Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Explodes at Red Hat Developer
sfcrazy writes "Quite a lot of people raised their eyebrows the way ex-Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett made Microsoft the 'universal' control of any desktops PCs running with UEFI secure boot. Though the intentions of Garrett were clear — to enable GNU/Linux to be able to run Linux on Windows 8 certified PCs with secure boot; it was clearly putting Microsoft in a very powerful position. Linus, while a supporter of secure boot, exploded at Garrett and Howells when they proposed its inclusion in the kernel. Linus responded: 'Guys, this is not a d*#@-sucking contest. If you want to parse PE binaries, go right ahead. If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's *your* issue. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with the kernel I maintain. It's trivial for you guys to have a signing machine that parses the PE binary, verifies the signatures, and signs the resulting keys with your own key. You already wrote the code, for chissake, it's in that f*cking pull request.'"
Update: 02/25 17:24 GMT by U L : The headline/article are misleading, since mjg seems to agree that the patch is a bit complicated : "(I mean, *I'm* fine with the idea that they're *@#$ing idiots and deserve to be miserable, but apparently there's people who think this is a vital part of a business model)". The issue at hand is a set of patches to load and store keys inside of a UEFI PE binary which is then passed to the kernel, which then extracts the keys from the binary. It's absurd, it's messy, and it's only needed because Microsoft will only sign PE binaries so not supporting it makes restricted boot even more difficult to support.
Well.. we have found Steve Ballmer's account name on Slashdot apparently...
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself.
Kinda puts that whole 'dick-sucking contest' comment in a whole new light, doesn't it?
I'd love to see the two having an argument.
me to better understand the issue here?
Given that Linux is running on everything from my phone to my sat-nav to (some of) my clients to (some of) my servers and just about every oddball bit of embedded hardware in my entire workplace, I don't think Linux is suffering much.
And what he's basically doing is telling MS, and MS sycophants, that he doesn't want an OS where MS has to "sign off" on any changes in the bootloaders, etc. to make sure they are "secure". It's like being told that all pensions in the world now have to be signed off by Robert Maxwell, who can revoke your ability to use yours (even if you're nothing to do with him) on a whim.
The day MS lets in a bit of code into their OS that lets Linus turn off any and all Windows machines he wants - whether on a whim or for a good reason - and that they have to run past him every time they want a change made, that's the day I'll let someone put MS-signed junk into a Linux kernel that I use.
The "fix" seems to have included parsing PE binaries inside the linux kernel. That deserves getting shouted at. What you don't understand is that Linus doesn't care if more people adopt linux if it requires making the architecture smell bad.
I dunno... If you read the entire conversation in context it's not that bad and seems more like a slight fist shaking rather than explosion.
If Linus wasn't the person he was with the ideals he have Linux would have been as relevant as Minix or Haiku today.
Yes, he acts like an ass sometimes, usually when someone makes a choice that isn't viable in the long term.
I'd be interested to know how you can separate words like "free" and "open" (as in "free" and "open source" software) from ideology.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Someone needs to tell him that it's hard enough to get people to adopt your OS with 3 million competing distros, much less with the leadership of an egotistical ass who takes every opportunity to scream like bipolar child at anyone who tries to actually help.
Linux is a kernel. Not an OS.
The only thing Garrett was doing in this case was recognizing a problem going forward, and fixing it.
Attempting to make the Linux kernel dependent on Microsoft is exacerbating a problem.
Now hold on, everyone criticizes GNOME, and why condemn Linus for making a perfectly valid observation about the OpenBSD team?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So I wasn't clear... Linus is saying he is against merging the code into the kernel, right?
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself. And every time it looks like Linux might achieve even a modicum of success, his overinflated ego is always there to ruin it.
Someone needs to tell him that it's hard enough to get people to adopt your OS with 3 million competing distros, much less with the leadership of an egotistical ass who takes every opportunity to scream like bipolar child at anyone who tries to actually help. The only thing Garrett was doing in this case was recognizing a problem going forward, and fixing it. And Torvalds tears his head off for it. He thinks everything has to be a big heroic stand--with him as hero, of course.
Well, if you read the mail conversation you'll know the majority of developers came out in agreeance with Linus and his views.on the matter. He has said he's tried being nicer, it just isn't him though. He is usual right though and when wrong accepts it. He is an extremely good maintainer regardless of peoples opinions on him.
glad Linus knows better than to let microsoft skullfuck him,
:)
"attaboy" Linus! Kudos
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself...
This is an absurd troll. Linux IS Linux and he's free to do whatever he wishes in that regard. But, anyone with any understanding of the issue at all would clearly see that Linus is right. Microsoft has successfully leveraged it's monopoly status in the PC industry by implementing secure boot where they and they alone hold the keys to even BOOT a PC.
Implementing wedges or incorporating Microsoft's binaries into your code to boot your distribution is your option. But, expecting Linus to accept it into the kernel, when he has repeatedly made it clear that he will not incorporate non-free binaries, let alone this Microsoft root kit is asinine and ludicrous.
