Linus Holds Forth On the Future of Linux

colinmc151 writes "As part of Geekcruises' Linux Lunacy cruise to Alaska, Linus Torvalds was interviewed and answered questions about where he sees the future of Linux with a particular eye towards developers. Great stuff."

Comments

Linus about Mac OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come nobody ever asks Linus what he thinks about Mac OS X ?

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[saunabad]

In his book "Just for fun" he wrote about his opinion on the microkernel architecture and mach. I don't have the book at the moment so I can't give you the actual quote, but I think a word-to-word direct translation from Finnish to English would be pretty close to "it is from ass" :)

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

from here:

On Apple and OS X
I never much liked Macs. All the interesting stuff is hidden away. They made the base of the house open source, but all the rest of the stuff, the wiring, is their own stuff. I don't want that to happen with Linux.

[Mac OS X] doesn't give me the warm-and-fuzzies. I actually dislike Mach a lot. I think they made a lot of bad design choices.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[daviddennis]

Obviously, someone does. Look around you - the two highest ranking topics as of the time I'm writing are on this question. People are using moderator points to push them up, a strong indicator of interest.

I've personally switched from SGI Irix to Linux to MacOS X on the desktop, for both home and work. There have been some articles, in Infoworld and elsewhere, about normally geeky guys who have seen the virtues of Apple's creations. And CmdrTaco is the proud owner of a Mac laptop, which he apparently liked so much that he created an Apple section here on Slashdot.

Linux on the desktop seems to have done its best to imitate Windows on the desktop. If you want a user interface better than a pale imitation of Microsoft, then MacOS X is your OS.

For cost reasons, I don't think this is much of a threat to Linux or Microsoft. But I think it's a very interesting phenomenon that deserves more coverage.

D

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Trurl's Machine]

This question is sort-of-answered in "his" book "Just For Fun" (actually written together by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond). Linus seems to have almost religious anti-MacOS X stance. He is against anything that is proprietary - and MacOS X still remains proprietary on its most important layer. He is against the very idea of microkernel, so he is against Mach as such. It's funny, because this book is actually written on a Mac notebook, but as David Diamond notes, when Linus was reading his own words for approval, he payed more attention to the whole OS and the machine (and expressing his dislike for both) than to his own words. Probably that's how the silly mistake about "Apache, the most popular commercial Linux version" could have slipped.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[axxackall]

From the book review:

Linus discusses why he continues to use a standard kernel as opposed to a microkernel. This discussion basically says that microkernels are not as efficient or easy to use as a standard kernel. The driving force behind Linus not using a microkernel approach is because he believes the parts are bigger than the whole, essentially saying it is more difficult to understand/develop a kernel with a modular approach as opposed to the standard kernel. Microkernels spend lots of time communicating from one piece of the kernel to another where a standard kernel has shared pieces so the communication doesn't have to take place. This specific piece is where the developers of microkernel implementations differ from Linus.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[ergo98]

He is against the very idea of microkernel

This is like saying that a husband is against the very idea of vacuuming, rather than simply doesn't want to vacuum. From what I have read of Torvald's opinion, the difficulty was that a microkernel isn't as easy to write, and can be less efficient (but on the flip side can be dramatically more secure and stable - see QNX). That's great that he feels that as a developer, but as a user, or as someone choosing products for embedded systems, etc, I think I'd take a microkernel.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because OS X is a single-vendor, single-platform and mostly proprietary OS. It's just not that interesting.

Take away the gumdrop widgets and drop shadows, and you're left with nothing special.

Today is about commodity hardware, with freedom of choice, and commodity OSes with freedom of choice again. Being tied to one OS from one vendor on one plantform is too much like the early 90s... Like the Amiga. Good for its time, but it's a different world now.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[ae]

There is at least a comment on the hardware in TFA:

I actually find Power to be very interesting now that they've made the 9070. And you can actually buy them in reasonable machines. And you can buy a Macintosh G5 and get a real 64-bit CPU. And I think that may actually be enough, too. There is enough of a user base for normal people that I suspect a lot of Linux developers would love to have one of those. And are ready to switch away from X86 entirely. While I don't see that happening on IA64. Because there is not any nice boxes you'd switch away to, if you were to switch away from X86.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Trurl's Machine]

I'll defend my statement. Take the chapter XII, especially passages "Intellectual Property" and "An End to Control" (pages 204-219 of the hardcover edition). I'd say that Linus says there that yes, you can do something proprietary and maybe even have a temporary success, but in the long run it is The Wrong Way. Or, in Linus' own words, "a bad, short-sighted decision that ends up in disaster or near disaster". For example, Linus cites the European success of the GSM technology and the relative American backwardness on mobile phones as the triumph of open (GSM) versus proprietary (American multiple standards).

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Trurl's Machine]

This is like saying that a husband is against the very idea of vacuuming, rather than simply doesn't want to vacuum.

But this particular husband says - for example - that "one of the arguments against vacuuming, pardon, mcrokernels has always been performance" (page 130 of the hardcover edition). There are also other anti-microkernel rants scattered all over the book, but I hope this example is enough. It's not that Linus says "I don't want to do this", he also says that it's the wrong idea.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[fred87]

"Linux on the desktop seems to have done its best to imitate Windows on the desktop. If you want a user interface better than a pale imitation of Microsoft, then MacOS X is your OS." thats just kde + gnome example 1: xfce example 2: fluxbox (my choice)

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[daviddennis]

Sadly, I think the links to your examples don't work. I finally discovered you can't get away with more informal HTML styles in Slashdot - you have to use quotes. So:

<a href = http://www.amazing.com>

won't work, but

<a href = "http://www.amazing.com">

does.

Some years back, when I used Linux on the desktop, I tried a few Enlightenment themes. For whatever reason, I found them quite difficult to set up, and far more attractive in screenshots than actual day by day use.

I'm older than I used to be, and a lot busier, and that means I don't have the many hours it takes to fine-tune things like this. So I choose MacOS X, which has done a beautiful job on my behalf.

So if you're young and poor, or just plain poor, use Linux and spend your free time making it look nice. But if you're old and rich, or just plain rich, get MacOS X and enjoy it as it is.

D

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[JamesKPolk]

Torvalds against anything proprietary? Where have you been since Torvalds has begun using Bitkeeper (a proprietary RCS) for all his kernel development?

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[scrytch]

> This is like saying that a husband is against the very idea of vacuuming, rather than simply doesn't want to vacuum.

Linus has gone further than that, to slanderous accusations against microkernel research in general, stating that they were in it for the research dollars, knowing they had an inferior architecture. Tanenbaum wasn't mentioned by name, but it's fairly obvious who the comments were directed at. This behavior to me is beyond the pale, and completely unacceptable. He may have a fine OS, microkernel concepts or no, but he has no standing to be throwing around allegations like that.

This is a guy who learns fast when he wants to, an excellent x86 assembly hacker, but he doesn't know when to keep his trap shut when he doesn't know about something.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[FrozedSolid]

I think this is the wrong kind of comparison to be making. I for one never saw linux as a complete windows replacement. The desktop side of things is sort of a slowly evolving blob, as far as I've ever seen. Luckily "how it looks," isn't the reason why most people claim to use linux.

Apple is a corporation. MacOS is (for the most part) closed source. That means that when you purchase software from them, you are stuck getting updates and fixes from them. I wouldn't say apple is as bad as microsoft, not yet anyway, but lots of stuff points out that Apple is working towards locking in their users. For example, the fiasco about security updates to the older versions of OSX a few days ago.

I always hear people chastising Microsoft about their evil DRM-enhanced future. I don't see why people don't notice Apple doing it RIGHT NOW. Look at iTunes. You can burn your music, or you can put it on your iPod. I have an Archos mp3 player. I can't put music I buy from iTunes on it even though I've purchased the music. I'm by no means putting down Apple's use of DRM, after all, they have to make money somehow, but it's important to realize that they are just another corporation, and in parallel, they are just out to make money.

With open source you don't have to rely on a central source for fixes, you can fix it yourself, you can modify the appliations to suit your needs and whatnot. MacOS X may look nice, but it's no develper's heaven. That's what linux is for.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[morelife]

>since Torvalds has begun using Bitkeeper

I don't see anyone mentioned this yet.

I remember reading that Bitkeeper was chosen since a lot of the Linux kernel contributors raved about it. From what I understood, Linus T. was somewhat indifferent about release engineering methodologies, and was open to using what everyone else wanted.. hence the question was more: what functionality does it offer (as opposed to is it OSS or not).

IIRC the earliest reference to this issue is ESR's letter to Linus wherein he accused him of using his Inbox as a patch-queue.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[morelife]

Hi,

Linux on the desktop seems to have done its best to imitate Windows on the desktop

Another poster tried, but let me clarify.

KDE looks and acts like Windows. This is the reason a lot of Linux people don't like it or use it, myself included.

Gnome also looks like Windows at first, but less so. Lots of cool things going on in Gnome, all not very Windows-like.

XFCE, Blackbox, ICEWM, and Windowmaker look nothing like windows nor do they act like it.

"a pale imitation of Microsoft" would be inaccurate when describing these projects.

We should not speak of "Linux on the desktop," because no such single entity exists. There are, instead, many different projects providing desktop environments supported across not only Linux but the BSD family. And these vary from simple GUI+little functionality to full enviroments with internal protocols, etc.

While the visible desktop portion of MacOSX is very inviting from both aesthetics and functionality viewpoints, OSX has other problems which I believe will slow its adoption by the general user base (the not-so-technical who are beginning to care about issues like privacy+computers, years of Microsoft security failings, the DMCA, and notice that some countries are adopting Open Source Software as a mandate):

-Large portions of OSX is proprietary software. Fine: but so often it's touted as an open platform.

