Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
" 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
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'.
My blog