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."
This isn't criticism. But I think to some degree, there are those who are ideological leaders--Lessig springs to mind; his philosophical and legal insight is incredible--and there are technological visionaries. But the two aren't necessarily the same.
SCO you little slut! So many people have had your code you ain't never gonna get custody (picks up a chair and hurles it downstage).
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
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.
Linus is really cool. He is just a geek engineer interested in technology. This is _good news_.
However, I read over here that peolpe don't want to believe that Linus is only interested in the technology! They WANT to see only what they want to see: A HERO who will take down MS.
Linus is not that. He is an engineer. But people just want their hero... and then they get dissapointed when Linus adds bitkeeper or adds DRM to the kernel. Because these Linux users only see what they want to see.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
So either we should make it a law that all geeks have dates -- I'd have supported such a law when I was a teenager -- or the blame is really on the companies who sell and install the systems that are quite that fragile.
I second that.
Both parts.
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.
exactly but only 3% us even read the article in first place. The rest are blathering fools and psychopaths intent on destroying the fabric of the universe by mindlessly blathering incomprehensible mantras like GNU-STALLMAN over and over and over again.
how many MSCE's does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None. MS simply declares darkness the new standard.
So Linus supports open source dating. Well I can support that but the putting up a girlfriend on CVS for anyone to "contribute" to is just sleezy. On the other hand back in high school there was this girl that might have been the open source poster child...
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy something, don't you? Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Uh-huh. Sure. As unintentional as a bull in a china shop.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
For a minute, I thought David Lee Roth, a.k.a. Diamond Dave, was giving the interview.
So?? Linus? About this kernel thing? Yow! Are all those distributions guar-ar-ra-ra-ra-ran-teeeeedd... to satisfy?
In other words, Linus doesn't care about the collateral damage! Just like a terrorist! <falsetto> Oh the humanity, someone stop the terrorist!</falsetto>
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?
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?
It's voila, you insensitive clod! Viola is a music instrument. Or an admission you viola-te spelling.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
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
When I see things like this:
You gave Linux, the operating system, to the world free, in effect jump-starting the open-source movement.
I'm reminded how clueless 'journalists' are.
What kind of 'ra ra Linux' fanboy would think the above and ignore the history of gcc, alt/comp.*.source.* et la?
Precisely. I'm sending you to report this to Lord Stallman personally. And take this bottle of patchouli to him as a token of respect.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"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.
For the slashdotter who doesn't read the articles and just looks for the pictures here it is.
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
All those Windows apps and arcane hardware devices everybody uses will magically vanquish within the next 12 months.
I did not say that all MSWindows PCs will disappear next year. I did not say that MS will disappear.
My belief is that the move away from MSOffice will hurt MS's profits very badly. With the accounting tricks MS uses, the loss of those profits will be enough to put the company in the red. The panic that MS is falling will increase the migration away from MS products, further hurting their revenues. And it continues until they disappear.
They will not disappear next year. The dividends are moving money from MS's accounts to Bill and Steve's pockets while helping keep the stock price up. But even after the dividends, they have more than $30,000,000,000. That is enough to keep the company alive for 2 years even if all revenues stopped, and the revenues will not stop next year. Hopefully MS can survive long enough (6 years) to fulfill its contract with the U.S. Army. Does declaring bankruptcy protect a company from the guys with guns? When their boss runs the bankruptcy court?
Other possibilities:
- Selling pieces of the company (assuming anybody wants them.)
- Finding a business model that does not depend on accounting tricks.
- Finding a business model that does not depend on controlling the standards.
- Finding a business model that does not depend on being a monopoly.
- Finding a business model that does not depend on having tons of cash.
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. Maybe the big change coming is that MS will hire a CEO or President who has some experience running a big business profitably.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
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.
um, probably not, MS will go the same way as IBM, maybe a bit further down since they do not have the service bit to fall back on as IBM did. MS will be much less imortant in the future, but not extinct. Heck, maybe they even turn over to be part of the 'Good Guys' just as IBM did!
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
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.
When I see things like this [snip David Diamond's gushing question] I'm reminded how clueless 'journalists' are.
Yeah, what would David Diamond know about Linus and Linux? After all, he only co-authored Linus's book
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