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."

Comments

The Linux "Operating System"

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

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...

Re:The Linux "Operating System"

[McDutchie]

Referring to it as GNU/Linux gives the FSF more credit than they deserve. Sure they deserve a lot of credit, but there are many other things that go into a typical distro that deserve about as much credit, such as:

RedHat's ext2/ext3 filesystem
XFree86
GNOME or KDE
Mozilla
OpenOffice.org
Apache, PHP and MySQL or PostgreSQL

You are missing the point, which is that Linux is not an operating system but a kernel. Linus did not create XFree86, GNOME/KDE, or any other part of a typical Linux distro except the kernel, to say that he created the "Linux operating system" is therefore misleading and inaccurate, i.e. a lie, plain and simple.

Of course, the Slashbot anti-RMS crowd is perfectly fine with Linus spreading this lie (or at least doing nothing to stop it) and claiming/accepting credit where it is not due. After all, it's not like geeks (real geeks, not the fashionable Slashbot-type pop geek) deserve any respect or due credit.

Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[Billly Gates]

Linus should be more carefull about SCO. Its not a SCO vs IBM at all. They are trying to squash it via fud and legal options. Look at this.

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.

Re:Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[the gnat]

Wow, it just keeps getting more bizarre:

I saw what appeared to be a word-for-word copy of about every third line of code in the central module of the Linux kernel," said Enderle of Giga Information Group, who viewed the alleged code violations two weeks ago. "The lines of code contained typos, misspellings and even copyright disclaimers. It appeared to constitute a violation of the license."

Hmmmm. . . whose copyright disclaimers, exactly? Like, say "Copyright (c) 1985, 1986 The Regents of the University of California."? Puh-lease. Unless the Linux kernel contains code that is clearly labelled as "Copyright AT&T", this particular nugget of wisdom mostly just suggests that SCO copied someone else's code. (FYI: there are a few bits of kernel 2.4 labelled with AT&T, but they're also identified as being freely usable.) How fucking stupid do they think we are? And what is the "central module"?

I guess on the bright side this means that all we need to do is hunt down every copyright notice in Linux and we'll prove or disprove the code copying... anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Re:Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[SpaceLifeForm]

You are 100% correct.

This is telling:

However, Linux is in many ways a throwback to more primitive systems. Not only is it repeating the mistakes of its predecessors, it apparently is introducing a brand new set of problems, having to do with intellectual property.

This line of propaganda was expected. This is the entire goal, to break the collective thoughts of disparate programmers around the world. They want to *blame* Linux, to belittle Linux, so that the megacorps can control.

You can guess the nature of future propaganda.

More FUD, step around, nothing to see here.

Direct from Linus: Linux is like Microsoft.

[SN74S181]

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.

Being that this is a mainstream article..

[njan]

..Linus really doesn't do very much for popular perception of how linux works. He may be stressed, and he may not have been answering with this in mind, but some of his answers really aren't particularly comprehensible to anyone who doesn't understand how linux works.

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.

Q: Do you think it works well that you have the final say?

A: I think it works well because I don't have the final say. I have this final say in my tree. It is special in that a lot of people trust my tree. So some people will not use it if it is not my tree. That is a minority. But most people end up using various appendages. My tree is really not. Yes I have the final say on my tree. There is always this forking but there is always this joining. There is more forking than there is joining. But that just means that there are all these dead branches that not end up not being interesting. My branch is to some degree, you could think of it as the trunk of the tree. People try to join back into my tree.

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. ;)

Re:Being that this is a mainstream article..

[Daniel Phillips]

...it is *necessary* in order for open-source projects to reach the mass-market (unless they sell themselves out) that any spokespeople which they have (and Linus is certainly this) pander to the needs and perceptions of the mass majority. And Linus, in this case, did *not* do this.

Why, you should email him and give him a piece of your mind then. For my part, I felt the article his responses were artfully crafted for exactly the target audience he wished to address, and just so you know, that is not the general public. It is people like you and me, technophiles who hang out out the net and help define the future directions of technology, and hence, society. To put it less delicately, he's aiming at people who have a clue.

If your wife needs someone to speak more directly to her level of knowledge, point her at Mad Dog Hall. Now there is a man who speaks beautifully to the masses and enjoys doing it.

Re:SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]

[the gnat]

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$e fee$. . .

At risk of being modded as flamebait...

[Big Sean O]

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).

Re:Minix: the origin of Linux?

[mark-t]

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.

Re:Linus the Unknown Comic

[Tony-A]

"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.

Qualms with the article

[101percent]

"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.

Re:Qualms with the article

[Kourino]

Uhhhh ... wow.

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.

That's funny ... in the part of the article you're quoting, Linus is just saying "I wrote the beginning of Linux [yes, he's talking about the kernel] myself, and I'm still the main person responsible for it [yes, he's talking about the kernel]". Which is true, in that he's basically the Linux project manager. (If you disagree with me, try getting something into his tree without convincing him that it's emininently useful and won't break shit.) That's not really saying that he dictates what happens to GNU/Linux, not by a long shot.

Look, as much as I agree with the GNU/Linux terminology in principle, I think it's really clear in context when Linus is talking about Linux and when he's talking about GNU/Linux in this article. Linus may be a bastard with an eye on world domination, but he's not an megalomaniacal bastard with an eye on world domination. (I will not be drawn into the subtleties of this debate here, because my personal opinion is irrelevant, and quite frankly, I have nothing new to bring to either side. And yes, there are people who could read this who don't know the difference; perhaps you should email the article author and ask him to post a revised revision, if you're concerned about it.)

I believe the rest of your comments would be better directed at the conductor of the interview, who's responsible for the content, rather than the people at Slashdot, 99% of whom already know this.

Qualms with your post

[Overly Critical Guy]

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

Re:The point

[Arker]

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.