job from a manufacturer that "gets it" and they wouldn't have my money. As it is right now Telemann has left me high and dry and I have no interest in ever doing business with them again. That's not cool.

      They have become so M$ified I can't even browse their website in Netscape last time I looked! What kind of idiot sets the webserver to send .asp files as octet-stream/binary when its HTML? Just wading through the broken javascript is enough to give you chills up your spine! (www.telemann.com for the interested)

      Bottom line, IMHO, is that binaries give you short term gain for long term customer lossage.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    14. Re:Keeping up with kernels by bstrahm · · Score: 1

      One thing Microsoft does is to make sure that drivers, etc. are generally backwards compatible, sometimes to it's detriment.
      I can tell you haven't written drivers for Microsoft... There are VERY large differences between 95, 95 OSR2.1 (that was the last version shipped) 98, SE, ME, and the various NTs...
      The big differences are between SE/ME 9X/NT4, however there are subtle differences between NT4 and W2K, and even some fun differences between the various Service Packs for NT4. Don't even get me started with NT versions prior to 4.0.

    15. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet my W2000 video driver works on XP, and my 95 video driver worked on 98se. All drivers from 2.0 don't work in 2.4

    16. Re:Keeping up with kernels by gunnerbunny · · Score: 1

      Sheesh!
      All of you are so quick to jump down this guys throat, but how many of us have gone into jobs where some nitwit before us made a bunch of really bad decisions...that everyone is used to now , or had a purchasing department that wasn't about to let you purchase source code because they felt no need to spend the money(etc)? I work in a mac/linux environment and before I got there some of the mac machines were running os7.6!! I had to drag people kicking and screaming up to 9.1 and literally force them leave some very proprietary software behind. This guy may or may not have made the choice to use binary module only, and even if he did, everyone makes mistakes...live and learn! Besides that he does make some good points about the extremely rapid development of the kernel...how much of that is progress for progress' sake and how much is people developing as fast as they can ??

      --
      "that which does not kill me makes me bitter" -anon
    17. Re:Keeping up with kernels by downwa · · Score: 1

      Seems like it would be possible to make a Linux 2.4 module which could internally load Linux 2.2 and 2.0 modules and forward calls to/from them.

      --
      Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
    18. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this interview was a waste. Too short, and he doesn't even bother to elaborate on his thoughts of the "competition." That's BS. There's too much competition for him to handle!

    19. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Phexro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you seem to be confused about the difference between source apis and binary apis. binary apis can change without breaking the source-level api. so, no work has to happen with the open-source drivers, since they get the new binary api when they are next compiled.

      people with binary-only drivers, on the other hand, are screwed.

      it doesn't do much for folks like nvidia, who have an open-source module layer to load their binary driver.

    20. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not Linux specific, I have devices for M$ that are no longer supported by th emanufacturer. The only drivers I have are for 3.1. So I ask you when will it end for M$ as well. You get them to code freeze for the rest of eternity and you can complain.

    21. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason Win95 exists was so that people could run 32-bit software with drivers from 1988.

      So, yes, it's a higher priority over at MS.

    22. Re:Keeping up with kernels by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      You've got your task cut out for you then! That would be nifty.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    23. Re:Keeping up with kernels by biglig2 · · Score: 2

      When will it end? What do you mean, when will it end? Are the kernel people meant to stop until everything catches up?

      At least in Linux there's an understanding that you can use 2.2 kernels and have a perfectly good machine.

      Keep your machines in Potato if you like.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    24. Re:Keeping up with kernels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have the source to the code in your microwave, vcr, computer bios?

    25. Re:Keeping up with kernels by memyselfandmyhand · · Score: 0

      Actually, the NVidia kernel drivers are open source. The GLX modules are close sourced.

    26. Re:Keeping up with kernels by fgodfrey · · Score: 2

      Part of what I meant was that when you make changes to API's that require any sort of recoding, even if I, as a company, decide to open source my driver, I will *still* have to ensure that the code gets updated to comply with the new API if I want to call what I do "supporting Linux." Joe Random Clueless User isn't going to want to wade into the source to some random driver to fix it in case it breaks. Heck, I am a kernel devloper and *I* don't want to do that to make my drivers work (unless I'm the one writing the driver). My point is that breaking stuff doesn't necessarily mean that it's only going to break binary-only modules.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    27. Re:Keeping up with kernels by fgodfrey · · Score: 2
      I am most certainly *not* confused about this difference, having dealt with it quite heavily the last two years. However, the original post didn't say which API was im question. Quite often, reworking API's involves mucking up the source API also.


      Also, you are dead wrong on "no work has to be done on Open Source drivers." They have to be recompiled. That is work. Especially at a company that has a good release process that involves regression testing after the recompile. Also, just because the driver is Open Source doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is compiling it themselves from scratch.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
  2. Ouch! by RollingThunder · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't mind what rms calls the system. I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid, but hey, at the same time I really couldn't care less.


    (emphasis added)

    Now that has GOT to hurt. The guy that tons of geeks look up to (rightly or wrongly), has just said that he doesn't really give a rats ass about what one of the Big Names keeps going on about.... Definately not what anyone in a philosophical debate wants to hear - people loving your idea is great, people loathing your idea is still something you can work with, but disregard? Ouch.
    1. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is "definitely."

      C'mon spelling/grammar nazi, let's see you in action.

    2. Re:Ouch! by Red+Aardvark+House · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He could be focused on one thing...developing Linux.

      Look at his other answers for marketing. He's only focused on the code. Let others worry about marketing, etc.

      --

      I like fire ants. They are very spicy!

    3. Re:Ouch! by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think he's covering up the issue, he probably really does not want it to be GNU/Linux just as much as RMS wants it to be. He knows the name will stay the same so he can afford to respond in the way he did.

      What I would expect more from him is actually seeing the 'big picture', which he states he does not see and does not care about. I think Linux progressed to the point where it also does not matter what Mr. Torvalds sees or cares about.

      I, for example, believe that _technology_ of the future will become less obtrusive will have a lot of functionality and will be invisible to the eye. The technological direction could converge the digital and analog devices to become more like living creatures or to carry functions of living creatures (a robot police dog would be interesting.)

    4. Re:Ouch! by keesh · · Score: 1, Troll

      RMS is no longer a big name, regardless of what he might wish. GNU has done loads of great work over the years, but sooner or later Stallman has to accept that he's not got the kernel. It's not his, and GNU won't be putting out Hurd. He's done a lot, but it's time for him to take a back seat.

    5. Re:Ouch! by tb3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I think he's trying to avoid a massive flame war. Look at this quote from an article referenced in Slashdot a few days ago:

      "Free Software Foundation founder and major developer of the operating system known as GNU/Linux, Richard Stallman"

      Major developer? Since when? It sounds like Stallman is going out of his way to co-opt Linux (he emailed Taco asking him to link to the story) and Linus doesn't want to play. Good for him.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    6. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Huh? HURD is out already... there's a port of most of Debian to it. Works quite well. Does fun filesystem translations too. HURD does things that linux can't, and won't be able to without a major restructuring of the VFS.

    7. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now that has GOT to hurt. The guy that tons of geeks look up to (rightly or wrongly), has just said that he doesn't really give a rats ass about
      what one of the Big Names keeps going on about....


      Why should he care? Torvalds doesn't have an argument with RMS and RMS doesn't have an argument with Torvalds! LINUX = KERNEL. All Torvalds works on is Kernel, is Linux. Linux is not GNU/Linux.

      RMS wants distributors of complete UNIX systems to call their stuff GNU/Linux.

      Why is Red Hat called "Red Hat Linux", and not just "Red Hat"? To let you know that it's using the Linux kernel. But they use the entire GNU operating system too! The C library, the compilers, the linker, the text, shell and file utils, the shell... are all GNU. Without them, you wouldn't have a UNIX OS. So why not call it "Red Hat GNU"? Well, then you're missing the kernel used in the GNU OS, so to be fair, call it "Red Hat GNU/Linux". Quite simple.

      People have just got it into their head that Linux and GNU are the same thing, because they're almost always used together, and unfortunately Linux is a catchier name than GNU or GNU/Linux, so people just say that.

    8. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed, it goes further than that. By using 'rms' instead of Richard M. Stallman, Linus has effectively said that he considers one of the 'big-names' to be too big. Taking this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, by not using capital letters, he has reduced the name even more. He has GNUeutered Stallman.

      By doing this, Linus demonstrates that he understands the *nix philosophy better than Stallman. Small, easy to type names are better than longer forms.

    9. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Major developer? Since when?

      Since he started the FSF and started writing things like Emacs and gcc, without which Linux would not exist. Why don't you just remove all the FSF tools from your Linux box and see how productive you are?

    10. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Free Software Foundation founder and major developer of the operating system known as GNU/Linux, Richard Stallman"

      Major developer? Since when? It sounds like Stallman is going out of his way to co-opt Linux

      Of course he is a major developer. He came up with the name, didn't he?
    11. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be just fine, thank you. GNU tools make up less than 5% of my system, why should I name my operating system after it? I have GNU tools on my Solaris boxes, should I be calling it GNU/Solaris? How about GNU/FreeBSD? Not fucking likely. Wake up, GNU/tard.

    12. Re:Ouch! by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      Why not just take LT at his word - that he really doesn't care about some issues instead of trying to read subtext into it?

      Is it so hard to believe that he has other fish to fry?

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    13. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [T]RollingThunder said:

      The guy that tons of geeks, not me nor you, but the other geeks (and tons of them), look up to and want to be like (writghtly or wrongly, I am not the one to say), has just a moment ago said that he *really* (I believe him) does not give a rats ass (how much is a rats ass worth? Imagine!) about what one of the "Big Names" (tons of geeks n' stuff but not exactly like the guy) keeps going on (all the time).

      Boy. That felt like the WTC tragedy. Something collapsed inside me. How are we going to waste our time debating now?

    14. Re:Ouch! by smunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yahm, RMS calls himself rms too. They're both good guys and they both do what they have passion for. They probably even like that about each other.

    15. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have GNU tools on my Solaris boxes, should I be calling it GNU/Solaris?

      No, because Solaris has it's own fucking OS around its kernel. LINUX DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN OS. IT USES GNU.

      How about GNU/FreeBSD?

      Once again, FreeBSD has its entire own OS, to go with the BSD kernel. It does not need any of the GNU OS to run. LINUX DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN OS. IT USES GNU. LINUX IS NOTHING WITHOUT GNU. Unless you want to port the Solaris or FreeBSD tools to run with the Linux kernel....

    16. Re:Ouch! by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Informative
      I would imagine that to average users, the BSD components are just as important to them as the GNU components. So perhaps it should be called:

      GNU/BSD/Linux

      Then again, to nearly every user, XFree86 is more important than the GNU tools. So Perhaps:

      XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux

      Now, I don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of KDE, and without one of the new cool window managers the whole thing would be significantly less interesting to most users, so maybe a family of OS designations:

      • KDE/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux
      • GNOME/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux
      • Enlightenment/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux


      And for the purists:

      • twm/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux


      Being a un*x variant implicitly means you can run all the stuff to the left of Linux. The only thing that makes this un*x distribution different is the choice of Kernel. Anyone who doesn't like the Linux Kernel is free to use GNU/FreeBSD!

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    17. Re:Ouch! by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's only focused on the code.

      Almost.

      Linus grants RMS and the FSF kudoes for developing gcc and accepts that the rest of the GNU system is useful in most contexts, but where I find his appreciation lacking is not necessarily in kowtowing to RMS' demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux", but public recognition of just how valuable and critical the entire concept of the GPL ("Share and share alike") has been to Linux kernel development.

      Perhaps I'm being unfair, that Linus has mentioned the importance of the GPL to the Linux kernel in public forums and I have simply missed it. But, if I've missed it, then you can bet a lot of other people have missed it as well and a great number of people are ignorant of just how important the GPL has been to this development process.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    18. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be gnunix.

    19. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fabulously redundant, uninsightful, unfunny, and annoying looking post.

    20. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should probably be one of:

      HURD does things that Linux doesn't want to.
      HURD does things that Linux doesn't need to.
      HURD does things that Linux doesn't have to.

    21. Re:Ouch! by smunt · · Score: 1

      > GNOME/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux

      Ehm, and I'd like a windowmanager in gnome too.
      So that'd be Enlightenment/GNOME/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux/GRUB

      I think we're best of, saying we use a Open Source Environment (compliant to Free Software Guideline).

    22. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Retard, GNU is the applications suite, the Kernel is the OS....

    23. Re:Ouch! by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

      Now that has GOT to hurt. The guy that tons of geeks look up to (rightly or wrongly), has just said that he doesn't really give a rats ass about what one of the Big Names keeps going on about.... Definately not what anyone in a philosophical debate wants to hear - people loving your idea is great, people loathing your idea is still something you can work with, but disregard? Ouch


      That's because he can't be bothered with the GNU/Linux vs. Linux war. He's preoccupied with a Vi vs. Emacs war with a Transmeta colleague right now.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    24. Re:Ouch! by wumingzi · · Score: 1

      He could be focused on one thing...developing Linux.

      Precisely. There was a somewhat longer interview he did a few months ago on NPR. I was a little suprised by his answer about why Linux was free.

      He essentially said that yes, Linux could be sold, but that would involve doing a bunch of things that he did not regard as being interesting or fun. Giving Linux away allowed him to focus on fun things, like hacking code. It was a pretty non-ideological decision.

      FWIW, I think that's good. Ideology is good for Marxists, drooling supply-siders, Libertarians and the like. They're all right people, as long as they buy the beer while I listen. :-)

      j.

    25. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's what pisses him off -- Originally GNU was supposed to be an "Operating System" (in the same way Solaris is an OS).

      People come along and say "Oh GNU is just some important, but small applicaitons!", and it reminds RMS that he ultimately failed at his quixotic goals.

    26. Re:Ouch! by pohl · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you say "Ouch" because he doesn't care for RMS's arguments, but you miss that he's equally ambivalent about the arguments of those who oppose RMS's use of "GNU/Linux". 'Ouch' for them, too?

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    27. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which BSD components?

    28. Re:Ouch! by cyba · · Score: 1

      > * GNOME/XFree86/GNU/BSD/Linux

      GNOME is part of the GNU project. No need to put GNOME here.

    29. Re:Ouch! by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

      No, he couldn't write his own kernel (now known as the still-incomplete HURD), so he had to go steal Linux and build his so-called Gnu's Not Unix (or GNU) system around that instead.

      Major developer my ass.

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
    30. Re:Ouch! by Andrewkov · · Score: 2
      Definately not what anyone in a philosophical debate wants to hear - people loving your idea is great, people loathing your idea is still something you can work with, but disregard? Ouch.


      Yep, I agree .. That's why the worse thing you can do with your mod points is mod somebody as "Redundant". That really hurts.

    31. Re:Ouch! by sydb · · Score: 2

      I agree. Without the GPL, Linux would not be where it is today. Imagine Linux under a BSD license. Why not just run BSD?

      Alan Cox is far more positive in his defence of the GPL. I read the linux-kernel mailing lists (mostly courtesy of the nice abridgement with commentary to be found at Kernal Cousins) and Linus rarely talks about licenses. Perhaps he does see the value of his early choice, but he doesn't shout about it.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    32. Re:Ouch! by Guignol · · Score: 1

      It all depends on how you want to define "operating system"
      Maybe Bill Gates would in fact call it KDE/XFree86/BSD/GNU/Linux, but for more general definitions, a more minimalistic approach is taken.
      This minimalistic approach however isn't as minimal as "kernel" it involves at least kernel and libc.
      If you want to write your own OS and follow hints to do that, you'll be most likely taught how to:
      - decide your type of kernel (monolythic, micro..)
      - write the kernel :)
      - write a libc
      Under that consideration, plus the fact that the GNU tools have a major impact on the OS existence and evolution (I mean, besides the glibc)
      RMS's claims are correct. But you can still tell me it's two and a half when I ask you for the time at 14:23:02 GMT :)
      The kernel is Linux, the OS GNU/Linux, and when you talk about the whole system, well, as you wish, I prefer to say Linux and specify the distrib if needed.

    33. Re:Ouch! by spudnic · · Score: 2

      I think we're best of, saying we use a Open Source Environment

      What does that tell anyone? There are open source environments that don't include either Linux or GNU software.

      Maybe we could come up with something like the Geek Code to accurately explain what we have installed on our systems so nobody's feelings get hurt.

      I use Linux.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    34. Re:Ouch! by smunt · · Score: 1

      > What does that tell anyone?

      You are right. Lots of closed source OSes use also opensource software (even win32).

      Geek code... hmmn yeah..

      I use Debian :)

    35. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps instead of dancing around on the surface with regard to the GPL, somebody here should provide strong evidence of how the GPL has saved Linux from anything?

      I mean, it's tightly controlled because Linus and his small group hold the tarball rather close. Anybody can fork it. The GPL wouldn't prevent that at all.

      I don't see what about the GPL makes it the 'magic feature' that saves Linux from any kind of bad fate.

    36. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome is under a *BSD licence.

    37. Re:Ouch! by Lac · · Score: 1

      Major developer? Since when?

      Roughly, since the late eighties. But you got modded up to +5 Insightful, so obviously, you already knew that.

    38. Re:Ouch! by Phexro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i can't decide if you're a troll, or simply misinformed. i'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and point out that "gnu/linux operating system" is not the same as the "linux kernel".

      rms does not state that he is a major developer of the "linux kernel". gnu/linux is the combination of the linux kernel and gnu software, which rms did quite a bit to develop.

      for a more formal rundown of stallman's position, see this document.

    39. Re:Ouch! by Dwonis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GCC and Emacs are really small, aren't they? I'd like to see YOU head the development of a major, multiplatform, multilanguage compiler suite -- all without getting paid -- Mr. Smartass AC Troll!

    40. Re:Ouch! by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      I am confused. Can you please remind me who started and wrote a large portion of gcc? I can't remember.

      I don't think RMS is correct all the time, but give the man a break. Without RMS and GNU, Linux would be irrelevent.

    41. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Familiarize yourself with quotation marks, mr. stupid logged-in trollbiter.

    42. Re:Ouch! by chenwah · · Score: 1

      I can't provide you with a reference, but I'm pretty sure that I have seen Linus quoted as saying that if he were to relsease Linux today he would not use the GPL.

      .flip.

    43. Re:Ouch! by localman · · Score: 2
      How about this article in which he says:

      Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.

      What's funny is that I hardly even follow this stuff but I remembered this quote and found it on my first google search. Despite that, the responses so far to the above comment have been either agreement that Linus should more openly thank the GPL, or that he shouldn't because it wasn't helpful. No one even suggested that he already did thank the GPL!

      Peace, all.

    44. Re:Ouch! by leuk_he · · Score: 1
      lot of functionality and will be invisible to the eye
      He is saying: lot of device tetecting will be automatically. If you do not need to worry about it it will work. He works for transmeta, a company that makes cpu's that will be/are great for lowpower(embedded) stuff. I think his employer shares your vision.

      The other thing he is saying is that in user_land (translates to = code that runs not in kernel space = his space.) a lot of thing are happening. But note that hailstorm and most of internet are running in user_land. SImply said: he does nto care about it.

    45. Re:Ouch! by top_down · · Score: 1

      And without Linux RMS & GNU would be irrelevant.

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    46. Re:Ouch! by top_down · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think he's trying to avoid a massive flame war.


      Yes that has always been his attitude. Maybe he should be a little more combative and deny the GNU/Linux people the use of his trademark.:)


      Now that would be fun!

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    47. Re:Ouch! by sydb · · Score: 2
      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    48. Re:Ouch! by top_down · · Score: 1

      LINUX DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN OS. IT USES GNU.


      If that is your opinion then call it GNU instead of GNU/Linux and don't steal the name Linux.


      The 'Linux' part in GNU/Linux is not there to honor the efforts of the many people involved in the Linux movement. That makes its use unethical.

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    49. Re:Ouch! by sydb · · Score: 2

      Actually, look at this:

      Torvalds says "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did."

