Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds about SCO, IP, MS and Transmeta
strmcrw writes " San Jose Mercury News has an interview with Linus. He talks about about SCO vs IBM and gives his opinion on Microsoft. He also shed light on his decision to leave chip maker Transmeta for a Linux corporate software consortium, the Open Source Development Lab."
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system, the open source version of Unix that is sweeping through the software world in a direct challenge to Microsoft.
[Emphasis mine]
From Rob's own http://cmdrtaco.net/
What? You haven't heard of Linux? It's an operating system created by Linus Torvalds, and a band of hacks scattered accross the globe.
[Emphasis mine]
Sorry GNU/FSF/RMS. You're like Rodney Dangerfield; you never get respect...
I agree with Linus that Linux will be damaged if the case is not resolved soon. It already has with assholes like McBride suing everyone who mentions the word Linux.
http://saveie6.com/
Direct quote from the article:
"I think they are struggling to deal with Linux partly because Linux is undermining them the same way they undercut their competition."
I guess the old goose-gander thing should apply.
Looking at the questions in mind, it's fairly obvious that they were set up - ie. that the journalist in question was asking for specific answers (ie. had done his homework properly), but Linus was far too prepared to answer briefly, obviously giving the journalist a reply he'd understand, but not making for good reading.
My wife - who has a fairly good understanding of how open projects work (and has coded both programming languages and html), but is by no means a linux geek - only just understood what Linus was saying, and she's both fairly knowledgable and extremely insightful.
This paragraph, for instance, has so many dependancies (:p) - it requires the user to understand coding, *open source* coding, and have a fairly good understanding of the ethos of.. well, several things. Most readers will *not* be reading with these understandings - if anything, they'll read in *order* to glean these kinds of understandings of something they'll only barely have heard of.
I don't think it's entirely because Linus doesn't speak english natively, either, to fend off potential criticism: I speak three languages, and I know *plenty* of efl (english as a foreign language) speakers who speak english which isn't as good as Linus's (which is excellent) who can explain technical issues with more clarity
In summary.. this is yet another of the problems facing popular adoption of a niche's product. ;)
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you
This could all just go away if SCO said, "We think lines xx - xxx of the Linux kernel violate our contracts/licenses/copyrights." Then it would be easy. The Linux community looks at the code and traces it back to who put it there. The problem is solved (as far as Linux goes) once the code is removed and SCO has their "violator" if there even is one.
This is called "discovery phase". It will be years away at this rate, unless IBM's lawyers decide to clusterfuck SCO with various motions. (I'm surprised this hasn't happened already.)
As I've said before. SCO isn't in this to do the right thing. SCO wants money and power.
I suspect what they're really after is some collateral damage. They'll never win against IBM, but they can ruffle enough feathers in the Linux-using corporate world to either boost their pathetic sales or to score some phat licensing deals from witless CTOs. The case doesn't even have to make it to trial: Darl just needs to continue making noise, and some idiots will think he's for real. SCO may not win <dr_evil>one billion dollars</dr_evil>, but they'll make enough and quietly drop the case.
I know paranoid theories are in vogue here, but I don't think it's that loopy. The parade of apparently clueless analysts who have been attesting to SCO's honor and victimhood are worthless for impressing the tech community or from a legal perspective, but very good at setting a precedent for eventual licen$e fee$. . .
The interview clearly shows that the issue between SCO and IBM has nothing to do with Linux in general.
The trivial bits of code which SCO probably added themselves during the Caldera era does not currently affect Linux or it's distributions.
If SCO miraculously wins an injunction against distributions with the copyrighted code, it will be easily rectified.
Furthermore, if it is proven that Caldera actually introduced the disputed code, which can be verified by looking at past distributions, they should have their pants sued of them.
I think GNU did themselves a disservice back in the late 80s/early 90s by not getting HURD written sooner.
If that had happened then they could have named it whatever RMS wanted. Instead Linus cobbled together Linux, GPL'd the source, and pretty much stole the show as far as naming the operating system.
Yet, much of the success of GNU is the freedom to distribute it WITHOUT permission of RMS (just as long as you provide the source code...). Of course, you can do this with non-GPL code too (*BSD, perl, python) but RMS hacked the copyright system first.
So the real success story is that GNU's bash can be used with Linux, Windows (under Cygnus), or with Mac OS X. RMS might have lost the battle (over GNU/Linux), but he certainly won the war (bash is just one successful example).
My father is a blogger.
Linux was influenced heavily by Minix, yes. But Linus never had access to Minix source code when he began writing what would end up being called Linux, so your conspiracy theory of Linus borrowing code from Minix is non-viable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Q: Competitively, do you think this controlled chaos works against a company like Microsoft?
A: I think it ultimately the only way to do software. I have arguments why. The main one is the complexity issue. It's very hard for someone who doesn't work like this to keep control of an increasingly complex source base and increasingly complex user base. If you try to control the process too much, you can go straight to the end point where you want to go. That works well if you know where the end point is. If you don't know where it is and you can't control where people want to use your software, it's a very bad thing to have one branch that is very concentrated on one line of development. The best analogy is biological diversity."
