Slashdot Mirror
Linus on All Sorts of Stuff
Linux Times.Net writes "
Linus Torvalds
tells of some other programming venues than the Linux kernel, predicts a shadowy outcome for GNU/Hurd, gives some advice to anyone wanting to undertake a large software project and updates us on the latest in kernel development in this email interview by Preston St. Pierre. "
Does anyone here even use Hurd? How do you like it?
This is moments from being /.'ed to death...
;)
Article text
Linus Torvalds: ''Desktop Market has already started''
Preston St. Pierre of Linux Times interviews Linus Torvalds.
Linus Torvalds tells of some other programming venues than the Linux kernel, predicts a shadowy outcome for GNU/Hurd, gives some advice to anyone wanting to undertake a large software project and updates us on the latest in kernel development in this email interview by Preston St. Pierre.
Preston: Your life has been dedicated for quite some time to the Linux kernel. If this project was no longer yours, what kind of project would you most like to take on next (games, user applications, another kernel, development tools, etc)?
Linus Torvalds: I like being close to the hardware, and doing good visuals (ie games or GUI's) is not my forte, so I'd probably work on development tools or similar.
In fact, the only project I've actually spent some time on in the last year (apart from the kernel, of course) has been this source checker application that does some extended type-checking for the kernel. So very much a development tool.
Preston: What is your favorite interpreted programming language, and why?
Linus Torvalds: Heh. I don't much do interpreters. The only one I end up using consciously (ie not part of somebody else's scripts) end up being just the regular shell. It's not that I dislike things like perl/python, it's just that I tend to either just write C, or do _so_ simple things that shell works fine for me.
I might admit to having a soft spot for basic, but I haven't actually used it in closer to twenty years or so. But it was what I started with, so it will always be special
Preston: Do you have any advice for people starting to undertake large open source projects? What have you learned by managing the Linux kernel?
Linus Torvalds: Nobody should start to undertake a large project. You start with a small _trivial_ project, and you should never expect it to get large. If you do, you'll just overdesign and generally think it is more important than it likely is at that stage. Or worse, you might be scared away by the sheer size of the work you envision.
So start small, and think about the details. Don't think about some big picture and fancy design. If it doesn't solve some fairly immediate need, it's almost certainly over-designed. And don't expect people to jump in and help you. That's not how these things work. You need to get something half-way _useful_ first, and then others will say "hey, that _almost_ works for me", and they'll get involved in the project.
And if there is anything I've learnt from Linux, it's that projects have a life of their own, and you should _not_ try to enforce your "vision" too strongly on them. Most often you're wrong anyway, and if you're not flexible and willing to take input from others (and willing to change direction when it turned out your vision was flawed), you'll never get anything good done.
In other words, be willing to admit your mistakes, and don't expect to get anywhere big in any kind of short timeframe. I've been doing Linux for thirteen years, and I expect to do it for quite some time still. If I had _expected_ to do something that big, I'd never have started. It started out small and insignificant, and that's how I thought about it.
Preston: From a user's prospective, what improvements do you see the Linux kernel offering over Hurd? Do you think Hurd might eventually become as popular as Linux?
Linus Torvalds: I think Hurd is dead. See above on why. It has a "big vision", and people forgot about the details, and forgot about admitting when they went wrong. So the project stumbled, and _still_ didn't bother to look down on the ground. But hey, I might be wrong. I haven't actually followed Hurd in any detail, and maybe the project is more down-to-earth now, and more concerned about getting things working, and less about "design". And less
Shadowy outcome for HURD, who could have seen that one coming?
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Linus takes on approach, the BSDs take another. I think there's a place for both in thr world, and that the BSD's is the approach for saner, safer integration of technology. Linux, which takes a faster approach, is where the actual technology comes from but oftentimes in an untested manner.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
Linux Times.net? I looked over their site, and most of it seems to be some /. stories and stuff about a few different topics.....I'm not trying to knock them, but I've never heard of them. Are they new 'round these parts?
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
When you're not into making profit out of something, you're usually more generous to include alternatives (or even competition).
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
He can't really see into the future and say with any certainty that Linux is going to "win out" other any other operating system. There's no reason why Windows or a BSD variant won't become more entrenched. There's no reason why Linux won't go through a "shadowy fate" either, if we think about. There's no doubt that it's a nice niche for some applications in that it's got faster turnover and is more stable than other, more convential operating systems.
Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior to that of Windows or even Mac OS X, and it's difficult to see how this is going to change when manufacturers continue to make their drivers closed-source and binary so that they only work with one kernel version, one distro, one libc.
In a way, its immense flexibility is a bad thing. Open source is a nice thing, and has the potential to take over - just look at Firefox. But Linux is just too monolithic and slow-to-change to be easy to toss onto a new PC and get up and running with. There's a proliferation of different versions, all incompatible, making ease-of-use impossible to attain.
In summation, Linus is noble for releasing so much hard work to the public for all to enjoy. But unfortunately, not all of us are capable of enjoying it.
...there'd be a ton of jokes about it going down in flames immediately. However, since it's linuxtimes.net and running Linux, getting slashdotted quickly is NOT A PROBLEM
this had me spit redbull out all over my keyboard! funniest thing i've seen here in weeks!
Interesting point on the HURD. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I discovered and used Linux in 1994 when I wanted a cheap or free way to learn Unix. I've followed the HURD off an on for the past couple of years because I think it's a neat idea with potential, but it has no immediate use to me besides geek appeal, and there are many other things with better utility and geek appeal to me.
(I still hope the HURD will be something someday.)
Of course, if you had read TFA, you'd have realized that he doesn't like doing that. He likes being close to the hardware, and doing development tool type stuff. Serious UI's are usually way removed from that level of development.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
He's not a god or anything, but a very down-to-earth person when it comes to software and the linux kernal in general. He is absolutely correct on what happens to "big vision" software. Too many projects that started big have fizzled, and small applications that work tend to grow and morph into ground-shaking applications as they mature. Take web-browsers for example.
JMD
When all else fails, feel free to panic.
The article doesnt even mention the devices that run Linus... what a let-down.
I, for one, would have welcome our new Linus-run overlord stuff.
^_^
Do you often click on signature links several times in a row, or was this one special to you somehow?
What's with all these so-called interviews which are basically a handful of random questions asked by an interviewer who seems to be doing his junior-high homework assignment? OSNews is bad enough... can't they ask anything interesting, or actually engage in a conversation about the subject? Linus has lots of interesting things to say, but unfortunately these folks can't think of what to ask.
The interviews in ACM Queue, particular the one with Jim Gray interviewed by David Patterson, was much much more intriguing.
"Preston: What's the latest happening in the kernel development?
Linus Torvalds: Oh, it's been more of the same. Worrying about drivers, fixing interfaces to make it harder to write bugs by mistake, and just keeping up with new hardware and new ideas. The kernel is definitely maturing in the sense that a lot of the exciting really _new_ things are all in user space, and the kernel is sometimes called upon to make them easier to work with..."
Let's stay at the word "maturing". I'm more interested in opinions from.. mature programmers. Is there a point that when it's reached - in the case of the linux kernel in about say.. 10 years - then software is only touched for fixing minor bugs? Or is the hardware/marketing/rest software world changing in a way that something can never ever be called mature but only 'for the time being'?
-someone
Sometimes I'm amazed as what passes for news, especially when it comes to Linux "celebrities".
Linux took a shit, then he told someone that his project was better than a competing project, then he ate a sandwich...
Damn, now that is stuff that matters!
second society
Heh, "provides some infrastructure" ??
Such a sweet deal would normally make one wonder...
Maybe Microsoft will buy off the project leaders and rename it The NEW/TURD. No, the idea of an independant monolythic kernel has merit. If it can be used as a flashable OS on a chip. To address 64 bit register this might be the best solution. It would be great if a computer had the ability to run multiple OSes and treat them all a software, not God. The creation of an opensource controller is still a very good one. Essentially an OS is just a system of controls, to place it on a chip is still the best solution to memory addressing speed. The memory cartel finally could be broken. Perhaps that is why Linus joined Transmeta, however Transmeta quickly realised that bankruptcy was not far off if MS software would not run on their hardware.
He can't really see into the future and say with any certainty that Linux is going to "win out" other any other operating system.
Well, considering that Linus pretty much just said that, I guesss he *is* one to talk.
Those were some insightful comments from Mr. Torvalds. Interesting that they are such simple words, the things they express so obvious and down to earth, but since they come from a public figure, they have a lot of authority.
