Slashdot Mirror
Does OpenStack Need a Linus Torvalds?
BButlerNWW writes in with a story that speculates about the need for a marquee name to head OpenStack. "OpenStack has been dubbed by some enthusiasts as the Linux of the cloud — an open source operating system for public or private clouds. But there's one stark difference between the two projects: OpenStack doesn't have a Linus Torvalds, the eccentric, outspoken, never-afraid-to-say-what-he-thinks leader of the Linux world. Torvalds personifies Linux in many ways. OpenStack doesn't have that one central figure right now. The question is: Does OpenStack need it? Some would argue yes. Torvalds, because of the weight he holds in the project, calls the shots about how Linux is run, what goes in, what stays out of the code, and he's not afraid to express his opinions. He provides not only internal guidance for the project, but also an exterior cheerleading role. Others would say OpenStack does not need a Torvalds of its own. The project is meant to be an open source meritocracy, where members are judged based on their code contributions to the project. OpenStack has been fighting an image that the project is just full of corporate interests, which is part of the reason Rackspace ceded official control of the project to the OpenStack Foundation recently."
Linus specifically set up Linux development to not be dependent on him by creating git. People don't technically have to build from his own tree, but people do because they trust their experience with working with him.
You cannot just install a Torvalds into OpenStack. If there is no Torvalds of OpenStack, it's because no one is technically qualified or has the reputation for it.
This kind of reasoning is purely cargo cult management. You would think people have learnt to stop thinking in cargo cult ways by now.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
GNU/Linux on the desktop is easier to use than Microsoft Windows and it "just works" 99% of the time for the majority of people currently running Microsoft Windows.
Ubuntu... So. Many. Tiny. Bugs. So many insignificant little bugs, like I click on the volume icon and when I move my mouse to the slider, it still thinks I'm holding the button down. Like I can't change file associations intuitively. The interface allows it ("always open using this program") but it doesn't work. Every time I reboot, I set Chrome as my default browser. Ruby 1.8 by default while other developers are screaming at me for not having upgraded to 1.9. The GUI changes more often than I change my underwear. One year it's classic Gnome, the next it's Unity, the next Unity's out again. If I open a certain application (haven't exactly figured out which one, I've narrowed it down to 3 now) the Skype notifications don't appear anymore in the bottom-right corner of the screen (instead, the pixels in the rectangle that should contain the notification are "frozen" for a few moments until the notification rectangle disappears).
I don't know about other distributions, but Ubuntu still needs some polishing until it's ready to ship to intermediate users. I'm saying intermediate because beginners won't notice these small bugs and experts will fix them themselves.
as a "just works" freeware replacement for Windows, it's been a bust.
It also makes a terrible cheese grater, and the last time I tried to drive it to the store it turned out Linux isn't even tangible, let alone a serviceable automobile.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What does Windows have to do with Linux? For that matter, what does Windows have to do with 'just works'? Why do you think Linus' influence over the kernel - and nothing but the kernel - has stopped Linux distributions from 'replacing' Windows for 'average people'?
Hint: it is not Linus which kept Linux distributions from 'replacing' Windows for 'average people'. It is money and corporate politics.
And Linux is not 'freeware'. It is free software. Look up the difference if you want, these things are not the same.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Awww, did someone's widdle kernel patch get rejected...?
I second this statement - except I'm not going to hide behind the allure of anonymous coward, I'll use my own god-damned nick and say it - Linux is not "easier to use" than Windows. Sure, it's easy if you already know how to use it but half the reason windows has become so entrenched is because people now know how to use it and frankly, even the likes of Ubuntu (which goes a long way to narrow the gap) don't go far enough to make things easy for the user.
Seriously, it's this simple - if you have to drop down to the command line for anything, you have failed "ease of use". I'm not saying you never have to open the CLI on Windows, just that you have to do it a lot less often than on *nix.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Here's where the GNU-slash "zealots" may actually have a point. You've just committed the common error of confusing the Linux kernel for the operating system that consists of various other pieces, including but not limited to the system software produced by the GNU project. Linus Torvalds has a significant say only on the Linux kernel.
If you want proof, Google no further than Linus's unflattering comments about Gnome 3. Did the Gnome developers rip out Gnome Shell after Linus dubbed Gnome 3 an "unholy mess"? Any "improvements" to the Gnome 3 user XP are due more to the collective howl of the Net than to any Linus rant.
I think you might have to think this through again with the launch of Windows 8. The new interface means that a lot of people no longer "know how to use it." The desktop paradigm that everyone has been using for decades is still there, but Microsoft seems to be doing their best to hide it. But I must agree with you about the cli. I use it constantly on both Windows and OS X, but then I learned in the days of DOS. Most of my high school CS students have no idea it even exists, much less have any idea how to use it. I get a lot of looks of fascination and horror when they see me use it.
I have no idea. With something like Proxmox I download it, install it and start running KVM and OpenVZ machines. Easy. With OpenStack, I go to their web site and I find nothing but a bunch of marketing crap. Cynical me just looks around there and thinks that some companies have got together to make something look open and look as if there might be some open source code and downloads 'somewhere', but there aren't. This is all to try and protect their expensive 'real' products that they know are probably under threat from a truly open source competitor but they just want to muddy the waters.
I think Joel Spolsky or someone once called it 'fire and motion'.
Linus made a project to make a UNIX like operating system. He found like minded individuals that wanted to help on USENET. I still look fondly back at the old days of trying to get the build to work. Later own I was able to have CDs mailed to me from people like CheapBytes that made the work so much easier (I don't missed the days of dialup internet). Eventually RedHat came around and I was hooked. Through it all Linus kept the project on course.
It takes a lot of discipline to take an idea from a post on USENET in 1991 to what Linux is today. His discipline and stewardship is worth way more than any code that he contributed to the cause.
Okay I used up my "stick up for Linus" allowance for the year.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...