Is Linus Torvalds Speaking for Linux Anymore?

An anonymous reader writes to tell us CNET is currently running a story asking 'Is Linus Torvalds even speaking for Linux anymore?' It examines both Torvalds' recent public statements on other operating systems and his current approach towards Linux. The author wonders if his utopian view of how an operating system should be viewed and used is just too alien from what the majority of users are really looking for. "if it were up to Torvalds, beauty and intuition would take a backseat to functionality. But when you look at distributions like Ubuntu or OpenSuse, it looks like no one is paying attention. 'An OS should never have been something that people (in general) really care about: it should be completely invisible and nobody should give a flying [expletive] about it except the technical people.' Sure, that statement makes some sense, but in the grand scheme of things, it's the design and usability factor that makes the operating system much easier to use. And while both Mac OS X and Windows have their issues, for the average person, it makes more sense to use those than Linux."

Comments

set in stone

[SoupGuru]

It's too bad this Linus guy's direction becomes set in stone and we're stuck with a very rigid product that can't be modified to suit our individual needs.

Re:set in stone

[Aardpig]

Or, you could learn to grok irony.

Re:FUD alert

[d34thm0nk3y]

From the summary:
'An OS should never have been something that people (in general) really care about: it should be completely invisible and nobody should give a flying [expletive] about it except the technical people.'

It sounds like this Linus guy should focus his energy on the Linux kernel then huh?

Someone friendly & flexible should speak for L

[Nova Express]

Someone far more friendly and flexible should speak for Linux. Someone like Richard Stallman, known far and wide for his friendliness and flexibility.

(Do I really need to add the

</sarcasm>

tag?)

Re:People don't choose an OS for an OS.

[maxwell demon]

You could have an OS that's compatible with every piece of hardware and software in existence, but Joe User will not want it if it takes an 8 year degree in computer science to figure out how to change directories.

I bet 99% of all people using Linux don't know how to change the current directory under Linux (on x86 it's: Load register eax with 12, load register ebx with pointer to zero-terminated string naming the new directory, call int 80h). But that's OK, because the user usually doesn't have to know it. Instead he interacts with some piece of software which does all this for him, be it the shell (where he'd type cd directory), or some file manager (where he probably would klick or doubleclick on a symbol representing the directory of choice; although that probably won't actually result in a change of directory, but just in the display of the desired directory; but then, the user couldn't care less how the functionality is implemented under the hood).

Re:FUD alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think my 3 ancestors are insightful. Keep it under the hood, separate the OS from look-and-feel, church from state, and whatnot.

Karma please!

Re:FUD alert-Plug leak.

[Vectronic]

Well, im not the one who used TCP Vs IP as an example to disagree with OS Vs GUI...

As far as I understand... it goes something like this...

IP "I got some shit!!!"

TCP "you got some shit? I know what to do with that shit!!!"

HTTP "this shit makes sense, thanx TCP"

TCP "No problem HTTP, but IP deserves most of the credit, thank IP"

IP "Your Welcome"

meanwhile NIC sulks in the corner who deserves all of the credit for the entire conversation.