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)
Hail Linus
That's GNU/Dictatorship damn you.
...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.
Linux become the No. 2 operating system worldwide for server computers.
Wouldnt that be nr 1 in server and nr 2 in desktop?
(:
If you found this interview interesting, I would recommend his book (ghost-written, of course), Just for Fun. It's suprisingly light reading.
from the article:
"... That has helped Linux become the No. 2 operating system worldwide for server computers."
Dumb question, I know, but who exactly is number 1, and what constitutes a server, anyway?
now back to work my open source minions. 2.6.100 won't write itself.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
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!
Linus is just the maintainer of the general stable tree of the Linux kernel, he's not some kind of Linux czar.
There's a big difference between rule of an OS with an iron fist and maintainership of a kernel for an OS. Linus does a good job maintaining his project (the Linux kernel), so no one directly forks it.
Anyway, the article's a interview that ranges over his opinion on some patent issues.. not that you'd realize it from the post.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
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
Best Slashdot Co
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.
I'm not so much a leader, I'm more of a shepherd. Now all the kernel developers will read that and say, "He's comparing us to sheep." It's more like herding cats.
So I'm a pussy instead?
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.
No, actually it was as a free replacement for a unix-like system. The "replacement for windows" talk didn't start up for a fair while.
I wish Torvalds had used the word Alchemy instead of witchcraft, it is probably closer to what he was trying to say (in English at least).
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.
Well, a server is something that servers. All those M$ machines with viruses serving up more of themselves for everyone else. That would be a server right? Keeping M$ in the lead. Maybe that's part of their master plan to stay at the top of servers.
Evolution or ID?
ever actually READ an EULA on a piece of commercial software? its a lot of really complicated legal text saying just that; they're not responsible for anything the software does to your computer. the *microsoft* EULAs usually also say you're legally bound to keep your mouth shut about anything bad the software does to your computer. i'm not joking. read one sometime.
*sigh*
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
If Linus is a "benevolent" dictator, we're not sending in troops to depose him?
And, obviously, we can't depose him on grounds of WMD, since Microsoft makes those, right?
So -- as long as he doesn't gas a whole room of Mac OS X users, we'll leave him be?
And -- he doesn't have any kids, right? Two boys that might go around killing anyone who doesn't win Linux-based UT2K4 tournaments in Linus' name, right? Or terrorizing anyone who challenges the vision of the kernel?
Finally -- Linus hasn't invested in any bunker construction for his new offices, right?
Just checking. I was concerned that maybe that troop realignment from Europe was in preparation for an attack on Mr. Torvalds.
IronChefMorimoto
"I can't be nasty"
This is an excellent example which others should strive for.
Alas, many don't. And it's one reason why I stay away from posting on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. There are just too many people there who think that they build up their reputation capital at the expense of others.
The only positive solution that I can think of is if people made a conscious effort towards adopting Linus' attitude. Perhaps that's wishful thinking.
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
Linus's hair is looking a little pointy these days :)
UNIX/Linux Consulting
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.
is Benedict. Coincidence? I think not. fnord
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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
I'm not that concerned about the threat of Microsoft (MSFT ) enforcing patents against Linux. I think their mode of operation isn't through the legal system. I think they hate lawyers more than most companies. They've been on the receiving end. [CEO Steve] Ballmer and [Chairman Bill] Gates have pride in the fact that their competition may have tried to crush them with legal wars, but they overcame. I think they would have a hard time using legal tactics. They would be ashamed.
Interesting paragraph, seems to imply honour on microsofts part. Isn't there some kind of link between SCO and MS ?
I dunno, I think this might be at least kind of reliable.
Admittedly, this is the zeitgeist for google.ca. The google.com one doesn't show the OS statistics for some reason. Anyway, if you look it over, you find that Linux is about on par with Windows 95, with 1% of the share. Windows NT 4.0 still has twice Linux's share at 2%, and Windows ME and Mac OS are tied at 3% each. Windows 98, 2000, and XP take a whopping 85%, with 51% going to XP alone. All the Windowses combined make up 91% of the share. There's also that 5% other, and who knows what that is (UNIXes and unidentifiable Linuxes, perhaps? Maybe some of the older Mac OSes, too). Either way, while Linux is getting more and more ready for widespread, desktop use, it's clear it's not getting a lot of that currently.
GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
"...and i don't consider myself a pussy, ok?"
"Yes. i am also not a pussy."
President Bush called for an impromptu press conference today to inform the nation of a new threat in the War on Terror.