The more I learn about the developers within the tight circle of the Linux kernel the more elite and prickish they sound. That doesn't mean they aren't talented and can do a good job it's just a different environment than one I'd ever want to work in. It's extremely hostile with many competitors (windows, apple) trying to get you to conform so they control you.
Linus is that grizzly old man in the log cabin who owns 20,000 acres of timber that the logging companies desperately want. Except he has a gun, and he never wears any pants.
Well, as soon as they can get over this ideological bullshit and act like professionals, then, maybe, the year of linux on the desktop might magically materialize.
I use Linux because I feel it is the best Free and Open environment. Note those ideological words? OK, sibling comment says that, but it doesn't say this: I feel it has become that because of the ideology, not in spite of it. I give a fuck if everyone else runs the same operating system I am. And in any case, Android is continuing to gain market share. I figure it's got the best chance right now to become Linux on the desktop, I'll just back it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sounds like that other person that is really annoying... Oh yea RMS... Annoying as hell, but free software would not be in such a good position where it is now if it was not form him.
While Linus outbursts could make few pople nervous, I really start to hate such comments which are really aimed to get some mod points without saying anything true. But of course, everyone loves look for blame, so it works.
"He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself. And every time it looks like Linux might achieve even a modicum of success, his overinflated ego is always there to ruin it."
I really hope that he loves himself, because that would mean he is healthy thinking person. That's actually requirement to survive this harsh world. If you loath yourself, then I really pitty you.
About rest of this paragraph - his outburst ruins any success, really? Either you are not fully informed or ignorant. You know what GPL means? That means that Ubuntu and Fedora can do as they want, as they release patches in public. They are not obliged to have it in mainline kernel - and neither Linus is obliged to support them. He maybe splits hair at first, but then he justifies his POV quite clearly. It's technical decision.
"Someone needs to tell him that it's hard enough to get people to adopt your OS with 3 million competing distros, much less with the leadership of an egotistical ass who takes every opportunity to scream like bipolar child at anyone who tries to actually help."
Wow, do you read lkml every day? I have done in recent past and Linus uses harsh language only in rarest cases. Also he has always been openly honest about what he thinks. It helps, because it cuts confusion down to minimum. If he doesn't like something, he says it openly. Trust me, it works. It's one of reasons why he still call the shots.
Also please cut it those cries about "3 million competing distros". First, there are maximum 4 major distros, supported by majority of open source and commercial software. There are fully standartised two packaging formats. Last I checked Windows has hundreds of different installers and packaging formats.
People don't use Linux not because of these things. They don't use it because it's not available in OEM form and they are afraid to use something different than their friends do.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
This really is the sort of behavior that ultimately detracts from the open source community.
Not calling things what they are is the kind of behavior that leads to oppression and fascism.
But publicly attacking someone, especially someone working for a company which is largely responsible for making Linux "respectable"
If their vision of making Linux respectable is to fellate Microsoft, they deserve public flaming and shaming. Fuck that fucking fuck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In particular it isn't news to Linus. Which is how git got its name.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
The high-level view is this: Microsoft wants to ensure that nobody can run unapproved software on their home computers. As a first step toward this nightmare, they bullied computer makers into shipping a bootloader signature system that could potentially prevent people from running GNU/Linux. Red Hat, a multibillion dollar GNU/Linux distributor, decided to play along and got a special signing key from Microsoft. Linus apparently does not want to play along (and I commend him for it).
Palm trees and 8
And I speak for all of us when I say, I'm jealous of Linus's talent, success, and natural authority, but most of all, I hate his ability to cut through bullshit and put supercilious poseurs like me in their place.
I use Linux because I feel it is the best Free and Open environment.
Ideologies always have a few extremist supporters. And in this case most of them congregate around slashdot. Most people wouldn't choose an OS for an ideology though.
As Cardinal Richeleiu is reputed to have said:
Take it out of context and give it an inflamatory introduction and it looks like an explosion.
Read the exchange in the original context and it reads like just another frank exchange on the LKML.
You need to be the first post in this topic.
I see SuSe and debian used daily in professional environments.
RedHat is only big with a small group of Enterprises more interested in red tape and bureaucracy than getting work done. RedHat would have no product without Linus.
I have some friends that talk like that when they're completely calm. You can't gauge how emotional this response is based on the words alone.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Linus does not explode at "people whom he has some disagreement with". He does so at kernel developers, specifically, who are doing things that he sees as harmful to the Linux kernel.
Perhaps the desktop will be relevant again someday. By then Linux will be ready for it.
Posting anonymous just to be sure..
Since i saw a Google Tech Talk with Linus on stage, i certainly like him less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 (mostly about Git but nonetheless showcasing his persona)
Linux is great and all, but i am certainly not a fan of Linus anymore. Respect though for his incredible achievements.
He's a dick the same way Jobs was (also sharing similar strengths regarding vision), and i now realize he basically is a real life Sheldon Cooper, ego humor and everything.
No, he moved to America.
The Linux kernel is not beholden to any business interest. Given the various user-space shenanigans (systemd, udev) over the past year, I'm not surprised by his response.