-The DRM architecture in iTunes is really no different than M$ DRM (more eloquently stated in another post )

-Cost.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[jaydonnell]

"I have an Archos mp3 player. I can't put music I buy from iTunes on it even though I've purchased the music." I think you are purposely misleading people here. Just burn the file from apple as a cd then rip as an mp3. I'm sure you realized this if not then .... Of course, this isn't user friendly, but you are implying that apple is trying to restrict you from doing this and that is false. The fact that they don't make it easy does not mean that they are trying to prevent this. You can do anything you want with the music pruchased from itune that you can do with a normal cd. There is just an extra step.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[FrozedSolid]

I've found I can usually fit 20 or so of my songs on a cd. I have a 4x burner. It takes 15 minutes to burn a cd. If I bought music from itunes, i'd probably buy in albums, I could rack up maybe 100 songs in no time. That's 5 cds, taking 75 minutes to burn. This doesn't include the time it would take to rip and reencode every single song.

There's no question that apple is restricting the use of the music. The question is if this is acceptable or not.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[jaydonnell]

premise: apple makes me burn then rip to get an mp3 premise: I have a slow burner conclusion: apple is restricting my use Hm, I don't think your conclusion follows your premises.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Bingo Foo]

saying it is more difficult to understand/develop a kernel with a modular approach as opposed to the standard kernel. Microkernels spend lots of time communicating from one piece of the kernel to another where a standard kernel has shared pieces so the communication doesn't have to take place

Then why didn't he just write the kernel in procedural FORTRAN?

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[antiMStroll]

Linux on the desktop seems to have done its best to imitate Windows on the desktop. If you want a user interface better than a pale imitation of Microsoft, then MacOS X is your OS.

Can we agree to finally put this canard to rest? No OS has more variety on the desktop than Linux. Yes, two popular desktop environments - KDE and Gnome - are similar to Windows. Fluxbox and Windowmaker, popular as well, aren't close. XFce4 looks like OS-X. Ion attempts to replicate the terminal. Claiming the Linux desktops are "a pale imitation of Microsoft" is either disingenuous or uninformed.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[ecalab]

Well, not exactly. Burning a cd just to rip it back to mp3 doesn't only make it harder by one step. You've got to put into the equation the cost of those 5 cds you don't actually need and you wasted, unless you go for CD-RW, which is a lot slower to burn, and costs a lot more. Also, every time you encode to mp3 you have a loss of sound quality, since mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm. Therefore, I also see this as a lock down, since Apple is making it harder, costlier and worst to just put your legally purchased music into your player. So, the only reason here is to make you buy that iPod of theirs which concludes it is using their proprietary technologies to tie you up to their product.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[jaydonnell]

Ok, Your conclusion doesn't follow either. There is a big difference between locking you into their product (ipod) and encouraging you to use it. You can use the songs purchased from itunes on an mp3 player so you aren't being locked in. We need to stop using words with emotional baggage in ways that are inaccurate. Jay

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[Planesdragon]

No OS has more variety on the desktop than Linux.

He didn't say anything about variety. He was talking about "better."

Judging by the apparant popularity of usage, the pale imitations of Windows are the best of the Linux desktops -- kind of sad, I know, but what do you want in a system that was designed to be Command-Line?

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[daviddennis]

I am a developer of web-based applications, not a developer of operating systems. I use what works for me with minimal hassle, and that would mean an out of the box install of some sort.

I made this point in an earlier response to someone else, but perhaps not as clearly as I should. If you're a student, you have time to try out six different windowing environments to find out which is best for you. If you're a typically time-stressed adult, with real projects begging for your attention, you use what the companies that sell you the software give you.

I know that when I had more spare time, I would spend hours playing with things like Enlightenment, trying in vain to understand why themes never quite worked for me. Now, unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time, and it was never all that fun for me anyway.

So I simply choose MacOS X, which takes care of that stuff for me, gives me a really cool interface, and lets me do what I do best, developing slick web applications.

Linux on the desktop exists as an entity, because it's marketed as one. If you ask Red Hat or SuSE if there is Linux on the desktop, they'll say it's what they sell. And for someone who doesn't want to really get into the intricacies of operating systems, that's it.

As for your other remarks, DRM as it presently works does not prevent you from playing MP3 files, and I don't think that's going to change. So all you get from having DRM is the opportunity to play AAC files; it doesn't take anything away from you that you already had.

Apple has been first-rate in issuing security patches to the OS, and there's no question its track record on security is far superior to MS.

Your best point, however, is cost. I can't sneak Macs into my company because they are so expensive, so the odds of anyone other than me getting a Mac are slim to none. This is true even though I experience the PC's crummy TCO every day. I believe I even pointed this out in my original message; the Mac will always be a minority because it's more expensive than the cheapest PCs. Cheap PCs may not be the best ones, but they're the ones that sell.

Thanks for writing; I appreciate the time you took for a thoughtful post.

D

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[daviddennis]

Well, that was an entertaining tour into the world of human inventiveness. So I will cheerfully admit there's plenty of variety, yes there is.

But is any of them as slick and user friendly and gorgeous as MacOS X? I'm sure they all have their partisians, and I don't want to hurt the feelings of people who obviously worked very hard, but the answer's pretty obvious. Open source projects attract nerds, not artists or human interface designers.

In short, variety, yes. Quality, no.

(And yes I did check out XFCE. It looks like a mutant cross between Windows and MacOS X, with considerably more of the former than the latter. This is probably just as well considering the sleek competence of Apple's IP lawyers).

D

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[morelife]

I actually read your second post earlier, and agree about the time sink part of figuring out all these desktop environments... which is why I use Windowmaker. It's super fast to install, replace, configure, and theme (this took not too much time).

Linux on the desktop exists as an entity, because it's marketed as one
Only by C/NET, Gartner, ziff davis, and the other sheep of the IT press and analysts. When Linux people talk about "Linux on the desktop" I've always understood it to mean the state of the desktop environments/window managers I mentioned before. If someone said "Mac on the desktop" they'd get called on the distinctions - it's not a semantics argument - the facts do matter here.


If you ask Red Hat or SuSE if there is Linux on the desktop, they'll say it's what they sell.
As for SuSE- they bundle many "desktop" options in the X section of the distro. If you want to buy a ready made solution they have the SuSE Desktop, but if you don't buy that, they certainly are not pushing any one "Linux desktop" on you.. RedHat chose Gnome, but neither company is forcing the desktop down your throat. You don't have to install the default distro, at least on SuSE it's easy to make your own install.

DRM as it presently works does not prevent you from playing MP3 files
Maybe you were thinking of another thread, I didn't say that. The DRM stuff in the resale of music and other content as implemented by MS and Apple, is something to remain watchful of, because it is crossing the line of fair use without a full disclosure to the consumer. The situation is just about to get out of hand and being watched by eff fair_use_and_drm.

I can't sneak Macs into my company because they are so expensive, ... This is true even though I experience the PC's crummy TCO every day. ... the Mac will always be a minority because it's more expensive than the cheapest PCs. Cheap PCs may not be the best ones, but they're the ones that sell.

The Mac "sell" on the part of its advocates in the corporate/office environment has always failed. In the past, I've supported Mac groups at Citibank New York, 25 G4 based developers in a New York dot com, while simultaneously supporting and deploying Windows*. The windows platform always turns out to be /extremely/ expensive to maintain - dollars, time, loss of productivity, and wasted emotional energy. We'd see more Macs around if Mac proponents were able to use these facts to good effect.

*(I don't do this anymore, just unix).

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[4of12]

it is more difficult to understand/develop a kernel with a modular approach as opposed to the standard kernel.

So Linus' opinion is that it is difficult.

Implicitly, he allows that it is possible.

And all the Mac OS X and *BSD developers are constantly striving to prove that such a possibility can be realized.

"Ain't skeered o' no difficulties, no sirree."

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[vegetasaiyajin]

KDE looks and acts like Windows. This is the reason a lot of Linux people don't like it or use it, myself included. Gnome also looks like Windows at first, but less so. Lots of cool things going on in Gnome, all not very Windows-like.
KDE neither looks nor acts like Windows. It can on the surface look like windoze if you want to, but it's foundations are completely different. A large part of GNOME infrastructure (especially Bonobo) is very much like Windows. In fact, once I was trying to learn what Bonobo was about I was directed to Microsoftt COM/DCOM programming books. This Bonobo thing is just an attempt to implement in UNIX the most horrible programming model ever invented by Microsoft. It is simply the addition of prorpietary (as in non-standard) extensions to CORBA to make it look like COM.
If there is anything in the Unix world that resembles Windows is GNOME.
And regarding perfection, QT and KDE are IMHO much closer to perfection than GTK and GNOME.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[morelife]

KDE neither looks nor acts like Windows.

Why, sure it does - Browser doubling as a file manager, start button, task bar, system drive icons on the desktop, you can drag a URL string from the browser or file manager somewhere else like onto the desktop to create a link (or dare I say SHORTCUT). Out of the box it looks like Windows, unless you re-theme it. Ok, right, not the underlying architecture using QT - we weren't really talking about the underlying architecture - discussion was more about end-user adoption.. I agree the QT choice was excellent.

Hey - the Gnome stuff I didn't know was so similar to COM. Suspicious, suspicious..

