Slashdot Mirror
KernelTrap Interview With Alan Cox
Jeremy writes "KernelTrap has spoken with Linux guru Alan Cox. He is perhaps the second most
influental Linux kernel hacker, next only to Linus. In this interview he talks
about himself, his history with computers and Linux, working for Red Hat,
Marcello and the 2.4 kernel, the DMCA, the future of Linux and much more."
From his section on university:
University was a slightly checkered career, not on the whole due to taking other people's computers apart but because of the rather odd rules at Aberystwyth. I learned a lot there (more from my own experiments and trying to achieve things than from the course), but because of the other courses you had to pass (Physics in my case) ended up changing university to one that didn't require I could do physics but required I could do computer science.
Here is the key part that follows:
Looking back on university I'm very glad I did it. At the time I thought management skills, software engineering, databases and even bits of maths like proof by induction were completely irrelevant. I've used all of them in my Linux work. - Alan Cox
Maybe I should file this one away for those fairly regular Ask Slashdot questions about whether one should go to university or just get a certification in order to work in the computer industry. Attending university is not the end-all-be-all, but his comment does sum up one of the best arguments for seeking a degree.
A variety of things were involved in that decision. In part I want to work on other projects and ideas. I've already been using some of the time freed up to rewrite the aacraid driver and to clean up some of the very old and grungy SCSI drivers instead.
It's also good that a system doesn't settle down with a sort of elite who created it and that new ideas and younger people are always stepping into the project. I want to be sure that when I'm an old fart there are plenty of people in the community with both the knowledge and the standing to call me an idiot when I say something stupid, rather than treat my words as gospel.
This is a refreshing attitude, and a wise one. People need the freedom to try new ideas without fear that their ideas will be rejected simply for being different than the currently accepted "gospel."
As an example, if Einstein had listened to his early professors in Switzerland, who thought they couldn't possibly be wrong and had nothing to learn from him, he would not have started down the road to many of his discoveries. Many of his early papers and theories were rejected simply because they didn't side with the accepted theories of the "experts." While not all of those early theories were correct, some were and formed the basis for his later work.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
A computer running Linux can be used to store copyrighted information (e.g. the book that you are writing on, the movie that you are producing). Linux is not like MSDOS or a C64; it has logins and permissions and stuff, so that you can access your copyrighted work, but other people can't.
Because of that, it quite possibly qualifies as a "technological measure to limit access to a copyrighted work." This applies to other operating systems such as OpenBSD, Windows NT, MacOX X, as well.
If you discuss details about security bugs in any of these systems, you are potentially trafficking in tools and information about how to circumvent the technological measure the limits access to copyrighted works.
For example, I store my copyrighted work on a Linux ext2 filesystem. You find a buffer overflow in a program which I happen to run, and you describe the bug on a mailing list. Someone reads the list, infers an exploit from your bug description, and uses it to break into my system and access my copyrighted work. You just violated DMCA, and are potentially liable to me, should I decide to sue you.
Brilliant law, eh?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I did the end of school exam ('O' level to UK people) in 30 minutes for a 3 hour paper and by the time I was at college (16-18) I was convinced of my own brilliance.
And then, his head exploded because it got too big!
This is VERY un-Linus like.
If there's no copyright law, that doesn't mean that companies will release their source. They can still keep their stuff closed source, because nobody can force them to release their code.
Utter nonsense. If there were no copyright law, the GPL would be unenforceable.
I could steal your open-source code, change the header information, and release it as my own, closed-source product, and there's not a damn thing you could do about it, because you never owned your code in the first place. Losing copyright law would mean losing all control over your code, including telling other people what they can and can't do with it.
The GPL *needs* IP law in order to force people to release their source. Without that, it would just be a polite request.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
But why would you do that? Anyone could just make copies of your closed-source product, give it to whomever they wanted, put it up for download on the internet, whatever. How could you possibly make money selling closed-source software in a copyright-free world?
I can see where this discussion is going, so let me make this clear: I don't advocate abolishing copyright. I'm just saying that the argument "We need copyright because it makes the GPL possible" is invalid.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.