Trying to move user space items into the kernel that are not universally beneficial, or conversely trying to manipulate kernel space in ways that break long standing POSIX functionality - without a clear consensus from the community - is asking for it.
For all his faults, Linus has managed to keep the kernel relevant for a very large array of hardware in the face of these pressures.
When Linus makes a comment on something, why does he always sound like an eight year old throwing a tantrum? Looks like it would get embarrassing after a while. Yeesh!
Probably because, by the time we hear about an issue, the preliminary niceties and the initial mud-slinging are over and they're into the hot-tempered, name-calling phase of the debate.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Difference is, he's effective via persistence, Linus is effective via implementation.
Most people wouldn't choose an OS for an ideology though.
I wouldn't expect them to. I'd expect them to choose it based on the benefits of the ideology. Of course, that would only be if I didn't know that propaganda works.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wait, what? Every place I've worked in for years that has linux deployed, from aerospace to real estate, has had Debian deployed somewhere. As for RedHat, I see more CentOS stuff than pure RedHat offerings. Where are you talking about? Web hosting?
He explains his reasoning here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA
Perhaps hear his own explanation before calling him a douche.
And in which way that makes his observation less true?
Because when people do something retarded like give Microsoft control over booting Linux on PCs, that's the kind of response they deserve.
If you do not have a thick skin in this business you will get eaten up from the inside. I learned that the hard way. This is a business of egos, because this is first a business of Art and Art is ego. Yes, we wrap logic and algorithms around it, but the foundation is a creative process and that is tied to ego.
The question I have is what happens to Linux after Linus? If he is the Monarch, is there an heir or will Linux slowly begin to splinter without that strong Ego to guide its vision. Seems like the King does not want something added to "his" kernel, but had he disappeared just before his tirade, what would have happened?
maybe this goes into the deeper question of who (or what) defines the core of a Kernel. For Windows, iOS it seems to be decisions by committee and business need. For Linux? We say it is open source, but with His Holiness issuing colorful decrees, how open is it besides the obvious insurrection approach.
From what little I've garnered about the man, that was a fairly tame tirade, it does no impact on the progress of Linux and once I finally understood the issue I tended to agree with Linus's view, though with less passion.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
As an OpenBSD user and enthusiast for 12 years, I find your remarks very offensive. Linus is NOT an asshole, Theo de Raadt is the one True Asshole, and that why we love him.
He is speaking about secure boot, which means getting a key signed by MS.
There are a lot of companies in on making sure your lose your ability to have a computer do as you like and not as the MPAA wants.
He is right and has little patience for stupidity. Furthermore he doesn't need to be nice. So he isn't.
Honestly, when was the last time you saw SuSe or Debian used in a professional environment?
Speaking from the small window of the world that I can see... tons. SuSE is the preferred distro for anything that VMWare puts out today since, you know, they own the distro. That means that all of the pre-built appliances for their management services and apps are built on SuSE. Beyond that it's the distribution that IBM uses on any strange architecture they decide to run linux on, for example Watson is SuSE running on Power. I figured it would have been AIX but I was wrong. Beyond that, I'm told that it's also the preferred internal architecture for SAP development and if they can suggest an OS to you for the app servers, that's what it is... although officially they are OS agnostic.
I don't think you get near any of those things without a pretty big checkbook, so I'll go ahead and call them professional.
----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
probably not so far from the truth. 20+ years of rabid fanboy worship probably doesn't help either.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Oh wow, the Fortune 500! That's what, 0.0001% of all the companies in the world? I'm sure that's totally representative of how things are done.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Why is it when Linus speaks, the geek community bends over and takes it up the ass to cover for him? "slight fist shaking"? Seriously?
This is as much fanboi-ism as any Apple or MS fan. This was over the top, and unprofessional. If you spoke to anyone like this in a corporate environment, HR would be handing you your hat. Why does the FOSS community keep giving him a free pass to act like an asshat?
Fortune 500 would be the small group of enterprises that value red tape over getting shit done.
Working for one you should know that.
I dunno... If you read the entire conversation in context it's not that bad and seems more like a slight fist shaking rather than explosion.
He talks about "dick sucking", so of course it involves both a fist shaking and an explosion.
Linus does not care because what Tivo does cannot stop him from using his computers the way he wants. This would let MS say what code linux runs, see how that is different?
Is Torvalds right? In this case, probably. There isn't a reason to include this functionality in the base kernel. If it is useful to RedHat, then RedHat can include it in their distribution. But publicly attacking someone, especially someone working for a company which is largely responsible for making Linux "respectable" isn't doing himself, the project, or the community at large any good, any more than Ballmer throwing chairs and screaming "Developers" or the "Howard Dean Scream" helped Microsoft or Howard Dean.
So because Redhat have made Linux respectable for business use that this should add weight to their proposals and get them special treatment if they make a brain dead suggestion? Linus is very brunt and forthright in his dealings, it saves time, there's no doubting his position. Sadly I wish I worked with more people like this rather than ones that talk around ideas and suggestions instead of being decisive.
