Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease"

Hugh Pickens writes "In the aftermath of Microsoft's recent decision to contribute 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community, Christopher Smart of Linux Magazine talked to Linus Torvalds and asked if the code was something he would be happy to include, even though it's from Microsoft. 'Oh, I'm a big believer in "technology over politics." I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues,' says Torvalds. 'I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.' Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft. 'I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own itches." It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree,' says Torvalds. 'So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That's the point of open source — the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the "your" in question happens to be.'"

Comments

"Technology over politics"...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the sexiest thing to come from the Linux community in forever.

Good for him

[AndrewBuck]

I'm no fan of microsoft either however I think Linus really does have the interests of the kernel and the greater linux community at heart. I agree with him that we need to be very careful to make sure there are no potential licensing issues involved here but as long as the lawyers give it a good look and make sure there are no hidden patent claims, etc. then I think there is no reason not to include the code in the kernel.

-Buck

RMS is spinning in his grave

[linzeal]

RMS is going to helicopter out of his grave. 'The Ride of the Valkyries' is going to start playing and innocent civilians will be killed. Theo will say he loves the smell of 'Fresh Napalm in the Morning'. Mark my words.

Re:RMS is spinning in his grave

[lxs]

What is he doing in his grave? Last thing I heard he was still alive.

Re:RMS is spinning in his grave

[jeremyp]

Trying to get out.

Re:RMS is spinning in his grave

[Anonymous Coward]

"What is RMS doing in his grave?"

Making sure it's sufficiently open, of course.

Not a disease, Tribalism

[Sarusa]

I mostly agree with him, but just to be anal (nerdly prerogative)... Stupid, irrational fanboyism isn't really a disease, it's just tribalism. We're apes. We choose some stupid tribe to identify with, be it PS3 or XBox or Windows or Linux or Mac whatever and death to all outsiders. The more underdog the group, the more rabid the members are (Linux, Mac, Amiga). Religion is one of the best, if not the best, strategies for cementing loyalty and killing all competitors, so it shouldn't be a surprise that even something as secular as this takes on strongly religious overtones.

Not so strangely, as Linux continues to spread its influence the fanbase is getting less stupidly polarized (but then the old guard entrenches further, to combat this 'threat'). Generally this eases up as you get older and your penis stops ruling your brain, but not always.

Re:Not a disease, Tribalism

[HermMunster]

I don't think we are trying to become a tribe. I think we are trying to undo the decades of abuse Microsoft preyed on us using their monopoly.

What many of you don't understand here is that Linus has been desperately seeking to have Microsoft write programs for Linux to validate his efforts for at least a decade. He even said that if they do then he's won.

I think Linus doesn't understand much outside his purview. He hasn't really focused on what affects our pocketbooks, our future, and our goals. We want to have applications and game developers write their product for Linux. But when you have a company that threatens the industry with 235 alleged patent violations and then shuts down OpenGL support, then stacks the deck with DRM (at the core of the OS), and then says that they will kill Linux by such and such a year. Well, there's reason for the hatred. The community wants untainted product so that in the years when Microsoft is in serious decline they can't keep coming back holding a knife to the community's throat in an effort to stave off their own demise (which is inevitable).

I dislike many things, spinach is one of them, and yet I have a disease because I hate it? Likewise with other foods and other things. I tend to dislike those that rip me off, yet I am suffering a disease due to that dislike?

The guy really needs to know when to open his mouth and when not to. For instance, he should talk less about disease and more about how to make Linux a better product and to speak with influence to those hardware vendors and software vendors to create an environment where we can just do our own things and not be influenced by Microsoft.

Re:refreshing

[gavron]

It IS refreshing to hear level-headed guys say that the FOSS community will happily accept code from those who won't turn on the community and sue it. Microsoft clearly is NOT one of those entities. They have sued as recently as this year (see FAT32 and TOMTOM) and they have funded other suits in the past years (see SCO vs IBM, www.groklaw.com). Microsoft isn't a "partner". They are the snake you let into your home to embrace, extinguish, and "extend" your neck.

It would be refreshing to see their decline in sales (http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218600533) and in share value to continue. They've spent two decades making their bed -- mostly by ripping the feathers off of real contributors like Novell, Digital Equipment Corporation, etc. Let them lie in it.

E

Re:Um, no

[The Archon V2.0]

If hating a company that lies, cheats, and steals its way to the top is a "disease", then I don't want to be well.

If you hate anything so much that you injure yourself or your cause in the process of avoiding it, then yes, you have a disease.

I disagree

[nurb432]

I think its quite healthy to dislike ( ok, hate ) an entity whose stated goal is to wipe you from the face of the earth. We arent talking about some bully in a school yard, we are talking about a well funded organized corporation that wants you eradicated..

Re:Generally respect Linus

[garcia]

Microsoft created the disease. Microsoft is the cancer on software--and I'm sure we all have heard Microsoft claim Linux is a cancer on software.

I used to be like you. I really cared about all the drama that surrounds Microsoft vs Linux and then later, in my mid-twenties and continuing into my thirties, I stopped giving a shit. Why? Because it just doesn't matter anymore. I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary. He wants you to stop concentrating on the bullshit and start concentrating on what matters--supporting what you want to support.

I can definitely drink to that and I think I will. Bell's Lager FTW. Cheers.

Re:free software and open source

[digitalunity]

Most open source development is a symbiotic relationship between developers. Each developer builds upon others work to create an even better work, often to fill their own needs. Few developers can carry a large project alone, so in that way, each developer relies on each other developer to bring to fruition a complete software product.

Linus is right in that most OSS development is for selfish reasons, but the net effect is a benefit to the developer community as a whole because of license requirements to share. The result is that each selfish act is inherently beneficial for the community also.

I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

Re:refreshing

[Draek]

Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

That's what Linus is warning against, just because you hate them doesn't mean you have to leave your rationality aside.

Re:free software and open source

[Macthorpe]

This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.

Because more choice is better than less. Isn't that the FOSS way?

Um, no to Re:Um, no

[baboo_jackal]

GP is talking about the fact that Dave Cutler, the dude who architected VMS at DEC later went to work for Microsoft and ended up architecting Windows NT. Either GP is ignorant of this fact, or they were being intentionally misleading and trying to imply that someone at Microsoft stole something from VMS. Which isn't true. (unless you count Cutler's freely choosing to change jobs "stealing" somehow.)

Re:free software and open source

[derGoldstein]

I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

One of the biggest problems with OSS developers is short memory spans. Your description of Microsoft's history in regards to OSS was "diplomatic", moderate, and well-mannered. This is good when addressing people who aren't versed in the ongoing "struggle" between OS and proprietary software.
I, on the other hand, am willing to sound like the neck-bearded 'FLOSS' hippie:
MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.
The most important thing to remember is: Nothing has changed. They've not changed their stance on the issue, not by a micron. The only change is that they've become more subtle and press-friendly about it.

I reserve the word "hate" for extreme situations, but I will say that I do not trust Microsoft and will not develop anything that depends on any technology that they maintain, or have significant influence in.

Stuff like this is why I side with Linus, not RMS

[Trerro]

MS released a server product. They recognized that for it to be as profitable as possible, it needed to support Linux, so they produced the drivers to make that happen.

Result: MS makes more money, Linux is usable on more systems. Everyone's happy.

Obviously MS only cares about the money part, but who cares as long as:
1. The code is of sufficient quality. (The reviewers will determine this.)
2. There's valid reason to include it. (There is.)
and 3. They're not trying to exert control or otherwise screw with the Linux model (they GPLed this code, so they pretty much can't.)

There's a LOT of reasons to fear some of MS' moves, especially when it comes to open source, but in this case, we're simply looking at a business decision that happens to be beneficial to all parties involved, so why not just take the code (assuming it doesn't suck) and move on? There are MS decisions that need to be fought, but I really, really, don't think this one of them.

Re:free software and open source

[node 3]

Because more choice is better than less. Isn't that the FOSS way?

Not really. Choice is the Open Source way. Free is the Free Software way.

"FOSS" is a sort of amalgam of two similar, but fundamentally different, philosophies.

Re:free software and open source

[drsmithy]

Oh, okay. I didn't realise it was "Freedom, but only on our terms". I thought it was just "Freedom".

The correct term is "GNU/Freedom".

This helps to distinguish it from regular "freedom".

Re:What?

[Blakey Rat]

Do you honestly believe the whole open source movement depends on people uniting around a hatred for Microsoft, as opposed to sharing a love for innovation and technology?

As a relatively neutral observer on this forum (my favorite OS was Mac OS 9.2.2 to give you an idea), it seems to me that the Linux community *is* based around hatred for Microsoft. Look at all the paranoid anti-Microsoft loons on this board who won't change their minds even after their greatest idol says they're acting stupid.

Maybe Slashdot isn't representative of the Linux community, but if it's not-- what is?

Re:free software and open source

[hairyfeet]

Thanks it has been awhile since I actually had to look up an argument. Notice how quick the RMS zealots downmodded me, that is funny as shit. I've got karma all day baby!

Lets be honest here folks, image matters! Does anybody actually believe that Steve Jobs is sitting there in some workshop cooking up the next iGadget? NO! But the man has presence and style, and he brings a level of cool to the company. Same as Bill had that "evil supernerd" thing going on. So who do we see all over the place representing Linux? RMS. linus has always been more low key and probably doesn't get 1/5th the press of RMS. So yeah, the fact that he thinks eating toe junk on fricking stage is cool matters. The fact that he won't give interviews unless you speak "RMS language" matters. Hell the guy even calls himself a squatter on the MIT campus. And finally you want relevant? How about this: Linux, whose big selling point is how well it works with the web, is taking pointers from a guy who doesn't actually browse the web.

Look, just because a guy once upon a time did something great does not make him a savior or expert now. Hell even Linus won't put the kernel under GPL V3 because he believes that RMS has pushed it too far. Bill and Steve couldn't ask for a better spokesman for Linux if they tried. The man just gets farther and farther from mainstream every single damned day. So the Linux guys need to ask themselves a question: Do you want a shot at the title? or do you wanna stay a niche? Because RMS is a guy that wouldn't even allow the wireless on his OLPC because it didn't have a driver that matched his "four freedoms".

And finally any guy who would allow himself to be quoted saying this does NOT need to be looked upon as a major spokesman for Linux "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.". Ooooookay. Seriously, how much fucking creepier does the man have to get before the community stops listening to this dude? Notice I don't hide behind Anon coward. I don't because I think Linus is a MUCH better spokesman and once everyone stops treating RMS as all that and a bag of chips the better. RMS does nothing now but hurt the cause, especially with crap pouring out of his mouth like the above.