Of course, there are other public figures whose statements make a lot less sense; being deceptive rather than insigtful.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Okay, maybe HURD isn't where we all want it, that is -- on our desktops and running everything... BUT...
Lets not forget, HURD is FSF/GNU, and they've proven time and time again that they are presistant, don't rush to complete their vision, and go the extra distance on a lot of things.
If HURD achieves both the standards and the quality of forethought that all the other FSF/GNU code that has been released so far, then it will doubtlessly be a marvel of OS technology. It has a tall order to fill, though, and honestly -- it there's no rush to see it pushed into production, then I'd let the politics play themselves out. However, it *is* the goal of the FSF. How it finally winds up-- well-- I'm anticipating to see like everyone else, but I've become a believer in the FSF's patience, skills, and collective vision.
funny how there are more drivers for linux than there are for windows XP. and I can run Linux on more processors and different system types than every other Operating system ever made put together. You forgot NetBSD.
Maybe there is a war, but you can't kill something that's already dead. Or haven't you hurd?
It's only been what, like 15 years?
Who's kidding who?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Articles that take more time to load than to read?
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
"Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior..."
My little data point about Linux hardware support:
Computer 1: An OS installed on 400MHz Compaq desktop. Has network, video, USB, etc. drivers for the pre-installed hardware working.
Computer 2: New 2GHz motherboard. Has all different network, video, USB, etc. than the first computer.
Remove the sole hard drive from from Computer 1 and connect it, unchanged, in Computer 2. Boot Computer 2 and have it update/swap out all the old drivers with the new drivers needed for the new hardware, automatically. This first boot should come up to a completely usable system with no required interaction on your part, all components functioning a normally.
I did this with Linux. I have no experience with OS X but I know I could not do this with any version of MS Windows.
Thanks for playing.
The kernel is mature he thinks. Everyone he works with agrees with him. Such a failure of imagination....
I think this is the difference between researcher/architect types and coders.
To a researcher, there is so much that needs to be done to enhance the kernel that
the problem is picking one thing to focus on.
To coders, ok, Linux now does everything that Unix did 5 years ago, what more can be done?
The coders were needed back when there was no free version of Unix. Now that there is one, some of these old guys (30 something and managing to be over the hill, CS is a great field....) need to step aside and let the researchers take the lead.
The sad thing is that of course they won't. They'll just keep right on copying plan 9 and everything else 5 years old, and probably do well in the market, sigh.
The problem with HURD is that their fundamental design is performance ineffective. Having a grand vision is not the problem, having a mistaken vision is.
It would be nice if BSD came back to life.... that was researcher driven, and they did a lot to advance the state of the art.
He is a nice guy though.
Can't say as I understand your hardware support reference. Currently I can not put Mac OSX on an Intel box, nor Windows on a PowerPC. Linux will quite happily install on both, and just about everything else ever made, too. Sure, the bleeding edge is still a bit rough and you're forced to be a somewhat picky buyer, but your kit'll work better for that anyway. Contrast to my XP-Running-Room mate who can't burn a CD because her ancient CD burner doesn't have an XP driver (The very thought blew my mind anyway, because I'm so used to not having to worry about that.)
I used to install operating systems and software for a living and still do it for family and friends. The Linux install process for every distribution I've tried is as easy or easier than any operating system since MS DOS 5.0. Even the Debian install, which has been known to cause unsuspecting users to end up clawing their eyes out, is better than that damn OS/2 install.
Once it's installed it can be a pain in the ass to use sometimes (I've spent about 5 hours so far trying to get Wine working with ATI drivers) but it's a damn computer. It doesn't matter what you do to them, they're always going to do unexpeted things. I sit down and try to figure out what's going on. Joe Average User might just call tech support. We'll both gripe that it shouldn't be this hard, and we'll probably both get it fixed in the end. I've tried getting $GAME installed on Windows and it can be just as much of a pain in the ass as it is with Linux.
In summation, um... I'm enjoying it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Gag Halfrunt...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Microkernel architecture is really hard to get right. If you get it right, microkernels are fast and stable, like VM for IBM mainframes and QNX. Both have long, long uptimes, run important systems, and are modified very seldom.
But most architects don't get it right. If you get it wrong, like Mach, no amount of patching will fix it. Because open source development has a "patch" mentality, it's almost impossible to fix fundamental architectural problems in an open source project.
The HURD people finally dumped Mach and went to L4, which is a half-finished academic microkernel. That's not working either.
I'd like to see a high-security microkernel OS in widespread use, but the HURD guys aren't going to deliver it. And we really need one.
I found myself nodding my head when he talked about starting small to meet a specific need and letting projects take on a life of their own, as it's the pattern that most of my projects follow. But while this may work well for hobbyists and academics who have a lot of freedom in deciding what to work on, I have trouble seeing how it applies to the business world where there is a specific end goal and a deadline for it. Certainly you can break things down into smaller tasks as a strategy for reaching the goal, but a larger plan still has to be created and followed.
:-)
I also think the rosy attitude toward unplanned projects has a bit to do with expectations. If you define no goal, then the end result is never a failure. But if you do define a goal, there will often be times where you don't achieve it and be disappointed. This psychological difference may make the unplanned approach seem more successful than it actually is.
Finally, I find his dismissiveness of a visionary approach and criticism of GNU Hurd as somewhat ironic, given the extraordinary success of what most of the world calls "Linux" owes much to the big picture thinking by the people creating Hurd. But this somewhat narrowminded view is consistent with a primarily technical person whose most philosophical comments are delivered as one-liners
Linus on All Sorts of Stuff - what a useless article. They don't even ask where he gets his stuff, what stuff he likes most, how he mixes his stuff. What a waste of perfectly good white html space.
You can't handle the truth.
I can swear that I have seen this crap before on slashdot. It might sounds funny at first but at the bottom of it, it's a shameless personality terrorism.
Then, the kettle called the pot black.
There are currently, 4221 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Thanks, Darl. Your comments are always welcome here!
Its great. I'm only running it because its the first platform that Duke Nukem Forever will run on.
If MS Windows did come with all of those apps, would you be complaining that they are an illegal monopoly trying to stifle competition? GNU/Linux distributions bundle those applications by choice, but Gentoo Stage 1 install doesn't have any of the apps that you mentioned. Does Gentoo sicken you as well?
For the question
"Do you have any advice for people starting to undertake large open source projects? What have you learned by managing the Linux kernel? ",
as I was reading the reply...
And if there is anything I've learnt from Linux, it's that projects have a life of their own, and you should _not_ try to enforce your "vision" too strongly on them. Most often you're wrong anyway, and if you're not flexible and willing to take input from others (and willing to change direction when it turned out your vision was flawed), you'll never get anything good done. In other words, be willing to admit your mistakes, and don't expect to get anywhere big in any kind of short timeframe.
for some reason I was mentally comparing it to the stand that the Bush administration has taken in the "war on terror" and the "desire to spread liberty". I could not help but think, that here is the exact reason why it is flagging and possibly destined for eventual failure.
Listen,
:-)
I give mad props to RMS for the legal hack of the copyleft, and when the chips are counted he'll probably be given saint-hood by several developing countries, but I don't get the impression it'd be fun to work with him. And at the end of the day (and especially in the middle) that's mostly what you need to get through a large complex project.
I could be wrong, I've never met him. But I've got a short fuse on dogma. To get a thing done, at some point you just have to do it.
On the good side, open source says "less defects because we didn't rush it", but there's that other side that says to ship something shoot the engineer. There's a point to that too.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Maybe that's why most corporate software projects fail (at least if you listen to the "software crisis" people). And even in the business world I think many are accepting iterative methodologies where you give up trying to know in advance exactly where you'll wind up, because it never works out that way anyhow.
Most OSS projects "fail" too (a quick consultation of sourceforge.net should prove that point), but I think Linus' point is that at least then you haven't spent your life over-engineering some grand framework nobody cares about.
"One can argue that this is because all the developers flocked around Linus ( I think Stallman has made this argument from time to time ) but given that world+dog has given up on the whole microkernel thing, it's more likely that the hurd just sucks."
Sez you!
Hi only engineer with no brain at all, I'm Alan.
I'll try to write in english so the whole community would know it: I'm a GNU comunist with more brain and social principles than you, but let me tell you something: my Telsa is prettier than your wife. Yes, much prettier, dodge that, moron.
Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior to that of Windows or even Mac OS X
Puzzling statement to say the least. I find the opposite is true. For example, Linux support for scanners is broader than that of Windows 2000 and XP (Linux is better with legacy devices). Linux support of 64-bit hardware is also more mature (where is Microsoft now on that front?). Mac OS X? That one floored me. Mac OS can be kludged into running on other platforms I guess, but it only has ONE supported hardware platform. It is easy to offer exemplary hardware suport when you only support a VERY SMALL amount of hardware.
Monolithic and slow-to-change? If that is Linux, what is Windows, fossilised? Look at Windows NT4 and Windows Server 2003 or XP (especially in "classic mode"). Visually nothing really innovative and looking deeper even less innovative architecturally. Look at Linux over that same period--form the Kernel on up to KDE and GNOME. HUGE difference, both in modularity and pace of change.
Yes, personality terrorism. Now lets get back to terrorising Bill G, Bill Gs wife, Steve Ballmer and Darl McBride - because thats funny!
VM runs on the S/390 CPU, which is particularly
friendly toward virtualization. All privileged
instructions are trappable, and page table changes
are done via special instructions.
QNX cuts corners on virtual memory, and often even
on memory protection.
You can browse some projects at SourceForge.net.
:P ).
You'll see that some projects are labelled "planning", others "beta", others "stable/production" and finally te ones at stage 6 are called "mature".
Being mature doesn't necessary mean fix it for only a few bugs. It depends on the version. Being mature (IMO) means that the last stable release is feature-complete, nearly bugless (only minor bugs), and used by a large user base (i.e. popular).
The key-terms here are "feature-complete" and "minor bugs".
Feature complete means that all the features that were planned on the project's roadmap are fully implemented.
Bugs can be qualified (as I've seen on bugzilla and other sites) as feature request, minor, annoying, moderately critical, severely critical, and maybe showstopper. Showstopper means that a bug will bring down the binary to a halt.
Stable/production projects aren't allowed to have critical bugs (this would bring WinXP down to the category of "beta-testing"
Taking this into consideration, Linux is "Production/Stable". How long before it's mature... who knows. Maybe (IMHO) more user-friendliness (i.e. idiot-proof) in installation/configuration, and being hardware friendly. *shrugs* ?:-/
But I really hope this day comes so everybody can switch to Linux - including me.
Not to bash Hurd, but I think we've got a better chance of seeing a working system boot straight into Emacs than a usable Hurd implementation. Too much petty bickering and false starts....Hurd is essentially where it was in the mid-90's as far as being able to grab it and use it. Given that rate of return on all the energy expended on it, I think the more humane thing to do with that development money would have been to send the developers to a strip club for a few years. At least then SOME of the cash expended would have trickled down to the rest of the economy. :)
It's Tesla as in Tesla Coil, you brainless dick.
And how the hell is that pronounced? Who's got the mp3.... Good thing people never went with that name; linux never would have become popular. And if it had, RMS would be insisting that it be called "GNU/Freax - free + freak + x."
Which would put it on a par with how useful the Linux kernel was when it was young. It wasn't useful unless one was extremely technical, and even then it lacked a lot of hardware support and one couldn't do a lot of commonly useful things with it. In time, the HURD can mature and become competitive. This doesn't mean GNU/Linux is a piece of cake for jobs people want to do.
But what I find interesting is Torvalds' answer to the question following his HURD answer:
Here, unlike in previous questions, I think Torvalds uses the word "Linux" to mean a complete operating system in which the Linux kernel is being used (typically, a GNU/Linux system), so I'll interpret the answer in that vein.
The main point I wanted to draw out is that it took ten years, by Torvalds' estimate, to get where things are now. I'd argue that that estimate is wrong by half (the free software community began 20 years ago), but even if we take the ten year figure at face value, the HURD hasn't been running on anyone's machine for ten years yet. And even now there are people (such as a fellow I had on my radio show last week who was addressing a caller saying the same thing) saying that the modern GNU/Linux system is too hard to use, too complex to install and to complex to do some jobs with when compared against Microsoft Windows or MacOS X. Those jobs include:
All of these jobs are possible but way more difficult to simply do than they ought to be. And few (if any) distributions make it easy to do these things by including the free software packages available to make them work right out of the box.
