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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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
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.
First of all, its not just ideological that he doesn't want such specific code in the Linux kernel. For the same reason he doesn't want to put tools/kvm in the kernel, its not germane to BEING A KERNEL so its NOT going into the kernel! read the mail yourself. Its like a government program, in that its likely to live forever, however, Linus wants Linux to outlast Microsoft AND RedHat and that code will become vestigial as soon as microsoft moves on to some other way to control hardware vendors. On the other hand, do servers need secure boot? NO, do tablets need secure boot? NO. So this is Linus admonishing developers for even SUGGESTING to include such a corner case in the code of the linux kernel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, we are much further in.
This is about PE binaries, also known as Windows EXE files.
As I understand it, it's about signing of drivers, e.g. nVidia drivers, and Redhat doesn't want to sign those, they want nVidia to get their drivers signed directly by Microsoft. And Microsoft will only sign windows EXE files, so this means that signed nVidia Linux drivers have to come in a Windows EXE file, which the kernel then needs to be able to verify the signature of, before loading the driver inside the EXE file.
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.'"
Actually, his criticisms aren't about personal computing freedom and secureboot. His criticism is that crafting a PE executable for the express purposes of containing certificate data is utterly asinine. The correct response would be for MS to accomodate signing data in the more usual ways. I suspect a proposol to wrap the x509 data with a dummy ELF file would be met with similar rejection. The difference being no one would propose such a dumbass approach so we'd never find out, it's only thanks to MS dickishness that such a workaround would even be proposed.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
you wish you worked with people who suggested you like to suck dick when they disagreed with you?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
That's not cussing, it's Perl. Relax guys.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.'"
No, he moved to America.
I haven't seen a single photo of him with an assault rifle and mullet.
Now you have.
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.