Linux For Losers According To De Raadt

elohim writes "Theo has some scathing comments about Linux in his new interview with Forbes Magazine. From the article: 'It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, "This is garbage and we should fix it."'"

Comments

"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[grub]

"Linux For Losers According To De Raadt"

Nowhere in that article does he say "Linux is for losers" or use that label. The headline of the story rhetorically asks that question, way to generate flamebait, Forbes & Slashdot editors!

Now I'm going to get a coffee and enjoy the comments which will probably not differ much from "Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!!"

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Pandora's Vox]

It must be hard to be devoted to the unloved stepchild of the Open source movement, and have to watch as everyone worships Linux.

is it just me, or isn't openBSD the unloved stepchild because of the assholishness of some *cough*theo*cough* of the developpers?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[beq]

Well yes, BSD did get some benefit from Windows using the FreeBSD TCP stack - it got an assurance that 95% of the computers in the world would have a functional TCP stack - not a small thing.

The goals of the BSD license and the GPL are different, folks. The BSD license is all about building technology that can be come the standard everywhere. The GPL is about building a permanent ecology of free (as in freedom) code. A GPL project can pick up and use BSD-licensed code, and release said code under the GPL if they wish (provided they retain the copyright notices). The reverse is not true.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[danheskett]

It's a question of your goals. Many of the people pushing the GPL have three major things going on, (1) they want to promote the software, and GPL is good at that; many hands = quality, quantity, etc; (2) they want to promote a political and/or social philosophy and force down the costs of computing, software, and business; and (3) they want to take down Microsoft, and if possible, be famous doing it.

Which are all fine, valid goals. Great. Good for them. Happy for them.

The BSD people have a different goal. They want to write software that is suitable for a specific goal within certain parameters. And they want that code to actually be used as widely as possible. It's not about ego (Theo not withstanding), it's not about credit, it's not about changing the status of things, it's about doing something specific. And at the end of the day that's what the BSD style license is great for. Microsoft based their NT stack on BSD code. It's not about ego - it's about the fact that millions of users are using a much better TCP stack that is designed and produced to a much higher standard than was in place before. The people who wrote that stack aren't out bragging, they know that the work they did has advanced their goal of the Internet using quality software implementations.

GPL loves, go for it. Do #1, #2, and #3. But don't be pissed about the BSD people. They aren't much interested in #2 or #3, and that's good not just for GPL or BSD or Unix people, but for *everyone*.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[iainl]

My guess is that he doesn't mean i386, but just the particular hardware configuration he has right there.

Assume for a minute that I'm not a developer. Assume for a minute that even if I am, I'm lazy and/or have other things to do with my time. Assume the only x86 Unixalike to already come with drivers for soundcard X, graphics card Y and motherboard Z is currently Linux.

Would you install it, or leave the box on the shelf until someone writes Solaris drivers?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[harrkev]

But to a large degree the attitude on behalf of Linux users is a *big* part of the reason I'm leaving.

Can you please explain?

First, look at Microsoft XP. Large corporations (including the one that employs me) use it. Script kiddies use. Grandmothers use it. Uber-gamers use it. You cannot say that there is an "attitude of Windows users" because you cannot expect all of those people to have the same attitude.

I would expect the user base of Linux to be somewhat more homogenous than Windows, but attitudes still vary. And you have to remember that in any population large enough, you will get some jerks and butt-holes in the mix -- and that is the type of person who is most likely to chime in with their $0.02 (This includes me -- just look at this worthless post).

You also have to expect a certain amount of "Micro$shaft sux," of which I have myself posted one or two. And you have to allow for a certain amount of fan-boyism, as it is human nature -- just look at how non-geek males fawn over their favorite sports team.

So, I am sure the you have your reasons, but is it possible that your perception of reality is somewhat different from reality itself?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[John Fulmer]

Funny. I rarely hear Linux-oriented people (including myself) badmouth *BSD. I don't think I've *EVER* heard anyone really badmouth BSD. It's a great, solid operating system, which tends to be fairly conservative in its goals and design decisions. I would never say anything negative about someone just because *BSD was their OS of choice.

I wish the opposite were true. Linux is a solid, popular, full-featued *nix clone with a different design philosophy. It also works very well. I wish that some of the *BSD people would just deal with it and get on with their lives.

jf

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Shads]

Exactly.

The *BSD community hasn't ever supported the hardware *I* use as well as linux does. Shrug. The line I like the best is... the part about the comment saying "Does this belong here?" by a kernel hacker... realistically what was he asking?

Should this code be here?
Should we be doing this in the kernel?
Should we be doing this in an alternate part of kernel?

Becuase someone posts a comment in source questioning something doesn't seem to me to be a problem, it's there for a reason... a good reason would be to make other hackers take a closer look at it and make decisions based on it.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[setagllib]

I think his point is that a developer should never be asking a question in a comment - it implies that developer communication (and often individual competence) is at a low ebb. I don't know about all of the BSDs, but I have had the pleasure of witnessing developer discussions in #dragonflybsd (on efnet) and they always come to conclusions on where things should be and how they should be done, and can tell you volumes about it if you aren't convinced (but often won't because their time is precious).

Although there are many dedicated Linux teams getting the work done, there are also many individual hackers submitting things, and many inexperienced ones who aren't sure if something should work the way they did it - so questions come up. A sensible developer would at least ask before implementing, or a sensible committer would think/ask before committing. If a question like "Does this belong here?" emerged in a release kernel, it means somewhere the development process broke down.

Personally I wouldn't drop the whole system just off a comment like that, though. It probably means his code review was restricted to comments and their interpretation rather than what the code did and how it was put together. Which, okay, was probably not great either, but it would have been fair to look at that as well. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[moyix]

Not looking at the ads is like taking something from the grocery store without paying...

Yeah! Or like getting up during commercials on TV!

Damn pirates, ruining it for the rest of us.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[c0d3h4x0r]

No, that is not it, and you just don't get it... it isn't about having knowledge, it's about finding it. Asking a FAQ on a mailing list should get you flamed any where. "Asking" stupid questions like "I installed OpenBSD on my Dell but got no sound k thnx" sould also.

All anyone on misc@openbsd ever asks is that you do your homework (read the FAQ, search the archives, serch google), and if that fails then ask an intelligent question.

Actually, you and nearly all geeks just don't get it. Most non-geek people don't even know where to start looking or how to find the answers for themselves, so it's not their fault for asking "stupid" questions. They have to start somewhere, and the most obvious way and place is the e-mail list associated with the thing they are having trouble with.

Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle. In short, non-geeks just expect shit to work without hassle, and when it doesn't, they expect the people who created the shit to take responsibility for making it work. Non-geeks don't WANT to learn or to be educated -- what they want is for shit to work. And it's wrong to belittle them or look down upon them for holding those priorities. Instead, you should be catering to those priorities.

And why is it wrong to belittle or look down on those people who just want it to work without hassle? Because if you, the GEEK, stop and think about it, you actually want the same thing. Sure, you may love coding and problem-solving, and you may know Linux like the back of your hand, but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got PO'd at some other piece of software you were simply trying to install and use to get something else done when it didn't work smoothly and you had to go off on a 2-hour sidetrack to deal with that instead of getting your originally intended goal accomplished. So yeah, you're really not so different from the non-geeks after all. Chew on that for a while.

Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.

I must say, Linus really comes across as a classy, quality person. It takes mature restraint to deal with "difficult" people like Theo, and Linus does so with class.

Re:Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[JohnFluxx]

Actually the worst part is that Theo is often right, which means you do have to actually listen to him rather than the easier just ignore him.

Re:Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[47PHA60]

OpenBSD is a technical marvel. There is nothing else I would use for a firewall than OpenBSD, and as a router it has been replacing our Cisco systems one at a time. I buy their CDs every release to help support the project.

I use Linux as my desktop, and would not use OpenBSD unless I had endless hours to maintain my system. Just getting X to run reminds me of Linux in 1996. Linux is also easier to maintain depending on the distro.

If you disagree with any of that, fine.

As for behaviour, Mr. De Raadt is seriously inconsistent. In the past he has been quite rude to people who defend the GPL, in one post telling Richard Stallman to "bugger off." It's pretty immature. He has every right to say what he wants, but I have never seen him actually explain why the Linux kernel is "crap." He makes vague statements like "most people can't write 10 lines of C code;" when he is asked how to program with security in mind like OpenBSD does, he says he can't explain it, that you just have to learn it yourself. Again, all within his rights, but now he looks like nothing but a PR flack to be used by a hack like Dan Lyons. Then you go look at the project goals of OpenBSD. My favorite is that politics is secondary to technical merit. That would seem to imply that you can explain your point of view without insulting people who disagree with you, or treating a rival like an enemy of some sort.

And for historical perspective: look at a timeline of UNIX development, and you will see one thing very clearly, the fact that none of the Free BSD systems were released until well after GCC. If only for that, people should be more respectful of Richard Stallman, who started the GNU project by himself in 1984, long before the AT&T vs UC BSD lawsuit.

Theo has never run Linux

[pebs]

The funny thing is he has never run Linux. Quoting this interview:

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[mrm677]

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

Torvalds says the same thing about Windows. I suggest that creators and active developers of open-source operating systems should start using rival systems to learn and carry over the best practices. This is quite common in industry and the attitude displayed in these quotes show arrogance and ignorance.

And how would he know?

[jdaluz]

In a NewsForge interview a couple of days ago de Raadt was asked about technical comparisons between Linux and BSD and replied, "I don't know. I have never run Linux."

http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2

Suddenly, he's an expert on how bad Linux is?

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[mrm677]

1. /usr/local. Everything that you add afterwards goes in there. It's just extra to type. And is apache config in /usr/local/apache/conf or /usr/local/etc/apache/conf ?

Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but /usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed. More typing?? For what? /usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.

There are many reasons why one might _not_ want to use BSD, but this is the silliest yet!

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[grimwell]

Ah, grasshopper... take a bath. Data hygiene is a good thing.

Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.

Keeping added apps seperate from the OS highlights the beauty of *nix over windows. With everything you installed after the OS in /usr/local, you can re-install the OS(e.g. partition corruption, junior admin fubar'ing, etc) without having to re-install your apps.

Trust me, I've been there. Windows admin hoses OS, I re-install OS and I'm done. The needed apps are already in place & configured. /usr/local , /opt is a good thing.

Switched from Linux because of a comment?

[cpn2000]

From the article ...

Lok Technologies, a San Jose, Calif.-based maker of networking gear, started out using Linux in its equipment but switched to OpenBSD four years ago after company founder Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.

"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."

So this guy switched from Linux to BSD not because he saw some poorly implemented code, but because of a comment?
That is absolutely insane.

Re:Switched from Linux because of a comment?

[dozer]

It's pretty clear you're not a programmer.

Re:BSDs=good stuff, De Raadt=nuts, it's the licens

[Ingolfke]

As I understand it: stuff you contribute to BSDs can be pirated by msft, and others, and put into their binary code.

The code is not pirated. The BSD license allows for distribution and modification of the code w/o the restrictions that the GPL places on code (namely that you must keep the code open).

Zealots come out swinging...

[Mephisto_kur]

We all know the guy is a bit off. Why is it that the Linux community can't listen to criticism, tho?

You talk about usability. The Linux people come out with "just because it isn't like Microsoft doesn't mean it's wrong."

The excuses are rampant in the Linux world. Do I use Linux? Sure. When I can get it running. Even modern distros are kludgey and clunky. Half the time the GUI does nothing but provide useless and cryptic error messages. I have a Win2k print server. I have tried (easily) a dozen distros to get things working. One will see the network. One won't without downgrading Samba. One will, but can't access anything. One sees everything and accesses everything but can't print. Sound is the same way. Some have issues with setting resolutions on the video side, others have other problems.

