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."
More CNET FUD if you ask me. Although I'd probably do the same thing in their position. After all, their business is closely tied to the PC and, to a lesser extent, the Windows OS, so for every bit of ground gained by Linux, they can either risk losing relevance or have to expend time and money keeping up.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
STFU, you don't know a damn thing about the politics & semantics of FOSS & Linux & Linus Torvalds...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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?
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.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Linus writes/maintains the kernel last I checked. It's not the kernel that makes an OS easy to use, as the Mach Kernel isn't drastically different from an API standpoint, but OSX is much easier to use.
If we think Linux is hard to use, why not blame the people who write the higher level utilities rather than the kernel itself?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I don't think the term "Operating System" mean the same things to all people.
Linus was talking about the things that truly are invisible to the average user: the API, the filesystem, etc. Not the user interface. When you are speaking about operating systems with someone who has written one, it must be realized that all the terminology is not the same. Ubuntu is a distribution of linux, with a lot of work put into the UI. That is a good thing, but it is not the same thing as talking about device drivers.
OS X is, at that level, a BSD operating system, with a really good UI and a sort of half-assed filesystem (no flames, I use OS X boxes, and they work well, but the filesystem is really from an earlier era).
There is nothing that keeps the functionality of the low level OS from the elegance of a well crafted UI.
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 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.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
(Do I really need to add the
tag?)Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Dear CNET Kernel!=OS
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
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
The author seems to not be making a distinction between the Linux kernel (which Linus obviously can and should speak for) and the GNU/Linux distributions. While Linus' influence on the way major distributions package the OS may be minimal, he has a direct impact on the guts of them as long as he remains head of the kernel. He has direct control over how and when major changes (eg. udev, KVM, sysfs, ABI changes, etc.) get implemented into the 2.6 kernel which has a direct impact on the distributions. Personally I've disagreed with some of his opinions and I'm definitely not alone (eg. Con Kolivas), but to see his opinion doesn't matter for Linux is completely naïve and short sighted.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
the OS isn't seen by them, they're looking at applications running on top of the OS. User interface isn't the same thing as OS.
Linus Torvalds and others have said time and time again that the operating system he and the tech people speak of is the kernel of a distribution that end-users really shouldn't care about. Ubuntu, OS X, Windows are just "distributions" of a mixture of applications on top of a kernel (i.e OS). End-users are shielded from all the applications' (Gnome, KDE, OO.o, FF) abstractions built on top of kernel. It is in this sense that Linus believes that users shouldn't care about the OS (read as kernel) because it is expected to "just work". I think this pretty much wraps up the debate here. Go home now, nothing to see here.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating systems. Tack on GNU and you have some pretty good functionality. Add X or xorg and you get pretty pictures. Rip the fabric off your couch and you find a great deal of comfort has been sacrificed for functionality. You can also find $2.73 in loose change and some old peanuts. Ubuntu isn't Linux, it's the pretty fabric stretched across a framework of functionality. -Skip
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
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.
Perhaps the writer of TFA doesn't understand the s/w business in general or the Linux business in particular.
Linus (should) speak to his customers, the "technical people" who build the distros or some other product where they need to get down into the nuts and bolts of the O/S.
Each of these "technical people", the creators of Ubuntu, OpenSuse, or some product with embedded Linux needs to speak to their customers in turn. That's the beauty of Linux. Its a tool that can solve multiple problems without bothering the end user with the details of the underlying implementation.
Off-topic bit starts here:
That's why Google succeeds and Mic-Yah-ro-hoo-soft will fail. Microsoft expects all of its consumers to be immediately aware of the existence of the Microsoft brand name in all of their interactions with third party applications. Google, OTOH, does quite a bit of business with third parties, but in many cases, its difficult to tell unless you happen to watch the browser status bar when a Google domain name zips by, loading an ad. Most third party vendors don't want their market presence prefixed by a big, flashing banner Brought to You by Microsoft: and then their business name below that in small print.
Its the same with the Linux kernel.
Have gnu, will travel.
The command line by itself has a classical, austere beauty.
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."
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 =)
Typical CNET logic: Proclaim Linus' preference that beauty and intuition would take a backseat to functionality - and the problem that they have with this - wait for it - that the design and usability factor (sic) are more important, therefore Win and OS X are better for people than Linux, and from this - or as if it is in support - we arrive at Linus possibly no longer speaking for Linux.
..."
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I didn't RTFA and I'm not going to RTFA. Whenever I hear logic like this, it makes me reach for my revolver.
And while I'm in the mood, don't get me started on how CNET isn't really complaining about Linux, it's GNU part - you know, the part that seems to be always denied by not using the proper name, GNU/Linux, but always gets trundled out as a defense mechanism.
I hate the smell of bad logic. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
And for anyone tempted to not get it - this post isn't flamebait. It's a retaliation against the slagging my intelligence was just given.
Maybe I'd be in a better mood if the summary went, "An anonymous reader laughed his fucking ass off when he saw this crap, and thought - correctly - that any of us in a bad mood might find fun in slagging CNET. Here's their latest proof that journalist with IQs below 50 can get a job at CNET - because they know their market:
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
... please do not feed the troll?
Ease of use is what makes me really love Linux.
.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).
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
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,
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Linux is bigger than Linus, and he's perfectly willing to admit that. FOSS is bigger than Linus Torvalds, or Richard Stallman, or any of the other luminaries whose names we hear bandied about from time to time. It's bigger than any of us, and that's the way it should be.
Linus never claimed to be the standard-bearer of a new era of computing. He never claimed to be the successor to Richard Stallman (or to Bill Gates, for that matter). He never claimed to be the chief architect of an open source operating system. He's a kernel developer. And a damn good one, too -- but at the end of the day, that's all he is, and all he claims to be. And he's fine with that.
And he knows that the job of a good piece of software is to get its job done without calling attention to itself. Linux does that admirably. It is unfortunately a lesson that Microsoft will never learn.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Linus is heading the Linux kernel development and he's doing a pretty good job at that. He does not, and has never, "spoken for" the Linux community as a whole.
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.
Im not sure what your point is... as I said: "Operating System's influence on this is rather limited" I didnt say that it was completely irrelivant what OS the GUI was running on... how the GUI looks and performs is based on how the Base window system is coded (ie: X11) however you can add layers to this (ie: GTK+, or DirectX) which allow even more possibilities.
Your TCP/IP example proves this....
HTTP, XMPP, SSH are all based on TCP, TCP is based on IP... so no matter how "unreliable" IP may be, its reliability can be improved depening on the layers added themselves, or how many layers are added, at the expense of certain things like Performance. such as StarDock WindowBlinds can achieve many many things that Windows Interface unto itself cannot, however at the expense of performance.
There are many things I think should be improved, from the kernel on upwards, but if I can't back that with code of the necessary quality and with arguments of the necessary strength, my opinion isn't worth a half-rotted electron. But as pathetic and limited as my presence is, I am of heroic stature, of legendary skill and might, compared to the dross thar calls itself CNET.
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)
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.
> "Beauty" and "Intution" are not in Linus's hands
They are! Except that Linus is not talking about applications. If you look at the quotes in the article you'll see that he is talking about the superiority of the Linux programming environment, not anything an average Joe is thinking about. As a programmer, I certainly agree that he is right; Linux is a far better development platform than Windows and MacOS. No, I'm not talking about KDE; I'm talking about the OS interface, the UNIX way, the filesystem API, and all that.
I think it's a good marketing goal. It has made it comparably easy to give the users the choice of desktop environment, and if they don't care, they can just pick Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS or some newbie friendly distro and not care about it.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
In the green corner weighing...maybe 45 pounds, its Linus and his team of loyal zealot fans
In the red corner weighing....maybe 10% market share, it's MacOS and it's loyal zealot fans
Who will win in the fight of the decade? Who's bugs will triumph. You too can gamble your future by becoming intimately familiar with one of these Operating Systems and ignoring the other (plus the other mainstream elephant in the kitchen!!!). Tickets are selling fast. Price is your loyal zealothood and your soul. Hurry in today!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Electron is way too busy running around to even ask for credit.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Given the choice, I'd pick Torvalds over RMS any day.
Although the analogy's not perfect, Torvalds is the Steve Jobs of the OSS world, whilst RMS is Ballmer.
(And please don't view this as 100% of a flame. RMS's contributions to the Open Source world have been vast. However, I don't think he's particularly good as a spokesman or to be "at the helm" of Open-Source development. He's also a bit too stubborn on his ideologies, as shown with the GPLv3 debacle.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
YOU FORGOT ABOUT ELECTRONS! THEY're doing the work! No Networking without ELECTRONS! Copper cables are just the ominous tubes, they're running through... Oh, and don't forget photons either! More and more tubes are made of optical conductors. Although they give their data to electrons at either end, so electrons should get the flowers...
EOF
I do not understand why the poster of this sees Linus' behaviour as a problem. Afterall, when we talk about "Linux" we talk about a lot more than the kernel. Let Linus keep his head in the technical details... let him go for functionality. It'll get us a better kernel and improve whatever is above it. Let the Gnome and KDE people worry about the users.
Newsflash! Quarks on strike for more pay, recognition. Film at 11!
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.