Configuration is too hard; getting these things working rely on one's skill with a command line interface or editing technical configuration files. ESR's printer essay was right on the mark when it came to his perspective on hooking up a printer--adding a printer should be automatic and the system should do more network scanning and autoconfiguration to suit what most people most of the time will want.
So, even for those who would complain the GNU/HURD system is too far out of reach, I'd say look closer to home and see the problems that exist for GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is a heck of a lot closer to what I think people yearn for, but that's no reason to trash GNU/HURD.
Digital Citizen
The worst still is The GIMP. I mean, it has "CRIPPLED" right in its name!
someone said to me there are 2 developers maintaining the cvs repository of hurd.
A person who tried Debian GNU/HURD said it was usable, but with some unsupported hardware.
There are three distributions of GNU/Hurd: Debian GNU/Hurd, Bee GNU/Hurd and Gentoo GNU/Hurd, together with gnu.org
HURD isn't exactly dead, but I doubt it could replace Linux right now. However, I am excited by the idea of microkernels and I really want to see HURD becoming successful and usable by the general public.
http://hurd.gnu.org/There was a big lawsuit that was settled out of court between the U of I and Netscape in the early days of Netscape. The case that there was code sharing was very strong. There were identical bugs and even identically misspelled error messages. The Netscape people certainly got a jump-start from the Mosaic code.
Why is this modded a troll? Micro-kernels sound like a neat idea. But then again, monolithic kernels should be good enough for everyone.
Well you'll be happy to hear that Fluendo have just released their new streaming server "Flumotion" that streams ogg vorbis.
*achoo!*
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
burning CDs and DVDs on some distributions (like Fedora Core)
Is it hard to do that on Red Hat? I haven't used Red Hat recently, but I'm just curious. (Though I personally use Debian) I used mandrake not long ago and it was literally as easy as installing it then running k3b which is as easy to use as Nero - in fact I'd give the crown to Mandrake over WinXP in that respect. In fact all of those things except OCR (which I've never heard of) and modems (which I have no experience of in mandrake) are a breeze. You don't ever have to use the command line.
But anyway, why is Red Hat different burning cd/dvds?
It isn't, you can easily install k3b on Fedora Core and burn away.
"Preston: When do you think Linux will take over desktop market from Microsoft?
Linus Torvalds: Oh, I think it's started already, it's just slow."
I think Linus misunderstood the question. Nobody doubts that there are people who have switched from Windows to Linux, the question is if and when Linux will surpass Windows on the desktop.
Is it hard to do that on Red Hat?
No, you can install k3b on redhat fedora core and burn away, but knowing that k3b is as easy to use as Nero, or even EXISTS is harder on Linux than Windows if for no other reason than the fact that you can't just go to the store and see all the cd burning software available, and buy what you need. Most CD burners come with some kind of burning software for Windows, but not for Linux. If I was a "user" with a new CD burner in my machine that runs Linux, being able to burn CDs will be a lot harder for me than my neighbor running Windows. Now, here come the "if it's that hard for them to figure out, they shouldn't be running Linux in the first place" argument that draws in so many people to the Linux flock....
(Not necessarily from you, Strider, but some yutz is thinking it out there right now...)
In fact all of those things except OCR (which I've never heard of) and modems (which I have no experience of in mandrake) are a breeze. You don't ever have to use the command line.
No, not necessarily. Suppose for some reason your modem isn't supported, or network card, or sound card. There might be a kernel module out there you can get that'll enable it, but the average user isn't going to be able to do that. Until it's at the point that they stick in a CD that auto-runs and installs the drivers, or software for them, it's never going to be easy enough for general use. There are lots of people who are going to say "my grandmother or spouse uses Linux without problems", but that wouldn't be true if they didn't have a geek to help them out along the way.
Oh, yeah, OCR=Optical Character Recognition. Scan a document, and it converts it to text so it can be edited. Useful stuff for some, and for those people a deal-breaker against using Linux (like me).
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Which is just how I like it ;)
I wonder if he winked at the reporter.
In some (sick and over lawed) places on earth is illegal to wink. I wouldn't want Linus to write code from prison.
No, you can install k3b on redhat fedora core and burn away, but knowing that k3b is as easy to use as Nero, or even EXISTS is harder on Linux than Windows if for no other reason than the fact that you can't just go to the store and see all the cd burning software available, and buy what you need.