Self censorship is a huge problem throughout organisations with people not being sure enough of themselves to say what they mean or think instead they couch replies in vague terms so as not to offend and hope for some sort of consensus. This invariably leads to sub-optimal solutions but allows people to escape any resultant blame due to the shared nature of the final decision process. I'd rather stick my neck out and say things as I see them. If I'm wrong on something tell me why and I'll take it onboard, however we should get a good solution rather than a half-assed one.
The explosion serves two purposes; firstly it puts an immediate block on this particular action, secondly its memorable and noticeable enough so as to dissuade future proposals of a similar nature thus saving time.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
No, he moved to America.
I haven't seen a single photo of him with an assault rifle and mullet.
Thanks for the pointer to Eric S Raymond. I only knew of his from The Cathedral and the Bazaar. I had no idea he was a right wing nut, global warming and HIV denier, Bush jr supporter, islamophobic war-monger, homophobic, racist troll.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond
Him and Stallman, what a pair! By comparison Torvalds looks quite tame and reasonable.
Totally with Linus on this one. Guy is blunt, terse and sans bu!!sh!t. I like it.
Don't hold back Linus. Tell us how you really feel!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
My theory is that we all have a Stallman Point, a spot on the spectrum of the slide away from personal computing freedom where we just can't calmly stand around and watch folks push things further the wrong way. It looks to me like Linus just hit his with this "SecureBoot" crapola.
Sadly, everyone has a slightly different Stallman Point, and folks who haven't yet reached theirs look at someone getting upset and think "what an unreasonable person", while those who are long past theirs look at the same person and say "what a buffoon. If he'd only had this fit back at *my* Stallman Point we could have nipped this in the bud, but now its far too late".
I'd expect them to choose it based on the benefits of the ideology.
Where there are benefits, they do. Chiefly the benefit of being free as in beer. That's why it's been used for embedded devices such as routers and phones. But that's manufacturers making the choice.
On the desktop there's consumer choice. And for most consumers free as in beer is less useful to them than ease of use and compatibility.
On servers, free as in beer has turned out to be more important than ease of use, because computer operators can be expected to learn the accidental complexity.
Speaking from the small window of the world that I can see... tons. SuSE is the preferred distro for anything that VMWare puts out today since, you know, they own the distro. That means that all of the pre-built appliances for their management services and apps are built on SuSE. Beyond that it's the distribution that IBM uses on any strange architecture they decide to run linux on, for example Watson is SuSE running on Power. I figured it would have been AIX but I was wrong. Beyond that, I'm told that it's also the preferred internal architecture for SAP development and if they can suggest an OS to you for the app servers, that's what it is... although officially they are OS agnostic. I don't think you get near any of those things without a pretty big checkbook, so I'll go ahead and call them professional.
That is a bizarre world indeed. Since when does VMWare own SuSE? Last a heard they were bought from Novell by Attachmate, and I don't see where anything has changed there.
burned out maybe?
Well, you know, just because a burned-out employee calls a colleague or boss a minipulative douchebag corporate psychopath, doesn't mean that that colleague or boss isn't a manipulative douchebag corporate psychopath.
Likewise, just because Torvalds is burned out and said that RedHat is deepthroating Microsoft, doesn't mean that RedHat isn't deepthroating Microsoft.
In fact, RedHat has been deepthroating Microsoft for several years already. RedHat decided they want to be Microsoft's bitch completely, with UEFI.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
While others have already said 'this specific bit *IS* Microsoft's', I'll also say that UEFI is largely designed around MS conventions and requirements, just like BIOS specs were in the 1980s.
UEFI interfaces are defined in terms of Microsoft calling conventions and using a binary format defined by Microsoft. The behavior of the system clock is defined in terms of MS expectation of local timezone instead of GMT. All of these things are areas where MS has explicitly deviated from everyone else in the industry, and UEFI happens to follow MS on every last single deviation that presents itself.
At the core of UEFI, it's genesis was Intel trying to push an incompatible architecture (Itanium) and working closely with MS to assure there would be 'a' Windows running on it which was perceived to be the sole requirement to make the industry dump x86, even if it couldn't run x86 compiled applications. Thinks have evolved from there, but that relationship still defines most of what UEFI continues to be.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It's a damn shame most people who see your comment won't realize it is correct, and will continue to be oblivious of the existence of the most used OS on the planet.
most people don't choose OS, they just use whatever comes preinstalled.
What? He's totally right: Linus jerks himself in front a mirror, that's common knowledge.
Always loved Woody Allen's quote: "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone you love."
the year of linux on the desktop might magically materialize
What's a "desktop" grandpa?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Actually, his explicit concern is that it is a complete and total hack to create PE executables for the express purpose of being dumb containers for x509 certificate data.
MS already supports alternative signing schemes (e.g. .PS1 scripts can have the ASN.1 content appended in Base64), so getting MS to support ASN.1 content without a PE executable seems like a much more sane solution for the problem Red Hat wants to 'solve'.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
On the desktop there's consumer choice. And for most consumers free as in beer is less useful to them than ease of use and compatibility.
