Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Speaks Out on Future of Linux
SlinkySausage writes "Linus Torvalds has laid out his plans for the future of Linux, including the 3.0 kernel [there probably won't be one], problems with the Linux release cycles and which distro he personally runs on his home PC. '"Compile everything by hand" ones simply weren't interesting to me,' Torvalds says."
guessing he's not a gentoo user :)
But really at this point, even if he stops developing the kernel, someone else will just pick up where he left off. I don't think we can ever really expect to keep one final generation of the kernel. It'll always be changing and morphing to new cpu's, hardware, etc...
cb_is_cool knows where his towel is.
Oh come on!
3.0 is a perfect excuse to break everything and allow your imagination to run riot. That's the fun bit!
Deleted
The one thing I really like about Linux is that it adheres more to a Unix tradition of doing things continually and incrementally. Like, it drives me nuts that on Windows, to talk to SQL Server in C++, one has had to go from db-library to odbc to either OLE-DB or ADO... whereas, in a Unixy type mindset, one might ask, what really needed to change about db-library that required a whole new way of talking to databases? And, the answer is, not a lot. It is absolutely wonderful that in Linux there is a core set of APIs that always work, aren't suddenly abandoned to make a new feature that frankly, most people don't need.
So, in my mind, to say that there won't be a Linux Kernel 3.0 or a Linux 4.0 or something like that, is actually a GOOD THING. If you want dramatic, shocking, breaking releases that require you to rewrite 95% of your code to do the same thing, if you want to find that what you used suddenly can't work largely because it isn't supported any more, then Microsoft has plenty of that.
So three cheers for point releases, and here's to the death of "major" releases.
This is my sig.
try the coral cache, worked for me:d s_talks_about
http://apcmag.com.nyud.net:8090/7012/linus_torval
Sounds like he is sticking with the programming model of doing a large number of releases with small changes type model. Glad to see it actually, as this is the approach that I have been using on all of the software I build for work. What this does bring up, though, is the unfilled need currently of having an auto-upgrader software package where new kernel packages can be auto-upgraded and then migrated too on the fly without requiring a reboot. This would be quite complex I would admit, and maybe not possible in all kernel releases, but this is definitely something that needs to be looked at... Just my 2 cents worth.. :-)
There is a lot of new stuff happening, but it's in the main not specific to the kernel. New things the kernels needs to do are thin on the ground now. Not to say it'll ever be finished as such, just that there aren't any needed big new features. It'll take a major new shift in computing to do that, I suspect. Something way bigger than extensions or tweaks to x86/SPARC/PPC/ARM etc. I'm not holding my breath.
I may be stating the obvious, but the site is slashdotted, so I can't see what Linus has apparently said.
So you're saying AMD/ATI have a worthwhile open source video driver, eh? Oh, they don't? Gee, maybe THAT is why he said that. He may very well be an Intel lover, but that statement you quoted holds no proof of it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
http://apcmag.com.nyud.net/7012/linus_torvalds_tal ks_about
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, has, along with others like Richard Stallman, literally changed the world of software forever.
;)
Linux-based distributions seem to pop up every day, more and more devices now run Linux at their core, from mobile phones to inflight entertainment systems, to the world's mission critical server infrastructures.
The development of the kernel has changed, and Linux is just getting better and better. However, with a community as large and fractured as the Linux community, it can sometimes be hard to get a big picture overview of where Linux is going: what's happening with kernel version 2.6? Will there be a version 3.0? What has Linus been up to lately? What does he get up to in his spare time?
I had the opportunity to chat with the original creator of the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds, in a number of email exchanges.
APC: Writing an operating system kernel is a hard job. Why did you write Linux in the first place?
LT: Kernels may be hard, but partly because of that they are also interesting. I've always been more interested in "down to the hardware" details than in fluffy stuff like user interfaces etc, and an operating system kernel is about as down to the hardware as you can get without actually building it yourself (which I've also done - I was at a CPU company for seven years, after all). So I'm not into soldering irons etc, but I very much enjoy working at a low level, and thinking about how my software actually interacts with the CPU and other parts of the system. Besides, I really didn't realize how hard it would be. I really never expected to be still working on it 15+ years later
APC: What's the Linux Foundation?
LT: Heh. I just work here, you should ask some of the people who are actually involved in all the other things that LF does. It's basically the combination of OSDL ("Open Source Development Labs") and FSG ("Free Standards Group"), and is a vendor-neutral place for different organizations to discuss the issues they have, and trying to help Linux along. Part of what LF does is pay me to maintain the kernel.
