Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Linus Torvalds from NYT Magazine
aelfric35 writes "David Diamond drills Linus on topics from filesharing (sharing is good) to SCO (trying to claim paternity on his child) to his rivalry with Bill Gates (doesn't care enough to be a nemesis) in next week's New York Times Magazine."
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
actually, he is right. you don't start out with the goal of destroying anyone. you just do it better and viola', world domination. of course that doesn't apply to microsoft. they didn't do it better, just marketed it better.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Really, I thought that was one of the funnier comments in the interview. And it's typical Linus. You'll see he prefaces this with a statement about "I don't really care enough to consider myself to be Microsoft's nemesis." Which is the absolute truth. It wouldn't break his heart to see Microsoft go away, but he's not actively seeking to make it happen either. But just the same, who WOULDN'T want their baby to become the biggest, coolest thing on the block?
I've notified NYT that you've posted their copyrighted works illegally. I'm sure ./ will have to remove your post after they receive a cease and desist order. The registration is in place to protect the NYT's property, not for you to smile at while you circumvent it.
I thought it was pretty well understood that RMS is the "Free Software" ideological leader ( who as it happens is also a technological visionary ), ESR is the "Open Source(tm)" spokesperson for pragmatism (and also a technological visionary), and that Linus' rallying cry is, was and likely always shall be:
"Show me the code."
To the extent that he is the "ideological" leader of anyone I know it's always for his basic folksy refusal to be anyone's ideological leader. We like him. We don't "follow" him.
Did I miss a meeting or a memo or something?
KFG
Some people want more from technology than a one night stand, more than the brief two or three year period where youthful enthusiasm overcomes the need for comfort in a lonely world. Sure the people who choose that road will mostly die cold and alone in a gutter somewhere, but by god they'll have ridden the lady technology for all she was worth! And, ultimately, isn't that as valid a path as anything else you could choose?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Please, people, you're giving us a bad name. I wince every time I hear somebody say something like "Linux people don't respect copyrights". I do. Please don't give anybody reasons to think otherwise. Posting copyrighted material here just because "registrations suck" is utterly, completely, inexcusable, and you should be ashamed of yourself if you think it's ok
Krill
The registration is there because the NYTimes wants it there. The copyright is theirs.
The GPL depends on copyright.
Don't infringe on copyright. Fair use is not the reposting of the entire article, especially when the registration makes it plain the NYTimes does not want it reposted.
And what is with the moderators modding that down?
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
I know atleast 50 people have posted their opinion on the same line. Here's my angle. I would not want MS destroyed, period. That would end up being a total utter disaster for the world. What should happen inturn is that due to increasing competition from OSS, MS should adapt and improve. They should get more aggresive on innovation and diversify into various fields where their already existing talents and resources can be used without interfering with other players illegitimately. Meanwhile OSS should also improve rapidly to provide alternatives and induce change in the world.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. I think the way he phrased it was ominous, but I honestly believe that he has loftier goals than simply running MS out of business. He is truly an engineer's engineer.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Just reading that made me smile. Everybody takes this whole MS vs. the world thing so seriously its great someone can sit back and still have fun with it.
You know, Mr. Gates would likely get a chill, not a chuckle.
There is nothing more scary than someone bent on your destruction, who truly doesn't give a flying fuck about you, and actually has the weapons to disp[ose of you. No chance to fight to the death, no calling out for the final showdown - just getting tossed aside like trash. Truly, and ignomious end. As it should be - Welcome to capitalism.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"People over-simplify and say .NET is Java, for example. It's really not - it's much more. But it's not a completely unique idea."
.NET is much more than Java. As a programmer they are two different architectures and .NET is different than Java, the statement .NET is more or better is false and quite honestly comes from asking a pointless question that has no relevance. They are different and both have different advantages over the other.
Please explain how
"What gets me is that this guy has the sheer _balls_ to write a Unix clone"
Linux is definately more than a UNIX clone and has shown to be so in the last few years. Linus, including others, also wrote much of the code from scratch. Most clones are direct copies of the original. Tell all the distros out there that there nothing more than Unix clones and that all there work has been for nothing as it is nothing but a Unix clone.
Lastly he never said they were incomptent or that they were stupid, he said that he was not interested in what they are currently working on. He works with the Linux Kernel and has not set out to destroy Microsoft, he has no need to be interested in what they are doing. Frankly most people are tired of hearing about M$, the majority of the news you here about them is how they are behind in security updates and new viruses are out using vulnerabilitis in the OS that a twelve year old learned to exploit before they did.
You forget though, he wrote a unix clone FROM SCRATCH! Think of the innovative things inside Linux and the Unix world. Massive effecient clustering. Multiple types of clustering. 4 different schedulers for the kernel. Heck, just look at OpenMosix!
Linux is a hot bed of new ideas and technology. But, being open, it tends to attact that.
The solution is not to steal links, not to screw over users, but simply to *disallow links to sites that require registration*. It's really simple. Slashdot editors do that as a matter of policy, with a *single* exception -- the NYT and NYT-related resources. The rationale is that they started linking to the NYT before their "no registration" policy came into place. I could never figure that out, and find it incredibly frusterating. I'd like to see a poll -- "Should we allow NYT links?" without a CowboyNeal option.
May we never see th
You know, in any article/interview/publication about or of Linus I've ever read, he always comes across so balanced. He isn't out to convert anyone, though he ackolwedges that will probably happen. He doesn't hop on the latest technology bandwagon (file sharing good/evil, Gnome/KDE, MS/Linux). He's just a guy that seems to have a level head that just wants to help create a great OS.
And change the world in the process!
Seems like the "geek" world could use a lot more like Linus!
?SYNTAX ERROR IN SIG
READY.
Actually, I think people see Linus as the guy who created the thing which will take down MS.
He's not a hero for taking down MS, he's a hero for creating this really cool thing and setting it in motion in the correct direction. We all chose to get in line behind it and help it along. His little beastie will take down MS by itself, but is not organic so can not be considered "a hero" itself.
Perhaps we're all heroes then...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I'm aways amused by the assumption that "proprietary companies prefer BSD." Lots of them don't -- there are circumstances in which the viral nature of the GPL is *good* for a proprietary company. A commercial company releasing source under the BSD license is helping their competition without helping themselves much. A commercial company releasing code under the GPL is only helping competition that also uses the GPL -- and the rising tide raises all GPL boats.
Sure, companies that only do closed-source work prefer the BSD license. But that's no surprise to anyone.
what is the purpose of having registration on the NYT site anyway??
/. - did you think of that?
By requiring a login/pw, NYT gets a "copyright protection device" and therefore gives them the additional weight of the DMCA against anybody who copies their material.
You sir, are in fact of law, providing a "Copyright Protection Circumvention Device" actionable under the DMCA by posting this on
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I find it funny that the author implies a link between music file sharing and OSS.
The MS world has been sharing programs (intentional and not) forever. Many ppl still use a program just to try it out. Others flat out steal it with no intetion of paying. That has been the norm in the MS world, not the exception.
While p2p and decss was started in the OSS world, neither has really been about stealing info. Decss was simply trying to preserve our right to view movies that we bought and paid for. p2p was simply a scalable way to move files vs. a slashdot effect. I personally do not know of anybody who does linux who trades in movies or music.
I do know a number of ppl from the MS world (and I think a few from the mac) who trade constantly in both. When I ask them about it and the copyright, the attitiude is who cares. Even the best p2p and rippers are from the MS world now, not OSS, due to market demand.
Oddly enough, if RIAA and MPAA really wanted a workable solution they should work with the OSS world to get something started that could be moved back to MS. I doubt that they wil though.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Bill and Steve have never shown much ability running a business.
Ummm, wow. Dude, I'm not crazy about them either. However, if you think that becoming the richest guy in America, and your company has 40 Billion in the bank indicates someone without "ability running a business", you are an idiot. You don't have to like him, and you don't have to like his tactics. However, the end results are EXACTLY what running a business is about. Grow up.
""Show me the code."
To the extent that he is the "ideological" leader of anyone I know it's always for his basic folksy refusal to be anyone's ideological leader. We like him. We don't "follow" him.
Did I miss a meeting or a memo or something?"
If "Show me the code" isn't an ideology then what is an ideology? Sure, Stallman created the fundament of Free Software -- just like John the Baptist -- but it was Linus who shoved the 'path' up their noses.
I follow Linus in the same sense I'd follow someone up a mountain path. Linus is ahead of me in line.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
It doesn't even perform as well as MSOffice 97. I tried to make some charts with the Spreadsheet program and found it totally inadequate for my needs. I was originally looking for a free alternative to Office97 (the version I happen to own). I find the Excel97 graphics to be pretty shitty, but OOo's were worse, and less customizable. Playing with the defaults for 15 minutes in Excel got me reasonably close to what I want. OOo just can't do it.
Oh yeah, and It's much slower.
OOo probably does a lot of stuff well, but until I can make a kick-ass presentation from its components like I can with MS, OOo won't fly in Big Offices everywhere.
(Does anybody know of a free program or suite that can make good charts? Something along the lines of Harvard Graphics98 for windows would be super, but I haven't even found anything as good as Office 97.)
You disagreed with my line:
... controlling the standard, that is the X-Box hardware, and selling licenses to those who want to make money from software for the platform.
Bill and Steve have never shown much ability running a business. They saw an opportunity, took advantage of it, and then ruthlessly defended their position. But every attempt to diversify their business has failed.
Here are your thoughts plus my commments:
They still only sell BASIC for homebrew computers.
MS did well selling BASIC interpreters to the personal computer manufacturers. They did lots of fast talking about how each manufacturer's version of BASIC would be compatible with the other versions. It was too bad they could not learn how to port it without changing it. MS created the standard, and could not fulfill it.
Remember, they actually did survive a couple of years before Office became their big money maker.
Their next big hit was MS-DOS. They got that chance because IBM wanted their BASIC. They saw the opportunity to pull a fast one, and the rest is history. That one event of fast thinking created the bankroll that allowed everything else.
Before Windows 3.x squeezed Word Perfect out of the market (because WP for Windows was late and as bug-ridden as an English brothel), very few people used Word. I don't about the rest of the Office apps, but they hardly dominated. You have to agree they've diversified a bit from the OS business.
Read the stories about how MS tricked WordPerfect Corp.. It is very difficult to put out a product when you do not have the specifications for the API. MSWord was the killer app that sold MSWindows. And the office suite became the new cash cow.
Ah, and the X-Box too. Yes, they sell each unit with a loss, but they make money from
Yes, they still lose money on the X-Box. And if it stays around for a few years, they may be able to make money on it. It could become a good strategic decision if MS survives. But they are doing it to attempt to control another standard, not because it will make money in the near future.
That's also why they decided to squash Netscape, who, by the way, tried to use exactly the same tactics: dominate on the client side to make money from the servers. And to dominate on the client side, they introdused a lot of new "standards". Netscape failed because Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are better at running a business that way, and came earlier to the game of domination.
Netscape had to convince people that this new type of application had any benefit. So they developed a business model where the application was free for home use. And it worked: everybody knows what is a web browser. Netscape WAS the standard. Their inventions were not introduced to be incompatible; they were introduced to improve the product.
- MS used their previous monopoly to dominate the market. Netscape failed because they could not compete against the monopoly power of MS. MS did introduce incompatibilities with Netscape and the newly active W3C recommendations. Have you ever written JavaScript (a purely Netscape invention) that has to check browser version because MS decided to use a different DOM. I expect the true reason they used a different DOM was because they did not have the technical expertise to figure out how to program the DOM that was in Netscape, but it did make much work for website developers everywhere.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Religious institutions seem to be the longest-lived, but whether they can be regarded as not failing is a different question.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate