Slashdot Mirror


The Evolution of Linux

Taiko writes: "Kerneltrap.org has posted some of the more interesting messages from a recent kernel mailing list discussion. It started with a post on proper indentation, but turned into something a bit more. There are some posts by Linus and Alan Cox about the nature of design, computer science, Linux development, evolution, and more. Quite interesting and funny."

7 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Great stuff! by Prop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I enjoy reading Linus' thoughts so much.

    All around him, people try to make him or Linux more than it really is - and invariably, Linus brings it down a notch and puts it in perspective

    It's amazing that this guy gets constantly hero-worshiped, his baby created billion dollars of wealth (at one point, at least), and yet just keeps his feet firmly planted

    Compare that to the clowns that get high and mighty because they rUleZ at Quake, or on some IRC channel ... The geek community could learn a LOT from trying to emulate Linus' behaviour.

  2. Too much back patting.. by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In all seriousness, would this article have been given a second glance if Linus wasn't involved? If I were to post a message saying "Hey, my friends and I were discussing the meaning of life after arguing about pencils, check out the log," I doubt a single editor on slashdot would have given it a 2nd glance. What kind of sick twist on celebrity worship is this?

  3. Ecosystem biased against small players? by cygnusx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Reading this lkml thread, I had the distinct feeling that you could replace Sun with Apple in Linus' posts and much of it would still be true.

    You heard them above. Sun is basically inbreeding. That tends to be good
    to bring out specific characteristics of a breed...


    Following that thread, can I now propose Linus' Law:

    Any software system with a large enough user base can rely on the accumulated experience of its users to add features, and also picking ideas from smaller systems now and then (at a very low incremental effort).

    Corollary. The onus is on the smaller players to come up with new features to distinguish themselves from the masses -- but ultimately it's no-win for them because their *really useful* ideas will be subsumed into more popular systems anyway ... only a matter of time.

    I need sleep and I'm quite possibly not thinking straight, but am I right in thinking this would create enormous pressures for specialized players like Sun and Apple (and Be, as they found out) in the long term?

    If that is the case, where does that leave the "small is beautiful" rule? Does it mutate to "small is beautiful, provided you are part of a *big* idea that has incredible amounts of 'traction'"?
    1. Re:Ecosystem biased against small players? by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure the number of users is important so much as the number of developers/contributers. Or if Linus is correct, the number of developers with different agendas.

      In fact the whole debate starts to sound a bit like ESR's Cathedral & Bazaar.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  4. Re:science and engineering by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science provides the tools that engineers use to build stuff.

    Science provides a lot of dandy tools. Engineers like tools.

    Engineers would be useless without science to provide new raw materials.

    Baloney. We (engineers) were building all sorts of impressive stuff long before the invention of science. Check out the Great Pyramid and Yu the Great.

  5. I don't agree completely with Linus by shinji1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to Rik:

    Biological selection does nothing except removing the weak ones, it cannot automatically create systems which work well.

    In short, I believe the biological selection is just that, selection. The creation of stuff will need some direction.

    And I have to nod vigorously to that. Even taking the model of accelerated evolution through human breeding of species: you direct two animals together to breed. You don't just let the Ps, the F1s, the F2s, etc. just all wander around in a pen, have a sniper sitting on a post shooting the ones you don't want, and hoping the rest go at it...

  6. Re:Heh by barneyfoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You sound pretty paranoid.

    Honestly you shouldn't be too worried. The shit _hasn't_ hit the fan, and 2.4.16 is ROCK solid. _Yes_, 2.4 took a long time to stabilize. It's there now, after the Van Riel vm was tossed aside. So lets cut the crap and call a spade a spade: 1) Linus is not a stable release maintainer. If linus puts out a kernel it needs to be tested. Linus does not put out release candidates. Only a fool would use a product that has been released without prior testing. 2) 2.4 took so long to stabilize because of the mistaken beleif that a BSD style VM was best for linux. 2.4 doesn't have the infrastructure to handle it (reverse memory mapping, etc). 3) 2.4.16 is a fucking great kernel. Except for a few possible bugs (the source tree is 149MB uncompressed!) I know of no problems whatsoever. 4) 2.5.x is already starting off with a bang. the new block/io layer should kick major ass, along with all the other enhancements planned. 5) Quit your whining. The sky isn't falling, alan cox isn't retiring to the hills to become a hermit, and linus torvalds knows what the fuck he's doing.