Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship
treebeard77 writes "BusinessWeek has posted Linus Torvalds interview '
The creator of Linux says "I can't be nasty" when leading the open-source movement since it's all built on trust and teamwork' "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...not a 'movement'. He wisely left that nonsense to the zealots.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Theo isn't the most polite, but he certainly gets things done in an organized safe and secure manner
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
I think that not thinking about these things will eventually hinder Linux adoption, as it did in Munich's case.
So what's the long term plan? What kind of ideas are out there? I know there's a solution to be found!
that guy has been ranting and cursing out everyone since he got online.
Wasn't that how Jobs originally built Apple? I think he's been downgraded to "serious pain in the ass". While I don't agree with the pressure he put on the original Mac developers, there is something to be said for someone who can be a bit more forceful. I can almost guarantee that the iPod wouldn't have succeeded so well if Jobs hadn't been such a PITA about all the minor details.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Wouldn't the world be great if we could have political leaders that were more like Linus. The problem is people like Linus don't win elections because they're not manipulative liars like all the rest of politics.
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
Cool Distinction that I made from the article:
One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation.
In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.
Proprietary Vendors are like nitro dragsters, being the first ones off of the line with their brand new product. Trying to wow people and making a huge splash.
Open source is like a mile long freight train. Functional, slower to get started, but when the momentum gets going, its going to be much, much harder to stop than that nitro dragster.
Can't blame a lack of replies on that. It's just that more people tend to RTFA when Linus speaks ;-)
No, it was supposed to be a free version of Unix. Nobody wanted Windows! That's why Linus had to write his kernel to replace th MS operating system which he surely got with his fancy new 386.
Never read the click-through licences, have you? They all begin with something like: ``This product comes with no warrenty, including without limitation any warrenty of fitness for any particular purpose.''
It will likely get better but I can't believe he said that it wasn't as bad as I think.
He must know how badly you think?
See what I've been reading.
He wisely left that nonsense to the zealots.
I assume you are refering to RMS, Chief GNUsance. Part of his zealotry has been to get copyright releases for code from all GNU contributors. As a result GNU packages have no where near the same legal vulnerablities as the Linux kernel because contributions are traced. RMS anticipated that legal dirty tricks would be used against him and he uses the law to his advantage (as does the GPL). Perhaps Linus should become more zealous in this respect.
an ill wind that blows no good
There's tons of "fucking terrible" software for windows, too. Go into any computer store and there will be racks of CD burning software, and most of it sucks.
Then go look for their rack of "Windows Software for only $10." That stuff probably sucks, too. Look in the games section. It's like 10% good, well known games, and then 90% crappy knock-offs.
Most commercial software comes with huge disclaimers that say they aren't responsible when your computer blows up or whatever, just like open source software.
In other words, open source software isn't very different from commercial software, from an average buyer standpoint (I agree, there probably isn't support for some of the big stuff, like CAD). There's some really great stuff, and then there's tons of crap.
The only difference is that with open source, there's no $200 difference in price between the good stuff and the shit.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
But MANY commercial programs aren't innovative, either. Microsoft Money is just a poor clone of Quicken, Norton AV does the same thing as McAfee, EZ CD Creator is a clone of Toast, etc. I don't think it's fair to compare the best, most innovative commercial software, with all of the thousands of mediocre open-source programs out there. Some of the best open-source programs are incredibly innovative: BitTorrent, Python, Subversion - and others, while they superficially act similar to popular commercial programs, have dozens of innovative features: Gimp, OpenOffice, Audacity
Linux was meant to be a Unix-like operating system for PCs. It presents a Unix-like interface because that makes it possible to easily port zillions of programs written for Unix operating systems. Internally, Linux was designed from scratch, and though it uses the basic Unix model (for processes vs threads, file-based devices, etc.), it has very little in common with any other Unix in the way it actually does anything nontrivial. Want to talk about innovation? Linux scales down to little handheld devices with 8 MB of RAM, and all the way up to 1024-CPU supercomputers. All with the same kernel (and different compile-time options). No other operating system can claim to do that. Is that not innovation? (Windows CE is NOT the same kernel as Windows XP, and no version of Windows scales up to supercomputers nearly as well as Linux.)
Apart from the points raised by other people on this thread (especially the one about EULAs being disclaimers claiming no warranty), I think what Linus was talking about was innovations from a technological point of view in the kernel, which I think is a valid point. MS comes out with Brand New NTFS(tm) and Brand New ActiveThis(tm) and ActiveThat(tm) every couple of years, as the reasons why you should upgrade to the latest Windows. Linux doesn't - it doesn't even encourage you to upgrade. The point is, rather than putting in *altogether* new features, Linus tries to maintain existing features (the standard Posix stuff) as efficiently and fast as possible. As Linus claims in his article, programs written in 1992 can still be run on the latest kernel. The whole point is that innovation with the kernel is happening behind the scenes, not in the marketing world where MS and other large software companies work.
My two cents on application usage: I think most developers are scared, because they know that if they get One Humongously Big Idea, large software companies will immediately embrace and extend them out of existance. They literally have no-one to hide behind under the open source model.
I teach at a local technical college, also the occasional short course, etc. I'm fond of telling my students:
The classroom is not a democracy. We have very different roles here. But neither is it a tyranny -- if I get tyrannical, students will simply leave.
The classroom is best described as a pirate ship: I have power to the extent that the crew accepts me as their leader.
So too with Linus and linux. If people believe in him, he leads them; if people don't believe in him, he's just a mortal man again, everybody goes their own way. (I'm assuming he's not the type to incite mutinous plank-walking behaviors.)
-kgj
-kgj
Well, naturally I haven't read the article, but the title says "dictatorship". In OSS, anyone can fork the project at any time. The fact that people have stayed with Linus's fork means it's more like democratic election.
Yes, that makes sense.... ignoring the inconvenient little fact that communism does not require that the ruling body be a dictatorship.... in fact, the theory behind communism wouldn't disallow the possibility of a society that elects its leaders to a congressional body.
The other inconvenient little fact is that the open source community is more like a purely benevolent capitalist society where the only people who work to produce things are those who choose to, then they willingly provide the fruits of their labor back to the collective.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
There is no point in arguing about desktop percentages. Max OS X and Linux are both very small and don't even touch MS's 95%+ of the desktop market. However, if you want to be pedantic, I have seen stats that show Linux as the #2 desktop as of December 2003 (it was even on /.), and I also see stats showing Mac OS with a small lead. On the desktop, Linux and Mac OS still have no pull.
On the server however, Linux is a strong #2 and has been the fastest growing server OS for the last 4 years or so. MS does not enjoy the same monopoly on the server as they do on the desktop, though they still have plenty of lock-ins to help push their server numbers up. The server area is the only area where MS is seeing any competition and that only competition is coming from GNU/Linux.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
"Software patents concern me. I worry about some greedy companies -- possibly failing ones, trying to make trouble and abusing the system. Software patents, in particular, are very ripe for abuse. The whole system encourages big corporations getting thousands and thousands of patents. Individuals almost never get them.
We have random people in random countries working on random things, and they don't have 1,000 patent lawyers. So I'm not worried about one patent in particular, but the whole system. It's not a problem today. But it's a thing I can't control, unlike the technical side, where I can actually do something."
It is refreshing to hear Linus state what RMS has been saying for the past five years. Software patents are evil, evil, evil. Yet Linus seems to stir less controversy when he says these things. I think both of them have a great deal of admiration for each other and both of them do very important if parallel work.
For all the talk about the Hurd, RMS doesn't use the Hurd.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Actually that isn't a captialism. There is no property (i.e. capital) involved. It's a meritocracy.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming