Slashdot Mirror
BBC Interviews Linus Torvalds
chrisseaton writes "The BBC has an interview with Linus Torvalds. It's a little thin, but good to see something like this in a decent mainstream news source."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...how this is vaugly interesting at all? the article really lacks content. it is as if they could have interviewd Paul Alan and went off on a tangent about golf w/ some random quotes about Altair BASIC. Except Paul Alan interests me more for some sick, twisted reason
...the irony being that this appears to be only in Windows Media format!
Instead it is more likely that Microsoft will become like IBM - "still huge but not the dominant force anymore", he said.
Interesting pararalel. This sentence could be interpreted more than one way but its interesting how by implication he seems to dismiss the importance of IBM's support, something that is given way too much weight and considering the reliability of Corporate alliances, one day could very well backfire. Overall, a pretty dull interview, I could almost hear him yawning."He would not, however, want to become personally involved in the dispute with Microsoft.
"I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad," he said."
This just makes good business sense on his part. Never, ever, has he said he wanted to overthrow Microsoft. Why would he? Why bring the wrath of several billion dollars to bear on yourself?
Let the software speak for itself. Besides, he has enough people arguing for him he can move on to more important things.
Sent from your iPad.
- Linux in the palm of your hand
- Word processing for everyone?
- Red Hat's new Linux seeks to unify
That's just a couple of MSNBC's recent articles on Linux. In general, MSNBC's actually one of the most pro-Linux major news sources on the 'net.Hi!
Yes, Linus is a cool dude but you should remember that the FSF is full of cool dudes and that GNU Hurd is ready for use! Remember you have a responsibility to yourself and the rest of humanity to choose Free over mere "Open Source" where possible - do the right thing for the future of computing.
So thanks Linus, for helping to develop GNU/Linux. But please consider GNU Hurd! Futrure generations will thank you.
Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang
a company wants program X to preform a task. they preform a cost analysis and it would cost M dollars to purchase this program from commercial company Y. There is a Free, F, (in the gnu sense) program that would do alot of what they want, but not all. It would cost N dollars to add that functionality. if N M then company X can hire a programmer or use exsisting staff to pay someone to add those features.
if company X wishes to distribute those changes they have to provide the source code. if they just want to use it internally, they dont have to distribute their changes.
right now there is a HUGE codebase of Free software to build on. if it's cheaper to build on Free software than it is to purchase commerical software, then free software can be developed and programmers can still make money.
-- john
I can imagine it, I just can't see it going anywhere. If you are interested in commercializing a UNIX flavor, BSD is the OS of choice because it is an Open != Free license. Darwin as sold as NeXT and now OSX is an obvious example.
More likely is that some mergers between the HURD and Linux will occur, which will solidify the Linux kernel in the GPL camp. The point is that only if all of the copyright holders agree can the licensing be shifted. But, the Linux kernel has never been released except under GPL, so maybe it isn't even possible. In the beginning when there was only a handful of participants, maybe the kernel itself could have been released under another copyright (in addition to GPL), and maybe Linus could attempt to do this himself even. But why would he? This kind of action would rightly be seen as divisive, and would destroy the community's trust.
In other words, even if it was possible, it would not impact much because no one would be interested. If a Linux/Hurd merger occurs, it is no longer possible because at least the Hurd part would have to be removed first.
A seperate topic, but I think a merger is the most likely outcome because I'm sure there are good an worthy modules in both kernels, and the community is after the best.
No, calling Linus "the inventor of the Linux operating system" is like calling Bill Gates "the inventor of MS Windows." Linus probably contributed more code to his project than Bill did to his, but their most important contributions were similar in nature.
In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon. Bill Gates did it through shrewd (amoral?) business practices; Linus did it by motivating people to contribute. However he did it, Linus was the binding glue that has propelled Linux to where it currently is.
As you said, most of the codebase is there. You imply that the kernel is almost a trivial aspect of the OS... so where is the Gnu OS that exists outside of Linux? Hurd is pretty old... why isn't anybody running it? Why is Linux more popular than BSD? Why is it more popular than any other well designed OS?
Linus motivates people; he's a cult of personality that encourages cooperation and construction. RMS's cult of personality is of a different, more evangelical sort, which hasn't, and doesn't, encourage people to join in. This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to.
So, I believe it is entirely reasonable (if not fair) to credit Linus with the creation of Linux. Even if he hadn't written a single line of code, and yet had otherwise done for Linux what he has, he'd still be able to claim that title. This all by the basic fact that without Linus, there would have been no Linux as we know it, no matter how much code Gnu churned out.
"In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon."
Please, don't bullshit. There are a lot of motivating factors for writing free software, from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar to the freeing of mozilla to just the simple fact on how much Windows sucked at the time. Giving Linus undue credit in this regard is merely dishonest.
".... This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to."
First, look up dogmatic and see if that is really what you mean.
Second, read this from here:
Read the rest of the study itself here. What they found is that most people who write free software do it for the "dogmatic" reasons Linus seems to despise so much. Certainly, its not an overwhelming majority--but the point stands: without RMS, free software would not be anywhere near as important or complete, nor have as many developers, as it has today.
Not that even a majority of these people agree with RMS in every way. But, for a movement to sustain itself, there needs to be something more than a "cult of personality". There needs to be something real to work towards--a lofty goal.
I suppose I should stop here. The study really should speak for itself. But there is no doubt in my mind, no matter how unpopular it may seem, credit is certainly due.
No bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of a popular non-Linux Gnu distribution. This is the only proof I need to show that Linus, not RMS, was the motivating force behind Linux. Furthermore, I believe that even had Gnu never existed, Linux would still have come into being, and would have gained as much popularity as it now has. This is, obviously, pure conjecture on my part, but I think it is an opinion formed from a reasonable extrapolation of the history of Linux.
Yup. It means exactly what I think it means.
Linus tends to keep high politics (as opposed to interpersonal politics) out of what he does. RMS does just the opposite; from the GPL to his public statements, everything is shaded in politics, ethics, and dogma. This makes Linus easier to work with, because he isn't preaching at you. Again, you can agree with something, and still not want to have it shoved down your throat. I support PBS, but I treat their fundraisers just like any other telemarketter if I receive unsolicited calls.
As far as crediting contributors, I agree. The question is: at what point is a contribution considered significant enough to warrent high-level credit? Should we start calling it "Kerningham/Richie/Gnu/Linux"? K&R have made much more of a contribution to Linux than either Gnu or Linus. Maybe Gentoo should be called "Python/Gentoo", because so much of what defines Gentoo is Portage, which is a Python app.
This message was not run through a spell checker, including my own brain.
Pushing your ideals is not asking for credit. The latter is selfishness. But RMS is the former.