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."'"
An Interview with Linus himself
Linus probably keeps all the secret fixes under his security blanket.
Cox may have had a good point on Linus' methods for security patches, but fortunately the community has spawned sites such as this http://www.securityfocus.com/ to publicly announce when people find security flaws from poking through the patch code.
Even if Linus tries to keep these things secret, they'll get out quite quickly.
Anyone want to guess which branch would be more popular?
For the geeks... Linus, for the companies with money... IBM
The money trail will probably end up deciding the winner.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
the /. headline makes it looks like there's quite a bit of fued between cox and torvalds, which isnt really the case if you RTFM.
different people have different working styles, no matter whether it's kernel coding, software apps, or ASIC designs. if either group/individuals are too giving to the other group, there can never be enough feedback/ constructive critisisms between them. having yes-men surrounding you isnt the best thing. and it's not like that they're arguing so much they've halted any soft of development progress.
[offtopic]
gives me an idea though, maybe when job interviewers start asking me those behavioural questions about "a time when you've had disagreements and a way of resolving them", there's no need to bring up something too dramatic.
[/offtopic]
my blog
That was quite funny, and I see that you managed to fool somebody into giving you an "Insightful" mod.
Mods take note, the parent post is deliberately nonsensical. For example, "It's been shown that creating working kernel based on a register machine like most modern microprocessors is NP hard".
Uh, not really - Andrew Morton is the official maintainer of the 2.6 kernel, and Marcelo Tosatti is the maintainer for 2.4.
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
Good points. But for those who didn't rtfa, or have no idea about kernel development, Alan Cox generally makes sure the kernel is stable. Linus likes to innovate and throw new ideas in without necessarily testing them thoroughly. Innovation and stability are usually separated by quite a time period in any development process, so all Alan was more or less saying was that (as the parent stated) they compliment each other. OSDL pays Linus to hack up new stuff thats needed, Red Hat pays Alan to make sure that new stuff is stable and can be effectively used to its full potential. You really do need them both, as one without the other won't achieve much, and giving those tasks to one man alone would be quite a burden and errors would be abundant. Both Alan and Linus are absolute geniuses at what they do and no one is arguing that. Since when did OSS need to sensationalize headlines?
Regards,
Steve
I'm sure everyone who doesn't bother to RTFA will now think, "Oh, no, Linus and Alan are bitching each other out in public." That's nothing like what's going on here. For one, the submitter quotes only half of one particular line from the article:
So it sounds like Alan and Linus have discussed this particular difference in their talents before, either over beers at a pub, or over email or something.
Second, the article makes clear that part of what's going on is that Alan and Linus each have very different responsibilities in keeping Linux going, and so they necessarily focus on different things. Alan points out that as the dev tree maintainer, Linus is trying to keep the code maintainable, while Alan's trying to keep it stable.
And both of these things are necessary. It sounds to me like rather than being "at loggerheads", or "ready to call off the working relationship", instead Linus and Alan are a very well-matched and complementary team, both of whom contribute enormously to Linux's success and quality.
Each of them has strengths that make up for the other one's weaknesses, and it sounds like they have a good enough working relationship to give each other constructive criticism when needed.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
Without GNU's GPL MS would've openly pirated various free implementations of UNIX.
What about the ones that are not released under GPL, like *BSD?
The BSD TCP/IP network stack was openly "pirated" by Microsoft, if by "pirated" one means "used while drowning in hypocracy by decrying the very free movement one is exploiting," which is really the only definition of "piracy" I can imagine would apply to using a Free product in compliance with its license. I suspect that is what the original poster meant.
I wouldn't have chosen the word "pirate" as it implies copyright violation, which is clearly not the case if you're adhering to a license. "Exploited" would have been more appropriate.
Microsoft openly exploited the BSD TCP/IP network stack because of the liberal BSD license, something the authors of FreeBSD have absolutely no problem with, and in fact encourage. As to whether this is strategicly wise of them or not, well, that is a flamefest reserved for typical GPL/BSD arguments. I personally think the GPL is what has made Linux viable and protected it against many of the worst depridations by Microsoft...though of course it won't hold up to a patent assault once Bill Gates finishes ramming software patents down the Europeans' throats (one may speculate on which appendage Mr. Gates is using to do the ramming), but as Apple, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, ogg-vorbis, and numerous other projects have shown, the BSD license has its strengths as well, and can be quite ideal for other projects.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy