Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Takes Issue With De Icaza's Linux Desktop Claims
An anonymous reader writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds has poured scorn on claims made by the co-founder of the GNOME Desktop project, Miguel de Icaza, that he (Torvalds) was in any way to blame for the lack of development in Linux desktop initiatives. De Icaza wrote in his personal blog: 'Linus, despite being a low-level kernel guy, set the tone for our community years ago when he dismissed binary compatibility for device drivers. The kernel people might have some valid reasons for it, and might have forced the industry to play by their rules, but the Desktop people did not have the power that the kernel people did. But we did keep the attitude.'"
Update: 09/02 18:39 GMT by U L : The original source of the comments (and an exciting flamewar between Free Software heavyweights).
I got you beat. I have 4 laptops in my house all using some version of mint from 11. They all work just fine for the 4 of us even with three of the people wife/kids being casual users. People not into computers could care less about eye candy cosidering most computer usage will be browsing the web or office work. So why do you need some compicated bloat ware for opening programs or changing the desktop background.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This type of continual ABI breakage is not seen in both the Mac and Windows worlds
And nor is it seen in the BSD world, since they don't keep breaking ABI or API compatibility.
What's worse is that every variable in the Linux subsystem is versioned, be it the library version, the compiler, the version of GTK or Qt, and so on. Trying to mix and match them would just numerically be a nightmare - never mind that in most Linux distros, they don't test out all these. In short, all this 'openness' just contributes to making a mess of things from a compatibility standpoint.
Is C. GNOME is still 98% built using C which is crazy in this day and age. And not modern, pretty nice c99, but ancient c89 because the latest GNOME has to compile on some 20 year old Solaris workstation otherwise Sun wont support the project. Now Sun is gone and Oracle doesn't give a shit. Novell has given up on using GNOME as a way to push Mono and only Redhat remains. Maybe stuff will change now because previously gnome has been incredibly resistant to change that is not initiated from within one of those three companies.
I want to see more changes in Gnome not less. And I want them to finally realize that they are spending 10x as much effort writing gui components in C as they would have in C#, Java or any other managed language.
Football Odds
... mess that computers, particular PCs, are in, blame the peripheral industry. Some of this blame also belongs to Microsoft when they made it easy in DOS and BIOS for peripheral makers to effectively add drivers. But this is a very small blame because the full scope of what we could have had not even been envisioned. Flexibility was needed for new kinds of devices and peripherals. But the peripheral industry abused this by making new devices of the same class operate differently in too many cases. Access to floppies and IDE hard drives escaped a lot of this just because those were boot devices, and adding BIOS drivers increased the price. The peripheral makers could not even establish compatibility standards within their own product lines. So many new models of a device simply failed to be compatible with the previous interface (and driver) even if all you wanted to do was do the same old things of the previous model. This was not just a case of manufacturers trying to protect some kind of intellectual property or lock people in to their own product.
What was needed was a generalized model of how a CPU based host would access peripherals. A message based model would still have provided plenty of flexibility to expand the capabilities of new devices, as well as the ability to move more device drivers into user space, outside of the kernel. Ideally, all that was needed was one message bus controller interface design, and one driver to operate it to send and receive messages and status reports. Beyond that a ring of trusted device driver processes could be used. Combined with some community and market pressure to maintain compatibility over short time frames (about 8 to 10 years), devices could easily be interchangeable with minimal driver changing.
Then every once in a while, a class of device would have its standard message interface/protocol upgraded to a new version, and it would be expected that all new devices would adopt that. And this could still be done with full compatibility with the previous version via a version code in the basic standard message header. The new version would include a standard way to access features that were generally available now and had been implemented via extensions in the previous message protocol version.
Linus is not to blame. He just gets blamed sometimes because his vision of making the Linux kernel more usable for everyone sometimes means others might have to do a little more work to keep up (any vision would, but his is the one we see).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Agree or disagree with Miguel, Linus, Cox, or whomever... The simple point remains that just over a decade ago hardly anyone ran a Unix desktop. Linux looked poised to change that. But today, the most prevalent desktop OS isn't Linux, it's OS X. All the posturing and blaming and theorizing is great and all, but lost in all the bickering is the simple fact that Linux has yet to come out on top in the consumer space (minus embedded), and at this point no longer looks poised to ever do so. That may be fine for some, but for many the dream of an open source consumer PC OS is slipping away. I commend Miguel for at least being willing to say why he thinks so, rather than going on pretending the failure isn't a huge letdown to many of us. He may not be right about the why, but at least he's willing to admit the 'what', which is light years further than many in the community *cough* Stallman *cough* have been able to do.
Then why is Miguel crying about Linux "setting the tone" then?
Because "setting the tone" is something that happens on a social level, and has nothing at all to do with the technical capability of running on one operating system or another?
I beg to differ. Evolution was for me *the* killer app of Gnome.
As someone who worked on a helpdesk supporting commercial linux software in a 100% FOSS environment I needed a powerful mail client to replace mutt (and all the associated power user features) when the CEO mandated we send all our email in HTML. The only mail client at the time that came even close was Evolution, and it had great features for managing a mailbox where I received 100+ emails a day.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
Miguel hasn't done an original project, period; his initial project Midnight Commander was a Norton Commander rip off. Then he got excited and took GTK, Gimp Tool Kit to build a desktop because he found the original non-GPL QT license that KDE used offensive, so Gnome is a KDE work-a-like (well tries to be a work-a-like); after that he did a .net rip-off called mono. After that he went over to the darkside and actually worked for Microsoft.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds