Slashdot Mirror
Dennis Ritchie Interviewed
An anonymous reader writes "Unix.se has published an interview with Dennis Ritchie (inventor of C, co-creator of Unix)." Not very technical, but Dennis shares his thoughts on GNU, kernel design, and more.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Back in the "good old days", operating systems weren't portable, so you were locked in from the start.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
What would the world be without gnu? Shudder.
I am typing this on a windows2000 box now but I have apache, perl, devc++, cygwin, and tlc running. Would these utilities be free today if Gnu or Linux never was born? I don't think so.
We would just have Visual Studio for an expensive price. VC or VB take your pick.
Free Software is great and it opens up the market and provides a scene. Especially if you do not have two dimes to rub together.
http://saveie6.com/
I would have expected an interview with him about how great he is, how great his invention C is, etc. However, I was really amazed. He seems rather low key and does not seem to have that superiority complex that plagues some idividuals. He seems like a human being with an interest in computers. I like this. It is a welcome read after listening to my professors make fun of people with their heads on tripods, when they should look in the mirror cause they have the biggest heads on the most massive tripods ever seen.
I would have liked to see longer answers and in more detail to some of his questions. Although, I can say tersness can be a desired trait.
Reserved Word.
Ok, the guy is venerated by many and was behind Unix, the C language etc, but does he really have anything relevant to say about what is going on in the world today. Of course we will never know if the interviewers only ask a few questions and settle for short, vague answers. His comments left me with no new understanding of anything... from the interview it seems as though he hasn't really been doing anything at all. He said just enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth. In particular I disagree with his view of free software. Of course they had to reinvent the wheel on a lot of things to get Linux/freeBSD or any free software going. All the stuff that wasn't free was copyrighted. We are getting to the point now that there is a free foundation for sofware upon which developers can build more innovative things(not that there was a complete lack of innovation to begin with). In any event, Linux couldn't be en-vogue forever, but that doesn't mean it's not good. People shouldn't bash a good thing just because they're tired of hearing about it.
My Blog
Right. Taking the path of least resistance, with no regard for ideology or ethics is the perfect thing to do. I use free software both because it meet my needs and as my personal "fuck off" to the Microsofts and Apples (yeah, you heard me you marketing-whores) of the world. I can understand people using Microsoft because they have to (because they have some business that requires it, for instance.) But using it just out of sheer desire to propogate the status quo? That's just lazy. It's fine to adhere to one ideology or the other. Not adhering to any ideology at all is just a bee-line to decadence. You sir represent everything that is wrong with this world.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
While I agree the Plan 9 license isn't the best in the world, some of us aren't all that excited about software under the GPL or even LGPL. Stallman urges developers away from the Apache license let alone the Plan 9 license.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I use free software both because it meet my needs and as my personal "fuck off" to the Microsofts and Apples of the world.
Reality Check:
Some programmers (like me) have spent years working on products like Mac OS X so that you can use a computer as a tool. See, we believe that the machine should help you get something done, and get the heck out of the way otherwise.
For some people, that means having txtfiles config everything, because their brains are capable of modeling the operation of the whole machine in their head.
For others (like me) I'd rather see the computer go off and do the stuff I can't, and simplify the user interaction so that the user can keep their problem in their head.
What the original poster was saying is that too many geeks forget that "how the computer works" is the problem they use computers to solve, and most other users have totally different problems, and wish us geeks would stop imposing our problemset on them.
So if you want to tell MS and Apple to fuck off, don't do it because they serve an "ideology" different from yours. GUI/CLI design is not a zero-sum game.
Yes, of course, but not as many as you might think. Lots of people seem to miss this point, even Ritchie - when Stallman set out on the GNU project, his aim was not to build a gee-whiz cutting edge computer system, it was to produce free software that would be very useful to people. At the time, everybody used UNIX, so that's what it made sense to "make free". Also, there was a lot of experience with UNIX systems, and communications wasn't as good back then as it is now, so the modularity of UNIX meant the work could easily be split into various teams.
Even though the driving force was a desire for software freedom rather than cool features, Linux and the rest of the GNU system today have all kinds of stuff that wasn't in the old UNIX systems. In fact, stuff like /proc was stolen directly from Plan9.
Note that some of the ideas that might sound good at first, have been tried, and basically don't work, or don't work as well as you might expect. The microkernel for instance. The Hurd is of course a microkernel based system, yet we all use Linux. Why? Because it was there, and it was pretty good. And now highly modular monolithic kernels have many of the advantages of microkernels, and microkernels have steadily increased in size as performance issues weighed in.
Ditto for a lot of other ideas that seemed good at the time, but actually perhaps weren't. AppFolders for instance (my pet one) :)
You, sir, have not even the faintest idea what you are talking about. There will always be a place for programmers, as 99% of software development is not done developing proprietary commercial software. People and companies will always need software, so there will always be people paying to have software developed, it doesn't matter how it's licensed, it's needed and will be paid for, or volunteer groups will develop it and/or businesses will help fund development. Just look at Mozilla, Linux, GNU, BSD(even more difficult as not all improvements make it back in), Open Office, Gnome, KDE, Konqueror fer Chrissake!, Gimp, Vim, Emacs, Wine(an open source reimplementation of windows!), MPlayer, Xine. Just browse around Freshmeat and SourceForge. There are some huge projects there, among all the little ones, done by volunteers. Then when businesses help out, even more gets done. IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. are all putting money into furthering Linux development, because it helps them. It might not make as much money over the short term as proprietary software, but proprietary software is a bad business.
Proprietary software is a bad business because you can't expect people to buy the same products over and over, forever. Physical products are a different matter, as they wear out, get damaged, etc. Think about it for a second. Businesses, schools, governments, all spend billions of dollars on the same software over and over again. Why should they do that? Some organizations that buy proprietary software spend so much(hundreds of millions of dollars per year) on software licensing, that they could fund development of their own software to replace said proprietary software. Depending on what they need, how much they spend, etc., after one year they could have already saved money. Being more conservative, a lot of organizations could look at things over the long term, and be saving money within 5 or 10 years by developing their own software, or helping develop existing free software.
Seriously, you're stupid if you don't see that. The only reason to stick with spending hundreds of millions on software is simply that that is the status quo. Governments and companies are starting to realize that. That's why so many European governments and companies, even the U.S. government and companies, are starting to get involved with "free software". They plan to save money, and have better software.
The things you are saying are unworkable, are already being put into practice.
How long has it taken to get HURD to a semi-useable state again?
Ok, now that's just absolute stupidity. Linux was developed, licensed under the GPL no less so there goes your implication that an OS kernel is too difficult a task to be completed by groups of volunteers, and HURD development was no longer necessary.
Not only are you flat out wrong, you are bordering on being, as another poster said, libelous, with your possibly intentional disinformation regarding software licensing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is is the paradox of freedom: maintenance of freedom requires the limitation of freedom. For example maintaining your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness necessarily requires a limitation of my right to kill, imprison and otherwise abuse you -- even if your death would make me ever so happy.
Similarly, maintainence of your right to the freedom to use GPL software requires a limitation of my right to 'imprison' that same software.
You choose your poison, you pay your price.
Unabridged libertarianism is little more than the thinly disguised right of the strong to enslave the weak.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.