Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds on Linux and Microsoft
Sniper223 writes with a link to an interview on the Network World site with Linus Torvalds. Linus goes through the usual spiel about stuff like why he released the Linux OS in the first place, and how the future is open source. He also has some interesting commentary on the Microsoft/Novell deal: "I actually thought that whole discussion was interesting, not because of any Novell versus MS issues at all, but because all the people talking about them so clearly showed their own biases. The actual partnership itself seemed pretty much a nonissue to me, and not nearly as interesting as the reaction it got from people, and how it was reported ... I don't actually personally think the Novell-MS agreement kind of thing matters all that much in the end, but it's interesting to see the signs that the sides are at least talking to each other. I don't know what the end result will be, but I think it would be healthier for everybody if there wasn't the kind of rabid hatred on both sides. Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think. I don't think they are that interesting." An interesting contrast to our earlier conversation.
That is what a discussion is. A bunch of people giving their opinions, or "biases" as Linus calls them.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
No offense, but that's why he's Linus and you're a fanboy...
The one thing he's known for, the Linux kernel, isn't something I particularly like (BSD--more liberal license, Windows--better desktop, Linux? I only use it because of work); but I tend to agree with him on a lot of things. That he would downplay the controversy, and point out that it only illustrates bias doesn't surprise me. He seems to have a gift for cooling things down, for steering clear of immature games and sticking to a clear analysis of the situation.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
To be fair though, Linux (the kernel) is what started it all: without the kernel, the GNU tools would hardly be as advanced as they are today, because the Linux attracted so many people. Without the GNU tools, well there would be other programs to replace them. There are a LOT more people who can write a userland tool than a kernel. That's why Linus gets a lot of credit, because there are few other people who could have done what he did.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
you like Linus, he is right that the hate for hate's sake between some (and I stress some) Linux and MS users helps nothing. Beyond that, as he is the creator of the kernel, I see him as a parent watching his kid grow up to be something he didn't envision or desire for it. He needs to learn to let go, Linux now belongs to the community.
Linus is a developer, and doesn't try to be some sort of idealist or software messiah. If he was trying to beat MS and spent all his time hating them then he wouldn't have time or energy to actually write code.
[Linus has a gift for] steering clear of immature games and sticking to a clear analysis of the situation.
Linus's analyses are usually clear, indeed, but almost always short-sighted. He doesn't seem to notice anything beyond the end of his nose, and so doesn't recognize the potential for bad things to happen as a result of people being bad.
It was so with BitKeeper. It was so with TiVO. It is so with Microsoft.
Linus treats everyone as if they were fair, generous, and cooperative. Unfortunately the real world is not like that. It's full of deceitful, self-serving, and non-cooperative people and companies who talk nice but do evil.
If all of FOSS and not just the Linux kernel were in Linus's hands, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately almost nobody else in the community is that naive.
Linus's genius is in design and coding (and in herding cats). It most definitely is not in foresight.
Let's see them for what they are: Organised crime. One day justice will be done, Muslims will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, America will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Jews will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Gays will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Blacks will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Extremism serves no one. And yes I do realize the discussion of Linux and Microsoft is not comparable to the examples above, but you sound no less ridiculous.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
I've never met anyone that was excited about windows.
Talk to some directX nuts sometimes. They get pretty excited about it.
I won't comment on "stupid," but being "blind" is usually the folly of those who stick to philosophies. I don't think Torvalds was blind to the implications of vendor lock-in, rather he assessed it and accepted it. Just as you probably do when you fly on a Boeing or AirBus jet run by proprietary closed-source software, or any of innumerable other things you do in "civilized" life. You may believe that opening those sources would result in a better airplane, but you accept the risk differential and wait for your peanuts.
He just doesn't seem to get it.
Now, I don't know him from Adam, but maybe, to him, it just doesn't matter. I mean, what were his intentions? World domination? Or was it/is it just a fun hobby? If Linux was to be declared illegal tomorrow, he might just think, "Eh", and do something else. He appears quite capable of that. I can only assume he has a nice nest-egg built up. So would he suffer any great loss that he really cares about?
What?
Know the battles that need to be fought and disregard the rest. It's a good way to lose precious energy and resources if you fight against everything without knowing what you are really fighting for.
Arguably, as neat as Linux might have been at the time, it would *never* have picked up speed without a solid set of userland tools on top, so there would never have been a set of tools specifically written for it. Sure, people could've used a BSD toolchain rather than the GNU set, but ultimately the Linux kernel was always dependent on somebody else's userland to carve its space in IT.
You mean Linus isnt a rabid MS-hating fanboy? I feel so disillusioned.
In all seriousness though it is nice to hear someone who actually matters in the open source community coming out against fud that comes from his own 'side'. (as if open source was about taking sides) The zealots who spread fud on the pro-linux side get way too much publicity and really make everyone associated with them look foolish.
"Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me."
"I don't actually personally think the Novell-MS agreement kind of thing matters all that much in the end"
"Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think. I don't think they are that interesting."
Why anyone thinks this means he's pro-MS beats the hell out of me.
MS has a really hard time competing on technical merit, and they traditionally have instead tried to compete on price, but that obviously doesn't work either, not against open source. So they'll continue to bundle packages and live off the inertia of the marketplace, but they want to feed that inertia with FUD.
- Linus Torvalds, from TFA
Linus has no illusions about Microsoft's motives or ethics. He simply believes that Linux is the better operating system, and therefore adoption of Linux is a fait accompli, and is inevitable given sufficient time.
That's a fairly typical engineer's attitude, and ignores the enormous damage Microsoft is doing to the computing community while "inertia" is taking its course.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
That could be true, except that most GNU tools were written before the Linux kernel was even usable.
If it weren't for the GNU project, Linus ("the guy") wouldn't have released the kernel under the GPL (as he says, it could have ended being just another one of his pets projects).
BTW, Linus gets all the credit for the kernel too, but there's actually an army of people working on it. Linus is no longer the irreplaceable hacker you seem to believe (if it ever was).
I am no fan of Stallman and I have some gripes with him about demanding only and all free software. But he clearly had created GNU before Linux (the kernel) was introduced and they were working in that direction. Clearly Linux (the kernel) was better than what they were working on and it was adopted by the industry, but let's not forget to give credit where credit is due. Stallman and his followers were the ones that created this whole thing and it would be unfair to put the credit in someone else's lap.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
It's basicly "I'm over here doing Linux, and I'll keep improving Linux regardless of whatever Microsoft does or doesn't do." That's not just in relation to MS, but seems to be the general case with tivoized kernels, DRM, patents and everything else that's not about improving the code. It's like an athlete saying he's competing against the clock and himself, constantly improving regardless of whether he's far behind or far ahead of the competition.
Usually, that's a very healthy attitude. And if everyone was running their own race, it would be. But Microsoft has proven time and time again that if they can't provide a superior product, they throw all kinds of dirt on the competition. He might not care if Linux is competition to Microsoft or not, but Microsoft certainly does. That's not to say he should start fighting FUD with FUD, but it'd be nice if he showed that he at least understands the game being played.
Microsoft can not kill Linux the kernel, because of the GPL. But there are many ways to kill Linux the market, and Microsoft is an expert at it. Again, I think Linus doesn't care all too much about that, or assume that if only Linux gets good enough the other "distractions" won't matter. Well, I care that Linux can be a mainstream OS that can handle mainstream media, interact with Windows networks and protocols, use common document formats and in general function like a first class citizen. If it's a stunning good kernel too, that's good but it's no good being exceptional at everything but the things I want to do.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And why should he care? He's the originator and technical lead of a project, albeit one with his name firmly attached to it. He shouldn't care about anything Microsoft says or does, except maybe if/when they present evidence of 'his' kernel infringing on Microsoft's patents or copyright.
Linux vendors, on the other hand... they might have reason to care about the FUD.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I seriously can't see any difference between Microsoft and the OSS community. This and most of the comments this topic has thrown up suggest that's a fair enough view. Certainly, it's a good enough view and I can't be bothered much with it beyond that point. It's pretty sad when fundamentals like this have to be discussed. This sort of stuff should be sorted out by the time most people reach adulthood.
Microsoft has done some good and so has Linux et al but neither is unalloyed perfection. This should give people something to think about, and instead of picking sides and revving the engine taking time out to soberly reflect could be a smarter course of action. There's plenty of books on stuff like this and examples abound. As I said before, so what? People don't listen or give a damn. Best let them learn on their own.
