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.
In no way are opinions and biases the same. I could go on but I'm pretty sure it would act like water on a duck.
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 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.
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."
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
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.
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.