"I'd like to start by thanking the brave and strong Americans at home and abroad who have stood by our troops and supported our efforts in the War on Terror. Today I bring news of an even greater threat. Our intellegence shows that a New Dictator has gained power and established a large network of terrorist computer cells in homes and offices around the country. This New Dictator is Linus Torvolds and I can assure you he hates America, he hates Capitolism and he hates Freedom. Today we begin our war with another terrorist, a terrorist that is bent on destroying Corporate America and our way of life. Already he has duped many of our citizens and corporations to convert to "Linux" a terrorist organization no less dangerous than Al Qaeda or the brutal Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We must band together and stamp out this threat to our liberties and safety. Today I have appointed Steve Balmer as Special Consultant for the creation of the Desktop Security Agency which shall be a part of the Homeland Security Agency. Together with Tom Ridge and Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Balmer shall create a roadmap of shock and awe to root out and destroy this new threat before it is too late."
"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
'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'
... never stopped Theo :)
Hmm
Hmm, maybe that's why Linux is so popular, and OpenBSD is a niche OS...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
What exactly does "splintering" a license mean?
I suppose that a slightly more appropriate term is "fork", but even that's wrong.
GNU/Zealotry leads to terms like "you must not remove anything from this license" -- the strong copyleft. Unfortunately, this leads to mimicry (how many strong copyleft licenses exist? How many do we have?) and incompatable schism.
If I wanted to take some GPL'd libraries and framework to create a program for Open Gaming, I'd be unable to--as the GPL is likely incompatable with the OGL (see www.opengamingfoundation.org) despite being very compatable in intent and even outlook & purpose. And so, I wind up just using the OGL (or my own license, or someone else's) and when you want to use my code and RMS's code to make something new, you can't.
How, precisely, is interoperability curtailed by the free software movement?
Before Linux, MS actually sold a flavor of UNIX. Had "Free Software" not ran so contrary to their basic business model, we'd probably have MS Office for UNIX now. Rather that throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the collaborative features that MS Office has had for years might actually work with the Free Software OS RMS and LT happily put together.
MS, of course, is a special case, but they do well to illuminate the concept.
the TCP/IP stack being sold separately?
the compiler being sold separately?
per-user and per-CPU license costs?
Dang, they were asking to die.
I think Linux is actually more like the Roman Empire than you seem to imply, while Microsoft is more like one of the 20th century dictatorships.
The Roman Empire managed to be so large because it used a decentralized system of command. Provincial governors could act within their provinces without any oversight from Rome, but could call on Rome's military and financial power if needed. In return, they sent their profits back to the capital. Furthermore, allotment of governorships was based on the governor's record as seen by what they sent to Rome and what assistance they required in maintaining control. The governor could therefore maintain control of the province with the backing of a huge empire; Rome reaped the profits of the huge empire; but the emperor didn't have to think about the whole empire, because he could trust Spain's governor to deal with Spain or be replaced with someone who could. Furthermore, the senatorial class would manage itself in choosing who got control of what. Also, people from various parts of the government could get noticed by the senate and thereby put into more powerful positions. This system allowed Rome to rule a huge area for centuries, across many emperors and even dynasties.
Linux development is done in much this way. Linus doesn't do particularly much in running the project, relative to its size; most of the work is done by others who do it to show their productivity and merit, and who get rewarded by having their code put into the mainline and by having others contribute work to their subsystems, both of which increase the developer's reputation and ability to affect the design of the kernel.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is much more centralized, and the chain of command is more strict. This limits their size and flexibility and the ability of rising stars to affect direction. The loss of critical Microsoft executives would probably have much the effect that the death of Eva Peron had on Peronist Argentina than the death of Julius Caesar had on Rome.
Chances are, Microsoft won't last more than 50 years, while Linux will be around in 500. Not, of course, that that matters much to people under Microsoft's thumb at the moment.
I am surprised that Linus thinks of himself as a dictator. I suppose that he could be considered that except for the negative connotations.
I see him more like a Benjamin Franklin, or perhaps George Washington.
Or maybe more like a Martin Luther.
None of these would I call dictators.
And all the people who I can think of as dictators I can't say that I like.
Linus is more like a George Washington. He is leading the army. He starts the country. He is the general in charge, not a dictator but a natural leader.
If you would like to use an alternate definition to avoid a term such as "died out" being used to describe your particular religious affiliation then we will have to proclaim that OS/2 and the DEC chips have not died out either, as i'm sure both are still in use somewhere in the world.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
We're talking about an open collaborative method vs. a closed, secretive one.
Witchcraft is a closer fit to magic, which IS secretive. Alchemy is a pseudoscience closer to true science, those like Newton, Boyd and Locke did, however secretly, confer and test each other's theories in a proto-scientific method.
Witchcraft/magic on the other hand totally depends on secrets for its effectiveness. Religion, which has always sought to take witchcraft's place is also secretive.
Consider the response of a scientist and a magician to a theory which has failed: the scientist goes back and gathers more data, tests the working hypothoesis of others and tries again. The magician simpy says "the didn't work, the time wasn't right, and the gods are angry with you".
Not a bad analogy between closed vs open source, is it?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer