Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Switches to a Mac
renai42 writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore" and got the machine for free." And yes, he is running Linux on it ;)
Cost of hardware (he got it for free) and cost o software (he writes his own).
Hey, I'd take it too, given that kind of deal!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
While I think this has no real significance in terms of kernel development, I think it may go a long way in promoting the cross-platform, fashionable traits of Linux.
Some of my previous employers think of Linux (unfairly) as nothing more than a DOS knock-off. I'd love to see their jaws drop when they read about this. (Perhaps Vogue might do a fashion shoot with Linux on a Mac Mini?)
But of course if he decided to go to Windows you would all have a fit.
But seriously, let's not turn this into the E! network for geeks. I really personally don't care what hardware platform Linus uses or whether he buys his underwear from thinkgeek.com just so long as he continues doing a smashing job maintaining kernel development.
"[...] the man who has single-handedly revolutionised the use of Unix on the x86 platform"
Oh, I thought there were several people involved in Linux? Didn't know Linus created it "single-handedly".
Thanks for pointing that out to me, ZDNet!
The dual G5 is a neat box, and having gotten it for free, it's hard to argue with his choice.
Personally, though, I don't see a lot of point in running Mac hardware and not running Mac OS X. The OS is what makes the system so insanely great.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Why should it really matter what platform he's using? Is everyone worried that there is going to be an end to the x86 version or something?
Linux is portable. It shouldn't matter if the main man behind it is running it on a PC, a Mac, an Amiga, a PS2, or a toaster. This should be seen as a good thing.
> b) Apple hardware is desired over your Average Joe's box from Dell or HP.
Rather, free hardware is desired over your average hardware you pay for.
This is good for people who run big-endian architectures like PPC. That way, endianness bugs get caught sooner rather than later. It also means PPC support in general will benefit, because if something breaks for Linus, you can expect it will get fixed (or dropped) pretty quickly.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
But of course if he decided to go to Windows you would all have a fit.
Firstly he is only switching hardware to one of these not OS (as is mentioned in the summary now).
Secondly, he is showing how Linux is portable. The PPC versions run just as well as x86. So now people can say "But how do you know it works on Mac platforms?"
Thirdly, there are no tangible reasons to go to Windows, and it's hard to see how he could benefit.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
The thing about Apple is that they put just as much effort into their hardware as their software. If you buy a Mac and ditch OSX in favor of Linux, they have still made a sale of exactly the same value. If a bunch of Linux users started buying Macs to run Linux because Linus does (even though he got his for free!) I'm pretty sure they'd be happy with that.
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
Perspective on what? He works on the kernel, not the desktop. If he cared about the desktop, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Linux on the desktop is getting real long in the tooth for me. I'm trying real hard not to boot Windows but I keep doing it day after day even though I'm wasting all of my free time trying to assemble some usable "free desktop".
More
It's funny you should mention this. Have you ever worked on a Chrysler? How about a Mercedes? I've owned both and worked on both and I can tell you that the Mercedes is a better-engineered vehicle in every way. Most Chryslers that are not highly powerful are really fucked over versions of Mitsubishis. In other words, riding to meetings in one of their piece of shit minivans doesn't seem to have helped Chrysler build a decent vehicle. They make a few good cars (more since the merger) and a bunch of crap and it's all driven by economic desire. As usual, automotive metaphors are not applicable to computers.
Given that the majority of Linux developers, maintaners, etc are still using x86, I sincerely doubt that there will be any serious issues with loss of quality. On the other hand, this will probably significantly improve PPC support, and since PPC is going to be in all the game consoles coming out, I want good PPC support in the hopes that someone will hack one or more of them to run Linux. Especially the new Xbox.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There's one HUGE important point to all this, and it has nothing to do with fashion, nothing to do with conspiracy, nothing to do with elitism.
It completely prevents the merging of kernel patches that malfunction on non-x86 platforms.
Sure, these would get ironed out eventually, but if someone were to inadvertently do something x86-specific, it would immediately break on Linus's computer. That's a pretty darn good guarantee that the kernel is going to remain architecture-independent all the time, rather than only after cross-platform QA has been recently performed.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
See, this is bullcrap. It's always been bullcrap. What people mean is that it's not ready for *them*, which isn't nearly the same thing. The desktop experience on linux is far better than Windows 3.1, for example. It's better than Win95. It's better, for certain values of better, than OS 9. In fact, the Linux desktop has a lot of advantages over WinXP and OS X, although they do have a polish advantage. The Linux desktop is perfectly usable, no matter your level of technical sophistication. People get upset because they're skilled with Windows and can correct problems there, but don't want to learn the same skills under Linux.