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[vegetasaiyajin]

Why, sure it does - Browser doubling as a file manager, start button, task bar, system drive icons on the desktop, you can drag a URL string from the browser or file manager somewhere else like onto the desktop to create a link (or dare I say SHORTCUT). Out of the box it looks like Windows, unless you re-theme it. You have a point, but these days almost everything looks similar. BTW, the default theme is not windows. There is a Redmond theme that makes it work more like windows. Ok, right, not the underlying architecture using QT - we weren't really talking about the underlying architecture - discussion was more about end-user adoption.. I agree the QT choice was excellent. Then we agree on something. I don't use GNOME simply because it has been a project to copy the crappy (non-)design of COM into Unix. Now that Microsoft deprecated COM/DCOM in favour of .Net, the original GNOME proponents are working on a new clone of the new MS technology called Mono. I don't know if they are going to deprecate bonobo. Anyway, most "GNOME" applications are just GTK applications and don't use bonobo.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[xygorn]

Did anyone else get the distinct image of the grandparent message peeling itself off the page to look at the highest ranking topics around it?

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[morelife]

...called Mono."

I'm familiar... I've followed this stuff for a long while. I don't use Gnome either, not for the dCOM reasons you discuss, but because there seems to be a certain layer of confusion surrounding its development, and frankly it felt wierd and amateurish, though I'm sure that's just me. Development progress was slow. Mixing Enlightenment in makes it complicated. And, Linus Torvalds doesn't like it. I never bothered to install it more than just casually in the past.

And even though KDE is architecturally cool, and of course, it isn't really LIKE windows like you say, its freekin widgets get in the way of my productivity. Something's wrong if you're always wanting to get menus, toolbars and pop up shit out of the way:) So I use windowmaker and blackbox.

I always thought it was "Mono" as in "singular", but now I can see it's "mono" the Spanish word for monkey. Is there a message in that?

I do not understand Miguel de Icaza's thinking - I've read interviews last year where he explains what he's doing and why. I guess it boils down to he believes the .NET architecture is fantastic, allowing the platform-independent road into the future for all of us. The part I don't understand is that .NET is Microsoft, he knows that, and Microsoft is the devil, so he's working with the devil, hoping the devil plays ball for a while, and when looking at the devil's track record the first thing you notice is the devil has fucked the little guy every single time.

Even if that shit was fantastic, I don't want a monkey OR a footprint on my desktop. Besides, M$ may just eat Ximian later by purchasing it, obviating their technology, and winning the customers Ximian worked so hard to get. And their VC investors would love that all the way to the bank.

Re:Linus about Mac OS X?

[vegetasaiyajin]

And even though KDE is architecturally cool, and of course, it isn't really LIKE windows like you say, its freekin widgets get in the way of my productivity. Something's wrong if you're always wanting to get menus, toolbars and pop up shit out of the way:) So I use windowmaker and blackbox.
My respects to you. I do use KDE, but sometimes I use IceWM for the reasons you give.
I do not understand Miguel de Icaza's thinking - I've read interviews last year where he explains what he's doing and why. I guess it boils down to he believes the .NET architecture is fantastic, allowing the platform-independent road into the future for all of us.
No. It boils down to the fact that Miguel de Icaza is a big Microsoft fan. He believes Microsoft technology is better, but he is also a free software supporter. His thinking is that the supposedly great Microsoft technology must be reimplemented as free software in *nix environments (especially free ones).
That is why he first tried to clone the ultra crappy COM/DCOM. Even Microsoft acknowledge the COM/DCOM programming model was crap and they deprecated it in favour of .Net.
Since it made no sense to continue pushing a clone of a deprecated technology, they decided to work on the .Net clone, which will probably be deprecated in a few years.

One thing for certain

[El]

The open source developers will be amongst the last to see their (volunteer) jobs exported to India and China!

Re:One thing for certain

[Phantom_newbie]

El quoted, "The open source developers will be amongst the last to see their (volunteer) jobs exported to India and China!" At least the fact that if they are going to be relocated, hopefully they will work in an area not within the ms.. :D

Not so free

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly most people who use Linux on the desktop tend to be pretty technical, right now. The nice thing is that is changing. It's changing mainly inside companies that just decided, "Hey, our secretaries are actually better off using Linux, because we don't want them playing solitaire.

So much for all those ideals of freedom.

Re:Not so free

[glitch23]

Hey, our secretaries are actually better off using Linux, because we don't want them playing solitaire.

I guess those people never heard of implementing GPOs in Windows 2000 to prevent users from executing files that management didn't want them to execute. If they are using Win9x/ME on the users' machines then they have bigger problems than not being able to implemeint GPOs.

Re:Not so free

[Grishnakh]

Well the secretaries are free to quit their job and try to find another one that lets them play solitaire all day.

Re:Not so free

[glitch23]

Well when you don't have a choice to install the software and it's going to be there on every Desktop because of that then you need a way to prevent people from running it. Given that Solitaire and the other games can be removed or not even installed some things can not be such as cmd.exe. Yeah you could make a custom image with that command removed but then what happens when a program that an Administrator installs uses scripts during installation that are executed through cmd.exe? Using GPOs let's you select (similar to ACLs) who can and can not execute a command when all else fails.

Desktop

[seanadams.com]

A very interesting read. However, I was surprised to find no comments at all concerning OSX, wrt the future of linux on the desktop. I mean, if anything in the last two years has obviated the need for linux on the desktop, this is it.

It sounds like getting onto the desktop is important to him. He talks about the problems affecting kernel space - poor support from latop hardware mfrs being a big one... but really the kernel is NOT what's holding up the success of linux on the desktop. We need easier setup and a useable interface.

Re:Desktop

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I don't think OS X has obviated the need for Linux on the desktop at all -- and I'm an OS X user.

I love Macs. I think they're great machines. Whenever anyone asks me for computer-buying advice, my first response is always "get a Mac." I would love it if Apple's market share blew up. My Mac does everything I want a computer to do. My last machine was a Mac, my current machine (obviously) is a Mac, and unless something drastic changes, my next machine will be a Mac too.

But.

What I would never want to see would be Apple becoming Microsoft. I don't want Steve Jobs to own the desktop any more than I want Bill Gates to. And honestly, assuming that the "Unix desktop" ("Unix" here being broadly defined, of course) ever becomes more than a niche market -- which I hope and expect it will -- I wouldn't even want to see Apple have 90+% market share there. Obviously I want them to do well. I don't want them, or anyone else, to dominate.

What I want is competition. I'd love to see Apple and Red Hat and SuSE and Mandrake and yes, even Microsoft, all slugging it out on something resembling a level playing field. I'd like to see the market work the way it's supposed to: the companies that do truly innovative things get rewarded, and their competitors respond with innovations of their own, and we -- the great unwashed desktop-using masses -- are the ones who win.

Obviously we're a long way from that. Right now, OS X and Linux play complementary roles. Linux ensures the growth of Unix as a whole, and that there will be lots of great Unix software out there available for free or for very low cost -- and that software almost always ends up on OS X as well. (Fink is my friend.) OS X provides an example of what a Unix desktop can be, and introduces users who would be put off by the inherent geekery of Linux culture to the wonders of what a Unix system can do.

Re:Desktop

[Martigan80]

We need easier setup and a useable interface.

This would also go into the area of standards. And you can only standardize Linux so much. Sure Linux, like religion, would like to expands it's "user" base, but there are some users and areas that just don't belong. We all know the saying to give utmost easy of use you have to give up security.

Sometimes the older/cli methods of doing things_is_the best way.

Re:Desktop

[Qzukk]

but really the kernel is NOT what's holding up the success of linux on the desktop.

Exactly. Which is why Linus doesn't talk about the problems or future in the desktop arena. The KDE developers, Gnome developers, and distributions are responsibile for getting the kernel into the desktop and presenting it to the users of the system, not Linus.

Re:Desktop

[unborn]

The problem with lack of domination of at least a standard underlying software architecture is that we may get this great software X for the Mac, this great software Y for Linux and this great software Z for Windows. Not a lot of people can afford to have three machines on their desk, at least for now.

Competition is good only if there is some commonality, at least in the sense that a piece of software can run on multiple platforms. But this can't be technically viable for software companies if there are so much differences.

Take an example of this problem: software that only works on OSX but not on Windows (or Linux). Obviously it turned out that a lot of people wanted iTunes on Windows, but it took Apple to take the step forward.

I personally think that competing Linux/FreeBSD distributions are better than Windows Vs. Linux Vs. Macintosh. And that is similar to the Intel Vs. AMD in the hardware arena.

Re:Desktop

[Nucleon500]

What I think Linux really needs to conquer the desktop in the long term is something besides X, and OSX may be instrumental in showing people that you can make a desktop by combining a Linux-like kernel with a not-X GUI. Obviously, I'd want whatever wins over X to be open source, however.

I'm not talking about toolkit competion on top of X - that's somewhat a bad thing, because there's tons of repetition of effort, and the end result is inconsistency. That X allows this is its major shortcoming. I'm also not talking about eliminating X's network transparency - that's its best aspect, and must be preserved at all cost.

I want something with server-side widget rendering. This should be plugable and themeable, so their could still be competition. But since clients would communicate on the level of "put a button here" instead of "draw a grey rectangle with text here," it would be easy for all the programs on a display to have a consistent UI. There are some attempts to do this, PicoGUI and Fresco, but I want them to become popular, to compete, and to retain X compatibility (by having clients which are rootless X servers). It would take a few years, but the Linux status quo could move to something better than X, and we'd win in the long run.

Re:Desktop

[molnarcs]

What also really holds back the desktop is an outdated X. See how many enhanchements are planned on kde-look, and how many times you see X mentioned as the bottleneck (you'll also notice some pleas to Keith. P to hurry up with his work :))

Re:Desktop

[Feztaa]

We need easier setup and a useable interface.

Linux is already easier to install than Windows, the problem is that people haven't heard about Linux, and even when they do, they won't switch because they want their games.

What linux really needs in order to make inroads on the desktop is to be preinstalled. And to have more games ship with Linux support right out of the box.