Nothing lasts forever that is not of the Tao. Nothing. Certianly, not arrogance and vanity, and there's a lot of that flying around with Microsoft and OSS. Windows and Linux are, merely, shadows on the wall. Ghostlike images, flickers of nothing compared to the eternal. Is it pathetic that such things are so concrete in our minds and demand so much loyalty? One day they will be as the idols of old - long forgotten dust. Same shit, different day.
It's like people who say "I have no interest in politics, I just want to [do whatever]". In Linus' case it is "write software". To many altruistic people it is "help people". To astronauts is "fly". The thing about politics is, even if you're not interested in it, it is interested in you. You either play the game or you bury your head in the sand. If you do, don't be surprised if you don't get to do what you want.
How we know is more important than what we know.
In martial arts one must keep ones mind clear and focused, free of hatred and emotion. Open source ideology is about embracing freedom, not hating Microsoft. Sure Microsoft are currently a barrier to freedom and by no means should we embrace them like long lost children just because they say something or act a little enlightened. But by the same token we should not shoot friends in the head just because the deviate from our ideology.
By letting an irrational hatred of Microsoft sour the relationship between Novell and the community we face a danger that the newly confirmed copyright ownership Novell has in Unix will be used by them the same way SCO did. Instead of finding a way to educate Novell we have taken a extreme and non productive approach which will tend to alienate not only Novell but any other companies considering working with the open source community.
The fact is that there are many companies out there which may make deals with Microsoft for their own reasons. We cannot expect companies to make a black and white decision about what "side" they are on. IBM for example is acting in its own self interest amd while that self interest is in the interests of the community all is well. But lets not deceive ourselves that they would fight for open source to the bitter end. They would settle. They would make a deal if it meant survival.
Novell may have been in a similar situation, and while I don't like these deals being done its a reality for companies in a way that it isn't for individuals. Microsoft won't sue you for personal use of a patent without a license, but they will sue Red Hat into the ground given the chance. Red Hat may yet need to make a deal if Linux does end up infringing, even if the Linux community can remove the infringement in quick order.
In truth Microsoft is USING our hatred against us. Already the Novell deal may have driven a wedge in the open source community between GPL 2 and GPL 3. Once again we see reactionary actions being driven by Microsoft to their advantage. Linus sees that hating Microsoft is no way forward. We need to examine, evalaute and develop strategies which allow us to define the ball game. Microsoft won when they turned the conversation to Total Cost of Ownership. They won when they got CEO's concerned about legal issues around Linux.
To win we must be more clever, less reactionary, and keep a clear head with a focus on what important; bringing open source to the world.
To be fair to GNU, the reason they couldn't get Hurd off the ground had next to nothing to do with producing a kernel being a hard problem -- it had to do with engineering ideals, and wanting to write a kernel that did everything the "right" way, instead of the fast way. Unfortunately, the "right" way changed with each generation of academics. If you look around, there are literally thousands of multitasking kernels written by hackers in their spare time. They lack features, they don't run on much hardware, sure -- but don't compare Linux today to those projects. Compare the first kernel released to the public. What makes Linux special is not Linus, smart as he is -- what makes it special is mindshare. His kernel filled a void and he was in the right place at the right time.
If Linux were destroyed, another kernel would rise in its place, probably overnight. You can count on it.
You seem to be confused. I don't want Microsoft Windows. Most other people wouldn't either if they had any clue what they were buying. My mother (who is computer illiterate) used a Linux box for years to do her stuff on the internet.
The big lie you and all the other Microsoft fan boys are propagating is that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because no one uses it. If Linux distros were sold like Microsoft is sold, the world wouldn't end and Linux would have a similar market share.
Linux was ready for the desktop in the last millennium. Plain and simple.
What, me? Never.
You seem to be confused. I don't want Microsoft Windows.
I don't recall saying you did.
Most other people wouldn't either if they had any clue what they were buying.
Given how trivially simple it is to buy a computer without Windows, I'm afraid harsh reality blows your fantasy out of the water.
My mother (who is computer illiterate) used a Linux box for years to do her stuff on the internet.
Personally, I bought my mum an iMac. Sadly I was unlucky enough to do so only a month or two before Apple switched to x86.
The big lie you and all the other Microsoft fan boys are propagating is that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because no one uses it. If Linux distros were sold like Microsoft is sold, the world wouldn't end and Linux would have a similar market share.
I don't recall ever making those arguments either.
Linux was ready for the desktop in the last millennium. Plain and simple.
The market does not agree.
If people disliked Microsoft or Windows anywhere near as much as zealots like you thought they did, Apple would own the home PC market and Linux on the desktop would be csondiered even more of an oddity than it is now.
Stallman and his followers (diciples?) have indeed contributed significantly, but claiming that they created the whole thing is probably stretching it a bit too far. Assuming that you by this whole thing refer to the various Linux distributions, then none of them would have gained any momentum if it wasn't for (ignoring Linus for a moment) Apache, Mozilla, PERL/PHP/Python/Ruby, the Eclipse Foundation, OpenOffice.org, ect.
I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the GNU toolchain, but personally I actually consider the GPL to be Stallman's most significant contribution.
I'm however not so sure that he still has any role to play in this story ...besides perhaps as the comic sidekick ;-)
The whole Linux thing was driven by choice and the freedom to choose, so GNU or Kernel or Open Source, it was all about individuals working together in what ever capacity they choose to achieve a wide range of shared goals.
In a manner of speaking every one involved was a sidekick to Tux, a symbol representing a shared ideal, and what ever that ideal was, it was left up to each and every individual own interpretation.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
He doesn't, he's saying that that's how he always hears other people say it!!
That's a fairly typical engineer's attitude, and ignores the enormous damage Microsoft is doing to the computing community while "inertia" is taking its course.
This is nonsense, pure and simple. While MS may not produce the best OS out there the "enormous damage" that the have committed was what? Bringing PCs to Joe Sixpack? What is better; to open home computing and the internet to the masses or to produce a free OS?
While you guys sit around, patting yourself on the back, just remember to ask yourself where the fuck was Linus and his bunch of fanbois while Gates was moving technology in a direction few had ever considered.
The cool kids must be cool because they act smug about bashing a company that did more for computing on the human level then what a bunch of fanbois could have even considered 25 years ago when Gates was actually out there working in the field.
No, I don't think Hurd would have ever made it, and I'm not saying that if Linux were gone, Hurd would take its place. Hurd wasn't designed with real world principles in mind -- it was a moving target, an attempt to be "perfect". Everytime the Hurd guys get something working, they decide there's a better way to do what they're trying to do (they're usually right about this) so they rip it up and start all over. While that's great for a CS project, it's shitty for something that's meant to be a real world solution.
It's not like Hurd and Linux are the only examples of OS kernels out there. In the UNIX world, there are all the BSDs -- these are released under a GPL-compatible license, so if Linux were gone, for example, one of the BSD kernels could be retrofitted with drivers from Linux and released under the GPL.
Or, take, for example, ReactOS -- those guys, with nothing like the support that Linux has had, have managed to create a working clone of the NT kernel. And they're not just doing the kernel, either -- their aim is to clone all of Windows NT, so they're also doing the GUI, the shell, etc, you know, the whole thing. There are only a few of them -- if that project had half the mindshare of Linux, you'd have all the bugs ironed out in no time -- as is, you can already install it, boot it, and run programs, and it's probably more stable than Linus' first releases of Linux were.
Someone else mentioned OpenSolaris -- until it gets GPL'd I wouldn't really trust it, but if the kernel guys wanted to start from scratch it could be a good stopgap until a proper, GPL'd system is running.
That's just off the top of my head, but as I said in my previous post, there are lots of free operating system shells out there that boot and are ready for hacking on. As long as Linux exists, they'll always just be some guy's pet project, but if Linux weren't around, there's no reason to believe one of them wouldn't get mind share.
Don't act like Linux and Hurd are the only two examples of a kernel out there -- there are lots of them. And don't make the mistake of thinking that writing a bootable OS is hard -- I (and many others) have written bootable OSs with virtual memory and task switching entirely in x86 assembly, so I don't think the community of people hacking Linux today (which is made up of people far smarter than I am) would be hard-pressed to get something going again if Linux died.