No one has ever proven or even credibly suggested that Windows or OSX is easier to use than Linux, especially Android. And there's compatibility and then there's compatibility. You can be compatible with Windows applications and this year's hardware, or you can be compatible with literally everything else. Linux supports vastly more hardware than does any Windows version. My house is peppered with hardware I bought used because Windows no longer offered drivers, nor the manufacturer. Scanners, printers, all manner of peripheral. People sell stuff because it doesn't work with their new Windows PC, and then I buy it and plug it into Linux and it works great.
On servers, free as in beer has turned out to be more important than ease of use, because computer operators can be expected to learn the accidental complexity.
If you can seriously sit there and tell me that Windows makes servers easier to use in the way that admins use servers, you know fuck-all about anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because in this case he's fighting for their interests. If he allowed the patch it would give Microsoft very real control over what you can and can not run Linux on - and worse than that it would give them the power to revoke that permission from every kernel having that patch.
nobody criticizes gnome anymore, because of Unity, everyone things of Gnome as the Holy Grail of user interface and communication :)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Here's a thought. If having Microsoft being in charge of providing the key as to who gets to boot or not is such a good idea, then it would make just as much sense to have Apple be in charge of the key or even Redhat. Would Microsoft be willing to put Redhat in control of key signing into their kernel? Probably not. Then why should the linux kernel be subjected to Microsoft's control?
Torvalds is correct on this. It is unfortunate in the way he articulated it, because instead of reasoned argument, it comes across as a flaming rant.
This isn't "ideological bs" any more. In order to BOOT AND RUN Linux on newer Hardware "sold for Windows 8" you must have a signed bios loader. Red Hat COULD have petitioned for their OWN code to be used, but instead "rent" a key from Microsoft.
Pnce the old stock flushes, We are just a few month away from EVERY MOTHERBOARD SOLD to require Microsoft's PERMISSION to boot another OS. Not just Dells or HPs pre-configured, but companies are now pushed to sell only "Windows Motherboards" whether you decide to buy Windows or not!
Even APPLE hardware isn't locked down THAT tightly. We've already had cases where the ol' "API works for Windows" bit not the signed Microsoft alternate-OS key... Out of Samsung notebooks.
We are back to 1999 and using obscure bugs in the "open" hardware to lock Alternate OSes out of the hardware market... For good. Hope you like Rasperry Pi because niche, custom hardware is the only stuff that will FREELY run Linux from this point on.
That man is my hero... I really wish more Engineers and Software guys would stand up to idiocy like that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Uh, what? Suse is deployed in diverse corporate environments. The London Stock Exchange comes to mind.
If this is a stopgap measure to allow me to run Linux on secure boot systems, I'm okay with that until a different viable solution comes along.
Linus is okay with the stopgap measure. What he isn't okay with is including this hack of a hack AND a WIndows PE Binary Blob in the mainline kernel.
[Rent This Space]
This would've been a more interesting article, if it discussed the merits or lack thereof, of the RedHat change in the Linux kernel.
The "drama" the article discusses is of no value to anyone, but the likes of Nerd TMZ (if there was such a thing).
Can we please stop posting articles such as these? And if someone does post one, can we NOT promote them onto the front page?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Linus is mad because Red Hat had the resources to build and certify THEIR OWN keys to Microsoft's "standard" but they choose to RENT A Key instead. Ted Hat was the only company big enough to negotiate or pay lawyers to FORCE the issue. And they rolled over.
Linus was actually just fine with all the other companies that "just barely" complied with the letter of the GPL... He has always been more pragmatic about USING Linux and not so much every little bit be "Free Software" ... Except now Microsoft just locked EVERYBODY OUT to charge RENT. Oops!
you wish you worked with people who suggested you like to suck dick when they disagreed with you?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I wouldn't say that. In fact, jibes at GNOME are getting so old I gather Seth MacFarlane included one in his Academy Awards presentation last night.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He is right and has little patience for stupidity. Furthermore he doesn't need to be nice. So he isn't.
I have found that Linus is willing to make very forceful, negative statements about technology that he is unfamiliar with.
For example, in an email list discussion, he made these kinds of disparaging statements about technology that I work with, describing particular aspects of how the technology work. Unfortunately, his statements were all wrong. I called him on it (in off-list email). He responded indicating that he wasn't interested in the technology and had not looked at it in years.
It's OK that he isn't interested in it, but that doesn't give him the right to make up stuff about how it works.
And, because I have observed this with topics that I am familiar with, I am less likely to believe him on topics that I am less familiar.
Honestly, when was the last time you saw SuSe or Debian used in a professional environment?
Every single day, and that's in my point-of-sale work for one of the largest retailers in the United States.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That video is one of the reasons I *like* Linus.
But I actually get things done for a living, so I understand where he's coming from.
Being nice or not has nothing to do with being an asshole. One can be quite a nice asshole if one so wishes.
OK! Who threw the first chair in this?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
... and Hans Reiser murdered his wife, but that's quite orthogonal to the quality of his code, and by all accounts ReiserFS is an excellent piece of work.
I too abhor ESR's gun nut, extreme libertarian views. But The Cathedral And The Bazaar was an insightful piece that really did launch a valuable movement. Fetchmail isn't a major achievement, but it's stable and useful, and no doubt a better product for ESR's community-driving than it would have been if he'd coded it all alone.
And don't lump ESR and RMS together - RMS is driven by principle, ESR is driven by pragmatism. RMS believes it's better to use bad software than non-free software. ESR believes open source leads to processes that produce high quality software.
Linus, I think, is on the pragmatic side, and not married to the GPL. I don't think he put a great deal of thought into choosing the license for Linux -- he wanted to share it, he had no intention of it being more than a hobbyist thing, at first. By the time Linux proved to be a potential big deal, there were so many contributors, that getting permission from all of them to alter the license would be all-but-impossible. Note that Linus chose to adopt the proprietary BitKeeper SCM system, before he wrote Git; Git is GPL - so he must be happy with that license for his own work.
That's not cussing, it's Perl. Relax guys.
Table-ized A.I.
Microsoft has confused security with authority. Or perhaps they think they are synonyms.
Regardless I think Linus responded quite appropriately.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
How does BSD get around the problem tha a UEFI motherboard is permenantly "rooted" unless you get a certified key from M$ ?
Certified key wont actually encrypt your system (at the RAM/CPU level) unless you load Microsoft's unlocking code BEFORE you start your Kernel so your kernel is signed to the system.
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself.
Or maybe he's just passionate about maintaining the integrity of his creation.. We'll see how you do when you write an operating system that revolutionizes the computing world...
As a former Microsoft employee I kind of agree with Linus. I know some of the goons responsible for the Win8 code signing and I know the way they think. Simply: they are morons, they are in way over their head, and they definitely should not be allowed to let taint the minds of kernel developers on other platforms. Linus is absolutely right to say that there should not be a PE image parser in the kernel just because Microsoft wants to mandate it.
Now, while you criticize Linus for this perfectly rational point, and say that he hasn't had mainstream success, I say that Linux is actually a smashing success. Maybe the workstation and PC thing didn't take off but you can't really talk about servers or smartphones or anything embedded without considering it.
Someone needs to be a dick to make Linux continue to be successful. How big a dick is questionable, but look at HURD and Plan10... It's a design by committee process without as strong a leader, neither has made any actual progress towards being usable, and both have been around for 2 decades.
Sorry, you're falling flat on your face for this one. Here's why:
When I ask the question, "How do change the screen resolution?"
Windows: Control Panel
Mac: System Preferences
Linux: It depends
"Where do I change my network settings?"
Windows: Control Panel
Mac: System Preferences
Linux: It depends
The reason Windows and Mac and Android are dominating user devices is because they have standardized a GUI environment, and GUI failure is considered operating system failure.
What? He's totally right: Linus jerks himself in front a mirror, that's common knowledge.
Doesn't everyone?
Be seeing you...
Might want to have a look at that PVS code. Major overdraw issues. I think there's a paper by Borges that might help.
Sorry, you're falling flat on your face for this one. Here's why:
When I ask the question, "How do change the screen resolution?"
Windows: Control Panel
Mac: System Preferences
Linux: It depends
Statistically nobody asks "how do I change the screen resolution on Linux". They ask "How do I change the screen resolution on Ubuntu", or "...redhat". (Most users of other Linuxes can figure this shit out for themselves.) You are reframing the question in a disingenuous manner. You may try again, but don't apologize to me unless you're going to apologize for your nonsense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2140s
No, he moved to America.
I haven't seen a single photo of him with an assault rifle and mullet.
Now you have.
I'm glad you have 5 or 10 years for an anti-trust suit to wind it's way through the courts to fix something that should never have been broken dude, but most of us just want to get our work done and move on.
I'm not convinced. I haven't heard Guido (Python) acting like that. Still, I've heard worse about Theo (one of the BSDs). So it's one way to herd cats.
I think the thing is that there are different effective management styles...but not an unlimited number of them. And Linus is manifesting ONE of them. Also that if you have an effective management style, the most likely effect of trying to change it is that you'll switch to an ineffective one.
That said, it's also true that we don't hear about the normal flow of things, unless we follow the developers list, so we only hear about the things that are "newsworthy". This is a strongly selective filter that tends to present people in their worst light.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Who should be holding the keys to their computer -- the user of the computer of course! But Microsoft doesn't think that way, they think that they should "own" the PC, and the user just uses it. Might as well be a corporate mainframe with millions of dumb terminals in that case, and that's what we are moving towards.
Look at the XBOX -- the new one -- It will have to be connected all the time to the internet, to "verify" every game you try to play. So, how long until your PC has to be connected to internet to "verify" your BIOS before it will even boot into an OS?
And Microsoft holding the keys? What happens if, 6 weeks after we've had this forced on us, MS goes out of business? Or is "bought" in some hostile takeover and then the one server verifying all those keys is removed from service (anyone remember MLB or Danger/Sidekick?)