I'm not sure when this feature was introduced into Fedora (I'm on core 2 at the moment), but when I stick a writeable CD into my drive, an explorer-like window comes up. I drag files into it, then select "burn cd" from the file menu. I haven't installed any extra software to do this.
I think this is much easier than what Windows offers right now (although it's missing a "burn ISO image" feature).
I'm not sure when this feature was introduced into Fedora (I'm on core 2 at the moment), but when I stick a writeable CD into my drive, an explorer-like window comes up. I drag files into it, then select "burn cd" from the file menu. I haven't installed any extra software to do this.
This is the built-in CD burning software of the Nautilus file manager, which is part of GNOME. I believe that the CD burning feature was added for GNOME 2.6 release.
it's missing a "burn ISO image" feature
True, but you can run gcombust or K3B. Maybe even (somday) GNOME Coaster.
I don't know what Fedora uses to accomplish this (I'm on Debian) but on my system Nautilus handles burning in this manner. It's just as you say: Open the location burn:/// (or something similar) and drag the files there. However, on my system this works with ISO-images too. In fact, then it's even easier, just right click on the ISO and select "Burn image to CD" or something like that.
This is just for data-CDs though, Nautilus doesn't handle music-CDs yet, which is a shame. K3B is ok but I really think it's interface isn't clean enough. It's easy to use but the interface just has a clunky feel IMO.
:wq!
However, on my system this works with ISO-images too. In fact, then it's even easier, just right click on the ISO and select "Burn image to CD" or something like that.
This shows what a moron I am. I didn't even think of trying that, probably because it was too obvious.
Ah, well.
*shrug* I haven't had any sound card, network card, motherboard, IDE card, hard drive, usb device, anything that's not directly supported by the 2.6 kernel except 1 (a logitek webcam). That's just plug in and use it. I've even actually had some things that I looked up on the internet to see if they worked (like my canon sp200SPX printer) and only found things saying that it's impossible to use on linux, but they were wrong.
Also, have you tried looking up OCR linux on google? Though I'm not going to presume that they'll suit your purposes there are plenty of programs that work on linux...
It is not HURD or FSF/GNU, it is GNU/HURD and GNU/FSF/GNU you insensitive clod!
All the difference is between KNOWING what's best and LIVING it.
Most people have heard some words of wisdom, but the wise take it to their heart and out into the world. They are delighted to give and receieve more wisdom, and the beauty only increases even when it's heard before.
What is being said is not so important as WHO is saying it. Words become empty when they just remain words, and do not sprout into action.
Depression is not living true values and becoming dull. The best remedy is to take action, do all you can, taking care of others instead of constantly thinking about oneself.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Clearly the Hurd has gone the way of Gentoo and BSD; down the path to oblivion. Surely no one can doubt this now that Linus hath spoken.
Examples for systems using Mach are MacOSX and IBMs AIX.... ;-)
Mach used to be bad around 1990 but the things have been patched up
Well one major hardware manufacturer, NVidia puts out excellent drivers. The ATI drivers in their current state still are a joke. I wonder if there are two driver lines, since the SGIs also run on ATI and they definetly cannot get away with the driver quality you get from the ATI download page.
Thank god there is the ATI-DRI project, they produce much better much more stable drivers but they dont have full access to all the functions, so their drivers are a mixture of reverse engineering, a tiny little bit of information ATI has given to them and the lack of newer core functions (like how to enable pixel shading) But for the 2d side of things they are the perfect choice currently, the ATI drivers are too unstable and to crashy.
It's a little bit ironic, the reason Linux doesn't have critical mass is simple: it's because Linux because it's free.
The business world measures critical mass in dollars spent. If they really wanted everybody to start using Linux, GNU could start charging $10/user/year. For each 10,000 users, they'd get another full time employee paid to work on fixing bugs or adding features. This will help to increase the adoption rate. By 100 million users ($1 billion/year), they'd have 10,000 paid developers, and Linux would be able to compete with Windows head to head. Microsoft would be forced to lower the price of windows from $30/year to curb the flow of users to Linux.
p.s. A couple of facts found by some quick Googling: 1. Linux had about 70,000 users in 1998. 2. There are between 100 and 200 million people in the U.S. own or use a personal computer.