Re:Desktop

[alienw]

I was surprised to find no comments at all concerning OSX, wrt the future of linux on the desktop. I mean, if anything in the last two years has obviated the need for linux on the desktop, this is it.

You just don't get it, do you? As far as I'm concerned, OS X is not any better than MS Windows. It's a proprietary OS coming from a proprietary company. Sure, it's "UNIX-based" -- just like Windows 9x is DOS-based. Its only selling point, apart from aesthetic appeal, is ease of use and stability. But it's still (and will always be) a closed, proprietary system. Not to mention that Windows 2000/XP is not that much worse in those two aspects.

The main point of Linux is that it's a free and open system. It's not in the same category as OS X, Windows, OS/2, or AmigaOS. Don't compare it to those systems.

Re:Desktop

[Haeleth]

Linux is already easier to install than Windows...

Not so.

Installing Windows XP is a matter of putting the CD in your drive and clicking "Next" a few times. The easiest-to-install Linux distros are slightly harder to install on a PC with Windows already present, because they require you to make _some_ sort of decision about what to do with Windows, and they don't migrate your Windows applications and settings for you like a new version of Windows does. For installing on a fresh PC, the two operating systems are about equal.

And you're right, of course, that preinstalled Linux would reverse the situation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the non-game-playing public wouldn't even notice...

Re:Desktop

[hummassa]

Have you ever heard of Knoppix?
1. put CD in the drive
2. reboot the machine
3. profit?!
4. if you want it to go faster, install into the HD with ONE click.

Re:Desktop

[Bob Uhl]

OS X 'has obviated the need for Linux on the desktop'? When did Apple release the entire thing under the L?GPL? Until it's free software, it's not a suitable replacement.

Re:Desktop

[Sloppy]

I mean, if anything in the last two years has obviated the need for linux on the desktop, this [OSX] is it.

It depends on what you want. If all you care about is performance and reliability, then yes, it looks like OSX is very serious competition for Linux. From what I've seen, OSX works great.

But if you care about trustworthyness, safety, and long-term future viability, then OSX is as bad as MS Windows. The source code to most of it isn't available and can't be maintained or audited. When you run OSX, your computer isn't really yours. If you don't understand what I mean by that, then ask yourself this: what would you do if Apple took OSX in a direction that you don't like (e.g. added trojans such as DRM, etc) or they stopped updating OSX (e.g. Apple went out of business or sold out to MS)? Can you fork it? If you can't fork it (or otherwise take direct responsibility/power for the software that you run), then it's not safe.

Does the software that you run, always serve your interests to the best of its ability, or does it compromise and somewhat serve somebody else? Try out Apple's DVD playing software to see an example of the latter. Try using iTunes to do various things with files downloaded from the iTunes music store. This kind of crap is going to start creeping into the lower depths of the system. Maybe not all the way into Darwin, but then again... maybe it will have to.

The trustworthyness issue might have been just an obscure political issue for "GNU hippies" and "Open Source Dudes" in the past, but it's becoming a more and more important to the mainstream, as the hostility between the humans vs the corporations (and government?) heats up.

Re:Desktop

[Ed_Moyse]

No this is the main point of linux IN YOUR OPINION. I work at CERN the world's largest physics laboratory (and the home of the web blah blah blah), and an enormous number of people are moving to macs, from laptops running windows AND linux. And I'll be following them as soon as I can afford it (my last machine was a vaio running linux).

Don't get me wrong, I'll keep my big box at home running KDE, and I'll keep playing with code, but for day-to-day computing I want an OS that is stable, has the powerful tools of unix, and is attractive to look at and use. This used to be linux/KDE but now is OSX. Whether you agree or not, YOU don't get it if you think that OSX is not threat to linux on the desktop, because I'm not alone in this respect!

Re:Desktop

[DrCode]

Sure, it looks nice, and I'd be willing to buy a copy for $100, as soon as a version comes out for my Athlon system.

Re:Desktop

[Feztaa]

I agree with you that the basic installation of knoppix is easy, but the problem with knoppix is that it's debian, and the problem with debian is that it provides very few GUI tools for configuration. What I'm saying is, Joe Sixpack would have a difficult time setting up his printer (for example) with knoppix, whereas on RedHat, it would be detected for him without any hassles.

Re:Desktop

[Feztaa]

Installing Windows XP is a matter of putting the CD in your drive and clicking "Next" a few times.

Last time I saw an XP installer, it was far more involved than that. Perhaps what I saw is not what you get when you buy XP retail, since it was a warez'd copy on a friend's machine, but it started out being totally DOS-based, asking some partitioning questions, and then doing most of the install before loading up a graphical thing to hit "Next" a few times.

RH9, on the same machine, also involved some partitioning questions, but for the most part it was just setting the language and making sure that it detected the right type of mouse, etc, and clicking next. We did custom package selection, because I'm a control freak like that, but we could have just as easily hit "Workstation" and have it all installed for us without any real substantive questions.

Re:Desktop

[alienw]

No company will ever adopt macs systemwide, at least in the near future. They suffer from the same problems as Windows boxes, and are also more expensive. Switching to Macs from Windows just doesn't make any business sense. Linux is a totally different story.

Remember: the driving force behind any switch will be corporate desktops. People generally run the same thing on their home machine as they do at the office. It doesn't work in the opposite direction (just look at apple's market share). And OS X will not be showing up on company computers very soon.

Re:Desktop

[hummassa]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm sorry. Kudzu gets the printer in knoppix, kde has a comprehensive print settings dialog, and simple. no hassle.

another interesting read...

[mr_tommy]

An interesting read, but as ever i never seem to get an understanding of how Linux is going to convert the other 99% to microsoft.

Torvalds might be saviour to the linux community, but thats where it stops. Frankly, The OS either needs some drastic marketting plans or a couple of well placed PR people if it ever wants to make some headway. Bill Gates & Microsoft didn't get rich of the quality of their programming.

Re:another interesting read...

[bstadil]

If you haven't read Clayton Christensen's theory about Disruptive technologies you owe it to yoursleves to do so.

In the case of Linux the improvement in the OS is at a much steeper trajectory than Windows.

It is starting in smaller pockets (I am talking desktop) where the requirement for compatability is somewhat lower. Pockets where only a smaller subset of functionality is needed etc. But the thing is that once in, it will not be replaced by Windows. The Niche is gone for good.

Second Linux is Circling Windows from all sides. From big iron servers to cell phones. This means that the interoperability issue will become less and less. One day you will wake up and realize that it is actually smarter to ditch Windows than try to keep it in sync with it's surroundings.

Re:another interesting read...

[Ozric]

That was because there was no informed market back in the 80ies. There is noway MS would be where they are now, if they started today. It's a different market and most people know the truth. FUD only makes people ask more questions. Linux does not need marketing, Linux just needs to work. The rest will all work out.

Re:another interesting read...

[ignatus]

The main difference between Microsoft and Open Source is that Microsoft needs its customers to buy their products. That is in Open Source hardly the case. As long as open source can count on a reliable group of supporters, development will still go on. In that way, open source doesn't need marketing the way Microsoft does. Marketing can only help open source to gain popularity, but their is no real profit attached to it.

Re:another interesting read...

[mickwd]

"The OS either needs some drastic marketting plans or a couple of well placed PR people if it ever wants to make some headway."

Yeah, it wouldn't have got anywhere in the corporate server environment, if it wasn't for that.

The LAST thing Linux needs is a bunch of people persuaded to use it because of exaggerated marketing claims, and a bunch of PR people talking crap to idiots.

Re:another interesting read...

[cpeterso]

Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma" is a great book. It is very similar to Richard Gabriel's "Worse Is Better". This theory also explains why inferior products like DOS, Windows, C++, and Java succeeded. They sucked in many ways, but they were better in some small, important way.

Re:another interesting read...

[God! Awful 2]

Linus also refutes the old OSS business case from 1999 (give away your software to sell your custom hardware), so that's not really going to help out with corporate support and the device driver situation he was complaining about:

The bad news is, small companies go out of business and can't make hardware. It's just not economically viable any more.

I was also quite shocked to learn that Linus doesn't know what quantum computing is!

-a

Re:another interesting read...

[nathanh]

Second Linux is Circling Windows from all sides. From big iron servers to cell phones. This means that the interoperability issue will become less and less. One day you will wake up and realize that it is actually smarter to ditch Windows than try to keep it in sync with it's surroundings.

The big day is when you realise that you're no longer modifying Linux to work in the Windows environment, but you're instead modifying Windows to work in the Linux environment.

Re:another interesting read...

[whereiswaldo]

Incidentally, I found it... stunning... that Linus calls OpenOffice "a disaster" in the article. Huh? I can't see how that is true. It is allowing Linux to make inroads onto many people's desktops because the "killer app" office suite that they need they can get for free. It's not perfect, but someday it will be close.

Re:another interesting read...

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I think I know what he is getting at. I don't think he is referring to the application itself. Instead, he is probably referring to its architecture. I think he isn't happy with the fact that it uses its own graphics framework. For example, the buttons, icons, menus, etc are native to OOo. I'm guessing he would have preferred if OOo used standard libraries or something.

Anyway, that's my feeling... I kine of agree with his view--if that is indeed what he means. I highly doubt he is referring to the software itself, which is great.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:another interesting read...

[leerpm]

C++ and Java are inferior products? To what, C? I don't think so.

Re:another interesting read...

[Ozric]

all 10 of them..... there was no mass market back then.

Forth?

[Distinguished Hero]

I thought no one used Forth anymore. Now Linus tells us it is the future of Linux?

Seriously though, is it just me, or is the title phrased in a peculiar manner?

Re:Forth?

[addaon]

And all macs; they also use firmware. And most fords, or at least 1993 fords with antilock brakes, come to think of it, and presumably more recent ones as well. Wait, why do we think forth is dying out again?

Re:Forth?

[Brandybuck]

FreeBSD uses Forth in the boot manager. We're the future, and Linus is following.

p.s. Yes, I know the parent post was a joke. So is this one. Get over it.

p.p.s. Don't you long for the days when you didn't have to put stupid disclaimers like the above in your Slashdot posts?

Re:Forth?

[chegosaurus]

Sun's OpenBoot PROM uses FORTH. You can write programs for it if you're so inclined.

Linux on the desktop

[kevin_conaway]

He pretty much dodged that question. He made a vague reference to locking down pcs and how linux is much better at it ? Sorry but you can do that on windows as well.

Folks have said this before but it bears repeat, oss shouldnt be trying to clone windows, it should be trying to innovate something new...but hey what do i know

Re:Linux on the desktop

[broeman]

I never got the feeling that the linux kernel is like the windows kernel32 ... I think he likes KDE because it is trying to move things (like windows is trying to), instead of GNOME, who wants to be perfect and clean (like Apple). Cloning windows/apple is only done because they in a hurry (if you call 5 years fast) wanted to create a usable desktop. Now that OSS is at the point of looking like Windows/Apple, the development can go even further and maybe in new innovative directions.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[pavera]

Sorry but you can do that on windows as well.

Sure you can lock windows down, but its impossible to maintain. If you know ahead of time what application every person needs then yeah you can manage it maybe... But in Windows there is basically a switch can install, can't install. So say you lock down windows boxes, then users suddenly can't install fonts, or they can't install some little utility app that they need (because any install in windows needs admin rights). so then you spend your days running around installing fonts for people, or installing acrobat reader, or a million other mindless chores that you've disallowed people to do.

In Linux the control is so much more fine grained, you can lock people out of installing apps to certain directories, you can let them maintain a font directory in their home dir, you can let them install apps to their home dir. Maybe maintain browser plugins in their home dir. This allows things to go much smoother, people can install things that they *need* to get their jobs done, and aren't on the phone every 10 minutes telling you they need font X. Or if you prefer, you can completely lock it down, and people will be on the phone, but you can just sit at your computer, and install anything remotely and poof its up and running, you aren't running up and down the office to each individual pc.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[mr_majestyk]

But in Windows there is basically a switch can install, can't install.

It's evident from this comment that you know very little about modern Windows security. When you get a chance, you should read up on Active Directory, particularly Group Policies.

Your comments would be much more persuasive if you did a little more research before posting them.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[mabinogi]

> Not to mention that the permission system in Windows is much more finely grained than it is in Unix. If you want to allow someone to write to the font directory, you can do it without granting SuperUser access.

you can do that in a Unix system too..just create a group called "fonts" and make the directory group owned by it, and those users that you want to allow to write to it members of that group.

it's far too easy to get a complete mess with windows ACLS....and it's much harder to understand the whole picture, and fix a problem when it exists.

About the only improvements I would want for the unix permission system, is maybe groups of groups, and outside the filesystem space, a few arbitary root only things made configurable (like listening on a port below 1000)

Re:Linux on the desktop

[mabinogi]

That's why I said groups of groups would be an improvement...

But I don't like the complexity of inherited permisions, plus the ability to assign arbitary people arbiatary permissions to files. that's something that might seem nice in the odd time when you might think you need it, but using it will in the long term leave a mess - especially in your 10,000 person corporation example.
Of course any sensible administrator would only use the groups, but that assumes that all your administrators are sensible (which in a 10,000 person company is probably not true), or you have extremely tight control of things....

Re:Linux on the desktop

[MarcQuadra]

But Linus IS much better at it. I had linux permissions figured out in a few days, and a few days more to make sure everything held tight on the network. Meanwhile I can spend forever dealing with Microsoft policies, and then deal with how local and global policies interact on the AD. Because Unix is a bazillion itty-bitty programs swarming into a functional system, and not a monolithic interface it is inherently easier to lock users down.

Geekcruises

[HBI]

Someone should tell desperate, single women about this.

There might be an explosion as the matter of women and anti-matter of geeks annihilate each other. What a way to go out with a bang, though!

Besides, Linus could use some groupies. It'll make Gates jealous at the very least.

Re:Geekcruises

[WindBourne]

Besides, Linus could use some groupies.

Would not happen. By the time the first one was saying something to Linus, they would have their a** kicked. Nice to have your own loving guardien.

Re:Geekcruises

[Sri Lumpa]

Tove Torvalds (Linus's wife) was a Finnish Karate champion so I don't think the Groupies would stand the challenge of going past her.

Re:Geekcruises

[sgtrock]

6 TIMES nathional champion. :)

Re:Geekcruises

[Sri Lumpa]

Yeah, thanks, I was to lazy to look the details up.

Re:Geekcruises

[Grishnakh]

Any women that are desperate and single are not women that any non-blind man would be able to get in bed with without getting ill.

Re:Geekcruises

[HBI]

I disagree. I run into lots all the time - just average chicks who don't have much special about them.

Re:Geekcruises

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, you're probably right. However, it's really not that hard for a girl to pick up a guy, if she tries. Guys are very visual, and many of the girls I see these days don't put any effort at all into their appearance. If they'd just dress up a little and show off their bodies (instead of wearing androgenous cargo pants for instance), they'd have a lot more male interest.

Geekcruises?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that where a huge luxury liner sails through beautiful waters and near exotic locations and not a single person is on deck because they'd a) be away from their computer and b) have to stand in the sun?

Re:Geekcruises?

[DerPflanz]

Yep. That's right. That is also the reason why they always go to Alaska. (A quick view at their website says that is not true, but all the ads I always get from them is about cruises going to Alaska).

New directions for kernal development

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi all,

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about where Linux development should
head now that 2.6 is out. Specifically, I've been thinking about how we
ought to make some cultural changes as well as technical changes. Now I'm
not *entirely* sure what directions we should head in as we move towards
3.0, but I'd like to point out a few areas that need to be addressed as well
as propose some possible solutions. Nothing is set in stone yet, but these
are definitely issues we need to work on.

First off, I don't like a lot of the elitism that does on among Linux
hackers. Just because you can tell what the following script does without
executing it, doesn't mean that you're some kind of god.

#! /usr/bin/perl
@k = unpack "a"x5,'x_,d@';@o = unpack "a"x19,'Q8>tUxLm\@`Y%N@cIq]';
while ($i19){print chr((ord($o[$i])-ord($k[$i++%5])+91)%91+32);}

Learning to hack Un*x is an impressive accomplishment, but it's closer kin
to solving a Rubik's cube than scaling Everest. If you think using Un*x
makes you some kind of super genius who should be feared by mere mortals and
end users, either get over it or start using *BSD. *BSD users (and
developers) are all complete jackasses, so you'll fit right in.

Secondly, I'd like to address the issue of cleanliness. Quite frankly, the
standards of personal hygiene practiced by many members of this community
are simply unacceptable. As you all know, I am a fairly clean cut,
well-kempt person (I know, I have a bit of a gut, but compared to Maddog,
Nick Petreley or ESR, I'm a modern Adonis.), and in the Linux community that
is something of an anomaly. Virtually all users of Linux (and all other
forms of Un*x) are unkempt, longhaired, beast-bearded dirty GNU hippies, and
I am sick and tired of having to deal with them.

The person I have the greatest problem with is that (in)famous communist
RMS. Now, RMS may have been responsible for GNU, the GPL, GCC and many
other contributions to the computing community, but his stance, as well as
stench, displayed in his essays and actions, nauseates me. I mean, with
that filth-ridden beard of his, where does he have room to demand that
people refer to Linux as GNU / Linux? When he is as clean-shaven as I, he
may claim that right, but until then, he should go back to playing his
little flute and dropping acid like there's no tomorrow. Honestly, if he
doesn't shut his mouth and go back to reading Marx, I'm going to shut it for
him. I am sorry to sound so harsh, but a little hygiene every once in a
while is a Good Thing(TM). Makes me wish I'd gone with a closed source
license back in the day.

Next in line of dirty scuzz-balls I have to deal with, and probably the
worst thorn in my side, is Alan Cox, the primary coder of my kernel's TCP/IP
stack (ha, what a joke!) and all around dirty GNU hippy. Alan views
toothpaste the same way a vampire views garlic. The man's wife (who I spent
a few years with at the University of Helsinki) often calls me crying in the
middle of the night to complain of the rank, unbearable stench the man
exudes after sex. On several occasions at trade shows, exhibitions and beer
bashes, I have nearly fainted from the torrent of rotten odor that pours
from every inch of his toxic person. Along with the typical GNU hygiene
(mis)habits he practices, he also bitches and whines about... well,
everything. He lies a lot too; evidence for this can be seen in the fact he
almost always wears cheap black sunglasses when talking to people he knows
are better than him (such as myself).

And then we come to ESR. I won't reiterate the sewer-dweller like cleansing
habits he practices as well, but I would like to focus on his general
lifestyle. I like to refer to ESR as AGB or "Arrogant Gas Baron." The man'
s flatulence is legendary. I honestly believe that given a meal of refried

Re:New directions for kernal development

[gallir]

Anonymous karma whore?. Strange.

Re:New directions for kernal development

[skookum]

Who the hell is TT205, and why should I care about its feet?

Re:New directions for kernal development

[Proudrooster]

Yep, mod this up.... It's definately classic. I wonder is ESR knows he has a "child molester" moustache?

Re:New directions for kernal development

[inode_buddha]

Strange.. (and funny). But last I heard, Alexy Kuznetsov was responsible for the TCP/IP stack. AC has more to do with IDE disks, serial drivers, and the module architecture in general.