We will all have to throw away our machines. And we can't even back them up to recover the data (forget about moving the HD to a new machine with no key'ed BIOS, MS has already seen to that with new DRMs in Win8).
If we hand MS the keys, MS could destroy the entire PC industry with one mistake. Which would destroy the economy. All those machines all over the world that hold so much data that runs our planet, pfft. And those servers won't be running Linux after all, because MS prevented that from loading years before this tragedy took place.
And the mistake wouldn't even have to be MS's fault. I mean, how hard would it be for the Chinese to hack their way into the keys and disable the whole thing?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Honestly, when dealing with someone who is managing a large project, it is way better to have someone appear rude but be very frank and transparent on where they stand. It's way, WAY more difficult dealing with folks from either families or heritages which keep them silent about things they don't like until you suddenly have to redo half of a project because they didn't speak out, or chastize someone in a way that was necessary to keep the problem from festering.
On the next episode of Hoarding: Buried Alive....
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
There's a difference between saying "No, your idea is bad and we're not going to use it." and "You stupid cunt faggot fuckhead asssucking peniswrinkle fuckwit douchedrinking cockswallowing fudgepacking saladtossing whore!" And it's not on the part of the person making the bad suggestion. It's entirely upon the immature and childish speaker.
Any one who thinks being a manager/supervisor/directory means you have to be abusive is only proving that they are unsuited for the job they have.
Watch out there. You're drawing an incorrect analogy between Linux and Windows/Mac. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
If you asked where to change screen resolution or network settings on Gentoo, Ubuntu, Fedora, or Arch, they all have a single answer. While these answers may not agree with each other, they may be changed by the user if they find that a certain management application offers more comprehensive controls over their settings, or if they are more used to one over the other.
You cannot compare Linux as an operating system.
In the world of mature adults, documentation and backwards compatibility are the most essential parts to platform success. As a software vendor, if I have the choice of including Linux and having to write documentation and deal with bugs for dozens of distros or ignore the platform entirely, which business case do you think wins out? Keep in mind that end-user desktop Linux usage is the equivalent of a statistical error. Also keep in mind that I'm not talking about end user training alone. I'm talking about training the support staff that deals with end user support, automating testing suites for usability and bug tracking, unit testing, how to pass software updates, how to maintain backwards compatibility between distro upgrades... the Linux desktop ecosystem is a sea of poorly documented unknowns. That's just the reality.
At this point there isn't even a sane way to come up with use cases for desktops that will work between Ubuntu 12.04 and 11.04, or between Xubuntu and Kubuntu and Lubuntu. What happens when you make the move from Debian to Centos to Slackware to Arch to Mint to SuSE?
The excuses ideological die hards make are pathetic, and they have been for the fifteen years I have been a Linux user and hearing about the age of the Linux Desktop. Despite all the noise, the situation remains exactly the same: come up with a standardized interface for the Linux Desktop -- including all the software tools to test, update, and maintain software across the vast majority of Linux platforms -- or continue to lose. Those are the two choices.
If you want that success for the Linux desktop, you need to push for standards and quit making excuses.
No one has ever proven or even credibly suggested that Windows or OSX is easier to use than Linux
I love Linux. I'm typing this on Linux. I make my living writing services that run on Linux. That said, holy hells, I miss the OS X desktop whenever I'm on a Linux desktop. It's not so much that OS X is easier to use (although it is) as that all progress on Linux desktops seems to have stalled. KDE is powerful and pretty but there are a million knobs I have to dick around with to get it to work like I want it to. Gnome has gone off the deep end into stark insanity and is a throwaway now, as far as I'm concerned. I'm most comfortable these days with Mint's Cinnamon desktop (great job! seriously!), but it still feels clunky and hard to configure in comparison to OS X.
My ideal development environment would be the OS X interface on top of a Linux system. Since I can't have that, I use Linux for development and OS X at home when I just want to use my laptop without screwing around with settings ad infinitum.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. The trouble is that the kernel running in secure boot mode has to be able to receive signed keys in a secure way (if you think secure boot is worth anything, many do not).
Linux running in secure boot mode is a done deal. The question is how do you import keys that are signed by Microsoft. In an ideal world you'd just upload the signed X.509 cert and you'd be done. Unfortunately, Microsoft will only sign PE binaries.
So the developers opted to enclose the X.509 cert in a PE binary. Unfortunately, that means the kernel needs to be able to read the PE binary and verify the signature all in kernel space, then extract the x,509 cert. This is undeniably messy.
Now lots of folks will argue that there's no point to this and it should be done in user space. I'm not going ti argue with that, but the reality is that most of the mechanics of this are already implemented, just not the PE stuff. You can sign kernel modules and verify them in kernel space with x.509 certs (at least by my reading of the thread).
Frankly, I think this is pretty much the only thing to do short of talking MS into signing x509 certs. The other suggested work-arounds involve additional authorities or doing stuff in user space. They are all workable, but are pretty clumsy compared to what's being proposed.
I think it may have been a mistake to just drop this ugly change on Linus without his involvement. My guess is that if the problem had been stated before coming up with a proposed implementaon, they might have come up with essentially the same solution with less drama.