      (I've posted this elsewhere, but I want you to see it in your "Your Info" page)

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    50. Re:Ouch! by GypC · · Score: 2

      Actually, FreeBSD contains hardly any GNU code in the main tree, with the notable exception of the gcc suite.

    51. Re:Ouch! by CMBurns · · Score: 0

      What's gcc and Emacs got to do with Linux in this RMS's quote? Nothing. He uses that GNU/Linux bullshit to create a closer correlation between GNU and Linux (besides: why doesn't he call it "Linux/GNU").

      Come on, he just wants to be as famous as Linus and maybe he's a bit concerned about the Hurd (which still isn't really usable). I agree with some of RMS's points, but that GNU/Linux debate is low. Why doesn't he demand that GNU-thingy for all projects that use/depend on GNU software. Maybe because he doesn't like the sound of "GNU/Carnivore"?

      Linus chose to call his product "Linux". End of story.

    52. Re:Ouch! by sir99 · · Score: 1
      He's preoccupied with a Vi vs. Emacs war with a Transmeta colleague right now.

      Really? which side is he on?

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
    53. Re:Ouch! by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      besides: why doesn't he call it "Linux/GNU"

      Because that would be "Linux over GNU", when GNU actually runs on top of Linux. It's the same reason you write TCP/IP, not IP/TCP. Linus chose to call his product "Linux". End of story.

      Linus' "product" is the kernel only, and nobody's debating the name of that. Frankly, Linus doesn't have much say as to what the entire system is called. Let's face it: Linux is nothing more than a memory manager, a process arbitrator, and an I/O interface. Most of the time, you write programs for "GNU on Linux" not for Linux, unless you're not using any GNU tools or C library extensions (in which case, you're writing for POSIX or whatever).

      I'm not saying RMS has a right to demand anything, but I think it's reasonable to give the cause some credit and to call the *entire* Linux-centred base system "GNU/Linux", especially when distinguishing it from the kernel.

    54. Re:Ouch! by CMBurns · · Score: 0

      > ... when GNU actually runs on top of Linux

      So what? Just because GNU runs on Linux the System should include that name? GNU also runs on Windows, so I guess "GNU/Windows" would be more appropriate. Maybe you can even run BSD-Software on a Hurd system, so that's best called "BSD/GNU/Hurd".

      Great!

    55. Re:Ouch! by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      I don't understand how what you said is relevent to what I said, so I suspect you missed my point: I said TCP/IP = "TCP over IP" just like 3/4 = "3 over 4" just like GNU/Linux = "GNU over Linux".

  3. FreeBSD by dimer0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, sir, you don't follow FreeBSD 5, but there's nothing technically interesting in it?

    Comon.

    1. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This jumped out at me, too.

      You can say all the nasty things about MS that you want to, but they take what other people do seriously.

    2. Re:FreeBSD by betis70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah this one caught my eye too ... he slagged a whole bunch of OSes after saying he didn't follow them. Its pretty tough to know if something is techinically interesting if you don't follow any of the developments on it. If you don't know anything about the OS, just say that.

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    3. Re:FreeBSD by $0+31337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No kidding.. I mean, BSD was out way before Linux (Note, not trying to start a flame war, simply pointing out some facts) which means that Linus had to have looked them over and while not copying code, looked at BSD and other *ixs for ideas on what to include and what to leave out in Linux. To say that there is nothing technically interesting in it is quite insulting and in fact, not a very acurate.

    4. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is more of the project manager/build engineer for Linux than the lead architect. Be sure that other Linux developers are tracking *BSD development.

    5. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMFAO, I noticed that too...

    6. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is a phag, he hasn't come out of the closet with his Linux kernel yet.

    7. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It strikes me that Linus Torvalds is both an ineloquent speaker and someone with absolutely nothing important to say.

      I mean just read the interview. How many times did he say he "didn't care" or that things could be improved. To the former comment: apathy leads to ignorance, and to the latter: no fucking shit.

    8. Re:FreeBSD by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Well, sir, you don't follow FreeBSD 5, but there's nothing technically interesting in it?

      In all seriousness, *is* there anything in FreeBSD that's of particular technical interest? (Or in Linux, for that matter.) That was my take on what Linus meant; not that there's something horrible about it, but that there wasn't anything so dramatically improved, that kernels are essentially a solved problem, and future interesting stuff will be going on above the kernel level, not in it.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    9. Re:FreeBSD by lamontg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In all seriousness, *is* there anything in FreeBSD that's of particular technical interest?

      Softupdates? KSE? SMPng? KQueues? They're all worthy of discussion, and not only that but Linus has discusses kqueues on linux-kernel in the past, and while putting down the BSD interface as being over complex, he hasn't managed to get any similar into Linux last I checked. I'd really like to hear what Linus has to say about KSEs vs. clone() as well. And SMPng is doing some very interesting things with giving interrupts a context so that you can use adaptive mutex locks in them to increase scalability -- I'd appreciate hearing Linus' opinion on those as well.

      I have a bad feeling, though, that Linus would take his usual tack of being casually dismissive of what other OSes do, while not really adding anything useful to the larger ongoing discusssion. And I'm sorry if people feel that statement is flamebait, but I've read linux-kernel and seen Linus behave this way. He needs to mature a bit and give credit to other people's work, even though he might disagree with it.

      kernels are essentially a solved problem, and future interesting stuff will be going on above the kernel level, not in it.

      That's incredibly naive. There's a lot of interesting stuff still to do in kernel development. If you think that kernels are "finished" maybe that is because you're spending your time in the Linux world too much?

    10. Re:FreeBSD by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      > *is* there anything in FreeBSD that's of particular technical interest?

      Well, that's difficult to answer, if you "don't actually follow other oprating systems", isn't it?

    11. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It strikes me that Linus Torvalds is both an ineloquent speaker

      So? Why does a programmer also need to be an eloquent speaker?


      To the former comment: apathy leads to ignorance, and to the latter: no fucking shit.


      You are asking way to much out of this guy. He's an engineer, and he doesn't hide that fact. He doesn't have to speak eloquently to be driven to learn about what interests him, and to share his experiences with others. He has made it quite clear time and time again that only certain aspects of Linux interest him, and he focuses on those.

    12. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, then, who is the 'Lead architect'??

      It's a frightening question when one starts to think about it. Is there even an answer to it?

    13. Re:FreeBSD by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 3, Insightful
      kernels are essentially a solved problem, and future interesting stuff will be going on above the kernel level, not in it.

      That's incredibly naive. There's a lot of interesting stuff still to do in kernel development. If you think that kernels are "finished" maybe that is because you're spending your time in the Linux world too much?

      In the context of Linux, there isn't really that much more to do, is there?

      I guess it's kind of fuzzy, what exactly the kernel is supposed to do. As far as Linus seems inclined, the kernel should provide a safe interface to the hardware, certain conventional operations (like the filesystem), process control, and not much of anything else.

      If that's what the kernel is supposed to do, then it's mostly done and there isn't much interesting left to do. Tweaking isn't generally considered all that interesting (though of course some people are interested in it -- that doesn't make it interesting).

      Of course, some people think more things should be added to the kernel than what's already there. But Linus is pretty clear that he usually disagrees with those people, and the functionality belongs in userspace.

      Note that he didn't say that there was no interesting work to be done on the operating system, of which the Linux kernel is a small and not-very-interesting part. There's a ton to be done there, but it's being done by the distribution people, not the kernel developers.

      I really don't understand why more people don't direct their ideas for cool hacks to libc, which seems a much better level for it. It doesn't seem like anyone's done anything interesting to libc for many, many, many years.

    14. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said he doesn't look now. Pay attention!

    15. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your code in the kernel, and then you are the 'lead architect' for that bit (For example Andre Arch. for the current VM code). It's not like Linus really understands the VM -- he's just auditing for coding style and maintainability.

    16. Re:FreeBSD by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Well, that's difficult to answer, if you "don't actually follow other oprating systems", isn't it?

      Not necessarily, other people who do follow those operating systems might bring to one's attention a particularly noteworthy design.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  4. Linus sounds awfully tired by Delrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me that the more interviews I see from Linus, the more tired he sounds, or is exasperated a better word, anyone else noticing this? I think everyone in the UNIX community would like to see real answers to the questions in regards to .NET, and "competing" softwares. He even dodged the "Where do you see Linux in 5 to 10 years" question. Maybe he took some advise from Steve Jobs and decided not to be a preacher. :)

    1. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by FaRuvius · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because he's tired of everyone asking him the same questions every time he gets interviewed.

      Boring questions get boring answers.

      --
      Need to get away?
      Adirondack Vacations
    2. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think everyone in the UNIX community would like to see real answers to the questions in regards to .NET, and "competing" softwares.

      Maybe those were the real answers.


      He even dodged the "Where do you see Linux in 5 to 10 years" question. Maybe he took some advise from Steve Jobs and decided not to be a preacher.

      Maybe he didn't dodge. Maybe he doesn't have a crystal ball and doesn't care to speculate. Maybe he really just likes hacking on the kernel.

      Everyone wants an oracle to tell us the future. Maybe he doesn't want to play that role.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Delrin · · Score: 1

      I agree. But in that case, he should avoid interviews altogether, since he probably has some idea of the questions he will be asked. Maybe he prefers talking about what he does at Transmeta.. then again, maybe not.

    4. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're likely right that he's tired, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't also not care about NET or the like. He may even not care as a result of being tired, afterall, he certainly has had to deal with a lot of people tugging on him for many years. He most likely never expected, or wanted, to be in the middle of this crap where other people want him and his work to conquer the world, make it in the business world, supply a business for others, or the dozens of other things people look to him for. He wanted to write an operating, not be the messiah.

    5. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 5, Funny
      I liked your post, but..

      Everyone wants an oracle to tell us the future

      Now that would be horrible, but any future from oracle would most certainly involve Larry being much richer, and me being much poorer.(/rtongueincheek)

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    6. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      He probably is tired: tired of answering the same questions over and over to different people. Can you imagine now often he must get asked these kinds of questions (especially the "where is Linux going" kinds of questions)? Every geek he meets must ask him several questions like this, not to mention the news media. He's probably developed some pat answers and dishes them out to eveyone who asks. That doesn't mean that he is tired of Linux.

      About .NET: That's really not his domain. .NET isn't a kernel service, and he's apparently not interested in it. He seems to be pretty satisfied with where the kernel is, and is focusing on cleaning up and adding in the last features that are really wanted by lots of people (like more scalability). He is interested more in the desktop/ease of use side of things now, because he feels that's where the real innovation and cool stuff is happening these days. And he's right :-) At least that's my take on it.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    7. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by scrytch · · Score: 2

      He probably is tired: tired of answering the same questions over and over to different people.

      Then why is he giving interviews?

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    8. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by ethereal · · Score: 1
      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    9. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

      If someone asked you the same stupid questions in every interview too you'd probably come off tired.

      How many times does he have to say "I just work on the kernel and don't care what MS does" and "I don't care what you call Linux"..etc.

      I mean why should he care?

      -Andy

    10. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those types of questions ("where do you see xxx in five years") aren't asked because the interviewer wants to know the future. those questions are meant to get the opinion of the person being interviewed. it's as much finding out about the person as it is the subject asked about, which is want an interview should strive for. in that sense, the question did its job, and i'm not very impressed by linus torvalds.

    11. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      I'm content with Linus' answers to the above questions. It's good that he focuses on improvements to Linux rather than get caught up in stuffing "value added" crap into the OS or get expend energy discussing why RMS is or is not a creating a tempest in a teapot.

      IMHO Linus is on target, if you are looking for a great tool you can build a system with to do something, you've found it in Linux, if not, go buy a Mac or a PC, since you just want to fool around with bureaucratic office software, games, surfing the net and exchanging email with other vacuous individuals.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 0

      I don't think he sound tired. I just don't think he gives a shit. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't. Are you looking 5 to 10 year down the road, I'm sure as hell not.

    13. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Syberghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forlorn hope that the questions will start making sense?

    14. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did he even bother doing the interview? If he has nothing important to say, then perhaps it'd be better if he kept to himself and used the time to go hack on his kernel.

    15. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAYBE he's a big cheesehead with no intentions of pushing linux... if those were the real answers, Liux is fucked. If I made a kickass, stable kernel that even IBM is using in its high-end servers and it's watches, I wouldn't publicly state that I have no future plans or directions for my product. Makes me look unmotivated, sloppy.

    16. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by pi_rules · · Score: 2

      Try reading his book, "Just for Fun.". You won't see him as some tired bitter programmer then. It's an excellent read; I finished it a day after I bought it which is a rarity for me.

    17. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by gb · · Score: 1

      And more to the point, if he did give a substantive answer to the more 'political' questions (like .NET, the name business and so on) he'd find himself being misquoted, quoted out of context and embroiled in half a dozen flamewars. Sometimes life is just too short...

    18. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by downwa · · Score: 1

      If you know a little about the underlying technologies it helps you understand. The technologies of XP and .NET are not OS-level (though MS would like us to think so). They are user-level in the classical sense, in that creating them doesn't require "root" access.

      So, for Linus, a kernel programmer, there is nothing for him to do, to compete with XP and .NET because it's a comparison of apples and oranges. Or should I say, of acorns and oaks. The Linux kernel is merely an acorn, but a very good one, from which Oak trees grow.

      It's the place of developers like Miguel de Icaza (GNOME founder) to worry about .NET, not the place of a kernel developer, even if he's the head one.

      --
      Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
    19. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      In other words, get the Mac OS or Windows so you can actually do something as opposed on working on a haphazzard kernel so that someday you'll be able to get it to do what you can already do with a Mac or Windows based PC? ;0

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    20. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >MAYBE he's a big cheesehead with no intentions of pushing linux... if
      >those were the real answers, Liux is fucked. If I made a kickass,
      >stable kernel that even IBM is using in its high-end servers and it's
      >watches, I wouldn't publicly state that I have no future plans or
      >directions for my product. Makes me look unmotivated, sloppy.
      >
      This must drive you guys at Microsoft nuts not knowing what direction linux development will take in the future hmm?

    21. Re:Linus sounds awfully tired by Maxthemax2000 · · Score: 0

      I think Linus needs some motavation. The quuestion is what would that be?

      --
      No Sig
  5. Switched at birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it me or does Linus look a lot like Robert X. Cringely?

    1. Re:Switched at birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, I thought Linus was one of those scrawny hacker types. He rich enough to have a makeup artist now?

    2. Re:Switched at birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is able to eat well nowadays that he has a job, unlike Mr. Beardy-Weirdy.

    3. Re:Switched at birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wot? Nigel Mansail?

      bearded weirdy must go!

  6. Big Thinking by Levine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linus Torvalds: I was never a "big thinker". One of my philosophies in Linux has always been to not worry about the future too much, but make sure that we make the best of what we have now - together with keeping our options open for the future and not digging us into a hole.

    This philsophy above all others, it seems to me, has kept Linux competitive, developed, and effective. The fact that this sort of stance is impossible to take - or is it? thoughts welcomed - in the business world prove the viability of free software.

    Cheers,
    levine

    1. Re:Big Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue the exact opposite. His technical prowess nothwithstanding, he has no vision.

    2. Re:Big Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to concur that this thinking is what keeps Linux directionless and will likley keep it "copycat technology." No vision = no originality. At some point Linux needs to surpass Windows (which is now achieving great stability with XP)and MacOS X (which is what Linux wishes it could be). Linus is not an innovator.

    3. Re:Big Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not planning is why parts of Linux keep getting re-written OVER and over. If there was some design disclipine of the product, it would have CVS and a committee. But then it would be BSD, wouldn't it?

    4. Re:Big Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could argue that Linus is the only one with the stature to unite the squabbling factions of *nix for the Grand Unified Apocolyptic Battle To Defeat Microsoft, but don't kid yourself.

      Specifically, almost everything that makes NT and OS X better than Linux sits above the kernel layer. OS X in particular has a legacy ball of goo kernel, although in the big picture (something rarely seen by *nix developers) that doesn't matter at all.

  7. Linux on the desktop by gorillasoft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Linus Torvalds: "I'm a big non-believer in manual driver and kernel configuration, be it visual or not. Most of the stuff happens automatically, and we're going to make that more and more common. Things like hot-plugging a device and the driver automatically getting loaded is how things are supposed to work, none of this "device manager" stuff."

    That is very good news for the eventual acceptance of linux on the desktop. Allowing users the ability to hot swap devices and not have to reconfigure the kernel for new devices will be a huge step towards mainstream acceptance, and it's good to see Torvalds is looking that way.

    1. Re:Linux on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he likes KDE. The man is smart.

    2. Re:Linux on the desktop by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That is very good news for the eventual acceptance of linux on the desktop. Allowing users the ability to hot swap devices and not have to reconfigure the kernel for new devices will be a huge step towards mainstream acceptance, and it's good to see Torvalds is looking that way.

      Exactly. Speaking as a luser (bye-bye karma), this is what terrified me about making the leap to Linux (well, okay, not totally: a Linux partition I could screw around with). The average user doesn't want to think about the OS, and generally shouldn't have to. In most cases, the OS should be invisible (though accessable) to the user. This is what "we" want and this is what I love about Linus: he seems to understand that. Also Geek god he may be, but he is actually comprehensible and interesting (in a way that RMS and even ESR aren't). He makes me want to learn more. He makes this stuff fun. End of love letter.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    3. Re:Linux on the desktop by krmt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, this is a major step and I'm glad to see that he's looking to it. Not only is he looking to have things be automatic, but he wants to get away from the whole "device manager" idea, which is what pervades windows. While he does say he doesn't care about the competition, he is trying to make Linux the best Linux it can be, and that will involve beating the competitors in some areas like this (hopefully!)

      Personally, this is my biggest complaint about the kernel as is. It's gotten much much better over time, but once it's really handled for the user it'll be one more relatively large hurdle that a user won't have to overcome. While Mandrake et al. have done a great job on autoconfiguration during install, things like adding a new CD-burner are often done later. It all obviously fits in to his notion (that I agree with) that the innovation will happen in the userspace, among projects like KDE. Autodetection and loading will be another kernel contribution to userspace enchancements.

      I'm just glad to see that, while most people gripe about what Linux can't do right now, the people who are actually doing the work are thinking about what it's going to be doing soon. This may frustrate people who just want a perfect system to appear magically before their eyes (as though Windows just showed up in its current form on the day they bought their computer) it'll wind up satisfying a lot of people in the long run. Makes it much more exciting to watch too.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    4. Re:Linux on the desktop by TheRain · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I think that was the only interesting bit of the interview.

      --
      Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
    5. Re:Linux on the desktop by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      Not only is he looking to have things be automatic, but he wants to get away from the whole "device manager" idea, which is what pervades

      It's a little confusing, but I'm pretty sure that he's not talking about the Windows Device Manager. (Recall that he doesn't really care what Windows does.) In fact he's probably talking about modprobe.

      Besides, the Device Manager in Windows is just a userspace GUI* that allows you to look and see what the kernel is doing with your devices. It doesn't 'pervade' Windows any more than whatever userspace support that linux requires for autoconfiguration would.

      * Admittedly it did more back with Win95, but modern versions of Windows seems to have dropped pretty much all non-PnP device support.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    6. Re:Linux on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as in the Ninja Ant from the Nth dimension? Yeah - I get that. You are so strange Mr Venkman!

  8. Is Linus a Randian? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 4, Funny
    What is your opinion on Hailstorm, .Net and the rest of the technologies Microsoft is preparing to roll out in the years to come? Can these releases have an impact on Linux and if yes, in what way?



    Linus Torvalds: See my answer about not caring what the competition does, but doing my own thing as well as I can..


    Ellsworth Toohey: "Why don't you tell me what you think of me?......."

    Howard Roark: "But I don't think of you."

    --

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    1. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. See the first slashdot interview.

    2. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by smutman · · Score: 0

      You probably mean Objectivist.

    3. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus does all of his work for free, in terms of financial return, and gives the results away. This isn't overly compatible with Objectivism, and Rand would think he had some mental condition that required him to seek payment in the form "pull."

      You should read Atlas Shrugged, too. Rand really was quite a whacky lil' miss.

    4. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Randroid?

    5. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Flower · · Score: 3, Flamebait
      How interesting. One can selectively quote from a work of fiction and apply it to anything.

      And I thought that worked only for the Bible, Koran and other religious texts.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    6. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the fountainhead" isn't an ordinary work of fiction, though. it's not like a tom clancy book or somthing. ayn rand's books are as much about her objectivist philosophy as anything else (albiet told in a narrative form). in that sense i guess they are like the Bible.

    7. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Which one would this be? Do you have a link by any chance?

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    8. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point! From this interview, Linus Torvalds does seem to have a similar viewpoint as Howard Roark.

    9. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Avenging+Sloth+337 · · Score: 1
      You should probably read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead again. When you're done, ask yourself this question: Were Howard Roark or Hank Rearden motivated by financial gain? The answer you come up with should be no. They were not opposed to financial gain, as were their antagonists, but they were simply trying to build buildings and make metal - because that's what they wanted to do. In other words, they were motivated by their own passion to create.

      Now, look at what Linus did. He created a unix workalike kernel because he wanted a unix system, but couldn't afford any of the commercialy available systems at the time. Did he create it for us? No. Did he create it to achieve fame and popularity? No. He created it because he wanted to, and he could. Plain and simple. This is exactly what objectivism is all about. It's not about greed or money. It is about selfishness - just not the common understanding of the word.

    10. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      And Galt sayeth unto his brethren, thou shall not live in the sake of any man, only unto oneself. Verily, I say unto thee: selfishness!!

      Praise be unto the dollar sign!

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    11. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      no but really..Linus' sentiment was largely in line with a Randian objectivist type. Take that and add in the conception of him as a lone wolf uber-prodigy in his field (roark in architecture, linus in hacking), and you have an interesting parallel. At least I thought so.

      Tune in next week when i semiotically deconstruct "The Little Prince" into its roots of class warfare, existentialism and the god-child construct.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    12. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by eric17 · · Score: 2

      Excellent! And there's no shortage of possible Gail Wynands in this industry, although one database vendor springs to mind...

    13. Re:Is Linus a Randian? by alumshubby · · Score: 2

      Hmmmm....to some people, the whole Ayn Rand thing practically is a religion, so I guess that would make her works "religious texts" of a sort.

      Any road, it's a rather apt quote.

      --
      "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
  9. RMS name by Asikaa · · Score: 5, Funny
    "I don't mind what rms calls the system. I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid, but hey, at the same time I really couldn't care less."

    Meanwhile, in an RMS office somewhere:

    "Okay, so Windows 2001 it is then."

    --

    Asikaa
    Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.

    1. Re:RMS name by Enry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now that's just not fair....

      You mean GNU/Windows 2001.

    2. Re:RMS name by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Meanwhile, in an RMS office somewhere:

      "Okay, so Windows 2001 it is then."


      No, that's GNU/Windows 2001.

      --
      Garett

    3. Re:RMS name by TheRain · · Score: 1, Funny

      NO WAIT! wait wait wait... hah it should've been
      GNU/Windows 2001! HAHAHA! oh gosh I'm hilariouse.

      --
      Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
    4. Re:RMS name by discovercomics · · Score: 1

      Cygwin/XP

    5. Re:RMS name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the GNU/RMS name.

  10. Lucky man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How lucky Linus is for being able to pursue his hobby project full-time and not worry about other operating systems. How lucky to have developed his own operating system to the point that he isn't dependent upon "mainstream" operating systems.

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of new OS creators will eventually find themselves doing systems work on the mainstream OSs.

    1. Re:Lucky man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, Linus Torvalds created Unix? This before or after Al Gore invented the Internet?

  11. Gimme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimme a mirror you freakin' Slashbots.

    1. Re:Gimme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? the web site works perfectly. Just a bit slower to respond.

    2. Re:Gimme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? So that you can see how ugly you are?

  12. I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview"... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    I mean, just what is interesting about it? The only slightly interesting thing in it is the lack of regard for what rms calls linux. As one poster has already pointed out, his dig at xp and freebsd 5 seems childish given that he states he doesn't follow them much. Or is it supposed to be interesting just because it's linus? Would people find what Linus throws up after too much gin interesting? The contents of a tissue after he blows his nose?

    The scarey thing is that I think I know the answer to that question.

    graspee

  13. Naming by Red+Moose · · Score: 2, Funny
    The OS is called "GNU/Stallman/Linux" you morons. This GNU/Linux name doesn't inform the user properly of what they are using.

    Windows is soon to be renamed Closed-Source/Gates/Windows which is far more informative.

    --

    Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better

    1. Re:Naming by hattig · · Score: 1

      No, you mean it will be called:

      CLOSED~1\GATES\WINDOWS

      Prefix with a C:\ if you want...

    2. Re:Naming by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      I prefer BSD/Windows 5.1.2600 to Windows XP...

      graspee

  14. He SHOULD care about the competition... by ryanf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either."

    To quote the "Art of War":

    One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.

    One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.

    One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.

    He should read it:
    http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

    --

    Ryan Finley
    SurveyMonkey.com -- Create your own professional surveys
    1. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point... Linus doesn't see other operating systems as enemies!

      He doesn't need to know them because he doesn't compete with them.

      Live and let live.

    2. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by micje · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just doesn't think he's in a war?

      --

      The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast

    3. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 1

      You're missing Linus' whole philosophy...

      the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it.

      There is NO enemy

      --
      "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
    4. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by dinivin · · Score: 2, Insightful


      You're assuming he considers the other competition the enemy. Why should he? He develops linux because he enjoys it, and something tells me he'd continue to develop linux regardless of what the competition is doing.

      Dinivin

    5. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by AlreadyStarted · · Score: 1

      Windows/Gates/Microsoft is not the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy, and most of us know all about that. If everyone was educated in the values of open source software then MS would just vanish, unless they came up with a better idea. And that is what open source is all about. He who fights has already lost.

    6. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you make a good point but overlook the fact that Linus just doesn't see Linux VS. Windows as a lot of Linux users do. Linux just isn't the same thing to him as it is to RedHat/Mandrake/SUSE Linux users etc etc...
      There just isn't a battle there or an enemy.

    7. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by PigleT · · Score: 5, Informative

      What if there is no "competition"?

      Competition between MS and Linux is an invention of the markets, not a feature of the kernel's existence. At least, I think Linus is right if he thinks as much.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
    8. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by SaturnTim · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I believe you missed his point completely. He isn't trying to "win". His goal is to make the operating system that fits his needs. As far as he is concerned, there IS NO ENEMY.

      This is the same conclusion that Apple came to long ago. The game is NOT world dominance. The game is to continue to be a player.

      "The only way to win is not to play the game".
      --Wargames.

      --
      http://www.theMediaBunker.com
    9. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only that, but I think it is extremely arrogant to assume that anything good that can be invented, he will do himself. It is by learning others experiences that you progress, not by staying in your little protected shell.

    10. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [yawn] I'm so sick of people quoting "The Art of War" and "On War" and "The Book of Five Rings" and other military classics in reference to software development. First of all, as several other posters have pointed out, L.T. sees himself primarily as a programmer, not a businessman -- he doesn't define other OS'es as "the enemy" and therefore doesn't worry about ancient military wisdom. Second, and perhaps more important, even more business-oriented programmers are fools if they think military advice translates to any business, especially software. No matter what the Japanese say, business _isn't_ war.

      Whatever happend to that fabled Japanese "business is war" economy, anyway? Oh, that's right -- all those warrior businessmen had a couple of decades of success with their slash'n'burn tactics, then kept going with it and drove one of the world's largest economies straight into the toilet.

      There's a lesson here, one which Microsoft and Oracle and Sun should learn really fast: war is about killing people and breaking things, and business (ideally) is about empowering people and building a stable, lasting structure to create good products. These are not only different goals, they're opposite and mutually incompatible goals, and techniques that work for one simply _do not work_ for the other.

      I've seen this from both sides, by the way -- I was in the Air Force when A.F. leadership went through a "TQM" craze. It didn't work worth a damn then, and "Sun Tzu's Guide To Crushing The Competition In The Global Marketplace" doesn't work now.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by jd · · Score: 2
      Let's imagine that Linux and Windows were in some kind of "war". Then, yes, those statements are entirely valid. HOWEVER, he who looks back at the opposition is liable to trip over his own shoe-laces.


      The "Art Of War" describes much about speediness, flexibility and strategy. These things, the Linux kernel developers apply in large quantities. There is no lack, there.


      It also states that "He who is about to lose his head should not worry about his beard". In other words, don't worry about how you look. That is not going to determine whether you survive or not.


      Last, but by no means least, is the section in which he tells his king that either the General is in charge of the army, or the King is, but not both. And that the only successful army is one led by the General. (The result of the King's decision led to one of his favourite wives, ummm, losing her head.)


      In this scenario, we have Linus and Bill Gates. Bill Gates is the "King" of the Desktop, but Linus is the General of Linux. By Linus declaring that he won't follow orders from the King, he is declaring that Linux is independent of the politics of Microsoft, and therefore is the superior force.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it.

      They used that line in the pr0n movie I wateched last night!

    13. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2
      Linus is not competing with anyone. He's certainly not in a battle. Why should he "know his enemy?" Who is his enemy? Microsoft?

      Linus Torvalds, OS Avenger, strikes out at the evil empire of Microsoft from his hidden fortress. His volunteer resistance fights to free the common man from the clutches of the nefarious Lord Bill Gates and his army of code monkeys.

      Uh... no. Linus is just developing an OS. He's not fighting a war.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    14. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Xzzy · · Score: 2

      Maybe he doesn't see it as a competition, and maybe you should learn to see that, eh?

      Go back and read your Linux history.. he didn't create Linux to take over anything. It was just a personal project he decided to make available to the world.

      The fact that he's maintaining that stance this far into the game is rather admirable, IMO. Weaker individuals would have long since sold out.

    15. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by FatRatBastard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't it actually Jack Trammel who coined the phrase "Business is War?" (I know he took credit for it). Look what he did. Almost killed Commodore and destroyed Atari (snif snif).

    16. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What should Linus care about the future of Linux and the politics of the Open Source and Free Software camps? His check cleared a long time ago.

    17. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by return+42 · · Score: 1
      Microsoft is in deadly competition with Linux, because Microsoft is in it for the money, and because Linux has great potential to weaken or destroy Microsoft's ability to make money.

      Linus is not in any kind of competition with Microsoft, because Linus is in it for fun, and because Microsoft cannot do a single thing to weaken or destroy Linus' ability to have fun hacking the kernel. Linux companies have to worry about Microsoft. Linus doesn't.

      Anyone who thinks Linus should be concerned about Microsoft's moves does not understand Linus. He is not a businessman, or a general, or a leader, or an ideologue, or a diplomat. He is a hacker. Try reading Kernel Traffic sometime, you'll see what I mean.

    18. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by fidros · · Score: 1

      You missed just one thing - this is not aq bloody war, it's all just for fun... ;-))

      --
      Gilad.
    19. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Bollie · · Score: 1

      "Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either."

      Point one: This is not a war. Windows being better than Linux would not cost any Linux supporter anything.

      Point two: Linux (being the kernel) does not compete with Windows and FreeBSD. Linux (the kernel) competes with the FreeBSD kernel and whatever passes for Windows's kernel.

      Point three: Linux should not follow "market trends". That's Microsoft's job. Linux should give users the option of having a technically superior OS without the benefit of code bloat.

      Please take note, all the views above are my own. If Linus has a problem with them, he is free to have one. I believe that should be the philosophy behind Linux.

    20. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by c · · Score: 1

      `To quote the "Art of War":'

      It boggles the mind that someone would read that entire article and come out thinking that Linus Torvalds is fighting a war.

      You can't lose if you don't play.

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    21. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by debrain · · Score: 2
      Then Torvalds is perhaps fighting the war against a derth of good software, not against other operating systems.

      Indeed, Linux as a revolution or whatever you wish to call it, is a movement that attacks very well formed enemies: the media, the corporations, the government. Linux as a movement has no form, but is rather a collage of microcapillaries of force acted on and acting on people who believe in this 'revolution'. Torvalds is not guiding this revolution, it is a self defined and evolving collection of similar interests, both blind and educated, that seeks to preserve itself in whatever manner it can, for that is its only real interest.


      Done Tzu. Try Foucault.

    22. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Life is a war, especially in a captialistic environment as in the US.

      Linux and Windows are at war. Just because you choose to ignore the enemy doesn't mean that you aren't at war...

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    23. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look what he did.

      Jack "Computers for the Masses, not the Classes" Trammel didn't kill Commodore. Jack Trammel should have never left Commodore! Irving Gould killed Commodore!

      I think that rotten bastard should be executed!

      Gould and Ali both are rotten sacks of ...! They forced the company to withhold releasing new hardware, they granted raises to upper management that cost more than yearly sales, and they intentionally did things to restrict the company when sales were at their highest!

    24. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by uncle+mole · · Score: 1

      Ever since the beginning of the system he crafted, he seems to have been a firm believer in "Two weeks in the lab will save half an hour in the library every time." Just think how his contributions would have helped to improve systems that already existed at the time. Oh, well.

      --
      better is the enemy of good
    25. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by iceT · · Score: 2


      I'd much rather use an OS from someone/accompany that views themselves as the competition. There's something very pure about that. You do the best you can do, know your own weaknesses, and move to eliminiate them. If the competition is minicking YOU and including YOUR features, that means you're in the lead. You're the top dog.

      Coke shouldn't worry about Pepsi. Coke should worry about Coke.

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    26. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Actually, there's one piece ancient oriental advice that I wonder if we'll ever see become popular with the business fad crowd:

      "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and "Sun Tzu's Guide To Crushing The Competition In The Global Marketplace" doesn't work now.

      Bullshit, if you actually know anything about his work, then you'd know that _The Art of War_ heavily stressed that war should be avoided at all costs, except when all else fails.

    28. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "continue to be a player"? Right... Every business/organization should think that way. Screw Bill Gates and Microsoft. Who needs 90%+ market share, billions of dollars and incomparable influence when you can "continue to be a player"?

    29. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by cornflux · · Score: 1
      war is about killing people and breaking things

      ...I've heard this on the radio before...hhhmmm...

    30. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Salamander · · Score: 2

      I was about to post something very similar. The juxtaposition of "I don't follow..." and "I don't see..." is classic Linus; of course he doesn't see much that's very interesting if he doesn't even look. Even if the goal is to "make Linux better than itself, not others" as Linus claims, it pays to learn from others' mistakes as they have attempted similar things. The "Not Invented Here" syndrome exemplified by Linus and too many of the other main Linux developers has always bugged the hell out of me.

      In the end, it's not really about competition at all, it's about making the best use of available knowledge for one's own purposes. It's too bad that so many of the people responding to you focused on the competitive aspect of your comments and totally missed the more important point.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    31. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Snowfox · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Here goes - I can afford the karma blowout, and maybe a few people will see this and get it through their thick skulls before I hit -1.

      "Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either."

      To quote the "Art of War":

      Oh, fuck you bloody, and that goes twice more for anyone who moderated your post up.

      Linus just said he doesn't give a flying fuck about competing with anything, only about making improvements. You quoted that very response and then proceed to go on quoting Sun Tzu and saying Linus should read that.

      What the fuck is wrong with you? Can't you even READ WHAT YOU QUOTE ?

      Linus is not at war. Linus is not competing. Linus is trying to make a kernel that improves upon itself over time, Q., E. and fucking D. End of story, and you and everyone else who's never contributed anything beyond hot air to open source, but who want to reframe everything as a battle against MS, can kiss my wet and bloody goatse.cx.

    32. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by WNight · · Score: 2

      Except for pushing through laws that would require hardware to have "rights-management" built in, and make it illegal to reverse engineer that in order to build an OS around it. That would mean that only a few mainstream OSes could run on modern hardware and any attempts to make others run would be illegal.

      Microsoft (and the RIAA, etc) can very easily destroy our hackerish way of life.

      What they can't do is price-dump us out of the market.

    33. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by WNight · · Score: 2

      "Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either."

      That sounds like he looks at the internals of other OSes, but that he doesn't care about Media-Player integration, or IE, etc.

      He certainly has looked at other OSes for ideas on how to do complex things (thread scheduling, FS journalling, memory management) and is even willing to borrow whole filesystems if they are worthwhile.

      Linux is already one of (if not the) best development systems for all non-win32 projects. If you develop a real-time system, you could use Win2k and cross-compile for QNX, or you could use Linux on the desktop and write for your own computer, then simply run it on a stripped-down distro. In my mind, if there was a competition, Linux won it in '99 or so.

      The only way MS (and the RIAA, etc) can hurt us is buying laws that prevent us from using our computers with non-certified OSes. And it might happen... If hardware is required to include "rights-management" then OSes will have to use it, and reverse engineering it to write Linux drivers for it will be illegal (DMCA) and would require closed-source drivers if we licensed the info. That would kill Linux, and BSD, etc.

    34. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Salamander · · Score: 2
      He certainly has looked at other OSes for ideas on how to do complex things (thread scheduling, FS journalling, memory management)

      I suggest that you go back and research both the degree to which Linus was personally involved in those projects and the degree to which their actual leaders made good use of existing knowledge from other systems. To make a long story short, those examples don't demonstrate your point very well.

      and is even willing to borrow whole filesystems if they are worthwhile

      Remember, "porting X" is not the same as "learning from X".

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    35. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therre's some evidence that Medhi Ali got kickbacks from Microsoft for killing off Amiga AAA development. The AAA Amiga would have seen a SMP-capable M68k box with sega-saturn powered graphics for $1000, at a time when you were lucky to have a 256 colour VGA card on a PeeCee. The AAA architecture was VERY cool. Dave Haynie is STILL pissed off about the CBM fiasco.

      MEDHI ALI SET COMPUTING BACK 10 YEARS!

    36. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a reflection on knowing your place. If you MEET the Buddha in the road, rather than PASSING him, then, since you've just run stright into him, to preserve causality, you must kill him, since that is the behaviour expected of you, as a member of the universe, in such a head-on collision with a rather old man.

    37. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... one minor point,. Most QNX developers develop on QNX. It does, after all, run just fine on x86, is POSIX compliant, and can run nearly everyhing worthy of note - if you can compile from source on linux, chances are you can compile it on QNX.

      QNX actually has quite a cool desktop-oriented OS out now, that's the result of a brief fling with the amiga crowd (the amiga crowd later f*cked off, but not before inspiring QNX to produce a hard-realtime desktop OS for media work).

    38. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The funny bit about The Art of War is the difference between the simple, sensible stuff written bu Sun Tzu and the incomprehensible crap that is the commentaries. Often it seems that the commentaries contradict what Sun Tzu said!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    39. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by WNight · · Score: 2

      QNX will run nearly everything, but it isn't quite a user friendly because you end up installing from source more often, instead of using binary packages like on Linux or Windows.

      Depends on what you're doing as to the important of this.

    40. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Karn · · Score: 1

      They are only in war in ones mind.

      Try 'racing' someone at the park who is casually strolling around for the pleasure of it. Then you will understand why there is no war.

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    41. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by kimmo · · Score: 1

      Maybe he shouldn't; He has done a lot of good stuff, and keeps on doing it better. Linus is not fighting a war. And he has about a million people to do the philosophical stuff for him.

      Let the Taleban and GWB do the war thing and let's go to our favourite editor do some hacking instead.

    42. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      "continue to be a player"? Right... Every business/organization should think that way. Screw Bill Gates and Microsoft. Who needs 90%+ market share, billions of dollars and incomparable influence when you can "continue to be a player"?

      Caring about Microsoft alomost wiped out Corel. Now, with a new leader at the helm, they have decided to be a player and concentrate on their target market and things have improved.

      Later, Seeker

    43. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by return+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, they could possibly mess things up, in the US, for a while. It wouldn't stand, and while I doubt Linus would want to pull up stakes and move back to Finland while we muddled through it, I think he probably would if Congress pulled something so boneheaded and kept him from using Linux.