Actually, I wouldn't say it is you who is the moron. It's a bad implementation. See this bug, though.
:wq!
I think Hurd is dead ... So the project stumbled, and _still_ didn't bother to look down on the ground.
IIRC, that's the trick to flying.
(apologies to Adams)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I appreciate the software freedom GNU/Linux and other free software grant me; this is the main reason I stick with GNU/Linux and why I advocate its use elsewhere. But there is a lot of room for improvement. I look back over the past 20 years and see all the progress that has been made, so I'm not raising these issues as an alarm. These things can and will be improved. It's about whittling down how they should work and making them work that way (and ignoring the technocrats who want to overburden the situation with a vast array of preferences and tweaks).
What follows is long, but it gives a more complete picture of what I've been through with GNU/Linux and a brief bit about my experience with a couple of non-free OSes. I thought your question deserved a full response.
Installing K3B is not done by default and the name ("K3B") means nothing to someone looking for a CD/DVD burner. If you do install it, you have to run it as root to make it work (obviously a showstopper for a multi-user installation and not a good idea for a single-user laptop or desktop system either). Nautilus tries but doesn't work due to (I'm told) a kernel issue. Nautilus also won't burn a number of CD formats K3B can burn, including audio (which I think a lot of users would want to burn).
OCR is available as free software but isn't shipped in Fedora Core (or Ubuntu, as far as I know). There is another free software OCR program (whose name escapes me at the moment) and it is trainable because it is aimed at reading ancient texts. This approach might be useful to academes, but it is very complex to use for ordinary text one comes across in newspapers and magazines, and it doesn't come with training by default. The interface for both programs are each quite unlike other programs which steepens the learning curve. Right now, OCR doesn't "just work" on GNU/Linux.
Plug and play access to hotplug devices still eludes GNU/Linux for the most part. If I hook up a printer, I want that to be my default printer. Same for modems, fax modems, scanners, joysticks, and anything else I can hotplug. I can get scanning to work when there is only one scanner--plugging in my Epson Perfection 1260 via USB and starting up XSane (with its non-HIG interface) does work on Fedora Core. I am not sure what would happen if I had two or three scanners.
Without significant technical reconfiguration, Fedora Core doesn't like USB memory sticks. They don't do the right thing as far as I can tell. Does Mandrake handle multiple USB memory sticks correctly? Or is it really just a hack that isn't exposed until you have more than one plugged in at the same time?
I realize hotplug stuff in general is being worked on and should improve. I'm describing the state of affairs as they are today. I look forward to seeing improvements and paying to see more improvements implemented as free software.
The last time I tried Mandrake it couldn't get my printer (a Brother HL-1270N connected via ethernet) working and the install screen offered absolutely no help. Mandrake also made a user login for me that I couldn't actually log into and use. I had to use root for everything and even then many things were obviously screwed up by default so I couldn't get jobs done which I knew other GNU/Linux distributions could do with ease. I switched back to Fedora Core. I'll try Mandrake again later, when I can see someone else's installation doing things I want to do with no reconfiguration at the command line.
Documentation to fix these things is often non-existant ("Read the source, Luke") or geared at the technical user (man pages with lots of references to things that are never introduced, or man pages for programming add-on software). I have yet to get Samba working well, for instance, because the interface to doing this is too clumsy and the docs are quite poor. I'm making my way through one of those Samba in 24 hour books. I'm told NFS is a pain to keep going and yet GNU/Linux offers no simple disk and printer sharing n
Digital Citizen
But anyway, why is Red Hat different burning cd/dvds?
It's not, and I don't know what the parent poster is smoking.
On Fedora Core, to burn a CD, you insert a blank CD into your burner. A nautilus window pops up, which is the CD Creator. You drag files into it, then you press the burn button, and it burns the CD. You don't have to install CDs or anything, it just works*.
(* there's a bug in the newer kernel versions that prevents cdrecord for burning CDs as anybody but root, so this is currently broken. This affects ALL distros, not just fedora core)
ugh, brainfart, I meant to say "you don't have to install k3b or anything", not "install CDs".
I'd like to know what Linus' thoughts are regarding Linux in the CAD world. The input I've gotten is that it exists, but proprietary file formats, foot-dragging and inertia are hindering the process of opening up the existing state of the art.