If I'm wrong, or just *way* behind the times, would somebody please let me know?

(perhaps I'll have a more humourous attitude in the AM)

having a bias

[argoff]

Apparently people think it's allright when you have a bias for superior technology, or for example, a bias that the earth is round rather than flat. But when it comes to a bias in favor of free (as in freedom, not beer) then all of a sudden it becomes so taboo - not even Linus wants to have that bias. I think that is such a shame, hasn't history shown that it's a worthy and rational bias by now?

Just my opinion.

Re:having a bias

[timeOday]

We've still got RMS :)

Re:having a bias

[Telex4]

I couldn't agree more with you. There's a strange intellectual cowardlyness amongst a lot of geeks on this, which I think in part comes from their reluctance to step outside technical discussions. Making a confident statement on Free vs proprietary software requires a degree of philosophical and political confidence and knowldge that I think many don't feel they have.

You get to the point where everybody is saying that all opinions are valid, and nobody needs to have one, which is really daft. In fact, each side (Free vs proprietary) has various facts to support them, and either opinion is important in itself and its bases.

I wish Linus, and for that matter all other FOSS developers, would get off their bums and make an effort to be human. I'm sure we'd have far more success in the lobbying world if they didn't say things like "I'm not a lobbyist".

Re:having a bias

[Spoing]

...when it comes to a bias in favor of free (as in freedom, not beer) then all of a sudden it becomes so taboo - not even Linus wants to have that bias. I think that is such a shame, hasn't history shown that it's a worthy and rational bias by now?

I take the stance that you have to look at base motivations. For some things, propriatory wins out...others, open and free. People make propriatory software for a reason, while open software is usually made with a different set of goals.

That said, it is not a dichotomy since there are dozens of other types of licences and subsets (ex: GPL, MPL, ...). Those who aren't aware of the differences tend to think that open software is "freeware" or even "shareware"/"demoware" -- and it's not -- though on a practical level the immediate use (not distribution) of either may have the same consequences.

Free-as-in-beer (freeware) is worth less than propriatory over time since the expectation of future updates or compatability fixes is lower than propriatory-with-a-purchase/lease-price.

Propriatory is worth less than free-as-in-freedom because if the group/company/person providing it decides not to maintain it or breaks compatability, you're stuck. The free-as-in-freedom software always has the potential to be maintained and updated.

Where people who are new to the whole open source world make a mistake is that they think "freeware" (as in not supported) instead of open (as in it can always be supported -- though not necessarily practical).

What I do is try to describe what the differences are though it is a hard slog. If you start out with "free-as-in-freedom" most people won't take you seriously because they are not knowledgeable in what the tradeoffs are and consider "free-as-in-freedom" a revolutionary stance involving granola, tie died shirts, and nerds with broken glasses.

That there are practical issues with the availability of massive amounts of open source hasn't been understood by many yet. If you can distribute something to someone without incuring a per-copy fee, most people think that *you* own it and are then willing to pay for it. Hmmm...think about that for a few moments if you haven't already.

The attitude that some have that "being a geek" is a bad thing fits in the same category, though being proud of your geekyness is less of a problem and most people can be made to understand it in short order.

Re:having a bias

[dipipanone]

I couldn't agree more with you. There's a strange intellectual cowardlyness amongst a lot of geeks on this, which I think in part comes from their reluctance to step outside technical discussions.

I'm not sure that's true. Look at the number of comments on the Symantec/Gun Control thread compared with the comments on this one.

Of course, I'm not sure what that means either. Perhaps that you have more wannabee geeks than real geeks reading Slashdot?

Re:having a bias

[Telex4]

That's true. I'd then have to change my statement to say that a lot of geeks are reluctant to go beyond technical points in discussions about technology and other geek things where there are some very vocal geeks.

Linus seems to have this attitude that so long as there are other geeks out there lobbying on his behalf, then he can quite happily hack away oblivious to the outside world. Many admire him for that; I think it's childish.

New sig for Windows Advocates!

[DaneelGiskard]

I would be happy to say anything bad about software patents if I could just ... formulate a sentence that makes sense.
Linus Torvalds

There you go. Don't tell anyone you got it from me ;-)

Re:New sig for Windows Advocates!

[IM6100]

Why would Windows advocates care about anything Linus Torvalds says?

That would be a little like George W Bush caring about something the president of Guatamala says.

Re:New sig for Windows Advocates!

[DaneelGiskard]

Dunno, but it sounded like a funny thing when I posted it ;-) Actually I'm more on the Linux side of things myself, which is why I added the "don't tell anybody" line. Lastly, please don't take the comment serious, I just thought it was funny when I read it in the article :)

Re:New sig for Windows Advocates!

[BJH]

Hey - are you implying that all Windows users are retards?!

Re:New sig for Windows Advocates!

[nathanh]

Honestly I think Linus's "Software patents are bad" is perfect.

Re:New sig for Windows Advocates!

[Wolfrider]

--Well, you said it - we didn't. Guess the "implication" is out in the open now, eh?

"You are sofa king. We Todd did." )/joke(

linus the shrink

[spacefem]

"psychology is so important. It made a huge difference to call it [the newest Linux kernel] 2.60 Test 1. Because we started getting a lot of bug reports from people who would never touch 2.5.79 with a ten-foot pole. Even though it was the same code. Especially on the desktop that's the only way to test it. Because desktops are just so varied that you literally have to get it tested by the user base."

I suddenly understand why 2.6 has been in the works all this time, it's brilliant. I'd think analysis like this would lend developers into more and more X.X changes instead of X.X.X.XX.X... going that deep into releases just isn't practical, especially when you're needing people to help out.

I went into science a long time ago thinking it'd be so great because it wouldn't involve people's silly perceptions and personal idiosynchrocies but I've come to find the opposite, and I've come to find that it's not always bad to have technical people be "human" after all. If that makes any sense.

In other news, I still don't know how to correctly pronounce Linux.

Re:linus the shrink

[damiam]

Li (short 'i' as in "lips") - nux (rhymes with "tux")

Re:linus the shrink

[Biffer4810]

Hey, I admit it, I just like the sound file...

pronunciation

Re:linus the shrink

[MntlChaos]

The reason is this (something which some distro makers choose to ignore): Major versions are significantly different from eachother (compare windows 3 and 4 (4 = win95) and 4 and 5 (5 = 2000, XP). there are SIGNIFICANT differences. There are a few significant differences between windows 2000 and XP, hence the minor number difference. In Linux, since the development is open, you have different patch levels in existence. The differences here are (for the most part) either backported from newer versions or bug fixes. The numbering is a simple result of the changes in code, not a conscious effort on the part of developers (or at least should not). This is the problem with stuff like red hat, RH9 is not really all that different from RH8.1, simply a few newer pieces of software; works pretty much the same.

Re:linus the shrink

[cgreuter]

There's that, but there's also an implied statement of intent. With a 2.5.XX kernel, they're saying "this is a work in progress" while with a 2.6-test version number, the message is, "this is now supposed to work correctly."

At that point, you know it wasn't just a bunch of patches thrown together to see if they work.

Re:linus the shrink

[KjetilK]

The weirdest thing about this is that he actually seems to solicit my comments... :-) I mean, I'm a newbie, but I did compile the 2.6.0-test8 and 9 kernels. Couldn't get them to boot well, though, so I gave up pretty quickly. That's on a desktop machine. I posted a few things about the ordeal on debian-users, but that is how far I took it.

Usually, I would think that there is so little I can get out of a non-working kernel that it is hardly worth reporting. It's little beyond "uhm, it doesn't work. Basically, it stopped when it got to".... Not a very interesting report.

But Linus seems to be saying that those reports can be useful for the kernel hackers anyway...

What do you think, should I post something? In that case, where?

Re:linus the shrink

[UserGoogol]

No, but that is how you pronounce the American version of the name.

Developers, develepers, developers, developers

[MadocGwyn]

Reminds me of that guys keynote speech, Linus might think there will be a focus on developers, but will he stand there sweaty on a stage and repeat it like 37 times.

Funny part is it seemed to me watching the vid as part of a red-vs-blue skit that he was trying ot start a chant or some clapping neither of which materilized, near the ned sounded like he was crying.

Augh! Geeks on a ship.

[The Ape With No Name]

Sub Captain: "Captain to ops."
Ops: "Ops here."
Captain: "I need a solution. Target bearing 323. Speed 16 knots. Distance: 5600 meters"
Ops: "Aye Aye. Solution ready."
Captain: "Tropedo room."
TR: "Aye."
Captain: "Ready and load tubes 1,3,5."
TR: "Aye. Tubes loaded and ready."
Captain: "Fire 1,3,5. Call run times!"
Fire Control: "Fish away."
Sonar: "Explosions, sir!"
Captain: "Excellent."
Sonar: "Sir, something disturbing."
Captain: "What?"
Sonar: "Strange screams of anguish."
Captain: "Huh? Don't let your emotions rule you son."
Sonar: "No sir. Just things like: 'I can't swim.' 'Where's my inhaler?' 'What? No backups?' 'Save the Anime DVDs!' 'There ain't no women and children here, save Linus first!' 'Leave RMS behind. He's old and bitter. Tis a better fate.' 'You have been, and always will be, my friend.'
Captain: 'Surface!'
Number One: 'Will we take on survivors?'
Captain: 'Prepare the .50 cal on deck....'

Re:Augh! Geeks on a ship.

[monkey_jam]

would this be microsofts submarine?

aaah i see, its the blue sea of death...

Re:Augh! Geeks on a ship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Number One: 'Sir, something strange is happening with our computers ...'

Re:Augh! Geeks on a ship.

[Wolfrider]

"We all live, In a yellow submarine..."

Re:Augh! Geeks on a ship.

[stor]

That reminds me of a really bad joke I made up. Get ready to groan:

We're all stuck in a looping subroutine,
A looping subroutine
A looping subroutine

repeat ad nauseum...

Cheers
Stor

coherent distributed filesystem

[treat]

Is there any project which has as its goal providing tha coherent network-distributed (or fibre-channel distributed) filesystem that Linus intelligently realizes is a critical need?

Re:coherent distributed filesystem

[ComputerSlicer23]

Intermezzo and GFS/OpenGFS are two I know of.

Intermezzo sounds like it wants to be the end all be all of every feature you could ever want in a filesystem. Hence I think it won't work.

GFS is by Sistina (the people behind LVM and Device Mapper in Linux, but not ELVM) and uses SCSI3 locks as it's locking mechanism (the locking mechanism defined at the bottom of the SCSI layer, in version 3 of the standard).

Sistina did it GPL'ed thru the beta, and then took it propriatary after the beta. Thus OpenGFS was spawned. I haven't seen much out of that. Never used it really.

Kirby

Re:coherent distributed filesystem

[treat]

geom-gate is the same as the Linux DBD stuff. The problem is that only one machine can have it mounted unless everyone has it mounted read-only.

?Q: I work for a company with three letters. ?

[BallPeenHammer]

> Q: I work for a company with three letters. Name one without.

Re:?Q: I work for a company with three letters. ?

[amacbride]

Um...H-P?

Re:?Q: I work for a company with three letters. ?

[Artifakt]

Or GE?

Re:Spell Nazis beware!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that interesting. I think it was transcribed from audio by someone who doesn't know computing. "ifdev"s ha!

One thing for certain-Foot feed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things:

1-How many OSS developers are Indian or Chinese?

2-How is an OSS developer going to be "exported" from his country?

BTW Taco! Fix your site. Mozilla 1.4 posting is broken. IE and Konq work fine.

Re:One thing for certain-Foot feed.

[Trelane]

BTW Taco! Fix your site. Mozilla 1.4 posting is broken. IE and Konq work fine.

This was posted with Mozilla 1.4 on Gentoo.

Re:Spell Nazis beware!

[BJH]

Not to mention "numma".

Re:Where is apple?

[CoolMoDee]

The reason why apple was able to build a user friendly Unix for the desktop is because most of the work was already done for them when they bought NeXT and decided to base OS X on NeXT. That is not to say they couldn't have done it otherwise, but it certinly gave them a jump start.

Nice Recording?

[devphaeton]

Linus: I don't care. I used to be a lot more worried about it. A long time ago I used to be worried about companies having their own (garbled) about doing this stuff.

Are we sure that Linus wasn't saying gollum?

Whoops!

I mean... er... uhh... Cursed Yellow Face!! It burnses us! We hateses it! Yessss preciouss... We hateses it!!

I mean.. how often do coders actually go outside? Huh?

Re:Where is apple?

[ignatus]

Delivering a reliable, eye candy, popular desktop OS.
You can hardly call that the goal of linux. If you like such a os, well yeah, go ahead and buy MacOS. But to me MacOS is fucking bloated and expensive. I want an os to be configurable, stable and resource friendly. Linux has it's own goals and ideals and definately isn't a substitute for MacOS. It would be really stupid just to copy an existing OS.

Space Image

[InsaneCreator]

One of the questions in the interview is:
Q: (Something about somebody rendering an image in space using Linux on an IBM laptop.)?

I believe this is the image: Reach for the stars

Re:Where is apple?

[bsharitt]

Apple's acquisition of NeXT wasn't as much of buying a whole new company, but a reunification of a split company.

Outcompete those who work for next to nothing!

[Chemisor]

Of course. The best way to outcompete those who work for next to nothing is to work for nothing.

Re:The future of Linux is the Desktop/Set-top/Game

[zelurxunil]

I can see Linux running on PS3, I can see Linux running on a networked media center, in school computer labs, and on laptops. I think Linux needs to take the Desktop.

School computer labs saved Apple, looking at budget deficits, underfunded, and ill-equipped schools Open Source solutions (particularly linux) should sweep like wildfire, if only it can catch on somewhere. Imagine if some school-systems adopted linux into their computer labs, parents had linux on their work desktops, and then the final link is the families downloading (or buying) linux distributions for the home. Then it would force Microsoft to put out a product, that was better (or was advertised as such) than Linux instead of being able to force more crap upon mindless drones. Stuff like the PS3/networked media center will become linux users soon enough, not because of public demand (cause most consumers don't care), but through competition between linux solutions and proprietary ones. It's not about linux dominance or Redhat dominance or fighting Windows dominance its about education of the general masses allowing for the presence of competition.

Millions of thieves can't be wrong...

[Chemisor]

For thousands of years there were many many people who believed that you shouldn't have to pay for things that you want. The fact that such people continue to exist, must necessarily constitute a historical proof that such beliefs are indeed worthy and rational. (Note that free as in "speech" is usually accompanied by free as in "beer", blurring the distinction by the simple observation that neither product makes any money for its developer. Look at RedHat, for example, which makes no money at all from its software, but nevertheless is able to keep itself from bankrupcy by holding hands of those few who are not able to install it themselves.)

Re:Millions of thieves can't be wrong...

[Dionysus]

For thousands of years there were many many people who believed that the Earth was round. The fact that such people continue to exist, must necessarily constitute a historical proof that such beliefs are indeed worthy and rational.

Re:Millions of thieves can't be wrong...

[Chemisor]

For thousands of years there were many many people who believed that as long as for thousands of years there have been many many people who believed in an idea, that must necessarily constitute a historical proof of its veracity. The fact that such people continue to exist is an unfortunate illustration of humanity aversion to scientific progress, which has succeeded (I think) only because for thousands of years there still are (few few) people who happen to think that knowledge and reason are good and worthwhile.

Re:Millions of thieves can't be wrong...

[Dionysus]

I meant flat, of course sigh...

Linux needs automatic configuration.

[MtViewGuy]

I think one of the big issues that is holding back Linux for desktop users is the fact the OS still does not completely support automatic configuration of hardware, especially hot-docked devices through the USB and IEEE-1394 ports. This is something that Windows has done pretty well, especially with Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Home/Professional.

I'm hoping that Linux will incorporate the Open Source equivalent of the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) which has been used since Windows 98.

Re:Linux needs automatic configuration.

[Bollie]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. When last have you installed a Linux distro? USB/Firewire hotplugging works better under Linux than under Windows for me. Try any modern distribution with a kernel later than 2.4.22 and you'll have support for ACPI. In fact, kernel 2.6.0-test8-mm1 on Gentoo supports all devices (including the Zoltrix Genie-Wonder-Pro that Windows XP doesn't support) on my system without a single glitch. USB 2.0 works fine. Firewire runs perfectly and my motherboard's sensors get reported via gkrellm2. If you really want some shenanigans, try to load Windows 95 on some newer motherboards. Guaranteed to make you wince. Can you believe it that some motherboards aren't backwards compatible? At least Linux can now run on old stuff and new!

good news for non-devs too...

[BurKaZoiD]

Great stuff

I'm not part of the open-source dev community other than it being a personal hobby, so I consider myself just a user. Still, anything pro-Linux is good news to me too. I'm loving my Linux box more and more since I set it up "just because I was curious". There are a few caveats I have, some things that I wish were more Windows-like, but nothing to get your panties in a twist about. Basically, the system has run flawlessly since I set it up, with the exception of that damn Seti@Home software nearly burning up my processor. Windows would have locked up or crashed several times since then. The only problem I have had is with Evolution crashing on exit, but only once in a blue moon, and even then nothing is corrupt.

I'm always pissed off when I have to upgrade or migrate to a newer version of windows, something always gets lost or has to be left behind. Linux is damn near perfect though; I've got total wood for it.

Re:The future of Linux is the Desktop/Set-top/Game

[fr0dicus]

Linux will never get Apple's marketshare. OS X is a Rolls Royce of a desktop operating system, bought buy people with as much money as sense. The first thing I hear the average Linux/Windows user say about OS X is 'it seems quite expensive'. Linux's target market should be the people who don't/won't/can't pay for Windows.

Linux in Space

[tuba_dude]

I've since lost the link, but a friend of mine (At CU in Boulder, CO) is putting together the main software package used on a small satellite. If I remember correctly, he's using at least some linux stuff on it... Something like that anyway. If indeed it is running Linux, once it lanuches it should set some sort of record for the highest use of Linux.

Openoffice and QT

[vivek7006]

I think the biggest single thing that has happened on the (garbled) have been a lot of good library frameworks. Qt in particular I think made a huge difference.

OpenOffice is still, in my opinion, a complete disaster. And part of the reason is that it's not using any of these frameworks that were signed for different applications. It built its own framework. I am told people are trying to fix it.

Qt guys should focus on porting openoffice using the QT framework. Openoffice is great, but a QT port would be totally awesome. Even linus thiks so

Interesting comments about Visual Basic

[Rich]

I find Linus' comment about visual basic very interesting. We're dealing with the issue of how to make it easy for people to put together the same kind of bespoke application with tools like kjsembed. This lets you write applications using Javascript - you have access to things like KDE's DB support, XMLGUI facilities and UIs created with Qt Designer. Maybe after a couple more release cycles that could become a 'killer app' for linux.

Micro vs. Macro (Kernel)

[MuParadigm]

For an embedded system, you may be right -- a microkernel may be more flexible and secure. But the communication overhead between modules may make it less efficient for small devices, which may be why Linux is doing well in the embedded devices market as well.

Let's face it, an embedded device is pretty much defined by the fact that the OS shouldn't need to be changed by the user outside of ROM upgrades, so the theory that the microkernel may be more flexible is a moot point beyond production of a particular unit. As the Linux kernel size can be greatly reduced by compiling only with the needed features, size isn't much of an issue either.

Personally, I can see legitimate arguments on both sides of the micro/macro kernel debate, but ultimately I think Linus is right. Making and keeping the design as simple as possible (and no simpler) is the best design. That, and the potential communications overhead with a poorly designed microkernel are the winning arguements for me. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Micro vs. Macro (Kernel)

[whereiswaldo]

For an embedded system, you may be right -- a microkernel may be more flexible and secure. But the communication overhead between modules may make it less efficient for small devices, which may be why Linux is doing well in the embedded devices market as well.

SymbianOS is based on a microkernel design. I believe most mobile phones run this OS.

OpenOffice a Disaster.

[Safiire Arrowny]

Woah, can you imagine how the OpenOffice developers must feel after reading that?


If I was working on some huge Linux project and Linus said it was a disaster, I'd feel pretty bad. I probably wouldn't stop building it or anything, but it'd be a downer.

Re:OpenOffice a Disaster.

[openmtl]

Linux lives in kernel space not userspace. He's god (small G given he's an atheist) of that realm but not all others. OpenOffice 1.1.0 works well. Solid, dependable and extremely cool PDF export from Writer.

Re:OpenOffice a Disaster.

[RdsArts]

Last I checked:

A) It was cross-platform. IE not a Linux project. It's not even a UNIX-like project.
B) It's from Sun. They're used to people calling their UIs fuckups. ;)

Yes, but did he say...

[JessLeah]

"DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!"

"....YES!"

(obligatory extra text to evade the lameness filter. Yes, there are lots of caps there. I was quoting Ballmer. Stupid filter...)

Just GPL OSX and make it run on Intel

[upside]

...and I'm your man.

Re:The future of Linux is the Desktop/Set-top/Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux should not have a goal market share. It doesn't make sense for Linux (you can argue all you want). Linux should focus on being the best technological solution. It's as simple as that.

What are ifdevs?

[nickos]

It should read #ifdefs surely?

Re:What are ifdevs?

[Haeleth]

I liked the "minimal studs (?)" in the kernel, myself. And the "numma machines".

You'd think they'd get articles about software development written up by people who know the first thing about software development, but no...

Re:Spell Nazis beware!

[AlXtreme]

Sure wasn't a developer that wrote it down.

Near the end Linus was saying something about pipechecking, didn't have a clue what he was on about ('some kind of IPC-thingy?'). Was a google whack, only then did I notice it was about typechecking. pipe/type. Ahh, nevermind, was an interesting read nonetheless. Was a bit harsh on OO.org though...

Re:Where is apple?

[mah!]

But to me MacOS is fucking bloated and expensive.
Uhm... to an average user, it may be. For me (being myself an average Linux user) Red Hat 8 & co. are bloated and expensive: yes, my time (just like for most of IT professionals) is more expensive than what it costs to purchase Mac OS X 10.3.
That of course by taking into account the time I need to spend every time I have to figure out how to do something sysadmin-like in Linux - time which I don't need to waste if I develop on Mac OS X (which for a lot of SW development, is quite similar to Linux). And my PBG4 is less expensive than my colleagues' Dells, at similar specs
If I need to make it less-bloated, well, I can do that with Mac OS X just as well as (I hope) you can do with Linux.

I want an os to be configurable, stable and resource friendly.
OK, so do I - again, that's why I prefer to use Mac OS X. I don't mind Linux, if I have a sysadmin when I get stuck.

Linux has it's own goals and ideals and definately isn't a substitute for MacOS. It would be really stupid just to copy an existing OS.
IMHO, Linux's user interface (be it KDE or Gnome) tries to be a substitute for Windows. Which in itself is not such a great GUI to begin with.

At least we can all agree on something.

[Curtman]

with a particular eye towards developers

Steve Ballmer thinks so too

;)

Re:Where is apple?

[be-fan]

How much have you used KDE or GNOME? I've used KDE for years (after being a Windows user since 3.1) and I can say that they are not at all similar. Superficially, maybe, but it doesn't work the same.

Re:The future of Linux is the Desktop/Set-top/Game

[be-fan]

Actually, OS X is more like a Jag XK8. Sexy on the outside, but obsolete technology under the hood.

What if you're old and poor?

[konmaskisin]

Then you should just use NetBSD and GNUstep ....

Oh and do't bother ever using an "office suite" cause you're old and don't need one :-P

HP QA'ing laptops??

[theendlessnow]

[An audience member added: "HP has started QA with Linux on the laptop, shipping BIOS updates... Not in the old market, but in the commercial market. There needs to be pressure in the commercial market. Customers are stepping up and saying, "We're going to buy ten thousand Linux machines..." So the pressure is starting to be put on the larger vendors.]

I would warn severly against the thought that HP is actually supporting Linux in some way. This is the same company that made a full committment to JUST WINDOWS and JUST ITANIUM for its whole future. HP is a WINDOWS ONLY shop... check the record. All of this talk about Linux, though there have been some skunkworks Linux projects on the inside, is really just an HP marketing opp... do not believe ANYTHING that HP says until they actully DELIVER!! HP is a large VERY PRO MICROSOFT company... let's see the goods before listening to their oh so lovely words.

If Microsoft asks HP to stop all Linux development tomorrow, trust me... HP will stop ALL OF IT. They are 0wn3d. Their record speaks for itself.

My personal experience with HP/Compaq HW, even on the server side, is that it is somewhat problematic. If they can't get the servers to work right, do you really think they are seriously working on getting the laptop to work right?

I'm from Missourri on this one... SHOW ME HP... prove me wrong! I really, really want to be wrong.

Re:HP QA'ing laptops??

[leonscape]

HP's been quite good with printers though. Completley supporting all the features of the diffrent models. Going as far as creating hpijs to get things working properly.

Debian in Space in 1997

[Xtifr]

If indeed it is running Linux, once it lanuches it should set some sort of record for the highest use of Linux.

Merely being in Orbit won't be enough for the record, Debian has already flown on the Shuttle back in 1997. In fact, it's done so twice.

DNA vs quantum computing

[xmda]

Isn't Linus mixing up DNA with quantum computing?

Q: Do you ever think about quantum computing?

"Linus: I think that's a load of bull. I see all these news reports that say "Hey, we had a chemistry set that computed pi to seven digits!" That's basically what they're doing. They're not doing computing. They're doing pattern matching with DNA. And that's fine. That's what you want to do if what you are matching is DNA, right? But if you actually want to do computation you obviouisly don't want to do this biological solution of stuff and just hoping that the answer will come, right? So I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I'll take transistors. And they'll get smaller. And they'll start getting quantum effects, and that's fine. "

You miss the point of geek cruising and isolation

[Morgaine]

I think you've missed the point of Geekcruises going to remote places, and in particular to Alaska.

It's not so much to give geeks nicer surroundings (beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway), but to make them inaccessible to the thousand and one annoying non-tech people and events that interrupt their daily lives with irrelevancies, and to bring like-minded tech people together.

A simple definition of a geek (I'm one) is a person who enjoys technology above all else, and who prefers the company of like-minded others. A geek cruise is hard to beat for that!

Linus was wrong...

[FatSean]

If a product is to be sold to an external customer, the certificate of originality is definately produced by the developer(s) who worked on that product.

Open Office & Netscape: Disasters Critical 2 L

[FreeUser]

Woah, can you imagine how the OpenOffice developers must feel after reading that?

If I was working on some huge Linux project and Linus said it was a disaster, I'd feel pretty bad.

Open Office may be a "disaster" from the elegence and interoperative perspective, just as Netscape was a "disaster."

And just like netscape (for all of those years before Mozilla and Konqueror were mature enough to be usable as serious browsers), Open Office is critical to GNU/Linux's usability on the desktop today.

Without Netscape for all those years, as clunky as it was, Linux users would have been forced to use Windows boxes to surf the net and take part in the user-side of the world wide web. Without Open Office Linux users would be forced to use Windows boxes for any number of purposes (mostly having to do with interoperability with Microsoft Excel and Word formats), and while other tools exist to some degree to address this (as Konqueror and Mozilla did prior to their becoming mature applications), none are as useful or as accessible as Open Office is.

The Open Office developers should be proud. They have an office suite that runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and other platforms, one that reads and writes commonly used file formats (e.g M$ crap and PDF) as well as its own excellent, open format. Open Office, for all of its faults, makes Linux a viable, serious desktop platform ... Microsoft zealotry and Macintosh enthusiasm to the contrary notwithstanding.

Indeed, Open Office could be the single most important application to facilitating enterprise and individual migration away from Microsoft to Linux or FreeBSD on the desktop, or for supporting heterogeneous desktops in the enterprise that a dependency on Microsoft Office (or Appleworks) would preclude.

Who transcribed this POS?

[JamieF]

Since most people seem distracted by "why didn't he mention Mac OS X", I'd just like to be the first one to say that the transcript of this interview really sucks.

Linus has some interesting things to say but the number of typos and half-completed sentences make it hard to know how much more he actually said.

Is there another transcription somewhere?

Linux in Space

[ObscureCoder]

Other then the rendering mentioned before....
Does anyone know about any linux in space projects?
Other then of course the one Linus menitoned "I know it's been on the Shuttle, but that's just low Earth orbit. And I'm wondering if it's been on anything more interesting."
I for one am def just as curious.

Re:The future of Linux is the Desktop/Set-top/Game

[fr0dicus]

What's obselete? I don't understand your point here.