    44. Re:He SHOULD care about the competition... by WNight · · Score: 2

      The only problem is that the US has a bad case of enforcing its laws worldwide...

      Either through undue pressure like the DeCSS thing, or by trade embargoes, as they are discussing with countries who won't adopt a law like the DMCA.

  15. Did I miss it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNU/Linux naming

    Huh? Where?

  16. Tells All? by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I get a picture of Linus taking his cue from Chunk, and telling everything.

    "And then, when I was in 4th grade, I pushed my sister down the stairs and blamed it on the dog.

    But this, this was the worst. I mixed up a batch of fake puke, and snuck it into the movies. I went up into the balcony...."

    Now that would be a great interview.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Tells All? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, did I miss the Ghoulies (or whatever it was called) again?

  17. Not Again! by bflong · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is the 2nd story that I found at its original source before it apeared on Slashdot.

    Comon guys! Someone is getting slow.

    I guess we need to get some of those Jedi Knights from the UK to use the force to help us find storys faster.

    --
    Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
  18. It's so sad... by fm6 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The world is full of noisy, shameless self-promoters who want the whole world to take notice of what they do. Most of them, of course, are totally frustrated.

    Then along comes a guy who doesn't care if anybody adopts his pet project -- which is now the used by a huge number of people all across the planet, and the basis of billions of dollars in development and sales efforts. Hardly fair, is it? ;)

    1. Re:It's so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dictionary should have a picture of Linus, right next to the definition of cool. Linus is one cool cat.

    2. Re:It's so sad... by Prop · · Score: 1

      The world is full of noisy, shameless self-promoters who want the whole world to take notice of what they do. Most of them, of course, are totally frustrated.

      Hey now, leave ESR alone.

      Yea, I can't stand that windbag.

    3. Re:It's so sad... by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean rms? H'es positively overflowing with hot air.

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
    4. Re:It's so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I feel just like Linus...I couldn't give a shit less what half the people on the planet think about me. Now, if I were actually an important person. Crap, I knew I missed a step...damned

      P. S. The preceeding message was a joke. Deal with it.

    5. Re:It's so sad... by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Regardless of ideology, I'd say Emacs, GCC and the GPL have had more impact than Fetchmail and The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  19. Linus is a straight shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing I like about reading this interview with Linus (in fact all interviews with Linus) is that he cuts to the chase. He is absolutely straight forward and succinct. He doesn't wander off topic. No matter how hard an interviewer tries to steer Linus down a winding road, Linus never takes the bait. Linus is a real straight shooter.

  20. Interesting Interview? by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to Torvalds-bash, I respect the man as a great programmer, and the nucleus of a great system, but that had to be the worst interview I have ever seen. Yes, it's okay to be humble, it's okay not to know the answer, but that was by far, not interesting in the least.

    You can't just answer 'I don't care' to 50% of the questions asked...There's a huge difference between not caring, and not having an opinion. Sure, he's not marketing driven, he said as much in the interview, he's only concerned about technical matters...Hoo hah, excellent..But we shouldn't try to pass this off as interesting.

    I think the most interesting stuff came at the end
    "What's that shift going to be? Who knows. Maybe it will have nothing directly to do with computers at all, just using computers to create new life-forms or whatever.. Where the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it."
    and with that, you have to respect a man who's ignited countless flame wars with thousands of lines of code

    --
    "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
    1. Re:Interesting Interview? by PigleT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Sure, he's not marketing driven, he said as much in the interview, he's only concerned about technical matters...Hoo hah, excellent..But we shouldn't try to pass this off as interesting."

      In an increasingly market-driven world, I think having someone who knows to look at the job at hand without giving a fig for what others do with it is an "interesting" perspective. Try working as a consultant for a while, you'll see a lot of "don't care" attitudes around, but someone with that focus on what is going to happen is a welcome rarity. It's good to see `market' versus `geek' become separated out more; slashdot should take the hint.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
    2. Re:Interesting Interview? by Snootch · · Score: 1

      I think that what this really shows is that Linus is a brilliant developer, without desires to be anything more - I envy him! He can just sit back and deliberately ignore the framework, and continue his labour of love ad infinitum. Lucky guy.

    3. Re:Interesting Interview? by thegrommit · · Score: 1

      that had to be the worst interview I have ever seen.

      Perhaps that says more about the interviewer than the interviewee.

    4. Re:Interesting Interview? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's okay to be humble, it's okay not to know the answer, but that was by far, not interesting in the least.

      I do not think it is his job to entertain you.

      You can't just answer 'I don't care' to 50% of the questions asked...

      Yes, you can!

    5. Re:Interesting Interview? by esvoboda · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I found it interesting at a meta level to hear that Linus says he does not care about many marketing driven things. That tells me that he would more likely lean towards siding with technical merit over marketing merit when faced with a critical decision. He'd rather do something "right" than rush something to market. At least that's what I got out of it.

    6. Re:Interesting Interview? by ix555 · · Score: 1

      Sure, he's not marketing driven, he said as much in the interview, he's only concerned about technical matters...Hoo hah, excellent..But we shouldn't try to pass this off as interesting.

      I don't think that he was trying to pass this off as interesting; OSNews was trying to pass this off as interesting in order to get hits from all the Linux zealots who hang on every word of the Great Leader.

      Maybe the hero worship aided by the crass commercialization is behind him not caring.

    7. Re:Interesting Interview? by itarget · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt he was the one seeking the interview.

      What's to say? Canned questions deserve canned answers, or worse, honest ones. ;)

      --

      "Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
  21. Implication: the PC will fade away by WillSeattle · · Score: 2

    One of the implications of what Linus said at the end of the interview is that it's more of a shift in perception.

    I take that to mean that we'll keep seeing more machines running Linux, but they won't necessarily be what we think of as PCs. Things like WebPads, toasters that know Sartre (and can help you with your worldview), bathtubs that know they're full and houses that remember to light up the Holiday Tree/Icon only when it makes sense. These aren't PCs in the classic sense, but many will be running Linux.

    And that will be good.

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
    1. Re:Implication: the PC will fade away by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Just what we need, a toaster that always gets your philosophy too dark :)

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:Implication: the PC will fade away by Flower · · Score: 2
      I can just see it now as fiction becomes reality....

      How do I disarm the nuke?

      Teach it philosophy.

      And God said "Let there be light."

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    3. Re:Implication: the PC will fade away by then,+it+was+nigh · · Score: 1

      [...] toasters that know Sartre (and can help you with your worldview) [...]

      That would be Talkie Toaster from Red Dwarf, who gave us the truly insightful question, "Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted teacake?"

      --
      sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
    4. Re:Implication: the PC will fade away by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

      That would be Talkie Toaster from Red Dwarf, who gave us the truly insightful question [mimashigh.co.uk], "Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted teacake?"

      Well, yes, but I already patented it. After all, it was a Brit's idea. Just had to get a Linux Toaster that had a talking interface and now all such toasters are derivitive of my main patent.

      Ain't intellectual theft ... oops ... property rights grand?

      --
      --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  22. Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

    I like Linus's philosophy about BSD and XP,

    'I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either. '

    It's great when you have developers, that are not looking to outdo the competition or sales, rather just build a product/project. I guess that's one advantage of building free software. Making it better to well make it better, not to upgrade to sell more copies. (Of course this doesn't apply to BSD)

    --
    "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    1. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Smitedogg · · Score: 1

      I think that's a good philosophy; imagine if M$ had that motivation: they might actually put out something worth buying. Dogg

    2. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Nugget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not great unless you're willing to assume that every great idea and innovative feature that will ever be invented in the future will only come from your own developers.

      While I think that ryanf's comments and quotes from Sun Tsu elsewhere in this thread completely miss the point, Linus' head-in-the-sand attitude to the many great and exciting developments that are taking place in other operating systems is a shortcoming not a feature.

      There are people in this world who are at least as clever as Linus and they will continue to come up with new and useful ideas and refinements to operating system design. Pretending that these innovations aren't useful to you is not the best way to improve your kernel.

    3. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's called NIH. What a brilliant philosophy. Sheesh.

    4. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Random+Feature · · Score: 1

      Examine, for a moment, Linus' motives for improving the kernel. Who are the improvements meant to please? You? Me? No. Himself.

      One of the joys of open-source is that if you don't like what's there and have a brilliant idea or want to contribute, you can. Doesn't mean you have to distribute it - just customize and create what you want. Why is it important that Linus do it for you or me? That's not what his goal is. He's developing because he loves developing and wants to improve on his creation. It has nothing to do with pleasing you or me or any other community.

      Rather than demonize Linus for not building what you want or what others have developed, get in there and do it yourself.

      --
      I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
    5. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Espen+Skoglund · · Score: 1

      Examine, for a moment, Linus' motives for improving the kernel. Who are the improvements meant to please? You? Me? No. Himself.

      So, improvements are only good if the ideas originate from Linus himself, no? Would Linus not be pleased about improvement ideas if they were originally thought of in, say, the BSD camp? Your parent poster was never trying to say that he wants to have this and that feature in the kernel. He was simply pointing out that Linus might (with high predictability) miss out on some brilliant ideas if he sticks his head in the sand.

    6. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by bugg · · Score: 2
      It's great when you have developers, that are not looking to outdo the competition or sales, rather just build a product/project. I guess that's one advantage of building free software. Making it better to well make it better, not to upgrade to sell more copies. (Of course this doesn't apply to BSD)

      Huh? Why doesn't this apply to BSD? It would seem to me that this would apply to every open source project, and even some commmercial efforts.

      --
      -bugg
    7. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed my point. I wasn't talking about BSD.

      The difference is that when a new Linux/BSD kernel is released, it's an improved kernel, better hardware support, additional file system support, etc. Often times when a new Windows is released, one gets an upgraded IE, media player, or the way my startup menu 'pops-up' is changed. The best change thus far for Windows within a release that I didn't have to pay for was Win95 to Win95B which added FAT32, USB support amongst other things. Win98 to Win95B was a $79 cosmetic upgrade.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    8. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      great and exciting developments

      What the fuck are you smoking! Name a great and exciting development in operating systems in the last 20 years!

      Shit, Linux includes device drivers in the kernel source! Talk about retro!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    9. Re:Microsoft vs. Linux Marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Consider this:
      • Linux is GPL'd, and Linus accepts (and folds in) contributions
      • Lots of other kernel hackers are following the development of other OS's
      • Linus will accept stances he doesn't agree with -- if they strike him as technically sound
        therefore:
      • It is very very likely that any truly interesting idea (or one which would lead to big gains in Linux kernel performance, but are otherwise uninteresting) will be examined and, if suitable, folded in -- after someone else has explored the idea sufficiently to make sure it really works out.

      Linus is right, though. Most of the really cool stuff happening is moving to the applications layer (and has been for a while). Does "Scales to 16 processors instead of 8" really match "photo editing, spreadsheets, 3D animation, games, user interfaces, etc."?
  23. good interview by bstrahm · · Score: 1

    I was glad to see that development on the 2.5 kernel will begin within the month. I know it is VERY important to get the stable kernels as stable as possible before you release the hordes on the next project. I think Linus deserves praise for keeping the 2.5 kernel back until he has as close to perfection as he can get on the 2.4 kernel.

    Once he is done there, it is time to start adding features again... Too bad microsoft only sends out a new service pack about every 6-12 months vs. the 10 kernel updates that have happened since the 2.4 kernel came out last year, maybe if they could do that they might be able to put an IIS server on the internet without it being hacked from here to the far reaches of space.

    Maybe it is time to download 2.4.11 and get my kernel updated from 2.4.4

  24. Re: You are the loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked the Tao/Elate/Amiga interview you stuck up this week, btw.

  25. Linus Torvalds by blamanj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...the Greta Garbow of computer science?

    I don't actually follow other operating systems much

    See my answer about not caring

    really couldn't care less

    I simply don't care

    I want to be left alone.

  26. Been there, answered that. by Diabolical · · Score: 2

    Jeez... you would think people would like to ask different kind of questions. I mean, Linus told over and over again he does not look at the "competition" yet the same questions are coming up.

    Why the question about RMS calling Linux GNU/Linux? Is this *really* an issue?

    Linus sounded tired probably because he thought:"Oh no.. another list of trivial questions"

    At this moment there is so little to tell about the Linux kernel. Why bother Linus and other developers with this?

  27. Re:The interview by forrest2000 · · Score: 1

    It does??? I still cannot get through. I was glad someone posted it here so that I could actually read it.

  28. Extreme Programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    His stated strategy is the same philosophy as Extreme Programming.

    It's a software developement methodology that allows a small group of developper to create software that is highly adaptable to changes in requirements.

    Read about it, it's worth it. http://www.extremeprogramming.org

  29. Linus: The Voice of A Generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's the Kurt Cobain of programming!

  30. Let's refine 2.4 first, I'd say. by Nijika · · Score: 1
    So what we got from that... Linus doesn't really care about anything but Linux :) Surprise surprise.

    I'd like to see all the features in 2.4 ironed out before we move on...

    --
    Luck favors the prepared, darling.
  31. mirror by cetan · · Score: 1

    Obligatory karma-whoring mirror :) (hey at least I admit it...)

    http://www.necrosys.net/mirrors/linus-torvalds-osn ews.html

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    1. Re:mirror by cetan · · Score: 2

      My god, are moderators dumb as rocks.

      To the stupid fuck that mod'ed it "overrated": learn how to use the fucking mod system you moron.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  32. Re:I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me about it. He had nothing of worth to say. The only thing I find notable is his childish attitude and utter lack of vision/ability to innovate.

  33. Re: You are the loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked the "big *BSD interview" which was also praised by all in the comment's section on osnews.
    Don't lose your interest and drive for osnews, the Slashdot jerks are always around here anyway. Better not reply at all to them...

  34. There is no spoon... by sheldon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in '92 when I first started working with Linux it was kind of cool. You could do things on your home computer that before were not very possible, or very expensive.

    It was just kind of cool, and fun.

    Then sometime in '97, shortly after the OS/2 regime was destroyed, Linux took on this holy jihad. Now it was a battle, it wasn't just good enough to create something kind of fun and geeky, the goal was to destroy all the infidels from Microsoft.

    It was at that point that Linux became no fun to use, and it was no longer fun to be around the Linux geeks.

    Linus has the right attitude. There is no enemy.

    1. Re:There is no spoon... by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      Noooo...

      There is no *spoon*.

      Jeez.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    2. Re:There is no spoon... by devphil · · Score: 2


      Somewhere there's a nifty little quote pointing out that "*BSD's are for people who love Unix. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft."

      It's kinda like the ol' maxim about money: if you wanna be rich, hey, that's great, no problem. It's when you wanna be richer than everybody else that problems start happening.

      Linus knows the difference. It's all about making the kernel better. Not better than some perceived enemy, just better. If we take care of better, then better than will take care of itself.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    3. Re:There is no spoon... by wass · · Score: 2
      Then sometime in '97, shortly after the OS/2 regime was destroyed, Linux took on this holy jihad. Now it was a battle, it wasn't just good enough to create something kind of fun and geeky, the goal was to destroy all the infidels from Microsoft.

      Please don't assume all kernel hackers are linux zealots. I thought Linus said he cared more about making linux good than worrying about the "competition's" products.

      I think the cool level-headed kernel hackers are still around. Just that at some point Linux became more useful and usable, and attracted a larger audience. Then the zealots came in and eventually launched their holy war against the competition (including capitalism). They just give a bad reputation to linux. But please keep in mind they do not represent the good peaceful pride-in-their-work kernel hackers.

      Hmm, where I have heard this story before?

      --

      make world, not war

    4. Re:There is no spoon... by pjgunst · · Score: 1

      Back in '92 when I first started working with Linux it was kind of cool.
      No it wasn't. As a home/semi-professional user, it was your only chance of running a monolithic kernel with mutithreading. Minix was great as an academical OS, but lacked multithreading and 32bit support. MS-DOS and DR-DOS did everything a user hoped for, but nothing the way it should be in terms of efficiency (remember taskswitching?). MS/DR-DOS and minix were not too expensive: about $170, exactly the price difference between a 8086 and a 386sx in the early 1990's. So, for many early adopters on a budget, it was an easy choice. Linux was cool, but there were also a lot of rational reasons to turn to linux. The interviewer EXPECTS Linus to bring this up, as a response to Hailstorm and .NET, but Linus is wise enough not to engage in mindless "mine is bigger than yours"-conversations. At least, that's the way I see it.

      Then sometime in '97, shortly after the OS/2 regime was destroyed, Linux took on this holy jihad.
      Not by choice, I heard noone actually talking about taking on anyone else. This nonsense started with Win95 look alike window managers and some people more interested in political/marketing statements. Again, in this interview, Linus refuses to make such statements. I respect his humble and open nature.
      Linux was, and still is, fun to use. The community has changed, but if some of us keep the spirit alive and pass it on...

    5. Re:There is no spoon... by festers · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it wasn't you who became no fun?

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  35. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

    He's not competing and doesn't care what other people are doing, he's just working on the linux kernel. Why would he care? I don't think thats cocky, just focused.

  36. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "doesn't care about freebsd" is just another way of saying "i don't need to wory about dead operating systems"

  37. Problems with stupid journalists by bstrahm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When a journalist can't come up with an origional question, they seem to want to come up with a question that they know might generate controversy if it is answered, or not answered.

    Do you have a beef with RMS over GNU/Linux ?
    Do we have ground troops in Afghanistan ?
    Have you had sexual relations with an Intern ?

    When will journalists learn to at least ask a good question.

    What do you think RMSs biggest contribution to the Open source movement is ?
    Who inspires you today, who do you see as your idol ?
    What message would you like to deliver to todays incoming college Computer Science Freshmen, what do you think they should be looking at ?

    1. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Give me a break. If you think you can do it better, sign up as a journalist on OSNews and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Please, you are welcome!
      And btw, we do it for fun, I did not go to a journalist school, english is not even my first language.

      I believe that the BSD Interview we had the other day was the best we ever did, and this one was the worst we ever did, not because the questions were invalid, but because Linus wants to play it "a star" and snobbing all of us from really answering the questions asked. His call of course, but don't shoot down the postman.

      Eugenia

      ---
      OSNews Editor

    2. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the one with Matt Dillon was brilliant, thanks.

      Could you guys do an interview with Dave Haney of Amiga fame?
      That guy is amazing, I'd really like to know what he's up to now that the Amiga is truly dead.

    3. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also a non-native english speaker who has a small website held in english. But that does not mean that by doing research you can make an article sound right. This is why there are the translators, who do that for the money. By simply "researching" you can't transform an article and make it perfect. So by calling her ignorant and lazy, while you probably do not speak anything other than english, I think it is at least, ignorant on your part.
      As for the questions asked, I can't seem to find any other interview with Linus (searched on Google) that he was asked similar questions. I found the questions ok, but the answers were blatantly bad. Something like:
      Linus: "I got to go to the toilet, can we hurry this interview a bit?"

      Tim

    4. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by kevinank · · Score: 2

      Give me a break. If you think you can do it better, sign up as a journalist on OSNews and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Please, you are welcome!

      No one was claiming it was easy; but even in the case of trained journalists it sometimes happens that the interviewer and the interviewee are completely out of synch. To be interesting and relevant the interviewer needs to get a feel for his subject; with Linus this is incredibly easy. You can refer to kernelnotes for summaries of the linux developer's mailing list, you can get tapes from the Linuxworld conference roundtable discussions he participated in, and you can look back at the myriad interviews he has done.

      Use those references to make your questions mor e interesting; for example instead of the question about XP you might have written:

      • Linus, at the Linuxworld conference in Moscone last month you posited that using Microsoft tools would never become a tax on computer use because that is the prerogative of governments. With XP's current emphasis on adding digital rights management how will Linux be able to continue if it cannot be used in conjunction with emerging media?
      --
      LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
    5. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by bstrahm · · Score: 1

      Not a direct interview but here is an interesting article...
      Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know

      Of course this took a little bit of effort to read the linux kernel mail list. Interesting start the first paragraph is
      The chances are that you've seen an interview or two, in print or on television, with the fellow who a decade ago had the sheer audacity to sit down and start writing his own version of Unix. If you have, you've probably been impressed with a polite and self-assured young man who was probably giving rote answers to the same questions that are asked in every interview.

      Hmmm... seems to backup my point, maybe it is a time for a slash interview and see what the /. crowd can come up with

    6. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by rking · · Score: 2

      Linus, at the Linuxworld conference in Moscone last month you posited that using Microsoft tools would never become a tax on computer use because that is the prerogative of governments. With XP's current emphasis on adding digital rights management how will Linux be able to continue if it cannot be used in conjunction with emerging media?

      Answer : I don't really care about emerging media and never look at it.

    7. Re:Problems with stupid journalists by kevinank · · Score: 2

      Possibly, but then you would have a follow-up question to probe the answer. Are multimedia applications simply unimportant for Linux, or have you changed your mind re: the government backing free trade .v. microsoft. Linus wasn't being obstinate in the interview, he just wasn't answering questions that weren't interesting -- this approach ties the question back to his own previously stated beliefs, and there are few people so jaded they won't jump to defend something they've previously said.

      --
      LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
  38. Not interesting... by joestar · · Score: 2

    I don't understand why this interview has been posted on Slashdot. There is really nothing much to eat here. No news or old news. Am I alone to think that way?

    1. Re:Not interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

  39. He obviously doesn't want to be interviewed by xant · · Score: 2

    Linus isn't trying to pass himself off as interesting. If anything he seems to be actively discouraging these sorts of things, and furthermore he's doing so for the right reason: "I'm not interesting, the code and the philosophy behind it and what you do with it are interesting."

    Very...Buddhist, I think.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  40. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jesus christ, the slightest mention of *BSD in an article about linux, and all they zealots have their panties in a knot.

    a little defensive, eh?

  41. Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad you did not copy their "TABLE WIDTH=765" stuff. It kind of sucks unless you happen to use a browsing window of exactly that width.

    The printer friendly version is ok, though.

  42. It isn't about competition... by gosand · · Score: 1
    Your quotes make sense only if there is an enemy. If there is no "enemy" then the whole argument collapses. Linus has no enemies - he just does what he does.

    Read his book, you really get the idea that he doesn't really care about all the hoo-hah. He just wanted to make a great OS, simply to do it.

    Personally, I love his philosophy. He doesn't try to tell everyone else how things should be, he just does them the way he sees fit.

    --
    Down with Monopolies , down with the DMCA - more at Pounding Sand

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  43. Translation #9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux hadn't been desktop ready and still hasn't without the patches.

  44. Maybe you should read it. by neo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.

    -=-=-

    The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless.

    If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.

  45. Don't be so hard on Larry by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    He may be greedy, but at least he's good entertainment, not dull like ol' Bill here.

    And he certainly has some fun with his money.

    Not that I'm about to buy a 32-processor license from him, mind.

    D

    1. Re:Don't be so hard on Larry by kubrick · · Score: 1

      The man for entertainment is Balmer.

      I guess it depends what you find entertaining -- Larry is "kooky", while Steve B. is just plain *weird*. I'd want some serious hallucinogens before sitting in a crowd watching him doing the Monkeydance...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    2. Re:Don't be so hard on Larry by Delrin · · Score: 1

      I though McNealy was the entertainer. ;-p

  46. Choice in Vendors by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Informative
    DOn't use binary-only modules then. If the vendor won't release the source, buy from a competitor.


    I will remember that in the future. However, that is like saying you won't buy a car unless it is American made. There is no such animal -- and so you have no choice. It is like saying I won't buy gasoline unless it is safe for the environment -- guess you will be biking. I was forced to put up with what options were available. Companies purchase things and only later find out how restrictive the vendor is -- by then it is too late.

  47. Worthy? by Satai · · Score: 2

    I read this interview after it was posted on Newsforge, and really, it doesn't say much. The only major thing I gleaned was that Linus plans to open 2.5 sometime this month, and that he's hoping to stabilize it rather than add any 'new paradigms.'

    Honestly, he talks about Windows and FreeBSD not to comment but to dismiss - he briefly adds that their new features "don't interest him," but really it's not very much info.

  48. Not tired, wiser... by albat0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linus have just said exactly the right things. I mean, why Linus would known where Linux will be in 5 to 10 years? I think that if you've had asked him that question when he started Linux first, he would have had an answer like in this interview... surely he want Linux to become great and liked by many people, but I just don't think that it's what he want the most. Like he said, he want Linux to be better than Linux, that's all, and that is great!

    Stop willing to be better than the others, and just improve yourself to be better than yourself, and then look around you to see where you are, you'll be the best. By just looking around first, you miss the chance to see what you can do...

    That said, it was a great interview, at least to me!

  49. this frightens me by scrytch · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Linus Torvalds: I personally really like our filesystem layer, and in general the "core" code is in pretty good shape

    *cough* .. the filesystem layer with no support for stackable vnodes (or vnodes at all) or userspace filesystems, that requires you to edit The Giant Union From Hell and recompile, and uses void* casts all over the place? That filesystem layer?

    I could also go on about the "core" code of the VM layer, but AA may finally have whipped that into shape...

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    1. Re:this frightens me by XPulga · · Score: 1
      *cough* .. the filesystem layer with no support for stackable vnodes (or vnodes at all) or userspace filesystems, that requires you to edit The Giant Union From Hell and recompile, and uses void* casts all over the place? That filesystem layer?

      Yes, that filesystem. The one that works fine, fast and is well-understood. People who care about particular language constructs such as pointer typecasting are currently busy trying to develop the Hurd kernel. Their motto ? "17 years and we still haven't delivered the modern operating system thing".

    2. Re:this frightens me by Baki · · Score: 2

      Well, it might be that he simply doesn't know that it could be better:

      Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either.

      So he doesn't follow FreeBSD much, but doesn't see anything very interesting? The filesystem and VM at least could take a look at FreeBSD. Rik van Riel had contact with some of the FreeBSD developers, but he seems to have fallen out of grace with Linus...

  50. We don't need another hero by Queer+Boy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    we don't need to know the way home.

    I have to admit that I haven't been following Linus's interviews too closely as of late, but I do remember reading in 1996 or 1997 (when I first tried to install Linux) about why he created it; he did it for himself.

    He wanted UNIX for his PC because he thought DOS was crappy.

    He had a lot of people appreciate his idea and even make him a Geek Icon. Hey that's pretty exciting stuff for a young geek to have lots of other geeks look at you in awe.

    Eventually the reality of what you are doing sets in. It's not a hobby anymore and you are not doing it for yourself anymore. People depend on you to run their businesses, they want you to lead an OS holy war, so to speak.

    Eventually you either let the crowd push you to insanity, or you have to decide not to care what everyone is screaming at you, and you have to remember why you started all of it in the first place.

    Linus is right, though, he shouldn't really be caring much what everyone else is doing. Linux should be it's own product and not the "me too" product that it has become.

    --
    Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    1. Re:We don't need another hero by CvD · · Score: 1

      This kinda reminds me of Paul Muad'dib, in Dune. He creates this holy war, but then it goes out of control and lots of people look up to him and depend on him and ... well, it just seems somewhat similar.

    2. Re:We don't need another hero by oscarm · · Score: 1

      Is this what people want: (for Dune fans...)

      God created linux to train the faithful...

      So Paul Mua'dib = LT
      therefore the Baron = BG

    3. Re:We don't need another hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >therefore the Baron = BG

      But then Steve Ballmer would have to be Piter DeVries.

      And he's way too much of a sweating lardarse to fill that role. (Developers! Developers! *squeek*)

      And Bush couldn't be emperor, he has no power, he's bought and paid for.

    4. Re:We don't need another hero by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      Is BG old enough to be LT's grandfather?

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    5. Re:We don't need another hero by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Is BG old enough to be LT's grandfather?

      I don't think so... but this just means that Microsoft Research has been secretly working on a time machine! That must have been the first trial, otherwise they probably would have produced something truly innovative by now... even if they had to steal it from the citizens of 2120. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  51. Wasn't that a cold shower!? by Publicus · · Score: 1

    Brrr. I think that's what is neccessary in creating a good operating system though. I followed that link hoping to get excited about the future but instead I'm more calmed about it, and to be honest I prefer calm. I like the fact that hot plugging is going to get better - I think that's important. It sounds like Linux is only going to get better, and not move into anything stupid.

    --

    My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

  52. maybe readers should send list of questions by guest12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    since they are clued in they'll ask good questions and hopefully stop moaning abt clueless hacks.

  53. So he annoys the faithful by proving himself morta by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So he annoys the faithful by proving himself a mortal?

    I never had the misconception he was out to slay the evil Microsoft or other such competitors. He has always been "the author of Linux", nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

    This interview simply confirms it, he really is just trying to make it better. He isn't at WAR with anyone, he isn't into that grandstanding.

    Maybe a few people here could take a lesson from his interview. Then, maybe you might know what it is all about.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  54. And you sir, are an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I'm sure twenty others have just pointed out, there *IS* *NO* *COMPETITION*.

    Only in the eyes of zealous morons does Linux have 'competition'.

    Who are we competing with? Windows, pray tell? Erm - no. *BSD? Erm, not really. Commercial Unixes? That's a bit of a stretch.

    Someone get this man a clue, and take away his Zealot ID, informing him Linux = about hacking and fun? :P

  55. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by Nugget · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's perceived as "cocky" because it's just another way of saying: "I'm the only one capable of coming up with good ideas."

  56. userspace filesystems by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    yes it does, see coda for example.

    void * : linus definitely frowns upon these, and show me where in the VFS api things are not properly typed.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  57. nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There wasn't a shred of new information in this interview. It was funny seeing him ignore RMS, but other than that, it was a waste of time to read. Has slashdot become like The Enquirer? Print a story because it has something to do with someone famous rather than it has any content/merit?

    A coward

  58. You gotta love the focus. by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You gotta love the focus.

    Linus on the competition:
    I don't actually follow other operating systems much.

    Linus on .Net, Hailstorm and other M$ attempts at digital domination:
    See my answer about not caring what the competition does

    Linus on Linux vs GNU/Linux:
    I don't mind what rms calls the system...I really couldn't care less.

    Linus on the marketing of Linux in the years to come:
    I don't use a marketing eye, I simply don't care.

    Linus rules the kernel, and the kernel is good. His ability to avoid distraction, rhetoric and bullshit is highly commendable.

    Of course if we all had that kind of focus then slashdot wouldn't have any comments, now would it?

    --
    m00.
    1. Re:You gotta love the focus. by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful


      His ability to avoid distraction, rhetoric and bullshit is highly commendable.

      He doesn't care what RMS calls it...

      ...but he thinks his reasons for doing so are invalid.

      He doesn't follow other operating systems development...

      ...but he finds Windows XP and FreeBSD uninteresting on a technical level. Guess he DOES follow them to a certain extent.

      Sounds to me like he DOES care about these things.

    2. Re:You gotta love the focus. by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Hmm, I don't know if the "focus" is a good thing. Particularly the thing about following other operating systems. It is rather thick-headed to believe that the Linux project can come up with all the good ideas. When one sees how much of the kernel design is based on other OSs (for example the SunOS slab allocator, the FreeBSD VM subsystem, etc) it is quite obvious that other OSs have good ideas too. By not following other operating systems, Linus does himself a disservice, because he could be learning something useful. He once made a point on a mailing list thread that Linux shouldn't do something simply because another OS does it. While this is very true, it glosses over the subtlty that, if another OS does something well a certain way, it is worth considering the design before trying to make up your own.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  59. Ahhhh! by TheRain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Es Interesante!

    --
    Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
  60. what I want to know... by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, anyone been working on using computers to create new lifeforms?

    Linus, at the end of the interview:

    The next "revolution" is going to be the same thing - not about the technology itself being revolutionary, but a shift in how you look at it and how you use it.

    What's that shift going to be? Who knows. Maybe it will have nothing directly to do with computers at all, just using computers to create new life-forms or whatever..


    --
    -- dR.fuZZo
    1. Re:what I want to know... by poopyhead · · Score: 1

      Of course!

      Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment, but he said indirectly using computers to create new life-forms.

      I understood that to mean people using computers to do the research / computation involved with doing things like cloning. He didn't say a new _unique_ lifeform, just new... And of course, that sort of work is being done pretty extensively nowadays.

      He could also be referring to AI of sorts as well, although I guess computers would be directly involved with that.. :)

      --


      Wes - Crazy like a fox.
    2. Re:what I want to know... by Ira-Waru · · Score: 1

      So, anyone been working on using computers to create new lifeforms?

      Yes.

      --
      Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing - Pythagoras
    3. Re:what I want to know... by Kitanin · · Score: 1
      So, anyone been working on using computers to create new lifeforms?

      Well, I have been trying to seduce women with my 733t 5ki775, but so far it's not working...

      --


      Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
  61. Tells All ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, he has no opinions. Quite frankly, I looked up to him as most geeks do until I read his book. The book was boring and uninterresting and so was this interview. Why claim he is answering all the big questions when he dodged every last one of them ?

  62. Flame on, baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you haven't read the "agreement" at the bottom of the page. It says: "Reproduction of stories by OSNews is granted only if credit is given to OSNews.com" I think that applies here.

    1. Re:Flame on, baby! by raz16 · · Score: 1

      Well, I just cannot see any reproduction part in this and I think a summary is not reproducing enough to let this agreement work here.

  63. Burn out? by pschmied · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Man, I really got a sense of burn-out in this message.

    I worry about Linus and also Linux. I feel like Linus is trying to disassociate himself from Linux because he has two dynamics at work inside him.

    1. Linus realizes that he really is the leader of a large and idealistic movement, and would like to see the Good Things(tm) keep rolling.

    2. Linus either feels that he is not the man to lead, or he realizes that he cannot be the leader forever.

    His reaction is unfortunate. If he really does want things to keep rolling, he needs to provide for a sustainable method of succession of power.

    Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.

    Human knowledge is libre is not so much a radical notion, but its particular application to technology is very radical--bordering on the spiritual.

    Look at all the major world religions. They have all suffered at some point due to the schisms created by lack of smooth power succession. These problems are inherent to systems where there is one guru.

    I hope I'm not decending into troll territory here, but the FreeBSD core team idea is a very good one. There are no succession problems, and the team seems to deal well with changes in staff despite the smaller numbers of people working on the project.


    -Peter

    1. Re:Burn out? by tonywong · · Score: 1

      I think you should fill out that U.K. census along with the Jedi Knights. :)

    2. Re:Burn out? by knife_in_winter · · Score: 1

      You'd give off an impression of burn out too, if people kept asking you the same fscking questions over and over and over.

      I don't know how many times people have asked Linus his opinion on the the whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux debacle. He always answers the same way; and it is always "I couldn't care less".

      --

      Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
    3. Re:Burn out? by kindbud · · Score: 2

      I worry about Linus and also Linux. I feel like Linus is trying to disassociate himself from Linux because he has two dynamics at work inside him.

      1. Linus realizes that he really is the leader of a large and idealistic movement, and would like to see the Good Things(tm) keep rolling.

      2. Linus either feels that he is not the man to lead, or he realizes that he cannot be the leader forever.


      3. Linus never wanted to lead, and is trying now to gently discourage people from seeing him as a leader. If you don't get the hint, he will soon have to resort to Shatner-like get-a-life outbursts aimed at his would-be followers...

      Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.

      Human knowledge is libre is not so much a radical notion, but its particular application to technology is very radical--bordering on the spiritual.


      ...starting with you, personally. Geezus. It's a piece of code, not a holy book.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    4. Re:Burn out? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      I worry about Linus and also Linux

      Well, Linus, he's just this guy, you know?

      And as for Linux, well after the whole 2.4.10 VM debacle it seems like Linus is what's fucking things up. Seems like about time he should retire.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Burn out? by GypC · · Score: 2

      My God...

      The high moderation of this comment has made it clear to me just how many Slashdot readers really need to "get a life" (in the immortal words of Bill Shatner.)

  64. Torvalds isn't a philosopher by extrasolar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Plato: Linus, do you agree there is a human nature?

    Torvalds: You know, I could care less. I don't think anything is going to really change if we discover there is indeed a human nature.

    Hobbes: But surely you must account that people do what they do to serve their own ends?

    Torvalds: Again, see my answer to human nature. It just doesn't matter to me.

    [end philosopher round robin]

    The thing is that there is an incredible difference between Torvalds and Stallman. Torvalds told us he isn't a big thinker. Stallman is. Insert Stallman in the above conversation he would definitely give the big thinkers something to argue about.

    The reason there so much more contraversy over Stallman than Torvalds is because Stallman allows us to disagree with him. You can't disagree with Torvalds point of view because he doesn't have one. Stallman's view of human nature is directly involved in what we consider today free software. Just like the US Fathers of Constitution view of democracy is directly involved in what is today the United States.

    I argue that those of you tuned to your computing terminals without thinking of the big picture--the so called pragmatists--that you have no way of arguing against those who do. And I plead you to not argue when you really don't know what you are talking about.

    1. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by On+Lawn · · Score: 3, Funny

      You said it, Stallman gives things for people to argue about. Linus just gets things done.

    2. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hobbes? A big thinker? Ha! The only reason anyone bothers with Hobbes is so that they can study the reactions by intelligent people such as Locke to his work. That, and the fact that someone named a cartoon tiger after him.

    3. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Torvalds: You know, I could care less.

      It's "I couldn't care less." "I could care less" means that you care at least a little now, as if it's possible in the future to care even less.

    4. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

      The thing is that there is an incredible difference between Torvalds and Stallman. Torvalds told us he isn't a big thinker. Stallman is. Insert Stallman in the above conversation he would definitely give the big thinkers something to argue about.


      But Stallman would have been a more interesting interview (although he probably wouldn't say anything most of us hadn't already heard). So, if you're OSNews, and you do an interview, who do you pick? LT: "I don't really care; I don't know; I don't look". RMS: Passion and fire about GPL and GNU and liberty and source code and on and on. OSNews picked Linus, a rather prosaic interview. Not that that's bad, though. I already know what rms would have said, anyway. What Linus said was new to me.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    5. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could care less, but to do so would mean making more of an effort, something which I feel the matter does not deserve.

    6. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by redcliffe · · Score: 0

      The main thing is that RMS only rants and gets his name out there, where Linus Torvalds actually does something.....

    7. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by sydb · · Score: 2

      But the point was, sometimes you need to argue, sometimes you need to know what's the best thing to do before you just get it done.

      Torvalds has his place, as a first class engineer and leader of engineers. Stallman has his place as a first class visionary. Sometimes his presentation gets screwed up but that's because he assumes his audience are reasonably intelligent, which they frequently are not. That is not meant as an attack on you.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    8. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Your right, those who argue don't know what to do.

    9. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      And since we're all sitting here typing into our web browsers instead of text editors, I guess that makes us Stallmanites. ;-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason people deal with hobbes is because that's where the OS/2 software is.

    11. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Oh but emacs (pronounced with a capitol G) *is* a browser and a text editor, and a phsychiatrist....

    12. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by extrasolar · · Score: 2

      Stallman types into text editors too! In fact, he wrote one. I don't know if you've heard of it but its called emacs and is pretty good. If you've not heard of it, you're not much of a geek.

    13. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Dwonis · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're surprised that Linus doesn't care about something??

    14. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by ignavus · · Score: 1

      You can't disagree with Torvalds point of view because he doesn't have one

      I disagree

      I think you can't disagree with him because he refuses to argue - he has a view about things, but he is more interested in doing than talking.

      His views on GPL? He put the kernel, his baby, under it.

      His views about Windows? He uses and develops Linux.

      Commercial exploitation? He gives his work away.

      He speaks by his actions. Volumes.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    15. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2


      Pinky: Linus, what are we going to do tonight?

      Linus: the same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world!

    16. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by sydb · · Score: 2

      I was going to say: "You're a rarity! A troll posting at +2!" but it's not rare at all.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    17. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by timftbf · · Score: 1

      >>>

      Torvalds: You know, I could care less. I don't think anything is going to really change if we discover there is indeed a human nature.

      OT, I know, but just where did this horrible mangling of the English language originate from? "I could care less" means "I *am* bothered", and I can't see any other possible way of parsing it. The phrase is "I couldn't care less" - how is it possible to lose the negative and still attempt to retain the same meaning? It seems to be a Merkin thing, but I'm still baffled as to how and why it happens.

      Rant over,
      Tim.

    18. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by sydb · · Score: 2

      I could agree more!

      Well, actually I couldn't.

      There are many annoying usages in American English which just don't make sense when you actually examine the semantics of the words.

      Take the previous sentence, for example; I often see the words "just" and "don't" reversed in similar contexts, reversing the meaning unintentionally.

      This, again, is a Merkin thing.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    19. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      You're surprised that Linus doesn't care [google.com] about something??


      I laughed when I realized that I generally don't care to read Linus interviews, because they're just not all that compelling reads. That's why I didn't know. And you know what? I really don't care.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    20. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      heh.

      The posts were even moderated up, but that isn't a rarity for a troll either.

      However, I have always held that people argue becuase they don't know. I think its a very shallow to say that someone isn't a great thinker becuase they choose not to argue with narcissitic, whining, has-beens.

      There is a saying "lead, follow, or get out of the way." Trying to put that adolescent recursive acronym infront of things he wished he (or his organization) wrote is none of the above. It *was* cute back in 1985.

      I guess my previous posts in this thread summed it up nicely., but I'm always happy to elaborate.

    21. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So GNU didn't write GNU tools?

    22. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really should get a clue on what RMS has done (Emacs, gcc, etc) before spouting off such garbage.

    23. Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      So GNU didn't write GNU tools?

      Funny you should mention that. Actualy it so happens that they did, but thats not important now. What we are talking about is that GNU didn't write Linux, user utilities, or the many websites that rms has lambasted recently for not putting GNU in the name.

      I provide a quote from my child hood that puts it well.

      "Thats gnus to me. I'm Gary Gnu reminding you that no gnus is good gnus." Gary Gnu from `The Great Space Coaster'.

  65. A static rememberence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is not interesting at all, despite the abstract. I am dissappointed.

  66. 2 things folks don't understand about Linus by The+Pim · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Linux is his hobby.
      He just wants to make something cool and have fun with it. That's the whole agenda. Linux is not about competion for Linus--and, please, "world domination" is a joke! As others have put it, "Chase the dream, not the competition".

    2. He only really cares about the kernel.
      When he says "Linux", he's usually not talking about the whole system the way most of us are. You say, "well, the only point of the kernel is to serve as the foundation for the rest of the system"; but that's not the way Linus et al think. They mostly want to build a beautiful kernel. Ask a glibc developer if you doubt this. (They'll say Linus doesn't give a flying fig about user-space, which is an exaggeration, but....)

    None of this should be a revelation. Read what Linus has said during any of the last ten years.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
  67. I don't understand what you are saying.. by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He's simply saying he doesn't take sides, he doesn't care what it's called. He calls his kernel linux, and what anyone else does with it or wants to call it is completely up to them.
    THAT is what open-source is about... so many seem to miss that.

    See point 5 as well, about competition. Linus says he's not competing with anyone.. just working on linux. He isn't trying to make linux a windows killer.. he's just trying to make it better.

    1. Re:I don't understand what you are saying.. by raspark · · Score: 1

      Or he could just be allowing the GPL'd version of the name (let anyone take it and change it, but the result is still for all of us) be whatever RMS wants it to be.

  68. Refreshing Change of Pace by josquint · · Score: 1

    I just got done reading the Windows eX Pee propaganda that came with the newly released Compaqs at my store. "eX Pee is the best windows blah blah.. revolutionize your computer the internet blah blah.. so many wonderfule technical advances.. blah"

    Then i read this.. Linus seems so much more intentive at improving the actuall OS and not just fancier marketing. Actually no marketing at all(not _always_ a good thing, but... ) And an OS that isn't super duper revolutionary, with new and usless technology. Just a plain old GOOD OS!!

  69. Linus' opinion about preemptive kernel by pawsa · · Score: 1

    I like Linus' standpoint about the preemptive kernel. I agree with him that one should eliminate cause of latencies instead of addressing symptoms only.

    I can imagine fighting with symptoms seems a simpler task but latencies result often from a bad design and it is better to fix the design once instead of implementing workarounds.

    1. Re:Linus' opinion about preemptive kernel by sagei · · Score: 2

      I like Linus' standpoint about the preemptive kernel. I agree with him that one should eliminate cause of latencies instead of addressing symptoms only.

      Disclaimer: I am the maintainer of the preempt-kernel patch

      I wouldn't say the preempt-kernel patch eliminates symptoms without addressing problems, nor would I say that is even what Linus is saying. The problem is that the kernel is not preemptible, so kernel code runs to completion, and thus long-running kernel code causes long system latencies since nothing can run in the interim.

      Addressing the problem is exactly what the patch does. It causes the kernel to be preemptible and -- voila -- the problem goes away. Addressing the symptoms is the current approach: sprinkling conditional scheduling statements around the kernel in fairness to others.

      Even so, I don't think Linus thinks we are addressing the symptoms and ignoring the cause. He is just interested in seeing if replacing kernel algorithms with better ones, or using conditional scheduling points, can fix the problem for most without the need of a preemptible kernel (ie a simple solution). Otherwise, I'd bet he is quite favorable to our design

      -- Robert

      --

      Robert Love

  70. Torvalds comes off as an idiot more than ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ed. He used to be a talking horse, now he's a programmer. A might bit sharper than wilbur, but who isn't?

  71. Re:RMS name, note: rms, not RMS by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I may be reading something into it that's not there, but referring to Stallman as 'rms', in lowercase, may be an indication of what Linus thinks of him and his efforts, perhaps inconsequential. Other thoughts?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  72. Re:The interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    actually, I couldn't get through either so it was helpful to read here.

    you're an asshole.

  73. Funny by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Um, RMS may stand for Redmond MicroSoft.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  74. Japanese war by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2

    all those warrior businessmen had a couple of decades of success with their slash'n'burn tactics, then kept going with it and drove one of the world's largest economies straight into the toilet.

    As for 2WW, that can describe the Japanese way of making war.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  75. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >That was an excellent, lucid post

    What do you find excellent? I have never read something more stupid and innaccurate about the "beos hidden agenta". One of the reasons I started OSNews was to get away from the BeOS arena in the first place.

    >You sliced her into little tiny pieces.

    As I can see, I am still in one piece. And our web site is going stronger than ever. With or without that "lucid post".

    There is no bad publicity for OSNews. There is only publicity. And that can't be bad in the first place.

    >And her idiotic, pre-pubescent reply above only serves to confirm that.

    My only idiotic action is to reply to Slashdot forums in the first place. But having a mediterranean temper against fools and jerks like you two are, I have to reply. Oh, well, just a little bit. You know women...

    As for his statement that OSNews will not become big because of me, well, that remains to be seen. When I took over OSNews two months ago, we had 600 page hits per day. Today, we are on 19,000 pagehits/day average and we are evolving quickly. Draw your own conlusions after you do your math, not before.

    Eugenia

  76. Justice by kabir · · Score: 2

    If that isn't justice, then I don't know what is ;)

    --
    Behold the Power of Cheese!
  77. Excellent shutdown by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Excellent. Linus shuts 'em down. The techno-religious wars people so often have on Slashdot are pretty ridiculous, aren't they?

    On the other hand, Linus speculated about computers being used to create new life forms. So perhaps he has a little /. blood after all.

    1. Re:Excellent shutdown by sulli · · Score: 2
      The techno-religious wars people so often have on Slashdot are pretty ridiculous, aren't they?

      Hey, they drive up pageviews (sorry, GNU/pageviews) so /. loves 'em.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
  78. Linus and Linux by Vantage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not part of the Kernel development team. I have never met or even seen Linus.

    With that clarified....
    Why should he care?? This started as a pet project in college to him. Does anyone see a distribution of Linux with his name on the cover?? Does anyone see him trying to market Linux in any real way?? I sure don't. He likes to thrash around in the code. He has proven that he is good at it. He makes pretty good decisions about what is the next thing to be added to the Kernel. I think we are expecting a lot of him already. Why expect him to be the person with all the answers.

    Linus and Linux are not the same thing. Granted, he started it, but it has grown well past what any one man can handle. Why should he care what everyone else is doing?? He is doing good with the Linux Kernel as it is. He sees where people want to go by what they submit to him and he and his group put it into the kernel tree as they feel it is ready. There is no reason that he should care where Microsoft is going in the future. I know I don't care much. I can't even see a reason why he should care about what the BSDs are doing. That makes a differance to most of us, but why should we expect it of him??

    He does a good job at what he is doing. Why should he need to care what anyone else is doing??

  79. RMS is not calling Linux as GNU/Linux!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is simply wrong!

    He is calling the entire system GNU/Linux.

    Linux is a kernel of an operating system not an entire operating system.
    ( Note that you'll often see GNU/Herd when someone is talking about that system ).

    Of course Linux doesn't need any of GNU software. Just as GNU doesn't need Linux but why write new software or use some proprietary software? Both GNU and Linux are great.

  80. Yeah, ok Osama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You been watching to much tv

  81. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You're saying this about someone who released Linux under the GPL? Isn't the GPL a request for other people to offer their good ideas?

    --
    __
    Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  82. Continuing to matter? by BigBir3d · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If this is the goal of the Linux community, than a few things have to change, unfortunately :-(

    One of the biggest problems I associate with Linux and the community, as an outsider, is the cultural elitism. It does not matter how long you have used Linux, or how profficient you are at it, just the fact that you do, or don't.

    Another problem, IMO, is that market "needs" are still being driven by what others are producing, and Linux being in the never ending cycle of "catching up." I am not talking about quality, Linus and co. usually nail it on the head when they do release something giving the "functionality" that is available elsewhere. But it always, from my experiences, is after somebody else has done it. It was due to this that I switched away from Linux to another product. Simple things, like printing my resume, or having updated video drivers for Q3A were a pain to do on my own, whereas with Windows it is "easier." Not usually as reliable, but if it breaks, I _might_ know why, or at least fix it on my own, through trial and error. For a newbie like me, Linux is not intuitive enough for me to really configure. Of course, this could have been a RedHat problem, yet I really am not qualified to know.

    Linus' views are a little discouraging for someone who wants choices, without sacrificing usability:

    "What do you think of the FreeBSD 5 kernel and WindowsXP's new features from a clearly technical point of view?

    Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either.

    What is your opinion on Hailstorm, .Net and the rest of the technologies Microsoft is preparing to roll out in the years to come? Can these releases have an impact on Linux and if yes, in what way?

    Linus Torvalds: See my answer about not caring what the competition does, but doing my own thing as well as I can.. "

    Linux was in a good position to compete in the last year or so, but didn't. I can't help thinking that this was due to philosophies that are ingrained from Linus all the way through to most of the users of Linux.

    "How do you see the future of Linux for the next 5 or 10 years from an engineering but also a marketing eye?

    Linus Torvalds: I don't use a marketing eye, I simply don't care. There are others who do, I'll let them worry about it."

    Hopefully those that worry will get it done, and people will have more than one or two viable options in the near future, and I can go back to using Linux, with confidence this time.

  83. "I don't really care" by exceed · · Score: 1

    "I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others."

    I never knew that Linus was the kind of guy that didn't care about the competition, the marketing, etc.

    Many companies and fans want Linux to push itself further in the market, and many of it's users want it to as well. However, the creator of the operating system isn't worrying about that. I don't know why; Shouldn't this be something he should worry about?

    --

    void women (int money, time_t time);
    1. Re:"I don't really care" by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Why should he worry? It's clear from the interview that Linus is no businessman, or marketeer. He's not getting rich off of Linux either. The main thing for him is that it's fun. Period. He's quite happy to let the rest of us swing our swords and yell "Down with Microsoft!" while he just codes.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  84. Oracle answer by [JP] · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is no spoon.

  85. Drat! by Lally+Singh · · Score: 1
    The site got /.'d halfway through my page download! I got the answer for question #6 (which just referred to the previous one), and then an unanswered #7... just to tease me!


    DAMN YOU SLASHDOT!!!!!


    AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  86. Yes, but... by Marcos+the+Jackle · · Score: 0

    "I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid,"

    That's the key part of that statement. 'Nuff said.

    GNU/Have GNU/a GNU/nice GNU/day.

    GNU/Mk.

  87. Linus has the RIGHT not to care. by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite frankly, Linus is writing code. He is contributing to Free Software.

    The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.

    Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.

    Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.

    Linus is coding, creating usable technology. It's HIS technology that acted as the catalyst in the Free Software world. Without Linux, GNU would still be a rather obscure name that many computer scientists don't even recognize. Sure, the GNU tools allowed Linux to start off sooner, but there was nothing special about the GNU tools at the time Linux was created -- save that it was free (gratuis), and our beloved Finn could afford them on a student's budget.

    The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.
    Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:Linus has the RIGHT not to care. by mafbat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your comment should be modded up, BUT, I would hardly call the GNU Project a step ladder. It's more like the ladder, hammer, saw, wrenches, ... and all of the tools that allow you to do useful stuff.

    2. Re:Linus has the RIGHT not to care. by sydb · · Score: 2

      The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.

      Do you think that creating code under a Free Software license is not a high form of advocacy?

      Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.

      That's what we call an oxymoron. Whenever you say "It's about" then you are in the realm of philosophy.

      Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.

      I didn't think RMS worked on the HURD, I could be wrong. Socrates was a teacher. Anyone who has an idea they feel will help their common man has a duty to try and convert others.

      The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.

      Linux called his kernel Linus. The "philosophers" have never tried to change that. They want they operating system based on the Linux kernel, which includes a myriad of other software packages, to be called GNU/Linux.

      And hypocritical in what way?

      Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.

      Who knows. Personally, I think we have to thank the creators of the copper wire along which the bits flow. It's more complicate than "Linux helped GNU! GNU was a loser before Linux!". Much more complicated.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  88. You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... He wasn't talking about the tiger?

  89. Lame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I like Linux just as much as the next guy, but Linus is proving to be just about the most lame "leader" in the business. To not care about the competition is silly; even if you don't want to compete, there are good ideas everywhere (even in Windows... Deal with it) that would serve Linux well. He ignores them. That's great. I really want to bet the future on Linux in business using that kind of approach.

    He may think he's sounding noble, but in my opinion he's showing a side of his "benevolent dictatorship" that could impact Linux in negative ways. His attitude toward innovation seems lack-lustre, he seems to be just arrogant enough to think that what HE has on his plate is all that anyone should want, yadda yadda yadda.

    I'll keep using Linux, but I sure hope Linus isn't in charge of Linux's future direction. If so, don't be surprised if there's a mutiny at some point (lots of his core team are people who work for commercial Linux companies. Competition IS important to them, and they could very easily fork the kernel and move forward from there. Alan already does his own thing to an extent; the next step won't be much of a leap).

  90. Re:RMS name, note: rms, not RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. The reason why Linus referred to Stallman as 'rms' is possibly because "he doesn't care". Take it from me (yeah, I know I'm posting as an AC, I don't care), people who display apathy in one form or another aren't likely to be anal-retentive about proper grammar or whatnot.

    Red

  91. Re:I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet _even_ Bill Gates could kick Linus' ass.

  92. No Thanks to No Device Manager by Vortran · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm all for getting away from the device manager for most every day things AS LONG AS we can still get TO it. If I plug in a device and want to re-config the driver or use something other than the "vendor default" driver (e.g. my own) I want to still be able to do that. That's the beauty of LINUX.

    If "plug 'n play" in LINUX ever ends up keeping me away from having the freedom to setup the devices and drivers the way I want them, then I'm deadset against it. I don't want to have to hack kernel code to make devices use the drivers I prefer.

    --
    Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
  93. Does Linus even like to give interviews? by Green+Light · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not very chatty, is he?

    Doesn't know, doesn't care.

    Reminds me of the old joke "What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?".

    --
    "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
  94. Linux/GNU by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    To me calling Linux Linux/GNU would be better than calling it GNU/Linux, in that Linux is more important than GNU, but that may be just the inverse of what RMS is stressing?

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  95. Sounds more like satisfaction to me. by hey! · · Score: 2

    Maybe we should just take him at face value.

    It sounds to me more like his having his head screwed on straight than a case of burnout. It's not his problem that he isn't cut out for the role people have cast him in -- at least it isn't his problem if he doesn't feel a need to step into that role.

    Or it may be a case of maturity creeping in. As you get older, setting the world on fire becomes less important, and the small day to day pleasures of work and life become more important. For some never having changed the world in a big way becomes a source of bitterness, others just get on with their lives.

    Linus is in an unusual position: he has set the world on fire. It just isn't on his current priorities list and probably was never very high on it to begin with.

    Good for him.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Sounds more like satisfaction to me. by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Most agreed. More to the point, in the many years now that I've been keeping an eye on the big man's (Getting bigger too I've heard. Maybe Tove is a killer cook, as well as a killer karate babe) progress, he's always seemed to fob off the importance of it all

      Humility is something everyone aspires to, but Linus actually possesses it

      The man's a gem.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  96. Linus distancing himself from the zealots by Kismet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of people have pointed out Linus' very empty, casual answers. A lot of these people are now predicting the doom and failure of Linux because "Linus doesn't care."

    Well, mission accomplished; Linus has pissed off the Linux zealots. Hopefully, when these people find out that Linus doesn't share their religious fervor about the righteousness of Linux and the darkness of the Enemy, they will leave Linux alone so that it can gain some actual credibility.

    Good job, Linus.

  97. Why not *BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't Linus care about BSD? I mean, his boyfriend has been borrowing code from the FreeBSD kernel to work on the AMX-1407 compatability layer (the ZOG 88/14 multithreading environment) for Linux. Maybe if he would follow BSD development more closely, he'd have a better insight into how his own operating system is structured. Makes sense to me.

    1. Re:Why not *BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's with the stupid paranoia/white power references? Are you into retarded conspiracy theories?

  98. Maybe he should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, his boyfriend has been borrowing code from the FreeBSD kernel to work on the AMX-1407 compatability layer (the ZOG 88/14 multithreading environment) for Linux. Maybe if he would follow BSD development more closely, he'd have a better insight into how his own operating system is structured. Makes sense to me.

  99. Buddha Nature by rumba · · Score: 1

    This phrase has many meanings. Sun Sunim (I think that's the spelling), a Korean zen master, interpreted this saying as, "Buddha's buddha nature is no better than your buddha nature."

    1. Re:Buddha Nature by hey! · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      The sense in which I mean it is also captured by a Confucian anecdote about the Master.

      The Master was informed that one of his rivals boasted of thinking three times about every decision. To this the Master replied, "Twice is enough."

      I believe I could restate this cryptic comment in a more accessible form:

      "If you can't think too well, then you'd better not think too much."

      I have a sneaking feeling that adherents to business-fadism somehow think that wisdom can be bought in the way other factors such as capital and labor are. Because of this, they can derail the best advice in the world because they aren't really paying attention, just parroting bits and pieces that happens to stick with them. I once had a manager that was enamored of TQM. So I read Kaoru Ishikawa's seminal book on TQM. Reading a book was something I think this manager never bothered to do despite the fact that this one is quite slim. I actually think he got all his information (about anything) from glossy magazines.

      While methods, mathematical and managerial, are important to Ishikawa, his main emphasis is really on values: understand serve the customer; speak the truth and be willing to hear the truth; examine your faults fearlessly and learn from them; focus on improvement rather than blame; learn from everybody you can, no matter lowly.

      Who wouldn't want to work in a company like that? Yet all we hear are disaffected people who have had some foolish and complicated processes foisted on them to waste their time. Reduced to its essential elements, TQM is just another one of those spiritual ideas that is simple, good for us, and nearly impossible to put into practice. The hucksters who brought it into disrepute are almost an exact counterpart to the itinerant preachers who roll into town, and leave when the old women are destitute and the young ones pregnant.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  100. So, what's the problem? by Bilbo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So... if you have old, highly specialized hardware that only works on old drivers, then why do you need to update to a new kernel? You know, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Offer your "solutions" as a turn-key box.

    On the other hand, if you aren't strictly dependent on specialized hardware, then scrap your old stuff and spend a couple of bucks to buy modern hardware that IS supported.

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
    1. Re:So, what's the problem? by spudnic · · Score: 2

      So... if you have old, highly specialized hardware that only works on old drivers, then why do you need to update to a new kernel?

      Fortunately for him, his box is behind a firewall, but IIRC there have been a couple of exploits available for early kernels. The only option on a publically accessable box is to upgrade the kernel.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
  101. Activation by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 0

    One area that Linux lags in is Product Activation.

    Why dont people use Solaris 9 ? Runs Linux binaries, free, and got a BIG company behind it. I know i will run Solaris 9.

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  102. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Isn't the GPL a request for other people to offer their good ideas?"

    The GPL doesn't make any distinction between good or bad, it assimilates everything. Ever heard of Brainstorms?? But of course, Linus rejected kqueue cause he didn't understand it!

  103. It's a product, not a religion. by vbprgrmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh Please!
    This is not a religion. It's a product. An invention. Just as people didn't pray to Henry Ford when the model T came out, we don't need to get all 'Brave New World' over Linux.

    He already gave you the rights to keep the open source model alive for Linux, the GPL. Even if he retired to a desert island tomorrow, Linux will live on.

    What more do you want? If you want Linux to be better, then improve it yourself. That's what the GPL is for.

    1. Re:It's a product, not a religion. by pschmied · · Score: 2
      Really? You don't think that it has become something akin to a religion?

      O.K. I can buy that; religion doesn't go far enough to describe the phenomenon. It has become much more pervasive and idealistic than religion.

      To put it this way: There is a way of life surrounding Linux. The difference is that with Linux there is no separation of church and state. Dissenters are more commonly flamed these days. If you work a tech job, chances are, you are in the clergy.

      I see a lot of people in the GNU/Linux crowd get very misty eyed at the GPL and any other arguement involving IP. Perhaps rightfully so. I think that some of the philosophical ideas to be accepted in the Linux world are coming to the real world to the benefit of all. There really is a great sense of community with Linux, and some of the (IMHO) altruistic ideals can do us all good.

      Just like some aspects of religion.

      This was the only comparison I was making. Your posting had a tone that said to me, "Jeeeesus. Don't make Linux a religion. I don't want things that polarized."

      Post a message to /. saying something to the effect of "Linux sux. M$ ru13z" and see how fast it gets modded down. Hello! Linux is already that polarized.


      -Peter

    2. Re:It's a product, not a religion. by oojah · · Score: 1

      He already gave you the rights to keep the open source model alive for Linux, the GPL. Even if he retired to a desert island tomorrow, Linux will live on.

      I'm sure that it would keep on going if Linus retired, but in what form? I seriously believe that if Linus withdrew from Linux we might start to see kernel forks of such magnitude as the different BSD camps.

      As things stand, Linus is the undisputed leader because he created Linux in the first place. He keeps it all together; the key stone.

      If he left, I think this would harm the "unity". There would no longer be a Linus kernel and after Linus, everybody is a lot more "equal" with regards to their position working on Linux. In other words, it could be easier to rebel against eg. Alan Cox and gain enough support to maintain a seperate kernel fork (Free, Open, Net Linux anyone?) than it would be to rebel against Linus.

      Just a thought.

      Roger

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
  104. Re:Don't be so hard on Billy by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    The man for entertainment is Balmer.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  105. Troubling... by Bilbo · · Score: 2
    Linus Torvalds: I was never a "big thinker"....

    Actually, of all the things I read in the interview, that was the one thing that troubled me. Linus has demonstrated in many ways just how effective he is in getting the details right, but you still need the ability to "see the big picture" in order to keep ahead of the curve. We are changing the way we look at and use computers (the "perception thing" he spoke of), and those changes in perception are going to exert a lot of different pressures on computers and the applications that run on them. There is a lot of work going on with fundamentally different ways of looking at computing. (Quantum computers anyone?) Maybe that's why he is doing kernels while other people are working on the "Cool" stuff like user interfaces and whatnot. Perhaps that's what has kept the kernel fairly pure -- in contrast with the Windows "kernel" that tries to be all things to all applications.

    So, perhaps he is doing the right thing, but it still set me back a little, and made me think...

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
    1. Re:Troubling... by Error27 · · Score: 2

      When I think about big thinkers I think of HURD.

      Linux developement seems much more practicle.

      There is a "show me the code" attitude that is refreshing. After all, all the best theories in the world don't do a thing unless some code is written.

      For the present, there is enough work to do merely doing practicle things that make the kernel better now without worrying about what things will be possible in 10 years.

      I like this attitude.

  106. Gates and Torvalds by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Funny
    "5. What do you think of the FreeBSD 5 kernel and WindowsXP's new features from a clearly technical point of view?



    Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either."

    Doesn't Torvalds sound amazingly like Gates in this line?

    "I don't care so much about OS's other than Windows, I just want to make Windows the most innovative product it can be."

    1. Re:Gates and Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Gates uses Marketspeak and Torvalds uses normal English.

      Which sounds more sincere?

    2. Re:Gates and Torvalds by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is why Linus has bought out all those companies, and now has a fortune of $50 billi...oh wait, he doesn't.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  107. MODERATORS ON CRACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderate this up please, it is very informative.

  108. Time to think about succession by wmb · · Score: 1

    I'm beginning to think that it might be time for someone else to lead the way. American presidents can only be in power for 8 years for good reason. Linus has lead us through an awsome 10 years. Isn't it time for a fresh perspective? Everybody knows that most distributions don't deliver a standard Linus kernel, anyway. With their experience and willingness to make decisions, wouldn't they be able to come up with somebody else? Alan Cox?

  109. The VM Fork by Royster · · Score: 2

    I wished that they'd asked him about the big kernel fork. Linus dumped Rik Riel's VM for Andrea Arcangeli's back around 2.4.9. Alan Cox has been maintaining Riel's VM in a parallel series of kernels.

    Both VMs seem to perform better than earlier 2.4 kernels on ordinary loads, but both seem to flake out in perversely loaded situations. "Hey, Dude, my XMMS skips when I run three kernel compiles in parallel."

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
    1. Re:The VM Fork by LinuxGeek8 · · Score: 1

      Your idea may be valid, but the exaple you choose might have a different background. Most likely your soundcard's buffer is empty, before it gets filled again.
      You can change the latency of your pci bus with pciutils, which might improve that.

      Check out:
      ibm.com article[ibm.com]

      --
      Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
  110. vnodes, VFS, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BSD vnodes have an incestuous relationship
    with the UFS filesystem.

    With your BSD system, try mounting a filesystem
    in more than one place at once. Try mounting an
    existing file onto another file. Try mounting a
    non-NFS filesystem below the root.

    mkdir /mnt/x
    mkdir /mnt/y
    mount -t iso9660 -o ro /dev/cdrom /mnt/x
    mount -t iso9660 -o ro /dev/cdrom /mnt/y

    touch /tmp/foo
    mount --bind /bin/sh /tmp/foo

    mkdir /tmp/bar
    mount --bind /var/log /tmp/bar

    1. Re:vnodes, VFS, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man mount_null

  111. BSD- versus Linux people and lamers in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Flamebait
    I made a funny observation a few years ago about Linux versus the various BSD camps: the BSD people are acting more or less like CNN would like us to believe that moslems are. (Note that I am clearly saying: "like CNN would like us to believe that moslems are", not "what moslems are". There's a difference)

    While the BSD people seem to have this massive inferiority complex and make a lot of noise about how great BSD is and how shitty Linux is, most Linux people, save the trolls on Slashdot, really do not give a shit. They are mostly agnostic. They don't feel the need to say that Linux is superior. It works for them, it gives them something to tinker with and the atmosphere around the Linux crowd is generally more relaxed -- thus fostering creativity.

    I work at a company where we use a bunch of OSes. Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, NetBSD, OpenBSD you name it. Usually the OS for solving a given task is chosen depending on what the people who develop, deploy and run the service are more comfortable with. Sometimes it comes down to particular things that one OS does better than the rest.
    For instance we use a lot of Linux machines for development work. Why? Because there are more tools available under Linux. Commercial software vendors create things that just aren't available under, say, FreeBSD. Sure you can run them in Linux emulation, but why would you if there os no reason to do it?

    Other than being a good BSD zealot and not soil your soul with the unclean and ungodly Linux.

    We deploy a lot of solutions that were developed under Linux on FreeBSD machines. Large scale stuff. A lot larger than anything you are likely to see during your entire carreer in UNIX. Using FreeBSD during deployment is a cost issue for us. If you save a few million dollars using FreeBSD for deploying a solution because some aspect of the OS would require more hardware if you ran Linux, then you do that. I can't remember any of the Linux users in the company bemoan this fact.

    Likewise, if you can cut development time in half because you have better tools under Linux it would be stupid to use FreeBSD; just because it is the Right OS.

    This sounds pretty obvious, right? Apparently it isn't. The last year I've seen two individuals apply for jobs here who wanted a clause in their contract that they wanted to ONLY deal with one OS. (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which OS they preferred exclusively). Given that the BSD crowd is more prone to childish zealotry it didn't really surprise me.

    It told me something important though: you really do not want zealots working for you, whether they are one denomination or another. If you can reduce the number of obvious shitheads in your company that is a good thing.

    I think the best thing that could happen to the BSD world would be if someone well respected within the communities would step up and tell people to quit being such whiners. It is embarassing to see grown people who are supposedly intelligent act in a way that makes them look like ignorant bigots. That's not to say that Linux doesn't have the same problem; sure it has, but to a lesser degree. Most chest-thumping Linux users are just that "users". Clueless losers akin to the Amiga losers who claimed the OS of the Amiga was the best OS in the world -- but couldn't really tell you what made it so much better except the usual drivel that set it out from MS-DOS 3.2.

    I've met Linus once. A few years ago we had dinner and an evening of talking about this and that. What strikes me about Linus is that this guy is probably the best leader you can get for any software project. He is focused and rational.

    He is focused on what he wants to accomplish in a forseeable future and isn't easily led astray by fads or hype (unlike most people).

    He is rational in the sense that he doesn't give in to emotional pressure but bases his decisions on what he thinks is right. This is important. I have managed open source projects and one of the things that I find very hard is rejecting bad ideas, bad code and bad people when the intentions are good. It is really hard to do. (Tridge [of Samba] said the same thing in an interview not too long ago). This is one of the things Linus does well. His level-headedness and his apparent lack of passion (apparent being the key word) when he reaches a decision is really something that other people could learn a lot from.

    Now instead of flaming me: if you are a "guilty as charged BSD chest-thumper", ease up a little. If you are basically a loser who never wrote any significant piece of software or even tried to contribute with some actuall skills that you have: grow a brain or at least try to put some work into maturing your intellect and keeping your passion restrained long enough to stop bullshit seeping out of your face.

    Thank you for reading.

    1. Re:BSD- versus Linux people and lamers in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I am really surprised at how little you know about Linux.
      And Visual Basic is one of the worst programming languages ever made, it really is.
      I feel sorry for you to an extent. You have no idea how sorry...
      maybe you SHOULD use Windows 95, you deserve nothing better.

    2. Re:BSD- versus Linux people and lamers in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually this was not a troll and I don't have to "fabricate" anything. The fact that you assume I make this up as I go along tells me more about your credibility than my own. I don't have to lie. Perhaps you have to, so you assume that everyone else has to lie as well. (Note that I posted anonymously to demonstrate that I am not here to drop names, but because I have an _opinion_ I'd like to share).

      One thing though: an important point that didn't quite get through in my post (and I apologize for that), was that BSD zealotry occurs far more frequently among people you'd think would be too mature, too professional, or too rational to stoop to this type of childish behaviour. This is what scares me about them. Grown people who do know better but who turn into nagging kids the moment you bring up another OS not BSD.

      Most of the Linux zealots I've met in my time were light-weights. People who do not matter. Clueless people. It doesn't shock me that these people act childishly. The more competent Linux people I've met are usually more relaxed, more willing to apply reason, be objective, more willing to admit that "okay, for this we use something other than Linux because frankly Linux doesn't do this very well".

      The BSD camp worries about Linux, Windows and in some cases competing BSDs.

      The Linux camp worries about Linux.

      The BSD camp needs to grow up. Badly.

    3. Re:BSD- versus Linux people and lamers in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole point is absurd.

      If someone wants to convince me that freeBSD (or NetBSD, or whatever) is better than Linux, go ahead. I'll listen and we can discuss it.

      If you want me to tell you why I prefer Linux, I will. We can discuss that too.

      But when people from either camp waste time roasting each other, it serves no good purpose. A hundred valid reasons to switch don't mean anything when presented immediately after a string of insults. If a car salesman said, "Hey, you fat dumb drunk, I have this great deal!" How long would he stay in business?

      Besides, both operating systems are Unix-like and open source. That puts Linux-lovers and BSD-adherents firmly on the same side of the fence, with Windows in opposition.

      Get along or ignore each other.

  112. Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ho hum. Next topic.

  113. Interview? by destiney · · Score: 0, Redundant



    That was just a bunch of non-answers if you aksed me.

  114. what about socket machine-to-machine failover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any plans for transparent socket machine-to-machine failover support in the kernel? how would it work?

  115. He's not a freaking entertainer, get over it! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think Slashdot people forget that life is not a big race for mod points and Karma. Sure, if you had done that interview, you would have waxed philosophical about the crappy networking layer in NT, and the fabulous features Linux will have in 10 years.

    In the hours that it took you to compose enough bullshit to reach the Karma cap, Linus probably answers hundreds of emails, merges some patches, does some testing, etc. He does not, and should not involve himself in every Slashdot-style controversy. That doesn't mean he's a worse person than the average karma whore, but sounds like Slashdot is disappointed he's not trying to become one.

    Perhaps the obvious fact he has something better to do hits a bit too close to home among the Slashdot crowd.

  116. Re:The ZOG 88/14 Compatability Layer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A poor troll. Throwing in the Nazi stuff kind of overdid it. Wacko conspiracy theories make you look silly, like you made an analogy to astrology or something. Coupled with the suspicious reference to Euronymous and the grade 9 physics, I'd suspect you listen to retarded NS music as well, and consider yourself to be a "philosopher". Not very convincing, I'm afraid.

  117. moderate up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am interested in linux VFS and this could be an interesting discussion.

  118. Re:RMS name, note: rms, not RMS by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

    Stallman became known as "rms" because it was his username at MIT. That it is his initials is otherwise a coincidence.

  119. Why the competition can't be ignored by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2

    In a perfect world, it'd be nice to just go and do your own thing while ignoring the competition. This is especially true when you're playing in a free/open world and you don't have to worry about making money.

    Unfortunately, that only works when everyone agrees to it.

    The war against Microsoft is primarily a defensive one for Linux. Microsoft quite clearly is all about destroying everyone else. That includes Linux. Linux is not a Microsoft product and must therefore die. When you have a powerful multibillion monopoly out to end your life, you have to go to war. You can't ignore them or you'll wake up one day and find out that the hardware you run on and the network you connect to, once open territories for you to build your playground in, are now owned by the big bully and you have no choice but to shut down.

    Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer deserve to die. Slowly and painfully. But that has nothing to do with Linux. The fact that they are putting enormous resources into making non-Microsoft technologies essentially unusable does have to do with Linux, though. It means that the Linux world must respond.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  120. Snicker... snicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Where the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it."

    Snicker, chortle...

  121. Linus comments on desktops by Laplace · · Score: 2

    I saw two striking things in this interview. The first is the plan to start 2.5 sometime this month. Can they fix the VM in 2.4 that fast?

    The second is the question about desktops. In the past he has remained impartial about the desktops, particularly the Gnome vs. KDE holy war. This is the first time that I have seen him take a side. Very interesting to me.

    (disclosure: I favor KDE, but like simple window managers like PWM the most.)

    --
    The middle mind speaks!
  122. Re:I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview" by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

    Subj: I wouldn't call this an "interesting interview"...

    It doesn't particularly feel like a "tell-all" either.

  123. Who gives a fuck what Linus thinks? Not me. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 0

    I didn't even read the article.

  124. The headline should have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Linus tells nothing"

  125. Re:So he annoys the faithful by proving himself mo by sydb · · Score: 2

    Maybe a few people here could take a lesson from his interview. Then, maybe you might know what it is all about.

    I agree with the rest of your post. As far as the above sentence is concerned, well, Linux is about different things for different people. Torvalds is the progenitor and lead developer. That doesn't mean no-one else gets an opinion if they disagree with him.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  126. Re:RMS name, note: rms, not RMS by sydb · · Score: 2

    I really don't think a person as non-political as Torvalds would try and hide message in the case of someone's abbreviated name / login.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  127. Religion and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is everybody talking about, of course there is a spiritual side to Linux it was built for love, right, not profit, not status. The real cost of things is the amount of work that goes into creating them.

    If work is defined as the expenditure of energy, to the benefit of others, that cannot be achieved by machinary and automation, then not many people in a real sense actually work. One man with a tractor and plough can plough approx 30 times the acreage in a day than a man with a horse and plough can.

    People ascribe to the idea that everything costs money, wrong, things cost sweat and design ability. Systems analyst's analyse society, what do you see in terms of what people are actually doing. Take your local bank teller, what in reality are they doing, well it seems to have something to do with the exchange of dead dried crushed trees, and making marks on these trees. All the other folks that get involve in such japes, what in reality are all these folks actually doing in a frenetic rush around, actually going fast nowhere. Who in reality benefits from their efforts? What Linus has in reality taught us is, we don't really need money, if everybody shares the real work, but that is too simple isn't it, most people seem to myopically prefer a kind of semi-slavery. Well that feels better, I'm glad I've got that off my chest. Oh well back to worshipping Mammon.

    Peter

  128. MS and war by q-soe · · Score: 4, Informative

    You know i have read the article and many of the comments here and it brings to my mind a valid point i think is worth sharing. I use linux at home and work, the machine beside me here is Slackware 8.0 Running apache and my notebook at home is Redhat 7.1, i love linux for many reasons, the power it has, the sheer amount of software available, the open and intelligent way so many developers act.

    But yet is still use MS for my main system at home (At work i have to and i dont have a problem with that). Why ? I will tell you.

    I for one am sick and tired of attempting to install applications etc and finding out that this version of XXX is wrong and you need XXX (GCC 2.69 is a good example) you download a package and try to install it only to find out that you dont have this library etc etc, so its download, configure, make in an endless circle.

    Last night i wanted to simply install a Div-x Player for Redhat so i can take my home notebook away on holidays, so i downloaded Mplayer and XMPS, whoops dont have this library, go get it, then install, ok, no didnt find the codec, reintsall, nope still an error and i dont have the patience to find it right now, so i try Mplayer - only it wont work with GCC 2,96 which it says is redhats version so go off and get 2.95, copnfigure, make, nope wont work, so i need to read the documentation - only its no help (not im not an amateur here - i have worked with Unix, Macs, Novell and MS products for almost 10 years)

    So i thought damn it i dont have time for this, thus i pulled out my Linux HDD and bunged in my Win2k one, installed the codec and im off an running. Easy - took 3 minutes

    Why is it so hard to get this level of funcionality in Linux ? The OS has been around for longer and with open source it should be easier ? The thing is Redhat and Mandrake with Gnome and KDE are getting closer and closer to the point where they can be a desktop replcament - Koffice is very good - but as long as installing ANY software requires arcane knowledge of terminal windows and make files and lib dependencies it will never get there - the average home user (ie 90% of them) wont do this.

    The problem is this whole MS V Linux crap detracts from the real issue, making linux the best OS for all users and that means functional and simple - this is what is missing here and it breaks my heart.

    To Quote: Linus Torvalds: I'm a big non-believer in manual driver and kernel configuration, be it visual or not. Most of the stuff happens automatically, and we're going to make that more and more common. Things like hot-plugging a device and the driver automatically getting loaded is how things are supposed to work, none of this "device manager" stuff

    This is what we need - not another (im gonna get flamed for this but - MS Sucks Linux Rules argument)

    A few things i think might be self evident now but i will say them anyway (im asking for it here i think but prove me wrong instead of flaming me)

    1. There will always be an MS or MS like desktop- in a world without MS then how do we introduce new people to systems (give me a break i could not give my mother linux - i dont have unlimited support time) THERE IS A THING CALLED CHOICE
    2. linux will never destroy MS - this is as stupid as the 'war on terrorism' setting out to destroy puts an enemy on the defensive AND people will continue to use MS products
    3. The only way to Win market share is to produce a friendly and superior product - i think i have already commented on this.

    I Love Linux - i think its an incredible OS and is getting better - but that does not mean i have to hate MS (its an operating system - get over it)

    --
    I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
    1. Re:MS and war by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard to get this level of funcionality in Linux ? The OS has been around for longer and with open source it should be easier ? The thing is Redhat and Mandrake with Gnome and KDE are getting closer and closer to the point where they can be a desktop replcament - Koffice is very good - but as long as installing ANY software requires arcane knowledge of terminal windows and make files and lib dependencies it will never get there - the average home user (ie 90% of them) wont do this.

      this is not the problem about the OS, it is the problem about the distribution vendors. If they were good enough to include a mplayer package installed then it would be as simple as installing it on the win2k one. (What you might want is Debian)

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  129. About competiton. by hotsauce · · Score: 0

    Actually, competition is the best (and ultimately the only) way of making things better. See also "Natural selection" and "Free enterprise". Living under a rock only results in getting passed by.

    Linus seems to recognise this by stating the diversity in distros is good. But then he doesn't care and doesn't learn about diversity in OSes.

    He seems as unbiased as Gates. At least Bill doesn't have his head in the sand.

  130. Eh? by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    Gates is horribly biased. Torvalds is not.

    Competition *in the marketplace* makes things better *for the consumer*.

    Torvalds is saying he doesn't build linux out of a drive to make it 'better than windows' or 'more liked than MacOS'. He writes it for the sake of writing it, to put the features he wants in it. He's not 'competing' with anyone, he's simply developing a kernel, because he wants to!

    Doesn't learn? Why should he? I don't learn about how to perform CPR on the south-american pygmy rhinos.. because that's just not what I'm interested in. THe same goes for linus.. He's simply saying that he doesn't *care* about these things.. they aren't what drive him.

  131. Re:Don't be so hard on Billy by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    Well, yes; see yesterday's reruns segment of As the Apple Turns (www.appleturns.com) for a nice little recap.

    But I dunno. It seems like it would actually be fun to be Larry, but I can't say I'd enjoy being Gates or Ballmer. So for the mercurial cool factor, Larry's hard to beat, although I suppose Steve Jobs gives him a run for his money at times.

    But I don't think Steve has as much fun either.

    D

  132. Re:Don't be so hard on Billy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ballmer would definitely be a better drinking buddy that Gates. I could see playing a round of pool with him.

  133. How did Linux ever get done ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    T: I dont care about this, I dont care about that, I dont think about the future.

    Wow, how did Linux ever get out there !!

  134. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was certainly insightful.

  135. HURD, not Herd by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
    Note that you'll often see GNU/Herd when someone is talking about that system

    <grammar nazism>
    It's called HURD which stands for:

    Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons

    where HIRD means

    Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth.
    <grammar nazism>

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:HURD, not Herd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doh

  136. Is it just me... by Dan+D. · · Score: 1

    Or do michaels story headlines sound exactly like Enquiror (sp?). I mean Linus didn't "Tell All" like some kind of Fox Special. What about that other one a couple days ago "AOL Protocal Secrets Revealed" -- I *did* see that one on Fox... right before "Who wants to be groped by an open source hacker" It makes me creepy. Nathan.

    --
    People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
  137. Re:Who gives a fuck what Linus thinks? Not me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't missed anything.

  138. Where the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The man is a genius. To wit:

    "Where the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it"

    That is so much the point. Hoist it in. Beautiful.

    Where the _excitement_ is not the tool, but what you can do with it

  139. You're Insane by MegaFur · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.
    That's dangerous talk there, friend. If it's a religion, how long will it be before the holy war becomes real--before people start bombing factories that make Windoze products? Sounds really crazy? It is!

    fnord

    Naturally Linus would like to distance himself from anyone who tries to call a chunk of code a religion. Look it's fun to run Linux and give MS the finger and all that, but there's gotta be limits. You've gotta keep those sanity checks and reality checks in your code (of conduct!). If you don't, you might wind up in a very strange and dangerous place. (Maybe hanging off the side of a building threatening to jump if the boss won't let you install Linux, I don't know.) Please, please, please, never start thinking of Linux as a religion.

    Try Discordianism instead. fnord It's much safer. :-)

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  140. Why Linus is cool. by be-fan · · Score: 2

    One thing I really admire about Linus is that he is neither a grognard nor a pansy. He thinks that hardware detection and driver config should be automatic and he likes KDE. At the same time, he is against sissifying the kernel to meet CompUSA needs. He's also not a zealot. I read an interview with him in Boot once, and he pointed out that Microsoft really isn't evil, it just makes lousy operating systems. Also, he doesn't take a hard-line approach about the GNU/Linux thing.

    Of course, one man's moderation is another's wishy-washiness...

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  141. *Linus Is dying by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    a recent round of opinions from slashdot.org confirmed what had been feared most, linus torvalds of linux fame is dying. He sounds so tired in interviews preached slashdotters, it is clear that *linus is dying. The ratio of linus posts to usenet has declined by 2/3 lowering his HP of 60 to 20, putting him closer to death.

    *linus is dying

    --
    Photos.
  142. Linus' Attitude Appropriate For Leader by jck2000 · · Score: 1

    A number of commenters have been characterizing Linus' attitude as typical techie myopia/focus, for good or for bad. While I do not doubt that this is a large part of it, it also seems that his approach may be the most appropriate one for a leader of a diverse and non-centrally controlled movement -- stick to the technical and avoid creating controversy for controversy's sake. This allows him to retain the respect and allegiance of basically all interested parties. There are any number of ways in which Linus could have accrued more short-term economic or ego gratification to himself -- (i) found a commercial Linux operation, (ii) align himself with the explicitly commercial or, alternatively, explicitly non-commercial wing of the "movement", (iii) become a philosopher/pundit on the "Meaning of Linux" -- but at the longer-term expense of his credibility. It is a credit to him, and a benefit to "movement" at large, that he has declined to do so.

  143. My blurb is by trilucid · · Score: 1


    mostly regarding the concept of competition in this whole thing. There's an inherent difference in the way, say, Microsoft and major Linux vendors get new ideas for new features and improvements. (note: just using MS and Linux here for the sake of example).

    The Microsoft method (like the methods of most large corporations) is to assemble a series of testing and focus groups, maybe paid (maybe not), to run through their systems and report back with ideas. The Linux (all right, Open Source / Free Software) approach in general is far broader. Typically, with OSS projects, the newest verion is cast out to the masses for review, and for popular projects a *lot* of web sites and discussion forums pop up to keep the idea engine running hot.

    I *do not* want to appear too much the stereotypical Linux/BSD fan here (heck, I win32 development too), but I have to say the second approach seems to be working much better these days. I do admire Torvalds for his statement about not worrying too much about the competition; however, it seems to me that not having to worry about this stuff is kind of an inherent benefit of the development model itself.

    Feel free to flame, comment, throw eggs, etc... :)

  144. It's easy in linux also. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

    If you had read the documentaion, you would have realised that you had to download the codec package. Also you wouldnt have wasted so much time if you had read the ./configure output from mplayer and just used the --disable-gcc-checking option.

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:It's easy in linux also. by q-soe · · Score: 2

      I understand and you are right - but i did read it and missed the GCC disable - i will go and check that.

      Still this is missing the point - its not as easy as it is on windows and thus its not something the average desktop user will adopt - thats what i was saying - i read docs - users dont. I want to see linux everywhere - but its not ready yet

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
  145. Linux with GNU tools by Mandelbrute · · Score: 1
    To me calling Linux Linux/GNU would be better than calling it GNU/Linux
    How about Linux with GNU tools, because that is what it is. Calling it gnu/linux is completely inaccurate anyway, since there are non-GPL kernel modules about that the FSF would never allow if it was their choice.

    <RANT> If you are in a habit of calling every little or large utility part of the OS, (is gcc part of the OS? Be serious please) or even calling the shell part of the OS (eg. Internet Explorer) then there is a lot of stuff that is not part of the gnu project.

    The whole attitude is summed up by this quote from RMS: "It's not like I'm asking for it to be called "Stallix"".

    It's good to see that Linus is far less interested in the issue than I am - and I'm only interested because I'm sick of newbies "correcting" me every time I use the word linux on USENET (and hence killing the thread).</RANT>

  146. Good Interview... by Julian+Plamann · · Score: 1

    _that_ "was" _a_ damned _good_ "interview"

    i dont really care.

  147. You are so right! by pherthyl · · Score: 1

    That basically sums it all up. I've tried almost all the major distros and what made me go back to w2k in the end was the program installation.

    Now I'm running Debian and I'm moderately happy with it.. If something is in the package database its easy to install. This is way better than anything windows has to offer.

    But if I want something that hasn't been packaged it's still hard as hell. Actually it seems even harder if there's always some special "debian way" to install stuff.

    I tried to install the alsa drivers for my sound card (my sound broke in 2.4.x) and failed miserably. After spending 2 hours trying various methods of installing it and reading all possible documentation on the website, I joined the alsa-user mailing list. No suggestions helped though and so I gave up..

    Why does this have to be made so complicated?? My card is supported in alsa and in the 2.4.x kernels so why doesnt it work? For all the RTFM ppl, fsck off. I've read all the FMs there are. And something this trivial shouldn't need a manual in the first place!

    Ohwell, I guess there's no sound in linux for me then.. Anyone had any luck getting a C-Media 8338 sound card working with the drivers in kernel 2.4.x? It worked fine for 2.2.19.

    Sorry for the rant but I had to get that off my chest.

  148. Re:Linus has the RIGHT not to care (NOT) by hughk · · Score: 1
    Sorry, but I believe that you are wrong. A long time ago before Linux started in the mainstream, we saw two FSF projects that particularly caught everyone's attention.

    The first was the Gnu Emacs editor, very hacky but quite ubiquitous and the other was GCC, the Gnu C Compiler. Here was a program development system that cost nothing other than download time, there were plenty of Unix development systems but they were costing $1000/workstation or more (that figure came from Solaris a few years ago).

    Linus wrote a Kernel, but he built it on top of FSF utilities. Hurd caught creeping featuritis and didn't make it out. Maybe Linus would have had a similar problem if he didn't have the growing pool of GPL'ed tools to draw from.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  149. RMS, the computer scenes own Mullah Omar. by kalleanka2 · · Score: 1

    "Linus Torvalds: I don't mind what rms calls the system. I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid, but hey, at the same time I really couldn't care less. "

    I really don't understand what rms problem are, why do he just have to be so fanatic? Did something bad happen to him when he was a child?

  150. why i love Linus... by drik00 · · Score: 1

    Ok, so he obviously doesnt care what anyone thinks, AMEN!

    Seriously, if he had been kissing ass all these years instead of developing a kickass kernel that he loves and wants to share with world, i wouldnt be running a 2.4.x system...and happy as a clam to do it...the only thing i boot to windows for is games and Outlook, and i'm about two days from migrating my mail to linux...

    Praise be to those who dont give a flying shit what others think, true innovation comes from those that love what they do, not what others think

    jacob

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
  151. Re:Your nick by simon_cockle · · Score: 1

    Nabbed from The Art Of War, old hat.

    --
    ________ semper ubi sub ubi
  152. [OT] Kernel 2.4.11 marked as "don't use" by chefren · · Score: 1
    kernel 2.4.12 is out and 2.4.11 has been marked as "don't use". The Changelog is here:

    final: - Greg KH: USB update (fix UHCI timeouts, serial unplug) - Christoph Rohland: shmem locking fixes - Al Viro: more mount cleanup - me: fix bad interaction with link_count handling - David Miller: Sparc updates, net cleanup - Tim Waugh: parport update - Jeff Garzik: net driver updates

  153. The Price of Fame by jandersen · · Score: 1
    Listen, guys - Linus never really asked to be famous, remember? It may surprise an American, but some people just don't like being famous (all I 'know' about Americans comes from Hollywood; apparently you lot can't get enough attention ;-)



    In most of the world fame comes at a price - everybody expects you to be a leader or even a 'deity', everybody has an opinion about you and wants your opinion. This makes it very hard to be just a normal guy; 'Linus said this', 'Linus said that', 'Linus farted and scratched his belly'. However, as taxing as it can be to be famous in, say, Europe or Asia, it is infinitely worse in America, where the public seems to believe that they have a constitutional right to poke their noses into famous people's private lives and up their arses. If Linus appears tired of something that's probably the reason.



    So, if you guys respect him or maybe even like him, allow him some peace.

  154. ABI, not API by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    API means Application Programming Interface, it is the source level interface. As long as the API stay the same, a recompile is the most that is needed.

    ABI means Application Binary Interface, it is the binary interface. As long as the ABI stay the same, old binaries will work.

    What free software developers care about is API stability, not ABI stability.

    1. Re:ABI, not API by fgodfrey · · Score: 2
      Maybe. Developers who care if anyone other than other developers is going to use their software care about whether it's easy for users to use their software. Having to constantly recompile and release new versions or making your users do the same is not friendly to either the release manager or the user. I am a developer and so I know that all I have to do is cd to the right place and type make/make install. Try describing that to someone who really never uses a Unix shell or worse what to do if that doesn't work for whatever reason. Breaking binary compatibilty also makes upgrading the kernel more of a production if you use any modules that don't ship as part of baseline Linux.


      Also, I still maintain that doing stuff like this is counterproductive to getting people to develop for or use Linux. It's also a strategy that Microsoft uses (change document formats any time someone figures out your old one).

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
  155. RMS still write code by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    At least, the Emacs 21 ChangeLog files have plenty of entries from him. Emacs was his original project, so it make sense that he has retired to that. He also concentrate more on documentation that programming

  156. Is no one interested in scalability then? by School+Bully · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to be worried about competition etc., but at the beginning Linus mentioned that Scalability up with NUMA and down with embedded devices was the most interesting area.

    Coming from SGI, I obviously find the NUMA bit interesting, but I can't believe no one has mentioned it yet!

  157. Re:Don't care about FreeBSD 5? by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

    I don't share that perception. Not caring about BSD=cocky. There are billions of cocky people in the world. I must be one of them.

  158. Pygmy rhinos. by hotsauce · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you did CPR on pygmy rhinos, it would be useful for you learn CPR on South American pygmy rhinos. It would be especially useful for you to learn how South Americans did CPR on pygmy rhinos, because they might do something better that you could learn from.

    Linus should try to learn instead of pretending others have nothing interesting to teach him.

  159. Is Linus a Vulcan? by Kiasoft · · Score: 1

    They don't get to emotional over stupid things :)

    --
    This is me... and that is all I can be.
  160. You do realize. by LoCoPuff · · Score: 1

    That you are exactly the kind of paranoid loon that Linus is dissassociating himself from right?

  161. Bullshit by twitter · · Score: 2
    The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.

    Put up or shut up is a good thing to tell people who complain. It's not a nice thing to tell people who are trying to help you.

    Without Linux, GNU would still be a rather obscure name that many computer scientists don't even recognize. Sure, the GNU tools allowed Linux to start off sooner, but there was nothing special about the GNU tools at the time Linux was created -- save that it was free (gratuis), and our beloved Finn could afford them on a student's budget.

    No one who ever wrote a line of code outside of Visual Basic would ever say something as ignorant as that. First off, anyone who knows their history knows that GCC was not the only gratis compiler in the world. Second, anyone who has been using those compiler knows that GCC has long been and remains one of the best. Combined with other GNU tools, GCC provides one of the finest development environments in the world. It's reputation is well earned and great. I am not a proffesional programer, but my first compiler was gcc for DOS. I have used Borland, Watcom and MS compilers as well. All but MS have their charm. GCC is my first choice today.

    Free Software is all about philosopy. It would not exist if people had not thought about community, individual rights, and how to foster such things in an increasingly greedy and careless world. GNU/Linux is a direct result of this man's effort to teach people a better way, as you might be able to tell from the vast numbers of contributors to it. A community has been formed that values individual and community rights. They publish their works under the GPL and other free liscences.

    Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore.

    Hmmm, That's a kernel, right? Just like Linus organized and maintains. Oh I see, I've been trolled. You were so good at acting ignorant it was hard to tell.

    No, that's not fair, it's flambait really. By diminishing the work of one of your enemies, you seek to have people flame away at another of your enemies. Nope, not gonna work. Linus is a fine fellow and his kernel works very well. There is nothing common about any of the great achievers of the free software world.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  162. Neither are you Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 2


    I'm sorry, that's just utter bunkum.



    Your assertion amounts to the following: "If someone thinks an issue is significant, it automatically is significant. They are then, because they are correct about that significance, smarter than anyone who does not award it the same significance.



    This means that bigots are the smartest people of all, because they attach so much importance to the color of a person's skin, to the religion they follow, to the activities they pursue with other consenting adults behind closed bedroom doors. According to you, this makes bigots smarter than the rest of us, who don't share the bigoted view that a person's entire value hangs upon these factors.



    Actual philosophers do not make the same mistake you do, of thinking that whatever someone else chooses to frame as the crux of the issue must actually be crucial.

    --
    If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
  163. Did you check out the website / sonshi.com? by linutslinutslinuts · · Score: 1

    Like the design/format/content...awesome stuff.

  164. does linux have visionaries? by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

    I believe that for anything to really get somewhere, it needs engineers AND visionaries.

    It's not popular, but I'll use apple as an example. Apple wouldn't have existed if not for Steve Wozniak. But it also would not have existed if not for Steve Jobs. Love him or hate him, what steve (and other visionaries) brings to the table is a focus... putting the pieces together of what they have and slowly working towards an endgame.

    Don't believe for one second that MacOS X isn't heading somewhere. Even steve might not be completely sure, but I would be my left nut that he his subconscious is brewing on it... and it will cool- even if they dont have the market cap to have immediate effects, it will trickle down if it is cool enough.

    Now, does linux have a steve jobs? This is a serious question, not trolling.

    Linus doesn't seem to be it... i have great respect for the man, but I don't think even he considers himself a visionsary or has a vision of where he wants to see linux finally go. And no, don't give me a comment like "well thats the beauty of it, it is a never-ending process and who knows where it will go!".

    Even Microsoft has a visonary, although they work from more of a backwards approach- "What are big future markets we can go into to solidy our position and keep large amounts of growth coming? Become a government? Great, we'll start by holding everyone's personal information." (joking)

    So who is it? What is the vision for linux? I admit I don't know the alot of the social circle involved around linux, so I could be missing something.

    But to me it looks like it is going to break, as there is no vision. Linus looks like he is looking at it from an engineering standpoint and saying "I am laying this foundation and you can do whatever the hell you want with it.", but there doesn't seem to be any vision.

    Right now it is a great solution (if you have the skills) for small to medium sized servers, and marginally passible as a desktop system.

    It looks like linus is engineering towards scalability for larger servers and solutions... is that the vision? And the guys trying to make it into a decent desktop are working against that? Are they at some point going to have to fork the code, so that someone with a vision can push it towards being the coolest consumer desktop around, and someone else can push it towards being the most scalable server solution?

    Again, i'm not trolling... but I don't see anyone with a vision in the linux world, and i'm probably just ignorant of the people out there with them. :)