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

People don't choose an OS for an OS.

[khasim]

They choose the OS to run the apps they want on the hardware they want.

So Linus seems to still be completely accurate in his opinion.

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

[Jugalator]

They choose the OS to run the apps they want on the hardware they want.
So Linus seems to still be completely accurate in his opinion. I agree, and I think one way to turn their argument "if it were up to Torvalds, beauty and intuition would take a backseat to functionality" on its head is to ask oneself -- where would Linux be today if Linus had the opposite stance? I think it would be much more like Windows, with GUI components in the kernel for cheap graphic performance at the cost of a piss poor design that can and likely will lead to security holes and instability.

One contributing reason to why Linux looks and functions as well as it does today is because the kernel/OS designers have focused on the actual OS, and the graphic designers and GUI developers have focused on their thing. Linus is perhaps not a good GUI designer. Why not let him do the thing he enjoys most? This is an open source OS. Linus doesn't even need worry about the GUI, because there's very little of that tied into the Linux kernel. If Linux becomes popular enough, it'll attract the human-computer interface designers that enjoy doing that sort of development as much as Linus enjoys working on the kernel.

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

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Most people don't make system calls to change a directory. They use user space applicatons like a filemanager or a shell, usually from inside a window manager. Thus, to use a car analogy :-) one person says, "I hate the chevy v-8 because I hate the feel of their suspension." Another replies, "The v-8 is the engine. You hate the suspension." To which you are saying, "It doesn't matter, no one will ever want to use their v-8 if it can't corner, I prefer a 4 cylinder because it has CD player controls are more intuitive, anyway."

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

[hubie]

Isn't it amazing how stupid everyone has apparently become? I remember when the lowly secretary would type up professor's correspondences and papers using MSDOS and LaTeX. Now suddenly everyone is too mentally challenged to even consider such a thing.

Too many people act like my children: just because you are too lazy, unwilling, or incapable of learning or doing something doesn't necessarily mean the task is too hard or complicated.

Operating System != GUI

[jon3k]

" 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."

No.

Re:Operating System != GUI

[BobMcD]

That's true. This is also true: Requiring end-users to know nuclear physics will absolutely ensure that your customer-base consists entirely of nuclear physicists...

Wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Torvalds never said anything about what anyone 'should' view operating systems. He talked about how he views them, and talked about how he appreciated how people use it in new ways. What's wrong with you people?

Re:Wtf?

[zappepcs]

the same thing that is wrong with the article's author, and many other people. They believe that the OS/kernel **IS** the whole thing. Many cannot differentiate applications from the Windows OS if they had to. They simply do not remember when Window was a DOS APPLICATION and not sold complete with an OS bundled inside it.

Linus speaks about the kernel, and well he should.

Now, go talk with the Gnome developers or KDE developers about their piece...

OS? Yes, all the stuff that lies between the desktop and the kernel...

Thanks to MS not many people can imagine having to install an OS, then a windowing system, then a browser, then a ..... you get the picture

"Beauty" and "Intution" are not in Linus's hands

[nweaver]

Please remember, Linus is primarily a kernel maintainer. He's responsible for the under-the-line stuff that makes it such a great server OS.

But the user experience is largely the purvue of the Distros, their window managers, application suites, etc. And Linus is right, these are a disaster.

But saying he's divorced is silly, its never been his area of expertise or the area where he works.

Perhaps I am missing something

[wile_e_wonka]

My understanding of Linus' comment was that the operating system (Linux) should be invisible--he didn not say that distributions shouldn't have a UI.

In other words, Ubuntu, for example, is trying to make Linux appealing to an average person. They aren't, therefore, going to distribute the Os without a UI. The operating system in Ubuntu should be (and mostly is) invisible, and the user is interacting with Gnome or KDE or XFCE or whatever.

Ubuntu, then, I would say, is not departing from Linus' philosophy--they give you several choices of user interfaces through which you can do what you want with your computer, while the OS does the work invisibly.

What am I missing here. Computer World MUST know more about this than me.

Linux != Operating System

[corsec67]

Linux is just the kernel, right? GNU/Linux would be an operating system.

Ubuntu is an Operating System, that uses the Linux Kernel.
So is Gentoo, RedHat, CentOS, Mandrake, etc...

Is Linux From Scratch easy to use? I would say "not really"
How about Ubuntu? (Ubuntu, in the live disc, was able to recognize and use the wifi card and odd screen resolution on my laptop, so it very much gets my vote for "easy to use")

Does Linus speak for Red Hat, Novel, and SuSe? I wouldn't think so, unless he has invested enough in those companies to have a large enough share of the stocks.

Of course Linus speaks for Linux, since he is in charge of which patches get accepted into the stock kernel.

Re:FUD alert

[Annirak]

On top of the FUD above, CNET has likely confused the Window Manager with the OS. Beauty and intuition absolutely should take a back seat to functionality in an OS. Not so in a Window Manager, there it is important for beauty, intuition and usability to come to the forefront, which is what projects like compiz-fusion are all about.

Torvalds Speaks for Linux(TM)

[Doc Ruby]

Of course Torvalds speaks for Linux - the kernel. That's all he controls, with his trademark on "Linux" and his undisputed control of what is released in the kernel. So when he speaks, he speaks for that with authority.

He doesn't speak for any distro, never did, never claimed to. But that's part of the problem with calling, say, Ubuntu "Linux". Most of Ubuntu, or Red Hat, or aN4rCHi$tOS, or any other distro, is not the kernel. It's a lot of other software that's compatible with a Linux kernel it relies on. Most of which is usually GNU software, with its own spokespeople - who often disagree fundamentally with Torvalds. The people running those distro projects speak for them. And therefore they speak for what people call "Linux" more than Torvalds does.

And when they don't speak for someone who disagrees, that person is free to make their own "Linux" and speak for it.

I know the corporate mass media can't understand that kind of community ownership and independence. But Slashdotters should be able to tell the difference.

Re:FUD alert

[X0563511]

Mod up insightful!

The operating system itself should almost never be touched directly by the average user. The look/feel of the system however is not a part of the operating system itself, the "beauty and intuitiveness" is the responsibility of the GUI system (in linux, Xorg + Gnome/KDE/XFCE/etc)

Linus is right.

[Pathway]

Linus is right. Linux (The kernel) should be invisible to the end user. Gnome and KDE should be concerned about what the user sees.

--Pathway

What is the Operating System?

[cfulmer]

Unfortunately, the world has been corrupted by Microsoft's bizarre definition of an "Operating System." The following are applications, not part of the OS:

1. Freecell
2. The web-browser
3. Media player Player
4. e-mail client

Because MS has distributed these things with its operating system and, with a straight face, asked why the web browser wasn't part of the OS***, people now have a kitchen-sink view of the OS. I think Linus takes a minimalist view to the OS.

*** Many of the Windows/IE security issues can be traced back to the integration of IE into the operating system.

Define 'beauty'

[Zollui]

The command line by itself has a classical, austere beauty.

Differentiating the Whole from it's Parts

[DarkBlackFox]

The author of TFA's assumption is that Linus is "The Big Cheese" (TM) of all things Linux, and as such has influence over everything carrying the name. The big thing the author doesn't get is that Linux isn't one entity- it's the sum of a bunch of smaller entities working together. The kernel is different from the boot loader (grub/lilo), which is different from the graphical server (X), which is different from the desktop manager (kde/gnome), which is different from all the other apps running on top. The people that package it all together into distributions make it a usable operating system- Ubuntu, Red Hat, Mandriva, etc.

Linus doesn't really have any direct control over the distributions themselves, at least in terms of what features or programs they choose to bundle with the kernel to make usable. As such, there are distros specialized for just about every possible use- as a general desktop, server, embedded, small footprint, low power, etc. The versatility comes as a result of how the kernel was designed, even if it wasn't specifically designed for versatility.

It's time the Linux community finally wakes up and decides which way it will turn -- towards its roots or towards the features that the general public really wants. Until then, we'll have the old guard spewing their ideals, while the momentum of the operating system carries it away from its very foundation.

There are distributions going both ways- simple and complex. Look to something like Ubuntu/Kubuntu for a more windows-esque desktop experience out of the box. Look to something like Slackware to get "towards it's roots." The biggest strength of linux is that it isn't pinholed into one specific use or expectation, as the author asserts it is/was/should be. He doesn't "get it."

form or function

[PureCreditor]

Unix/Linux/BSD people wondered for years why the mainstream wouldn't adopt their OS, or open source for that matter. How would you expect a normal person to compile their own programs via command line input of a software they have to download at distribution sites? Heck, I have a masters in CS from a Top 10 compsci university in the US, and sometimes I wonder if i have all the library files I need to make the gcc work flawlessly. End-users dont have time for that. KDE and Gnome has been around much longer than MacOS X, and yet Mac's interface beats either of them hands them. Apple proved to us that given the right interface, people WILL embrace Unix. People are not anti-open source, but they're very much anti-command-line.

Another good example is mobile devices. Palm and Microsoft had YEARS of experience on how to refine their mobile experience. They have barely made incremental UI changes since their first release. Apple managed to put Unix in a handheld and make it so easy to use that it doesn't even come with a manual.

While I respect Torvalds to a great degree, he shouldn't engage in his form/functionality debate. He's the expert at making the OS internals flawless. Let other experts figure out how to turn his masterpiece into a usable design. Please don't try to mix filesystems designers with graphic designers.

And on a final unrelated note, to counter Torvald's argument that HFS is crap, we've been reading for nearly a year that Apple is ready to adapt ZFS. Once MacOS defaults to ZFS, it'll trounce any existing form of ext3. He really should be comparing the merits of ext3 against ZFS, the future, not the past. Otherwise we might as well discuss the Minix one too =)

Re:I don't think this is a real argument

[aneviltrend]

I agree with the parent. Too many people confuse the idea of an OS with the standard suite of applications that are shipped with it. When users say that they like the Windows OS or the Mac OS, what 99% of them mean is that they like the applications shipped with it. These applications include the window manager, mail software, file explorer, and others.

Linus is stating that the OS itself should take a back seat and be invisible to the user. And, ironically, this is why many people choose to use Windows and Mac over Linux: they know that, for the most part, they won't need to worry about how the kernel is interacting with their hardware setup and desktop applications. They don't need to know what file system or network adapter they are using, because that level of complexity is hidden well by the applications that are shipped with the operating system.

Where does this lead? I would venture that the two most popular reasons people don't use Linux are either: they don't know about it; or, they believe that it is too complex. The second reason comes straight back to the point that Linus is making: people have the perception that using Linux will require them to know more about their hardware or systems than they feel that they know. And, usually, they are wrong. I just believe that there are more utilities in Linux distros to mess with the operating system than there are in Windows or Mac (a result of being open source), but that using it on a daily basis requires no more knowledge than using the other two.

Re:FUD alert

[d34thm0nk3y]

That's what he's been doing for the last decade. Giving a few talks here and there doesn't mean 99% of his time isn't still devoted to the kernel.

I know, it was a joke pointing out the ridiculousness of the article premise.

Re:FUD alert

[morgan_greywolf]

Where the confusion comes in is that, at one time, 'operating system' referred to what we generally think of as a 'kernel' today, and 'operating environment' is what we applied to desktop GUIs. Then, one day, some stupid company named 'Microsoft' comes around and releases a product called 'Windows', making ludicrous claims that the 'operating system' and the 'GUI' were the same thing!

Unfortunately, this misnaming kinda stuck and Apple renamed its 'system' software to 'MacOS' and IBM and Microsoft released something that, together, they called 'OS/2'.

So now people think of 'Linux' as being an 'operating system' including things like what would come with 'Ubuntu': Gnome, X11, etc. Thing is Linux is the 'operating system' in the sense that it is a kernel. 'K/X/Ubuntu' is a complete package, containing an 'operating system', some 'system software' (GNU stuff, etc.) and an 'operating environment' consisting of one of [ Gnome | KDE | XFCE ].

This is what 'Windows' is, but Microsoft calls it an 'operating system'.

Ease of use is why I use Linux

[kimvette]

Ease of use is what makes me really love Linux.

Note I did not say ease of configuration: I have run Linux off and on since it had to be installed from a 7-floppy image, and that was back in 1992 or 1992, downloading them using kermit (OUCH!) over a 1200 baud modem. It was HARD to use then - hardware support was lacking, etc.

When the slackware CD distribution came out I ran that - I could get a very basic desktop running, but 8-bit only. By that time VLB was all the rage. and I had the infamous Diamond Stealth 32 VLB card. The ET4000 server would not run with this card because of some proprietary extensions to it, so I learned enough x86 assembly (I had come over to the PC from the C= and Amiga computers and programmed assembly on those) to write a utility which would probe the card's registers with various values, respond to keystrokes, and log the results. I finally figured out what needed to be set and I patched the X server to work - and had 24-bit color in X! I should have submitted that code and utility to the project but at the time I didn't know I could contribute to OSS projects.

Anyway, it was a pain in the ass to configure. Once it was configured, it was a pain in the ass to use. I had to view images from the command line? Launch GUI programs from the command line? If I wanted a menu, I had to edit a slew of poorly-documented .rc files? I liked FVWM over the alternatives and considering the state of Linux at the time my desktop was pretty slick, but it was by no means easy to use. I learned a heck of a lot on that system. When Gnome came out I ran gnome, on Redhat (and later Caldera Linux - don't laugh, at the time Caldera Linux was pretty good, and Caldera had not morphed into SCO and become spawn of Satan yet) - and thought KDE sucked wind (at the time it did).

Then, I went from a job which was 100% windows to one that was 150% windows - as in I worked in Windows at work for about 50-60 hours a week, then I had to do more work at home, on Windows (yes, I was a sucker working unpaid overtime for a dot-com, and got NOTHING from my stock options!). I had to dump Linux - but on the bright side my hardware worked! Well, I was on SMP systems (at home!) by then, so everything worked, well, except my Soundblaster Live! card because of the race condition Creative folks FINALLY admitted to only a few years ago when multi-core chips hit the market and SMP became mainstream.

Well, between then and 2005, Linux went and growed up big and strong - I guess Tux drank milk or took steroids or something. Bleeding-edge chipsets still didn't work well, USB was a little flaky, SATA was weak, but less-than-bleeding-edge hardware worked better, more reliably than Windows. On top of that, KDE was usable. No, not just usable - damn good. The best desktop environment I've ever used - and this includes both CDE (hated it, but it was easy to use!) and SGI's Indigo Magic (loved it! At the time, mid-90s, it was fantastic).

I dual booted Windows for a while. I used Windows about half the time, and Linux half the time. Then, KDE was updated (to 3.1 I think) - what a difference. On a dual Celeron with 1GB RAM, compared to Windows XP, performance was excellent. It was fast and responsive. I could open a SINGLE file browser and have multiple Windows - File Manager-like split views, Explorer-like tabbed views, multiple tree controls, PLUS I could seamlessly access FTP, SMB/CIFS, and SSH/Fish shares and drag and drop between them all! Not only that, with the customizable views, thumbnail views which were USABLE, and the various application preview plugins, Linux became more user-friendly than the Macintosh, more capable out of the box than Windows, and was actually supporting hardware pretty well.

Then, SuSE upgraded to the 2.6 kernel. This made all the difference in the world. Not only was the desktop more capable and easy to use than Windows, OS X, or $foo, most current hardware out of the box worked - better than Windows. USB became more reliable than Windows,

Semantics Nazi alert

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

Sorry, but it's not FUD. FUD is short for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". None of the three is being spread by CNET in this case.

Come on guys, English is not my first language. Try and keep it consistent for people like me. Call it "CNET is writing rubbish", or something more vigorous.

Re:FUD alert

[X0563511]

That really depends on your definition of "Operating System".

I'm inclined to agree with this definition.

operating system
-noun Computers.
the collection of software that directs a computer's operations, controlling and scheduling the execution of other programs, and managing storage, input/output, and communication resources. Abbreviation: OS
[Origin: 1960-65]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

In other words, the software that lets other software use the hardware. So, unless one was troubleshooting, programming, or engineering, I fail to see why the average user would be working directly with the Operating System.

My personal view is that Microsoft/Apple have poisoned the term "Operating System" to mean something entirely different: The distribution of programs with an operating system. For example: Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, and MacOSX are all collections of programs bundled with the operating system.

Re:set in stone

[hubie]

The funny thing (to me, at least) is that I needed to purchase some Vista licenses at work for some new computers we were putting together, and I had a hell of a time trying to figure out the five different Vista versions they offer. Did we really need Ultimate, or would the Business version work? What is this Enterprise version and how is it different than Business? Ultimately the decision was made for me because the difference in price (for the OEM versions, at least) wasn't worth wasting my time researching the differences.

Re:FUD alert

[debatem1]

Jesus, it's a term with two meanings, just crawl back under your bridge already.

Re:FUD alert

[drinkypoo]

I think the point is that the only things the user should ever have to see are the task switcher, task launcher, and their programs. We don't have this kind of thing today because... hell I don't know. Too many proprietary standards? Too much greed, leading to them? Too many idiots spoiling good things? A combination of all these and more, I guess. I don't think there's any conspiracy. But we have had some great stuff, like on the Amiga computers where you had great autoconfiguration, a fast (compared to the CPUs of the time) bus and a flat memory model. Drivers in controller rom, and a microkernel-based OS where it was easy to load them. Or on the OpenFirmware (and earlier relatives) based systems, where you have forth-based drivers in controller ROM, good enough to get the system up and running anyway. Very classy. Unfortunately the PC won, the least advanced platform in pretty much every way. I'm not getting into CISC vs. RISC because as we all know you can argue that one either way, all day, and every mainstream x86-ish processor since the AMD K5 has been RISC or at least fairly RISCy anyway... but I think most can agree that the x86 ISA is ugly, the legacy PC hardware is ugly, the PC BIOS is ugly, and the PC is just now beginning to leave those things behind with EFI gaining steam, the ISA buses having dropped completely out of most systems, and so on.

*Whew* Anyway look at the pattern in computing today, it's away from computers which are even convenient to change the hardware in! Sooner or later we won't even have replaceable parts any more, you'll just throw the whole computer away when it fails. Well, there really is no "away", really it will just be recycled. The whole system including the main storage will be in one big integrated circuit, probably inkjet-printed onto a piece of plastic, and with a battery glued on. The user won't even be able to change hardware, aside from adding on USB (well, hopefully it won't be USB any more) dongles and whatnot. There will probably be precious little of that as well, with most or all peripherals communicating wirelessly. So the user isn't going to ever think about drivers - the peripherals will communicate via standard protocols and won't even have their own drivers. And more and more people are excited about PDA-type devices since Apple finally delivered one that people want to use, and you generally just run one program at a time on such devices. The user of an iPhone or a PDA doesn't care what OS is beneath it as long as they can do the things they want to do. And most users of an iPhone in particular will never feel the lack of any application not delivered to them directly through the menus or a website. So why do they care about the OS?

The job of the operating system is to permit the user to do work (whether that work is actual work, or having fun, whatever.) The more the user has to interact with the OS itself, the less the OS is doing its job, and the more the OS is asking the user to do the job. I should never have to think about emptying the trash, for example. I should just be able to delete things, and the OS figures out which ones to remove and when. What fucking year is it anyway? Is there ANY operating system that behaves that way? I don't mean prompting me when I'm about to run out of disk space and I have stuff in the trash, either.