I don't know, but I suspect that IBM is on to something.
Sorry, but "the world" is wrong. The companies that are experiencing these problems need to adapt. If they don't want to adapt, then they are welcome to not support linux - and accept the consquences of that, be they large or small.
In the long term, "the world" will be better off by changing to the linux, or rather the free software, paradigm.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Wouldn't that make it very homogeneous?
Python had much of the same problem. Guido van Rossum is so much the center of the Python universe that he and his core developers spent a bit of effort getting the "truck number" above a certain point.
But I don't think it's a problem with Linux. See there's nothing preventing anyone from forking Linux and making a version without Linus' input. It's just that most people support his decisions because it's his project and he's involved.
If he gets hit by a truck, it will certainly shake up core Linux development, but either (a) someone will emerge as a unifying leader or (b) Linux development will wanter off into a thousand different directions: some will die off, some will thrive.
But that being said, let's hope Linus has a long happy life and eventually wins the Vannevar Bush Medal.
My father is a blogger.
"Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system..."
More misunderstanding. I know it's preaching to the choir, but Linux is just the kernel, and the GNU project deserves just as much representation as does Linus Torvalds for it's creation of low level tools such as GCC. Linus is hardly the sole creator of the base system, although he did write the kernel as I'm sure you know.
"...the open source version of Unix..."
Linux is not a version of Unix. GNU/Linux is a derivative clone of UNIX. The system was initially chosen by the GNU project to be a clone of UNIX because it was the most portable OS at the time. I don't know how closely the Linux kernel compares to UNIX kernels and such, but GNU/Linux is definitly UNIX-like as a result of initial planning by the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, if Linux was a version of UNIX (all of which must be licensed) wouldn't this whole interview (at least the SCO parts) be pointless since SCO licenses UNIX? Saying it's a version implys that it uses UNIX code, which is what brought us to all this madness in the first instance. Honestly, do these reports even know what they're saying, or do they just run off scripts?
"He is a technical leader and an outspoken advocate of open source development, which allows software users to develop and modify their own versions of software for free."
Notice how they use the term "for free" rather than something like "freely modify". Just a subtle point which I felt was worthy of pointing out. Also, notice the commonly used over-patronage of Linus. I think the media does this, unconciously, to effectivley set the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the amazing social phenomenon that is the movement commonly refered to as the "Open Source Movement," which sets unprecidented examples for healthy human society and interaction in comparison to the failed systems of the past. One can't even begin to draw parallels simply because of this sort-of systematic patronage of one man, and overlooking of an entire movement.
For our readers who don't know the origins of Linux, can you talk about how it was written given the existence of Unix?
A: The origin was all written by me. For the first six months or so I was the only person working on Linux. It took almost a year before there was a major contribution from people outside. It's all original code since day one.
Linus: "I am at the center...
You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility. So how can we conclude that RMS is cocky when we have this kind of total disregard for everyone else involved in the development of the system.
Until we stop using terms like Linux meaning the whole OS and Intellectual Property as being every legal issue under the sun, we simply can't even begin to have a logical discussion about the issues at hand, and will only further confuse those who may casually read about these subjects in the news.
After reading this article I really thought about a lot of things, and came to the conclusion that the term "Open Source" is really pointless and should be avoided. If you think about it, all source is open. Propreitary code is open to the developers who work on it. It's just maintained in a system of checks, balances, non-disclosure agreements, and "need to know" prediciments. What you're really talking about when you discuss "open-source" is exactly how open it is, and who exactly it's open to. That's why I think it's better to use the term free when discussing these matters, as it's a more liberating term without the boundaries that "open" source can have. Sure it's "open", but who exactly is it open to? If something's free, it's just free; Their are no heirarchiel limitations.
More misunderstanding. I know it's preaching to the choir, but Linux is just the kernel, and the GNU project deserves just as much representation as does Linus Torvalds for it's creation of low level tools such as GCC. Linus is hardly the sole creator of the base system, although he did write the kernel as I'm sure you know.
You could still use Linux without GNU tools. Linux is the kernel that is controlling my freaking laptop. It is operating my computer into a usable state. I can replace bash, GCC, and all the rest if I wanted.
Linux is not a version of Unix. GNU/Linux is a derivative clone of UNIX.
Ah, a "GNU/Linux" weenie.
He said "open source version," which is another way of saying it's the open source counterpart, clone, whatever. Version wasn't meant to be so literal.
The system was initially chosen by the GNU project to be a clone of UNIX because it was the most portable OS at the time. I don't know how closely the Linux kernel compares to UNIX kernels and such, but GNU/Linux is definitly UNIX-like as a result of initial planning by the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, if Linux was a version of UNIX (all of which must be licensed) wouldn't this whole interview (at least the SCO parts) be pointless since SCO licenses UNIX? Saying it's a version implys that it uses UNIX code, which is what brought us to all this madness in the first instance. Honestly, do these reports even know what they're saying, or do they just run off scripts?