APC: What are you doing with the kernel now? Are you working on it full time? What parts of it do you work on the most?
LT: I very much work on it full time, but I no longer really work on any particular "part"of it - I end up spending almost all my time on not writing kernel code myself, but on working with the flow of code and merging it all.
In fact, the biggest amount of actual source code I've written in the last two years is not in the kernel itself, but in the tool I use to just track the kernel development (called "git" - a source control management system).
So I still get to write code (and I send out suggested patches quite often - but usually they are along the lines of "so here's how we could handle this issue..." in order to prod others to actually do the final patch and testing). But what I do a lot more is go through other peoples changes and say "yes" or "no".
APC: The 2.6 series kernel has been around for a long time. Why?
LT: We used to have these big and painful development releases that took several years, and it worked reasonably well and people got very used to it ("2. is stable, 2. is development"), but it had serious downsides too.
In particular, the release cycles were so long that all the commercial vendors effectively had to back-port a fair amount of new code from the development kernels, and so development code ended up in the stable releases. Also, conversely, the vendors fixed problems in the stable versions, and sometimes the fixes were missed or weren't easy to then forward-port to the development series, because the two were just very far apart.
Basically, a multi-year development cycle simply doesn't work. It was reasonable and required for a while (we did some pretty radical changes there too), but with 2.6, the base kernel is in good shape, and we've improved our development process enough that we just don
Personally, my favorite aspect of this interview is that Linus himself basically considers the core OS now stable enough that anything new is likely to be incremental instead of ground-shakingly different, at least on the x86 platforms.
Which would imply a stability that leads to dependability which leads to usability which leads to widespread use. At least that is my hope in the enterprise, that the combination of commodity hardware with a commodity, high powered and stable OS can be coupled with increasingly powerful database engines such as mySQL, Veritas, etc. Oracle on Linux is now considered stable as well.
At home? stability leading to dependability leading to integration leading to crossover applications that will no longer depend on a proprietary OS stack to function. The only thing missing from my desired tool set on Linux right now is basically an easy to use, high powered MIDI to music recording and notation system -- and the pieces for all of that is already there -- it's my time to research and integrate the pieces that is in short supply.
I guess my point is that stability and upgradeability cause me to buy (several Linuxes and Win2K). Give me yet a large bulkier OS that doesn't really do much but add coolness (Vista or even XP) and I yawn.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It sounds like you don't grasp the simple brilliance of this. Rather than having the kernel handle these bits, forcing a one-size-fits-all approach, you instead have other teams working on this, developing the GUI, customizing it to the task at hand. Look at Enlightenment, GNOME, KDE, each one fills a need, but none of them are exclusive.
The phrase "My name is Legion for we are many" comes to mind.
Example, at work here, Fedora suits our needs perfectly. While at home, Ubuntu powers my sons desktop and Gentoo is my servers backbone. Yet, when I need to take apps from home, they run with minimal problem. They isolate the desktop from the apps that run on it, giving you infinite flexibility. Yes, it can be overwhelming. Yes, it does not look like a unified front. But by doing this, Linux can be, and is, whatever you need it to be! Hell, my gentoo box doesn't even have a monitor! I ssh in, or when that fails, I have an old teletype in case of emergencys.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
here http://apcmag.com.nyud.net/7012/linus_torvalds_tal ks_about
p.
I managed to read the slashdotted article, and I think you're sorta missing HIS point. Which is that he is a Kernel Developer, not an OS developer. He's not really interested in the other parts of the system, just like you're not really all that interested in the nitty-gritty of kernel mechanics (which is more than fine, btw).
In other words...you need a lot of different kinds of people to build an operating system. Linus never claimed to be the benevolent dictator of an operating system - just of the Linux kernel. There's a difference, and there can't help but be. Related, yes, but the same thing: No, and they can't be.
Thankfully, there are many people out there who want to focus on stuff like UI design and the like. I might even disagree with Linus that such things are "fluffy", but I don't really think his opinions on that have influenced anybody any MORE toward the side of "we just like to code kernels, we don't care about ease-of-use".
So - yes, but no. Ease of use is an obstacle to widespread Linux adoption: Yes, and everyone knows that. But No, this doesn't really have anything to do with Linus.
Linux doesn't have a GUI, dude. You should read about Linux more, and write about it less.
Linus is the creator of, and remains deeply involved with the development of the Linux operating system kernel. "The GUI" isn't his concern. (Though providing the underlying services to support it is.)
Also, I don't think Linus much cares about Linux being "mainstream". He just wants it to be the best!
-Peter
How about the Mirrordot cache? I would give you the Google cache too, but that one doesn't seem to be working.
By the way, you can install the Slashdotter Firefox extension and automatically get all 3 cache links appended to every link in an article summary. Very handy.
But if Linus, as an individual, isn't interested in doing things to the GUI, why should he? There are plenty of talented coders fiddling with the GUI and desktop subsystems, why would Linus chipping in make much of a difference? Personally I think he'd be wasted working on something he didn't like doing.
Your claims about the mainstream are sorta valid, but that's not Linus' fight - he doesn't really care about it, and just wants to help make the best kernel he can on techincal merit alone. The interview gives it away - pretty much all he uses a desktop for is a web browser, most of the rest of it is CLI stuff and his usage pattern is completely different to your average desktop PC user.
To analogise, if this was an OS war for the Battle Of The Desktop, Linus would be the dude in charge of making sure the supply lines were always well stocked and that if one supply line stopped, it wouldn't cause the entire army to grind to a halt. The generals on the front line would be people like Mark Shuttleworth and Miguel de Icaza.
(Sorry, couldn't think of a lame car analogy...)
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I totally agree. If everyone would just switch to Ubuntu, the few left that aren't already running it that is, we would have one true distro to rule them all!
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
If stability means it's dying. As I see it, the current Linux kernel does all that it needs to, and does it quite well. There is no need to upgrade it, because to do so would be an upgrade for upgrade's sake. Anyone in IT will tell you that to upgrade simply for the sake of upgrading is stupid, and will lead to a multitude of problems. The only reason that the Linux kernel would need a version 3.x is because of a fundamentally new hardware technology. Currently, software is driving hardware development; games are written requiring advanced graphics cards. In the 90's, hardware drove software development; chip makers like Intel put out a new processor, and then software was written to take advantage of the advancements of the new chip.
Even advancements in multi-core technology would not require a 3.x series kernel (unless I'm mistaken in my belief that the 2.6.x series supports multi-core CPU's), simply because once you cam make a dual-core CPU functional with the kernel, expanding that functionality to 4, 8, or even 64 cores is simply an expanding of the current code. And even if the current kernel does not support multi-core CPU's, that would be more of a 2.8.x series, rather than an entirely new kernel version.
Anybody want my mod points?
For years, people have been saying that Linux needs to focus-in on one particular distro, to make it less confusing for new users. I would argue that day has come: you can confidently recommend Ubuntu. (And, once they overcome their initial trepidation about using a new OS, they will be able to migrate to any other flavor of Linux without much issue.) I agree that Linux should keep improving. I am, however, always a little confused by the repeated calls for "uniform packaging in Linux" considering that the software installation methodology in Linux is, in my opinion, light-years ahead of Windows. With a single application (GUI or commandline) you can install any of thousands of tested, malware-free software. It's such an efficient system, that switching to the method of searching the net for a "setup.exe" of questionable origin seems like a huge step backwards.
Like many Linux users, when I first starting using it, I was annoyed at the differences and cried in frustration: "Why can't they just make it simple like what I'm used to?" With a little more experience, I discovered that there are very good reasons for doing things "the Linux way"... now that I'm used to it, I wouldn't want to go back.
I agree with what you're saying... my point is that since Linus shares his name with the product in question, I just thought his role as a kernel only developer kind of stifles adoption because his voice is left out of it. When he speaks, people listen -- and I just thought that his using his position in the industry to spur development, reconcile GUI options, unify, etc... would be a good idea.
:)
As good as a kernel developer as he may be, I still think he'd be valuable reconciling the problems that the different distros have and producing a product that is not only good on technical merits, but also other merits
I figured I'd get flack for the initial comment I posted, but I stand by it.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
You know what you should do, you should email Linus and discuss the finer points of why he should use the same distro as you to validate your own choice.
You're a fucking idiot.
In fact, it could be argued that the personality type that makes him so great at being the "benevolent dictator" for the kernel (strong opinions, detail oriented, more concerned with pragmatics than ideology) make him a terrible choice for spokesperson (makes enemies with strong comments, cares more about coding than marketing, doesn't care about large-scale ideology issues).
The fact is that Linus prefers being a technical guy building awesome technology, and doesn't really want the responsibility of guiding large-scale direction. Moreover, like many FOSS coders, he considers freedom of choice to be really important, and so has a general attitude of "do whatever works for you." Like I said, there's truth to your statements... however at the end of the day I think we're better off looking to people like Mark Shuttleworth as leaders of this movement.
All right, so they'll duel first.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I hope he was told the truth about Drop Bears and that he was kidding...
Enough with the Vista bashing, we're sorry.
Quack, quack.
Even advancements in multi-core technology would not require a 3.x series kernel (unless I'm mistaken in my belief that the 2.6.x series supports multi-core CPU's), simply because once you cam make a dual-core CPU functional with the kernel, expanding that functionality to 4, 8, or even 64 cores is simply an expanding of the current code. And even if the current kernel does not support multi-core CPU's, that would be more of a 2.8.x series, rather than an entirely new kernel version
I guess that a 3.0 version would be a suitable "label" to a conversion of the Linux kernel into a Microkernel architecture, I am not saying that it is going to be done, but I think that with the development of multicore technology and the overall new technology a microkernel architecture seems plausible.
In any case, I assume that just a modification of such size would make the version major worth of being changed.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Linux is the name for both the kernel and the OS. Richard Stallman tried to get people to call it "GNU/Linux", because he felt his contribution was more than that of everyone else that's contributed to the Linux OS. But in the end, almost everyone calls it by the name it was originally given by its creator: Linux.
Linux's UI is based on MIT's X-Windows (why not "MIT/Linux"?) and either FSF's Gnome or KDE, though, so yes, it's not Linus' purview to worry about Linux's UI, so his geekiness on that matter is not why Linux's UI is considered inadequate for desktop use by many.
E pluribus unum
Seriously, 1.0 was considered "feature complete" at the time of release, and there are some major architectural changes which will be required in order to improve scalability across multi-core as well as SMP systems, not to mention some fairly major pieces of work that are still under development which will need to be merged fully at some point (DAPL being one of the bigger). With the growth in the cluster market, I would also expect some meta-structure to go in to support the basic concepts. Even PCI-e 2.1 support is going to have a serious impact, due to the changes introduced in it.
If I was in Linus' shoes, I'd be pushing for these big infrastructure components to be readied and maybe placed in the -mm tree at this point. Once they're ready for the big time - which might take a while - I'd migrate them into the main tree and wait three or four cycles for last-minute bugs to settle down, then flip to 3.0 to mark the first of a generation of kernels that are keeping pace with the curve. I'd reserve 4.0 for when Linux is not only stable for mainstream use but defines the curve for OS development. I think everyone on Slashdot is at least aware of the research into new hardware technologies, new OS technologies and so on, so I don't think anyone seriously believes that Linux won't undergo more fundamental changes in its life.
Obviously, I am not Linus and he gets to do what he wants, whether I - or anyone else - would agree with his beliefs or not. However, his reluctance to flip digits is not new - I remember when kernels had a letter at the end to mark the sub-sub-version and it had to go into 2 letters because Linus ran out of alphabet. I also remember the first time sub-sub-version numbers ran into the hundreds. On both occasions, there was gigantic frustration with the absurdity. I guess he's forgotten the problems caused, or something.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I for one welcome our delcious "kentucky fried penguin" overlords!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Which would imply a stability that leads to dependability which leads to usability which leads to widespread use. At least that is my hope in the enterprise, that the combination of commodity hardware with a commodity, high powered and stable OS can be coupled with increasingly powerful database engines such as mySQL, Veritas, etc. Oracle on Linux is now considered stable as well.
Depending on what kind of infrastructure you needed, six or seven years ago, you were fairly likely to get funny looks if you announced you were running a significant chunk of your servers on Linux. If you were running a significant chunk of your desktop infrastructure on Linux, the funny looks were a dead cert.
Three or four years ago, the funny looks regarding Linux servers were long gone, replaced with genuine interest.
Today, nobody bats an eyelid about server infrastructure, and you'd be just as likely (if not more so) to get genuine interest as funny looks if you are seriously migrating desktops to Linux. About the only thing you can't easily replace is Exchange and the centralised configuration UI that Active Directory gives you (no, LDAP user authentication doesn't count). The centralised configuration isn't too difficult to work around, the full integration of Exchange is.
One of the most interesting things (to me, anyway) that Linus talked about in the interview as how proud he was of the technical merits of the kernel and of Linux as an OS in general. I thought that was fairly interesting.
I really don't want to try and turn this into a Linux vs BSD vs [something else] flamewar here, but since I'm not really qualified to comment on things like memory-management algorithms, I wondered if anyone wanted to weigh in on exactly what areas they think Linux really excels at -- from a purely technical perspective. I really like the idea that Linus is getting at, namely that the real confirmation of open source is technical excellence, but I'm curious exactly what areas the Linux kernel is "The Best."
In particular I've always been interested in how some of the different open-source OSes handle different technical problems. Is how Linux handles (just for an example) memory management quantifiably better than how BSD does it? And if so (or not) why?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Unless, of course, Ubuntu gets open source video drivers...
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Linux is soooo Y2K. I run RedHat now.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
It's not really news. I don't think that Linus doesn't "like" Debian because of the install though... it's the whole "Debian GNU/Linux" that's probably the showstoper for him, i.e. the fact that Debian was (and is, in many regards) more directly linked with the FSF line.
I mean, real collapsable threads. Because one asshole says "gentoo" in a FP and 99% of what was supposed to be about a Linus interview goes to Hell in a handbasket. So I wish it was possible to click on a "[-]" button the second I saw "gentoo" and be spared of all this.
Nothing against Gentoo, but this was a horrible example when this would've been a really useful Slashdot feature.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
The way people and organizations select version numbers has always annoyed me and Linus is spot on on this topic. To me, version numbers are stupid. The only number that really matters is the revision number, all other numbers either encapsulate too much non-sense or require too much "thinking" and "creativity" based on the developer's part. At the end of the day it's just a label to say that this version was created after all of those other versions, nothing more nothing less.
In these days, versions and releases are becoming more and more of a marketing strategy or even a get out of jail card (see Google and "beta"). The real answer is, from the first day you decide to even write a document, a version number exists and should keep ticking with every change contributed to the project. That's probably too much information that the user doesn't care about so let's simplify it to only new builds of a binary. But the build of the binary could be from various sources with various optimizations and features. Blah blah blah. So the end result is someone gets a grand idea of "NOW let's give it a version number." BS, finish it and release it or don't. End of story.
At the end of the day, the user probably only cares about a couple of things: is the newer version better than the older version (what are the new features, fixes), is it compatible with my current platform software and hardware, and finally will it break anything or do something to make me very frustrated (dependencies, deprecated features). Version numbers should only be made to address these issues, anymore than that is just marketing. I don't care if it is major or minor in the developer's minds. That tells me nothing. Make the version number useful to the users, not another confusing marketing term.
People who claim that Torvalds should be doing this or saying that should examine their own positions and honestly consider if they're not simply trying to use him and his position within the community to try and further a particular POV.
No.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This view shows that he has not thought enough about the issues. Linux views people who have a different view as "pushing". If I were to use the same mindset, I'd say he was pushing a commercial agenda that threatens real software freedom. Because many more people look up to and will listen to Linus, whatever he advocates gets much more "push" than anything I say.
Leaving aside that a lot of what you say is unfounded crap, and so hardly likely to have any "push", Linus hardly pushes any views. He expresses them, sure, oh boy does he express them, but he doesn't enforce them on anyone or attempt to proselytise. Instead, he's talking about people precisely like you who like to froth at the mouth and produce absolutely nothing except a lot of sound and fury signifying nohing. And hell, he might well agree with you on certain points, but most likely wouldn't take much pride in the "use free software or die in fire and brimstone" nature of most of what you say.
His aversion to politics has cost him - and that's the sign of a real idealog. (sic)
Um, he avoids politics, so he's an ideologue. What are you on about?
Debian is not hard to use, even for a non technical user like myself. I'd say it was easier than Fedora in all things but adding non free software.
Are you joking? Debian is far easier to add non-free software to. I mean, they've only got a whole friggin APT repository for it hosted on the Debian servers.
Mepis and Ubuntu have excellent compatibilty with the rest of the Debian tree, so you don't lose much more than a little stability and trust for the non free inclusions.
Um, the founder of Debian, Ian Murdock, is on record saying that Ubuntu has diverged too far from Debian to remain compatible. And Mepis only recently switched back to using Debian packages from Ubuntu. So... nice try.
The thing that he should realize is that technical excellence happens when you have software freedom.
It can do, but you can't pretend that there's no technical excellence in closed software either. Both sides have merits.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I'm curious (because currently there is no file system reason to purchase a Sun/Windows solution over Linux),
I've had drives formatted ext2/ext3/ntfs/reiser/hfs/hpfs/ProDOS/xfs/Fat etc. Why is ZFS any better or worse?
Do you have any benchmarks to share for ZFS or are we just supposed to assume your word is final. Unlike Windows, with Linux/BSD/FreeDOS etc. you can post your ZFS personal benchmarks and opinions and not get sued.
I'm not trying to start a fight, thanks.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.