Slashdot Mirror
Cox on Torvalds and Linux Kernel Development
sebFlyte writes "Alan Cox' speech at FOSDEM sounds like it was interesting... according to this ZDNet report on it he has some interesting views. For one, he says: 'Linus is a good developer, but is a terrible engineer.' He also has a few digs at Torvald's methods surrounding security fixes, and some other interesting insights in the kernel development process: 'Sometimes you see a fix and think "this is perfect, move my fix into the kernel tree." Later you think, "I must have been drunk. Don't apply that patch."'"
Calling Linus an engineer is like calling Gandhi a politician... you need to look up just a little to judge how badly you underestimated the impact of the man and his followers.
Gandhi had his moments of pettiness and just plain tom-foolishness, but the sum of his efforts changed the way people gain power back from those who would usurp it for their own.
In a different, yet no less trivial way, so did Linus (although I would not call him Mahatma).
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I was going to mod, but decided to jump in, instead... I don't know Linus, I'm not a kernel-demigod, and you may know a lot more about him than I do. And while I'm a linux-enthusiast (and therefore an admirer of all the work that goes into it), I'm not a groupie who automatically jumps up to defend the Order of the Penguin. With that said, I don't see how "contemporary ideas" have anything to do with his ability to manage and guide the development of an OS. I've read correspondence about kernel issues (as I've come across them), and it always seems to me that he tries to keep it simple and direct. "Does it work?" and "Will it screw things up later?" appear to be the underlying themes...very admirable ones, in my opinion. Even more to the point: Why should anyone care if he has little or know knowledge outside his project? (And it appears to me that he has a lot of experience...but I can't/won't try to rattle off his resume. See above.) If I have to have brain surgery, I don't give a damn whether or not my surgeon knows how to do an appendectomy; he's got one job to do, and that's all I care about. Well-rounded educations, backgrounds, etc. are great when your project has to cover a wide range of issues. (Ever get involved in a government software project? It's a nightmare!) But if your needs are specific, then the more of an expert you are in that one area, the better off you'll be. To me, he's a smart guy doing a pretty good job of herding cats. 'Nuff said.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
Linus isn't running the show. He's not paying anybody, he can't fire anybody, he can't make anybody drop one project or idea to work on another.
He can direct some developers to do something and they can tell him to take a hike, or they can do it because they think it's a good idea.
More often, though, there are just many ideas (patches, development threads, what have you) to choose from and Linus "rules" by choosing which goes into his kernel.
The cathedral is about direction. That isn't what Linus does -- he just selects what is best from what the bazaar has produced.
(Sure, he may also make suggestions and remarks that indicate what his selection criteria are, and that may in turn influence kernel developers, but that doesn't prevent someone from coming up with an even better idea that Linus hadn't considered before and changing Linus's mind. That doesn't happen in a cathedral -- do you think some workmen with a brilliant but different idea for St. Paul's would have been paid attention to by Christopher Wren?)
-- Alastair
That's interesting. Thanks for the link!
The most interesting part to me is that he uses a Mac running Linux now. For a long time the story was that he ran SuSE (I'm assuming on x86). I'm a SuSE user, and some of the enthusiasts in SuSE-land used to use this as proof of why SuSE was "the best". I just laughed. I wonder what distro he runs now.
Actually, the design of St Paul's and the surrounding area was the result of a complex interplay between Wren, the king, the church and the people:
Wren -- wanted to create baroque-style city center
King -- wanted to save money
Church -- gothic all the way, baybee
People -- wanted convenience and dense business development
In the end, the group that came closest to getting what they wanted was the people; that's why London has no great big boulevards like those of Paris (the people valued lots of living space above ease of riot control). Wren, the man with the 'brilliant but different idea' used the King's negotiating weight to slip change after change past the Church, but he couldn't change the design completely which is why it's a hybrid gothic/baroque.
Thus the design evolved by consensus, negotiation, and balancing bright ideas against established needs. Incidentally, I never used to like St. Paul's, but now that they have cleaned it all up and redeveloped the area north of it with some excellent postmodern work, it's looking really good. Weather still bad though.
Going back to the subject of software, I really don't think this whole Cathedral/Bazaar analogy was well chosen in the first place (especially as gothic cathedrals were striking examples of community efforts, as has been pointed out elsewhere). Major projects and projects that depend on a central authority can be developed in just as fluid a way as small, distributed ones -- if you have the right people. If you don't have people like Wren and the King, if you don't have people who change their minds when they find a brilliant idea, there can be problems.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.