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."

Comments

Keeping up with kernels

[totallygeek]

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).

Re:Keeping up with kernels

[Anonymous Coward]

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! :-)

Re:Keeping up with kernels

[cnkeller]

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."

Linux on the desktop

[gorillasoft]

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.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[PinkStainlessTail]

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.

Burn out?

[pschmied]

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

Torvalds isn't a philosopher

[extrasolar]

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.

I don't understand what you are saying..

[mindstrm]

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.