You posted an entire insane diatribe over the non-literal use of the word "version." Go see Terminator 3 and relax a bit.
Notice how they use the term "for free" rather than something like "freely modify". Just a subtle point which I felt was worthy of pointing out. Also, notice the commonly used over-patronage of Linus. I think the media does this, unconciously, to effectivley set the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the amazing social phenomenon that is the movement commonly refered to as the "Open Source Movement," which sets unprecidented examples for healthy human society and interaction in comparison to the failed systems of the past. One can't even begin to draw parallels simply because of this sort-of systematic patronage of one man, and overlooking of an entire movement.
Maybe they just liked the idea of free stuff.
You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility.
He claimed responsibility...for LINUX! You injected "OS" and went off on another GNU rant. The two letters "OS" were not even uttered. He did not claim total responsibility for "everything."
So how can we conclude that RMS is cocky when we have this kind of total disregard for everyone else involved in the development of the system.
Because RMS didn't have anything to do with the original code of Linux, and it WAS all Linux those first six months. What is your friggin' point? Next.
Until we stop using terms like Linux meaning the whole OS and Intellectual Property as being every legal issue under the sun, we simply can't even begin to have a logical discussion about the issues at hand, and will only further confuse those who may casually read about these subjects in the news.
You are so clearly biased.
Linux is my operating system. I'm not afraid to say it. It is the software that is managing all the of the hardware in my computer, providing drivers, making sure memory is taken care of, managing all of my processes...GNU tools are in there along with a bunch of other things. I could replace all the GNU tools with other software and still use Linux. Linux is operating my system, whether or not G
"Sufferin' succotash."
Linux is running all my drivers, talking to all my hardware, managing my memory and my processes. It is controlling my computer as an operational system. You can take GNU out of the equation with a bit of work and Linux will still go at it.
True.
I choose to use Linux. It just so happens GNU tools are included on the distros I use, but I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools, I'm choosing to use it for the kernel, its hardware support, and so forth. If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
True.
Allow me some leeway, here, though. HEre's more, not from your post:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system,
This is a lie. Linus Torvalds did not create the Linux Operating System, he created the Linux Kernel.
Whether or not you give a shit about GNU, and the fact that LInus would never have made Linux without GNU (as he has said many times, so you can google for it, you need the exercise), is completely irrelevant for the article. Furthermore, GNU is completely irrelevant for the article. The only correction needed is this:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux kernel,
As you can see, my edited version is much clearer, and in fact completely jives with your own goals.
RMS asks us to call the operating system GNU/Linux, but he never ever says that you can't refer to Linux without prepending GNU/. In fact, he specifically says that when you are referring to Linux the kernel, you should not prepend GNU/.
Get a brain, asshole, and learn to read.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Look Coward, these people are acting in their roles of corporate assholes, and their corporation have publicly known addresses where they can be contacted as such.
Behaving like you do, Cobarde, and hiding behind anonimity (which is not such, I am sure that somebody with a good team of lawyers could track you like nothing) just shows how childish some people can be.
Shame on you Mr Coward.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
While you made a decent post, I really think you too are missing the point.
Stallman had a dream. A dream everyone else thought was crazy. A dream of a Free as in speech Operating System, a kernel, text editors, compilers, everything you need to actually use the computer, and all Free. He called that dream GNU. And because, back when everyone else thought he was crazy, he persevered, worked his ass off and didn't give up, we now have actually not one but several different Free Operating Systems. There's one to run on just about any hardware you can find, from a PS2 to an old Acorn box to an IBM supercomputer.
Did Stallman write all that code? Of course not. Did the FSF write it all? Of course not. That would have been silly. He knew from the beginning that road was impossible. They just wrote from scratch what they had to - i.e. X was already there, no need to reinvent the wheel, but there weren't any decent Free compilers, so they made GCC. Linux came along and contributed a kernel, one piece among many to make the OS.
If people don't want to call GNU by it's proper name, no one can force them. But don't let the issue be sidetracked into trying to label what percentage is GNU and what is X and so forth - it doesn't matter. GNU was the vision, and the FSF produced the pieces no one else would, to make that vision reality. I, for one, think we all owe them a debt we can never repay. Calling the OS by it's proper name is only fair.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Bear in mind that this a transcript of what Linus said; it has been coerced into written form. It probably sounded a lot more readable when it was spoken.
Could go either way. I think it looks more like Stallman is standing on the shoulders of Linus. Without the emergance of the Linux kernel, most of Stallman's work was just sitting there looking pretty.
You're looking at the wrong work. Stallman's true insights are not embodied in the GNU codebase, they're embodied in the GPL. His crowning achievement was the observation that he could "hack the copyright system", employing copyright law itself to make software "free". In retrospect this seems like a simple, and even obvious, idea, but that's a characteristic of all really great ideas.
This achievement doesn't really deserve a peace prize, since it's not clear how it fosters world peace, but it deserves recognition. Linus wrote a simple OS kernel and has done a great job of managing its ongoing growth and development as it turned from a toy into a serious tool. RMS started the whole free software movement.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.