Sorry, I have a far more time invested in Linux than I do Windows or OS X. I'd been using Linux "on the desktop" during the Win9x years and only switched during the 2000/XP timeframe. I recently switched to a Mac as well.
With all that time invested and the several years more experience I have had with it over Windows and OS X I am going to say again that you are wrong and Linux is NOT ready for the desktop no matter how many times people like you claim it is.
i think the biggest thing about this is that it legitimizes
the mac hardware for linux advocates - which have been
traditionally x86 biased. it legitimizes linux as
multi-platform more than anything else could have done.
j.
Linus does hate the hashed page tables of PowerPC.
They are not cache-friendly, and they are complex.
The hardware does have redeeming features. It runs
cool, allowing for less fan noise. It has AltiVec,
giving it wonderful performance on software RAID,
crypto, and image processing. The FPU is very fast.
Plus, Linus got it for free.
So you point to some general benchmarks showing the G5 not performing better than everything else at any speed and claim it's an architectural problem? Do you even realize that architecture has very little to do with actual chip implementation?
Both x86-64 and PowerPC have pros and cons. Until someone decides to prove conclusively that it's not the OS, or anything else in the system, but only the processor that is the problem, this is mere speculation on the part of fanboys.
You are a troll and nothing more.
kc8apf
From what i remember, Mr. Tanenbaum did not say that linux is dead but rather that monolithic kernels are dead on which the then linux kernel was based. that was not completely wrong, he also provided some references to support his arguments. what Mr. Torvalds maintained through out was that he was not designing an academic operating system but a practical one and hence efficiency and other considerations were more important to him for his OS. IMHO Tanenbaum was not wrong in saying that a kernel so badly designed wouldn't have been accepted by him if Torvalds were his student(though that should not in any way discredit the effort put into creating linux). finally it was summarised that(IIRC): 1)Tanenbaum is looking from aesthetics point of view, and is correct in what he said about OS theory, a living example is his own minix 2)Torvalds has practical concerns to look into when he was making linux, so adv of monolithic kernel looked more important at that time than microkernel architecture. it cannot be said that (who)Torvalds finally won the battle as not every thing successful is necessarily well designed - microsoft windows and x86 architecture are good examples. in addition i think linux is not completely monolithic anymore and has become a lot more modular to the Mr. Tanenbaum's liking.
Why, for the love of all that's holy, should anyone care what computer Linus uses to do his work? If he uses a Sun, Mac, PC or even a PDA, does it matter as long as what he produces works?
I think the simple matter is that Macs are generally appealing, and that those who like them tend to evangelise a lot and those who don't have some fear that x86 is not good enough, or somethiing to that extent.
The mods who gave the parent 4, Insightful know nothing about the kernel development process.
For one thing, the lack of support for binary-only modules is not an "oversight". It has been done deliberately, for somewhat political reasons, and is a touchy subject with many kernel developers.
Before giving (or modding up) grandiloquent advice on what the kernel and Linus "need", one should have at least some understanding of how the kernel is developed and what is its current state.
How "useful" or "fast" or "free" Linux is largely irrelvant.
...except to the people who actually use the software...
Linux isn't for the desktop and never will be until the driver issue is settled. When I bought my digital camera, I had patch the kernel in order for it to be recognized. It was a trivial patch, granted, but still I shouldn't have to do that.
/etc/foo restart init.d. That is bullshit.
As far as learning new skills to correct problems under linux, that's a bit of a canard. Linux problems tend to be a lot more arcane than problems under other oses. Patch the kernel. Edit
I am not a fucking sysadmin. I do not enjoy fucking sysadmining. Trying to find out out why I have to manually load a module to get USB to work is not my idea of fun. I don't get my rocks off by screwing around with XF86Configs for a week only to get an image that almost fills the screen, and is almost straight across, and just has a little bit of white and black vertical lines in along the top and left edges. When I shove in my USB mouse, I want it to not only be recognized and made usable, but I want all 7 buttons to work damn it. For 10 years I've run linux as my primary OS, and not once in those 10 years has all my hardware worked.
Even if the driver issue is resolved. You then have to deal with the "community". Buggy software that if you ever say anything bad about it, you'll be shouted down as a heratic that should learn some respect for getting something for free. Releasing subpar software doesn't mean you're infallible, it just means you have a hobby. Then if the sofware ever gets to a usable state, the software will be rewritten "the right way" and the bug cycle starts all over again.
I like unix. I'm comfortable in unix. Unix let's me do my work, but these claims of linux apologists saying "Just wait! It will get better! Linux on the desktop is just around the corner! Linux is just a easy as windows! Linux is easy to install, it's windows that's difficult!" (That install line, is my all time favorite.) are getting old. I've heard them all before. Hell, I even used to spout that tripe. Then I grew up.