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!
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?
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/
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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