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."
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).
Click here or here.
(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.
Well, sir, you don't follow FreeBSD 5, but there's nothing technically interesting in it?
Comon.
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. :)
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
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.
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
Meanwhile, in an RMS office somewhere:
"Okay, so Windows 2001 it is then."
Asikaa
Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.
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
"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
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.
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? ;)
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)
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Click here or here.
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.
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.
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!
Linus Torvalds: I personally really like our filesystem layer, and in general the "core" code is in pretty good shape
.. 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?
*cough*
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.
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.
since they are clued in they'll ask good questions and hopefully stop moaning abt clueless hacks.
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.
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."
You gotta love the focus.
.Net, Hailstorm and other M$ attempts at digital domination:
Linus on the competition:
I don't actually follow other operating systems much.
Linus on
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.
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
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
. Penguins Surely Ca
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
If that isn't justice, then I don't know what is ;)
Behold the Power of Cheese!
On the other hand, Linus speculated about computers being used to create new life forms. So perhaps he has a little /. blood after all.
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??
There is no spoon.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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....
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.
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
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!
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.
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.