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. "

18 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Hurd by abrink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone here even use Hurd? How do you like it?

    1. Re:Hurd by Chundra · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the hurd page:

      "The Hurd, together with the GNU Mach microkernel, the GNU C Library and the other GNU and non-GNU programs in the GNU system, provide a rather complete and usable operating system today. It is not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage.

      The GNU system (also called GNU/Hurd) is completely self-contained (you can compile all parts of it using GNU itself). You can run several instances of the Hurd in parallel, and debug even critical servers in one Hurd instance with gdb running on another Hurd instance. You can run the X window system, applications that use it, and advanced server applications like the Apache webserver.

      On the negative side, the support for character devices (like sound cards) and other hardware is mostly missing. Although the POSIX interface is provided, some additional interfaces like POSIX shared memory or semaphores are still under development."


      I.e. it might be fun to play with, but it's not very useful for the average Joe.
    2. Re:Hurd by ComaVN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From that description, it doesn't seem very useful for exceptional Joe either, only for GNU/Joes developing Hurd.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    3. Re:Hurd by Chundra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not entirely bad for operating systems students to get their hands dirty with either. It does have some cool things going for it--though it does seem doubtful they'll ever get anywhere with it as a mainstream OS--for example: rather than using the traditional monolithic kernel, hurd uses a multi-server running on top of microkernel approach. So it is definitely neat and interesting for os geeks to play with.

    4. Re:Hurd by ComaVN · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Damn, that faq page is the funniest thing I've seen all day.

      Some quotes:

      The Hurd throws this historical garbage away. We think that we have found a more flexible solution called shadow filesystems. Unfortunately, support for shadowed filesystems is not yet implemented.

      Eh? throw the (working) garbage away before the new solution is implemented?

      You are using IRQ sharing; GNU Mach does not support this in the least.

      Yeah, because that's such an uncommon thing for hardware to use.

      GNU Mach does not support loadable kernel modules. Therefore, you will have to compile a new kernel and only activate those device drivers that you actually need.

      So much for a microkernel then.

      The Hurd will just as happily swap to any other raw disk space and overwrite anything it finds. So, be careful!

      Thanks for the warning. That will make me want to install it on my machine.

      This FAQ document was probably secretly written by Linus Torvalds to ridicule it, and promote his own views on software development.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  2. About to be /.'ed by GuyZero · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:About to be /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      This from a man who named an operating system after himself.

      Wrong (and jealous?):

      Linus Torvalds originally used the Minix OS on his system which he replaced by his own OS; he gave a working name of Linux (Linus' Minix); but thought the name to be too egotistical and planned to have it named Freax (a combination of "free", "freak", and the letter X to indicate a Unix-like system).


      -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

      Double check if you like, it's well-known history.
    2. Re:About to be /.'ed by Felix+The+Cat · · Score: 5, Informative

      This from a man who named an operating system after himself.

      Um, no (third paragraph).

      --
      Windows is the Acme of computing -- in the Wile E. Coyote sense.
  3. GNU/HURD by atomic-penguin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shadowy outcome for HURD, who could have seen that one coming?

    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
  4. I've always liked Linus... by bourne_id · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. "Infrastructure" by HRbnjR · · Score: 5, Funny
    I work from home, and OSDL provides some infrastructure that allows me to get my work done without having to worry about things.


    Heh, "provides some infrastructure" ??

    Such a sweet deal would normally make one wonder...


    Richard Chesler : Get the f**k out of here, you're fired!

    Narrator : I have a better solution. You keep me on the payroll as an outside consultant, and in exchange for my salary, my job will be never to tell people these things that I know. I don't even have to come into the office, I can do this job from home.

    1. Re:"Infrastructure" by Dielectric · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first rule of OSDL is that you don't talk about OSDL.

  6. Re:Linus isn't really one to talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, Linus can't see into the future, but he can follow the blinking red arrows that industry is posting.

    There are many reasons why Linux won't go to a "shadowy fate." It is largely deployed in the enterprise. There are thousands and thousands of people either directly developing on it or for it. There is millions of dollars being shoveled into it by the likes of IBM and Novel. If all these folks thought that Linux was headed for a shadowy fate any time soon, do you think they would waste their time and effort on it? Do you even read Slashdot? (:

    It's not neccesarily just about open source vs closed source, it's about superior product in the market place. Open source is a partial factor, depending on your targeted demographic. I'm not sure how its immense flexibility is a bad thing, or how Linux is too slow to change, but it's true that all people may not be able to enjoy it. Even that is rapidly changing, with easy-to-use distros like Linspire, Ubuntu (or whatever), and Fedora.

    More on usability: Because I am a technically-abled person, I prefer to use Linux on the desktop (home computer and work computer). When my laymen friends ask if they should install Linux, I shrug and ask them what's wrong with their Windows? I hope that I will be able to give them an enthusiastic yes within a year or two.

  7. Words of Wisdom by jasoncc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
    These are truly words of wisdom! Take note, young software engineer!
  8. FSF doesn't rush anything, so chill. :) by DataDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Bah! by theendlessnow · · Score: 5, Funny
    HURD! Uggg... Linux is bad enough, get a real OS, like FreeBSD for server's, otherwise its back to Windows for a desktop :) Let the OS wars begin!

    Maybe there is a war, but you can't kill something that's already dead. Or haven't you hurd?

  10. hey, no rush by bobalu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only been what, like 15 years?

    Who's kidding who?

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
  11. Re:Linus isn't really one to talk. by groundstate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When my laymen friends ask if they should install Linux, I shrug and ask them what's wrong with their Windows?

    Overwhelmingly, it seems to be adware/spyware, and the all the other stuff that people install intentionally or accidentally. Within a year or two, the average windows machine gets bloated with semi-removable crap.

    The people I've moved over to linux have no problems using it. It's installing it, getting all of the hardware configured, and installing all of the strangely named multimedia software/codecs that is the tricky part. This all usually comes preinstalled on Windows, so it's an unfair comparison.

    I am always sickened when I have to use a fresh Windows installation, and it comes without a DVD decoder, a CD burner, a decent text editor, a PDF reader, a popup blocker, an FTP client, or a graphics file converter - all stuff that comes standard with most linux distro, or that I can install (for free) with *one command*.

    That's what's wrong with Windows.