There are too many distros all in it for themselves. Even the ones that use one of the main distros as their base. Debian, Red Hat, what have you, all are kludgey and unrefined.

I want Linux to work. Desperately want it to get out there and do good. But it isn't going to, especially if every response to criticism is not "okay, let me see if I can work on that" and continues to be "Its better than Crapple and Microshit!"

No one wants another Microsoft Windows, but some friggin' usability isn't going to hurt your cause, and you may even be able to swing it without giving up your anti-Microsoft rhetoric. You can be different and still be intuitive and intelligent.

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[TheRaven64]

/usr/local is for stuff that is not included in the base distribution. This means that you can (for example) install the base system on a hard drive, but NFS-mount /usr/local from a central file server, meaning that you only need to update applications in one place. Stuff that is part of the base system is configured in /etc, stuff that is not is in /usr/local/etc. Stuff that is needed in single user mode is in /bin, stuff that is not needed in single user mode, but is in the base system (i.e. maintained by the same group that maintains your kernel etc.) is in /usr/bin, while everything else is in /usr/local/bin.

The exception to this is on OpenBSD, where Apache is run from a chroot environment by default, and so everything related to Apache is in /var/www, which adds to security.

I personally prefer having interfaces named after the driver, because it makes it easier to identify a particular interface. On Linux, you have to read the dmesg output (or similar) to know whihc eth0 and eth1 are. With *BSD, I can tell that rl0 is the cheap RealTek card I bought to connect to the cable modem, while fxp0 is the Intel card that connects to the Internal network. I previously had to tweak something on a Linux gateway which sat between 4 networks, and I had no idea whether it was eth0, eth1, eth2, or eth3 that connected to the outside world. Of course, as others have mentioned, it is possible to change the names to more sensible ones.

Confidence vs. bravado.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Bravado is never being wrong, even when you'd say someone else was if it were anyone else but you. It's never bothering to be introspective, to question yourself or your actions.

Confidence is knowing you'll get there eventually, even if you aren't there yet. You're allowed to ask questions along the way like "Should this be here?".

I would much rather rely on software that is like the latter, than I would the former.

Besides, I bet Simon Lok maintains a few hundred windows machines too, but since he can't read those comments at all...

not news...

[Daytona955i]

This would be like Bill Gates saying linux is for losers.

Let's face it, Raadt is pissed off that linux has supassed OpenBSD in terms of userbase. A little resentment? I think so.

Theo's being a goober this time

[Roadkills-R-Us]

He blames Linux marketshare on the BSD lawsuit. I'm sorry, but in this case, he sounds foolish. The way BSD was developed and promoted a decade ago had far more to do with Linux' acceptance than the BSD lawsuit.

At the time, *very* few businesses used Linux. Well under 1%, probably more like 1% of 1% of 1%. At any rate, if you wanted to use a free *nix OS, you had three choices besides Linux:

1) Paying a commercial BSD license fee (BSDi). This was a bit expensive for an individual, and even the commercial version didn't have drivers for a lot of the better hardware (like reasonably new Dell servers).
2) Writing your own device drivers for anything unsupported.
3) Sending a BSD vendor equipment so they could write your driver.

I wish I could remember which prject was which for #2 and #3. Whichever group was #2, when I asked on the net about a SCSI driver for our server (a friend and I were starting a business on the side), I was flamed by a core BSD developer for not just writing a driver. HELLO! I need to run a business, not write drivers!

I tried really hard to make BSD work on our hardware. I finally gave up and tried Linux at another friend's suggestion. It just worked.

Linux caught on with individuals, then with startups and small projects in larger companies, and only in the past 3-4 years has started to matter in the corporate marketplace at large.

The BSD community chased people away (that's not an indictment of the community, it's just the effect of how things were handled).

There's an old adage that says, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Even if that were still true (it's generally not), when you start beating them in the head with the mousetrap, don't complain when tehy don't buy it.