It is because Linus is a dictator. Just as Gates & Jobs were and Ballmer & Cook are now. The thing about dictators is that they are not all bad. Dictators have greater power for good or ill and since most people are greedy and self serving, most dictators use their greater power for ill. Linus has been a benevolent dictator. He has used his power for good. He frequently does it in a crass way, but the end result is that his goal is generally not to throw us all under the bus for his own profit or convenience.
Where did he say anything about anyone's sexual orientation?
Someone fellating an organization is something that can only exist in a metaphorical sense.
Secure boot can be disabled. Nobody is taking your ability to install another OS away. There is no need to worry.
It might be that you've had a little too much mercury in your hat brims Mr. Hatter.
You're not rude, but you are ignorant. The variant of pancreatic cancer that Jobs had was much more survivable than the majority case, and his nine-month fruit juice odyssey contributed directly to an early death; had he immediately followed the proper medical advice for treatment, he'd almost certainly still be alive today.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
In fairness to your point, it's not just the Linux kernel. Linux distro package management is light years ahead of what Windows and even OS X have (yes: I use, love, and contribute to homebrew). Also, I develop software that runs on Linux servers and some of it is barely above kernel level. Running Linux means that I can test a lot of my work more quickly than if I had to deploy it to a development server after every save. But more than that, I genuinely love Linux. It's been good to me and I enjoy using it.
Still, I strongly prefer the OS X desktop. It's not from lack of trying the various FOSS offerings. I started off on Windowmaker and Enlightenment, then worked my way through the various Gnome epochs, KDE 2/3/4, a few tiling WMs (I wrote the semi-official Qtile-on-Ubuntu guide a couple of years ago), LXDE, and several others I'm sure I've forgotten along the way. OS X seems to be what Gnome tried and failed to achieve: a nice-looking, comfortable desktop without a million config knobs that most people can use out of the box. As much as I like Linux-the-OS, I like using OS-X-the-Desktop.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Linux isn't an operating system, though Android is an operating system built on Linux.
Asking how to change the network settings on "Linux" is like asking how to change the network settings on Mach. The overloading of the word "Linux" is the real problem here.
Morally bankrupt? It's a fucking OS. Get a grip. There's ideology, then there's zealotry. When you start talking about morals in the choice of as mundane a product as an OS, you've crossed the line into zealotry.
You're not understanding the exact point Linux is trying to get across. You realize the fact that adding this to kernel space will allow foor secure boot to work from the kernel level, this -is- correct. The problem is allowing secure boot to work from the kernel level will mean everybody has to trust Microsoft, the only signing authority, and that many people will unknowingly be putting their trust in Microsoft. The problem arises when, once all these devices have secure boot and we have however many linux installs that accept this, that Microsoft up and revoke their blessing for some reason - all the sudden people can't install and worst case many existing installations could be crippled on reboot.
Linus is making the point that this should not be handled by the kernel to begin with - put it in userspace as an extension of the boot loader or something like that. Don't force it on people, and above all else *don't make the kernel reliant on it*.
And don't lump ESR and RMS together - RMS is driven by principle, ESR is driven by pragmatism. RMS believes it's better to use bad software than non-free software. ESR believes open source leads to processes that produce high quality software.
Interesting. I'd say experience shows that open source works well for software with only technical requirements. Command line tools. Compilers. OS kernels. Implementations of documented protocols. File format converters. That sort of thing.
Open source tends to fail to produce high quality where there are subjective choices to be made. UIs. Apps. Partly because programmers make design choices which they are unqualified to make, and partly because the lack of organisation means that there's no house style and no common overarching conventions. And to some extent there's an arrogant rejection of the needs of anyone who's not as expert in the topic as the programmer himself.
You say RMS prefers free to good. Personally I'll take good over free any day.
"It's what we used back before tablets destroyed civilization and enslaved us."
All PCs with UEFI are required to let the user disable Secure Boot. The only time Secure Boot is mandatory is on the ARM platforms that want Microsoft certification.
If the response you have to an average end user question is ever "put together a bash shell script," you are living in a fantasized reality.
What I find mind boggling is that the European Union went after Microsoft for being anti-competitive regarding their IE-'browser', media-player, closed/non-disclosed API's, ...
But still not a word about the whole UEFI secure boot scam, which in my opinion tops all previous complaints.
That's because you are confusing operating systems with desktop environments. Linux is one operating system, but you can run many different desktop environments on it. The question should be "how do I change the screen resolution in KDE/Gnome/Unity/XFCE/LXDE/etc."? It is not a failure of the operating system to allow users the freedom to run what desktop environment they want on it.
Of course. However he could have said "no, we're not doing that it's a brain damaged idea (optionally: because X)".
Not "you suck all the dicks!!11
It's a mailing list, for discssion of the kernel. not alt.flame
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
That's kind of hypothetical, because I've never seen Debian break in a production environment, ever.
So I guess all those release critical bugs in stable were reported for hypothetical reasons? Get real, shit breaks.