I'm not sure if Theo is merely ignorant of history, or is simply choosing to ignore it. Either way, he's in trouble. Those who ignore or forget the lessons of history are doomed to what? Repeat it. Theo's helping screw up BSD's chances all over again.

Good cop, bad cop

[peacefinder]

As Linus says, Theo is difficult. This is well known, and I salute Mr. Torvalds for saying it so succinctly. Linus leads by gentle methods, and he's apparently damn good at it.

Theo does not take that path. He's a zealot... but he's not just a zealot. He's a clear-eyed, effective zealot who manages a solid project that produces the result he intends: a highly secure OS. If you'll recall from that other interview:

Christos Zoulas: I think it goes both ways, especially when it comes to porting Linux to architectures where NetBSD is already ported to or vice versa. Due to the relative size of both projects and the wealth of drivers on Linux, I would say that it is more common that NetBSD developers refer to code in the Linux device drivers to find about specific device quirks and undocumented device programming information. This is necessary because hardware manufacturers do not always publish proper documentation for their products (with all the errata) and the only way to get functional device drivers is by trial and error, reverse engineering, or getting the necessary information informally from the vendors. The situation is getting worse because all open source products (with the exception of OpenBSD) tolerate the status quo of supporting products that provide no documentation, using vendor-provided -- sometimes binary-only -- drivers. I don't think that OpenBSD's abrasive campaign is the way to go, although it appears to be producing results. I believe that the hardware vendors can be convinced that it is advantageous to them to publish proper documentation, but all open source products need to work together for that to work. If a vendor cannot be convinced, we need to vote with our feet and exclude support from our products.

Here we have a NetBSD guy saying, essentially, "I don't agree with Theo's approach, but it does work better than ours and we may all need to adopt it one day."

CZ is saying that Theo may be forging the path that many will need to follow before long. Theo was a security fanatic a long time ago, and I think events have proven that he made a good call on that. Events have yet to say if his abrasive approach to documentation will turn out to be a good call. CZ clearly recognizes that Theo may be ahead of the curve again, although it's too soon to say.

It seems to me that there exists a diversity of approaches to driving open-source and free software forward. At one extreme is Good Cop Linus, at the other is Bad Cop Theo, and everyone else is arrayed somewhere in the middle. A company being asked to provide documentation hears "It's in your best interest to get broad support from Linux" and on the other "Give me the goods or support for this device will be dropped." This is an effective combination, and the two together work better than either alone.

Theo is abrasive, yes... but the collective endeavor of free and open software needs someone abrasive, just as much as it needs a benevolent dictator.

And BSD is any different?

[Haeleth]

haeleth@guthlac$ uname -srpi
FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE i386 GENERIC
haeleth@guthlac$ pwd
/usr/src/sys
haeleth@guthlac$ find . -name *.c -or -name *.h -exec grep "belong here" {} \;
* XXX doesn't really belong here I guess...
* This doesn't really belong here, but I can't think of a better
* XXX doesn't really belong here I guess...
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
/* XXX FIXME this does not belong here */
* XXX these don't really belong here; but for now they're

I'd say that's worse than the Linux sources, if one is judging quality by number of "doesn't belong here"s - all those FIXMEs and XXXes. Of course, it's a different BSD. I'm sure OpenBSD is perfect and entirely free of frivolous comments, unlike all these untrustworthy operating systems that are inexplicably more popular than it.

Re:Overstatement

[argent]

If Linux just "happens to run", how come it knocks out OpenBSD when it comes to performance?

Taking shortcuts is often a very effective way to get better performance. OpenBSD is particularly notorious for NOT taking shortcuts even in the BSD world.

It would appear to be the opposite.

[Some Random Username]

OpenBSD was pretty obscure, despite everyone using openssh. As Theo has been more and more provocative, openbsd has gotten more and more publicity. The number of people using OpenBSD is WAY up in the last few years. Believe it or not, any publicity really is good publicity, and alot of people use products based on the product, not the person who made it, so people find out about openbsd because of this stuff, and then ignore this stuff and use openbsd because its good.